The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-17981, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on recognising the economic contribution of Scotland’s defence sector. I invite members who wish to participate to press their request-to-speak buttons, and I invite Murdo Fraser to speak to and move the motion.
16:02
We are continually being invited by the Deputy First Minister to be positive about the Scottish economy and to celebrate success stories—indeed, we just heard that from her colleague, the finance secretary. I regard it as one of my purposes in life to try to make the Deputy First Minister happy. [Laughter.] That is why, this afternoon, we are going to do just as she wants and talk about the success and strength of the Scottish economy and, in particular, our vital defence sector. I hope that she and her Scottish National Party colleagues will be as enthusiastic as we are about that vital industry for Scotland.
Scotland’s defence sector provides a considerable contribution to our economy. As of 2023-24, the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence spends almost £2.1 billion per year in Scotland—that is more per head of population in Scotland than in the rest of the UK.
We not only make military equipment for the UK here in Scotland; we export, very successfully. The total contribution of the aerospace defence and security industry to Scotland was estimated at £3.2 billion in 2022. That sector employs 35,000 people, including 1,500 apprentices.
Right across Scotland, we see companies providing high-quality, well paid jobs in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics sector. BAE Systems is building frigates on the Clyde for the Royal Navy and directly employing 2,700 people. At Rosyth and Faslane, Babcock is supporting more than 3,000 jobs.
Is it not something of an irony that we can have world-leading shipbuilding on the Clyde and at Rosyth, building ships for the Royal Navy, but the SNP Government cannot even supply two ferries from its nationalised shipyard at Port Glasgow?
We have Leonardo, known for many years to people in Edinburgh as Ferranti, building world-leading avionics and supplying radar systems for Lockheed Martin, among others. We have Thales, employing almost 800 people across two sites in Glasgow and Rosyth. In Glenrothes, which is in my region, we have Raytheon building the javelin anti-tank missiles, which are being deployed so effectively right now by our brave Ukrainian allies, taking out the Russian tanks that are illegally invading their country. We should be proud of that.
We should celebrate those successes, but we should also recognise the opportunities for the future. Every western Government that is faced with the situation in Ukraine, instability in the middle east and an increasingly isolationist US Administration is devoting more resources to military spending. In last week’s spending review, the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised that defence spending would rise from 2.3 per cent to 2.6 per cent of gross domestic product by 2027. If delivered, that will equate to an £11 billion uplift in spending, providing real opportunities for Scotland, not least in the upgrading of the nuclear submarine fleet at Faslane.
There are massive opportunities to grow our exports to nations across the world that are similarly increasing their defence spending, to earn more wealth for this country and create more jobs. Against that backdrop, we might expect the Scottish Government, which claims that it stands up for Scotland, to look to support the industry, seize those opportunities in full and create more jobs and apprenticeships. Instead, we see negativity and downright hostility.
One of the sector leaders, Rolls-Royce, planned to establish a specialist submarine welding facility on the Clyde—an £11 million investment to deliver a world-leading facility to support the construction and maintenance of the submarine fleet. That project had been in development for years and would have reduced costs, cut carbon emissions and created high-value jobs—just the sort of project that we should welcome and support. The project depended on a critical £2.5 million grant from Scottish Enterprise. However, the SNP decided that that grant could not be given, because of its policy of not funding “munitions”. Shame on it, Presiding Officer.
Murdo Fraser is absolutely right. Does that situation not also stand in contrast with the attacks on our communications infrastructure in the North Sea, and is it not therefore absolutely critical that the UK Government has stepped in to provide that £2.5 million funding?
Yes. I welcome the fact that the UK Government has stepped in, because those jobs and that investment would have gone elsewhere. Steve Carlier, president of submarines at Rolls-Royce, made it very clear:
“the project cannot continue, and the facility will not be built and resourced in Scotland”.
If the UK Government has stepped in, that is good news, but it is no thanks to the SNP Government. The project did not involve weapons or munitions; it was simply the building of submarines. The SNP’s approach is naive and immature.
The approach does not make any logical sense either. SNP policy is for Scotland to become independent. In that case, presumably, we would need armed forces, and those armed forces would need to be supplied with weaponry and equipment. Is the SNP really saying that, in that event, it wants all that to be imported rather than manufactured here, and the jobs to go elsewhere? None of that makes any sense.
What we see from the SNP is the politics of the student union, not of a grown-up Government that continually tells us that it is supportive of the Scottish economy and Scottish jobs. That is why the SNP needs to think again on its short-sighted and destructive policy. Scotland needs a grown-up Government, not one that is run by wannabe student politicians playing silly political games at the cost of real jobs and real wages. If the SNP cannot provide that leadership, it should step aside for the Scottish Conservatives, who will.
I have pleasure in moving,
That the Parliament recognises the significance of the defence industry to Scotland’s economy, in providing secure, well-paid and highly skilled jobs and in driving innovation in the science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) sector; notes that proposed increased spending on defence provides a substantial opportunity for growth; regrets that Scottish Government policy has meant that a Scottish Enterprise grant to support the Rolls-Royce specialist naval welding skills centre in Glasgow for submarine construction has been refused, and calls on the Scottish Government to drop the policy, which prevents public funds being invested in projects such as this.
16:09
I welcome the opportunity to speak to the motion. I will try to cover quite a lot of ground in a limited time, but I will begin by stating plainly that Scotland’s defence sector is of strategic importance to our economy, our communities and our shared security, and that is uppermost in our minds these days.
The sector supports more than 14,000 jobs, contributes £3.3 billion annually to our economy and plays a critical role in naval shipbuilding, aerospace and advanced technologies such as quantum and artificial intelligence. The innovation that is generated in those industries is vital not only for defence but for Scotland’s wider industrial base. That is why the Scottish Government, through our enterprise agencies, has provided more than £90 million in support to companies in the aerospace, defence, marine and space sectors since 2006. In recent years, we have supported major research and development projects in Rosyth, helped to secure hundreds of skilled jobs through training grants and enabled diversification into civilian and green technologies.
The Government stands behind the contribution that the defence sector makes to our economy and our national security. We also hold principled positions on how limited devolved public money is used. We have worked constructively with companies, such as BAE Systems, with deep roots in Scotland and major contributions to make. Our clear and long-standing policy is that scarce devolved public funds should not be used to directly support the manufacture of munitions. We are targeting Scotland’s public support—
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Members will appreciate that I think that my time has just been cut again and I want to cover quite a lot of space.
On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer, could you give an indication of whether the cabinet secretary’s time has been cut again?
I can confirm that the cabinet secretary’s time has not been cut, but it is still up to five minutes. I can give you the time back for that point of order, Deputy First Minister.
My apologies to Jackie Baillie. I had been anticipating slightly longer, so I am going to try to compress my comments; unfortunately, I now have even less time to do so.
We are targeting Scotland’s public support towards innovation, training and economic diversification. For example, we have helped Leonardo to develop civilian radar and sensing technologies, we have supported Raytheon in expanding into commercial aerospace and we have backed Walker Precision Engineering in its aerospace and medical technologies.
We are not only investing in businesses but in people, especially our young people. Scotland’s defence sector, like many others, depends on a skilled workforce, which is why the Government continues to make significant investments in science, technology, engineering and maths education and training. Last year alone, we invested more than £1.74 million in programmes that support the delivery of high-quality STEM learning in schools. We are supporting the future workforce through apprenticeships by backing around 25,500 new modern apprenticeships in 2025-26 and continuing to support more than 38,000 apprentices who are already in training, many of whom are in STEM fields that are critical to Scotland’s industrial future, including defence.
More than 80 per cent of apprentices in STEM start their training at higher levels, ensuring that we develop the advanced skills needed in high-tech sectors, including those that support aerospace, marine engineering and advanced manufacturing. We fund the young STEM leader programme, which has engaged more than 20,000 young people across every local authority in Scotland, and the STEM nation award programme, which has supported more than 8,800 teachers and almost 120,000 pupils in recognising and building excellence in STEM teaching.
We are embedding STEM in the heart of our education system and supporting our current economic sectors. That is future proofing our economy for decades to come. We are investing up to £2 million to develop engineering skills in the Glasgow city region in a programme designed by the Clyde maritime cluster in partnership with Skills Development Scotland, of which a key player is BAE Systems.
Just as we invest in the skills and technologies of the future, we must also ensure that our investment decisions reflect the kind of future that we want to build—one that is grounded in integrity and respect for human rights. That is why the Government signed up to the United Nations guiding principles on business and human rights and it is why our enterprise agencies operate a robust due diligence process to assess companies’ human rights records before funding is approved.
That is why we voted for the Labour amendment that committed Scottish Enterprise to reviewing its human rights due diligence checks, and we plan to update Parliament on that before recess.
Defence is a reserved matter under the Scotland Act 1998. Where UK Government funding is provided directly for munitions manufacturing, that is its prerogative. It is a matter that the Opposition is quick to remind us of in relation to how we spend our budget. Our approach recognises that defence is hugely important. Scotland will continue to play a key role in supporting our allies, including Ukraine. Our support will focus on creating high-skilled, sustainable jobs and supporting innovation across the defence sector.
The defence sector is vital to our economy, and it will remain so. We will continue to invest in defence-related innovation, skills and infrastructure to build a defence economy that is fit for the future, productive and proud.
I move amendment S6M-17981.3, to leave out from “; notes” to end and insert:
“, and in protecting national security, especially at a time of increased global instability, and notes that defence is a matter reserved to the UK Government under the Scotland Act 1998 and that the Scottish Government’s long-standing position is that public money should focus on diversification.”
16:15
I welcome the statement that the Deputy First Minister made at the beginning of her speech underlining the importance of the defence sector. It is not the first time that she has made such a statement in the chamber, but—let us be plain—the statements that she and the First Minister have made in recent months are a change in position, and pretending otherwise is, frankly, just not being straightforward. I say that because I fear that some of the distinctions that the SNP draws in its amendment mean that it is still making some of the same mistakes. The distinction between munitions and other types of defence spending is a false one. It is also incorrect, at a time of acute and heightened global and geopolitical risk, to say that we should be divesting and diversifying away from defence industries and expenditure.
Let me explain why I think that both those points are wrong. Since the start of the Ukraine conflict—or the most recent phase of it, I should say—950,000 Russians have been wounded or have died, according to the most recent available figures. In response to that threat, the UK has afforded £12.8 billion of support. That has included tanks and air defence, including the development of the Gravehawk system, which has been carried out in conjunction with Denmark. We have provided long-range missiles and 30,000 drones and have trained 51,000 Ukrainian servicepeople.
The point is that that support has not just been systems, tanks or equipment—it has included munitions. In fact, it has depleted our stocks. Support of Ukraine and, presumably, defence of this country will require the manufacturing of munitions to take place. To make that distinction is, therefore, to make a very false and, in fact, dangerous distinction.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am very happy to do so, but it will need to be brief.
I will keep it very brief. I will quote Patrick Harvie, which I do not do often:
“Scotland has strong solidarity with Ukraine and is outraged at those who would abandon it to an aggressor”—[Official Report, 4 March 2025; c 16.]
Surely, by not giving it arms, we are doing exactly that.
I think that we are not taking our own defence seriously by not considering what we need to do in terms of restocking our munitions. My point is highlighted by the fact that treating the submarine welding facility as a munitions project is false. Submarines are not munitions.
The issue is not just about Ukraine—it is about the rest of the world. Look at the developments in the South China Sea, where China is increasingly testing internationally recognised boundaries. More recently, the situation in Iran is of grave concern. All that requires us to reflect on our defences and our defence requirements.
The issue is not just about traditional and orthodox military threats. In the past two years, the UK has received 90,000 cyberattacks from foreign actors, almost 90 of which have been of national significance. That is why the UK Government has brought forward the strategic defence review, with a commitment of a spending increase to 2.7 per cent of GDP, and that is why the defence industry in Scotland needs our support and our investment across every area. We do not want to split the sector neatly between reserved and devolved areas. That is explicit in the strategic defence review. The whole-society approach and, critically, the mobilisation of our industrial base will require devolved levers to be pulled.
To make a brief point on the Green amendment and the point about human rights checks, these things are not incompatible. If we want to increase our defence spending and support our allies, we need to enhance our human rights checks, because it is critical that we understand where our spending and arms are going and how those arms are being used. Those things are not incompatible. We cannot support the Green amendment nor the SNP amendment because, far from diversifying away from defence—
You need to conclude—
—we need to invest in it.
I move amendment S6M-17981.1, to insert at end:
“; welcomes the confirmation from the UK Government that it will provide the funding for the welding skills centre so that the project does not collapse; notes the contradiction in the Scottish Government’s policy, as the publicly owned Ferguson Marine shipyard is providing steel fabrication work for Type 26 frigates, and believes that this haphazard and misjudged policy is holding back the creation of jobs and economic growth in Scotland.”
16:20
As per our position in the previous debate, the Scottish Greens believe in progressive taxation as a way to pool our collective resources and invest in the things that matter to all of us. An important principle of modern democracy is that voters should be able to see how their Governments are spending money; there should be transparency and accountability.
We know that, since 2019, at least £8 million of Scottish Enterprise grants have been awarded to companies that are involved in arms dealing and manufacturing. We also know that a number of those businesses have directly supplied weapons and military equipment to Israel during its assault on Gaza. Genocide, war crimes and more than 60,000 people killed—I hope that we would all agree that our Government should not be spending money to support those things.
Although I recognise that the Scottish Government does not provide grants for the manufacture of munitions, there is not a moral difference between supplying money to build bombs versus supplying money to build a bomb factory or a training facility to train bomb makers.
The principled point is very simple: if a company has profited from the sale of arms and weapons to countries that are complicit in war crimes and genocide, then it should not receive—[Interruption.] I will take interventions in my closing speech. Such a company should not receive public money from the Scottish Government.
In 2019, the Scottish Greens secured a commitment from the Scottish Government that all Scottish public bodies would conduct human rights checks on companies, including arms companies, prior to funding them. In November 2023, The Ferret revealed that, despite Scottish Enterprise having conducted 199 human rights checks, not a single firm had failed them, even though some have armed states that have been widely accused of war crimes, including Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Amnesty International has called the current human rights due diligence process “inadequate” and states that it
“is failing to ensure that Scotland upholds its international obligations.”
Still, to this day, no company has failed Scottish Enterprise’s human rights due diligence checks.
Will Lorna Slater take an intervention?
I will take interventions during my closing speech.
The Scottish Government offered to review Scottish Enterprise’s human rights checks. While that has been going on, 10,000 more people have been killed in Gaza. The Scottish Government needs to urgently report on that review and provide Scottish Enterprise with a clear direction on the use of public funds, to ensure that Scotland meets its international obligations.
Many of these companies, which supposedly need Government support, are reporting huge profits, with BAE Systems reporting £3 billion-worth of profits last year alone. It is not at all clear that the megacorporations that rake in that kind of profit need our public money. BAE Systems, Raytheon and Leonardo have all received grants from Scottish Enterprise. BAE Systems is already the biggest arms company in Europe, and Raytheon is the second biggest in the world.
Every pound of public money needs to be spent carefully to ensure the maximum return on that investment. We need to make sure that public money goes to building wealth in Scotland and tackling our biggest challenges: stopping the climate catastrophe and eliminating child poverty. We need to make sure that it does not go into the pockets of multinational megacorporation arms dealers—I cannot believe that I have to say that.
Scottish public money would be better spent on supporting small businesses, co-operative businesses, social enterprises and rural businesses. Scotland’s small clean energy, nature restoration and organic food businesses would have made good use of that money, not to mention our NHS, trains and ferries.
Every pound of public money that is spent on the arms industry is a pound that is spent on misery, death and suffering. Scotland deserves better.
I move amendment S6M-17981.2, to leave out from “recognises” to end and insert:
“notes with concern that, despite the Scottish Government’s policy that public funds to the defence industry should focus on diversification, at least £8 million of Scottish Enterprise grants have been awarded to companies involved in arms dealing and manufacturing since 2019; further notes that a number of these businesses have directly supplied weapons and military equipment to Israel during its assault on Gaza; understands that, despite this, still no company has failed Scottish Enterprise human rights due diligence checks, and calls, therefore, on the Scottish Government to urgently report on its promised review of Scottish Enterprise’s human rights checks before the summer recess and to provide Scottish Enterprise with a clear direction on the use of public funds to ensure that Scotland meets its international obligations.”
16:24
I get slightly offended when people imply that we cannot be in favour of strong defences and in favour of a moral and ethical foreign policy. I think that we can do both, and the Liberal Democrats have said that we can do both. Ed Davey has made it clear that we should suspend arms exports to Israel. Not everybody will agree with that position, but we have made it clear from the beginning that Israel has gone too far.
However, as Ed Davey has also made clear, we are in favour of having a strong defence back home, because we are on the north-west frontier of Europe. We are and will continue to be a key member of NATO, and that will be important for dealing with the threat of Russia, which provokes our defences almost every day of the week. We cannot pretend that, somehow, we are in a lazy backwater. We must have strong defences in this country. I favour that approach.
That leads me to the SNP’s position, which is confusing. I have listened to Angus Robertson for years. I listened to him when he was at Westminster, when he would talk endlessly about the defence underspend in Scotland. He put a number on that—in 2011, he said that £5.6 billion less was being spent in Scotland than he believed the population share should have been, implying that the UK should have been spending more in Scotland.
We then had, for a number of years, an SNP position that was in favour of diversification away from defence products and against munitions. We get a slightly different position today, which is a bit more sympathetic in tone, but, fundamentally, is exactly the same position, which favours diversification and is against munitions. Even so, the SNP position is for Scotland to remain a member of NATO if it ever becomes an independent country. That is utterly confusing.
If we are to have any hope of getting any of the coming investment into Scotland, we need to clarify that. We need certainty not only for businesses and those who are seeking to invest but for those who are seeking to branch out into a new career or train for the first time. If they want to know whether to go into the defence sector, they need certainty on there being jobs and opportunities in it.
We need to have clarity, because whatever the strengths and weaknesses of the Labour UK Government, one thing is for sure: it will be spending a significantly increased sum of money on defence. There are many opportunities for workers, people, communities and businesses in Scotland to take advantage of that.
I know Rosyth dockyard particularly well—I used to represent that area. It has just launched a new type of frigate, which the workers are very proud of. A host of jobs in Port Glasgow, Prestwick, Edinburgh and Dundee, and communities across the country, depend on defence spending.
If we are to take advantage of the increased investment to defend our country, which I believe is right to come here, we will have to get it sorted with the Scottish Government. We must be clear on exactly what its position is, because there is a danger that we will throw away the opportunity for growth. The last thing that we need is any further suppression of economic growth in Scotland. For the sake of our economy, for the sake of workers and for the sake of our defence, I plead with the Deputy First Minister to get that sorted.
We move to the open debate.
16:28
When the SNP is up to its neck in muck and bullets—although that might not be an appropriate term, given its attitude towards bullets—it sends for Kate Forbes, who has the capacity to dress up the most ludicrous policy positions with sweet reason. By George, she tried today, but she failed. Whatever way we look at the Scottish Government’s policy position on the issue, it is ridiculous. That is the only word—ridiculous.
Stewart McDonald, a former SNP MP who has done a bit of work to try to civilise the SNP’s attitude towards the defence of the realm, tweeted—or whatever it is now—on X this morning. He said:
“There’s a defence industry debate in”
the Scottish Parliament
“today. Having worked hard on defence policy for my party when an MP, it pains me to see we are not evolving with the serious times we live in.”
Stewart McDonald went on to say that he sees nothing in Murdo Fraser’s motion or in Daniel Johnson’s amendment that he cannot support. Then he said:
“We”—
I presume that he means the SNP—
“should be more ambitious in our support of Scotland’s domestic defence sector”.
He said that the SNP is
“treating ... national defence industries like a dirty secret”.
That is the reality of the position that Kate Forbes has been sent out to defend today, with nobody daring to sit beside her. It is an impossible and ridiculous policy. It is ideological nonsense. It is hostility to a sector that, in the Deputy First Minister’s words, is a strategic necessity, provides secure, high-quality jobs and drives innovation in STEM, which is what Scotland needs.
Does the member agree that the view that we should seek to defend our country should be a patriotic view, regardless of our view on the constitution? Our view on defending our people and country should be regardless of our view on what Scotland should do.
I could not agree more with Daniel Johnson. It is about a patriotic duty. It might not be fashionable in the SNP, or in the Scottish Greens, to talk about patriotic duty, but that is exactly what this is about.
The SNP claims to stand with Ukraine and it claims to care about national security. The SNP loves the rhetoric, yet its actions, which always speak louder than words, undermine the very sector that makes the munitions and builds the ships and systems that will help Ukraine to win and help Britain and our allies to defend ourselves. Nowhere is that hypocrisy more grotesque than in the saga of the NHS equipment donation to Ukraine. The SNP Government boasted about that gesture, only for it to be revealed last weekend that it had stipulated that the equipment must not be used to treat wounded Ukrainian soldiers.
That defies all common decency, let alone common sense. Imagine telling a Ukrainian medic in a field hospital that they can use the equipment to treat civilians but not the soldier lying next to them with a catastrophic injury. That is ideological dogma gone mad, and it is not neutrality—it is ideological extremism dressed up as moral superiority.
It is a morally incoherent stance that insults our allies, weakens our national resilience and strengthens our enemies, as well as betraying our duties as a member of NATO. It is absurd, morally bankrupt and strategically reckless. The SNP Government must drop its policy of excluding defence projects from public support. The Parliament should send a clear message that Scotland backs our armed forces, stands with our allies and supports the industries that keep us safe and free. Anything less is a betrayal of our responsibilities at home and abroad.
16:33
Scotland’s defence sector, which covers aerospace, defence and security, is valued at £3.2 billion and directly supports more than 33,000 jobs. I acknowledge the sector’s importance, although I believe that it should, over time, diversify towards commercial activities, ensuring that Scotland remains a hub for manufacturing and innovation. However, what I cannot accept is that parts of Scotland’s defence industry are manufacturing components such as systems for the Paveway smart bombs that are used by the Israeli air force in Gaza.
A 2021 investigation by The Ferret website revealed that Scottish defence companies have supplied components for Israel’s F-16 and F-35 aircraft, rocket systems and engines for G550 surveillance aircraft, all of which are likely to have been deployed over Gaza. Over the past decade, the UK Government has licensed hundreds of millions of pounds in arms exports to Israel, including bombs, drones, grenades, small arms, tanks and missiles.
Despite public pressure, the UK Labour Government has suspended fewer than 10 per cent of arms export licences to Israel. I urge the UK Government to halt all defence-related export licences to Israel until the killing of Palestinians stops.
What is happening in Palestine reminds me of how, from 1974 to 1978, the workers at the Rolls-Royce factory in East Kilbride refused to work on Chilean air force plane parts because of the atrocities that were being committed by the Pinochet dictatorship. That boycott—a powerful act of solidarity with the people of Chile—grounded half of Chile’s air force, as the film “Nae Pasaran” documents. It is time that trade unions across the UK took a similar stance to those East Kilbride workers 50 years ago in order to stop the genocide that is being committed by Israel.
Defence is an important sector, but it is important to recognise the size of the industry, as it accounts for just over 2 per cent of Scotland’s economy, as measured by gross value added, and is worth 5 per cent of the UK’s £62 billion defence budget. Thankfully, Scotland’s economy is diverse and resilient, and non-defence sectors drive nearly 98 per cent of GVA. All key parts of Scotland’s economy—land use, energy, construction and non-defence manufacturing—are worth more than, or equal, the defence sector’s contribution.
As with most parts of the UK, Scotland’s economy depends on the service sector. Individual sectors—such as information and communications; finance and insurance; professional, scientific and technical research; tourism and hospitality; retail and wholesaling; real estate; health; and education—are worth more to the Scottish economy than the defence sector is when it comes to GVA. I welcome the support that the Scottish Government provides in order to encourage that continued diversity. I also welcome the fact that, since it was first elected, the Scottish Government has invested £45 million in companies that are involved in defence contracts.
The motion refers to a Scottish Enterprise grant that was not awarded to Rolls-Royce to support
“specialist naval welding”
training
“for submarine construction”.
However, it overlooks the fact that most expenditure and work on the nuclear submarines will occur in Barrow-in-Furness in north-west England. It also fails to note the Scottish Government’s £2 million investment in engineering skills in the Glasgow city region, which was developed by the Clyde maritime cluster in partnership with Skills Development Scotland. I question why Rolls-Royce Holdings, which has a turnover of £18.9 billion and £2.5 billion in net profit, requires public funding of £2.5 million for a skills centre to fulfil its contracts.
16:37
I am delighted to stand up and speak in the debate, even if it is to highlight some of the incredible things that I hear other parties saying. First, I put on the record that the MOD is a very important contributor to Scotland. It invests huge amounts of money—more than £2 billion a year—and our arms exports and weapons exports are incredibly important. I do not need to point out to members that Lossiemouth, which is in the region that I represent, has just benefited from a Boeing investment of more than £100 million.
I am sorry that Daniel Johnson is not in the chamber, but I recognise what he said about the importance of investing in our armed services and what the Labour Party is doing. I was pleased to hear him say that because, for too long, our armed services have been cut down. When I was a soldier, there were 138,000 soldiers in Germany; now, in the UK, fewer than 60,000 can be deployed. I am also pleased that the Scottish Labour amendment identifies that, without the type 26 frigate programme, Ferguson Marine would not be able to rely on having a future.
I struggle with the SNP’s policy, which is that the party supports diversifying from defence expenditure and defence industries but likes defence. It seems to me that you cannot have the two.
I would be delighted if Lorna Slater asked AI to articulate the Scottish Greens’ policies, because they seem completely incoherent. It seems that they support delivering first-field dressings to Ukraine but not giving soldiers the ability to defend themselves on the battlefield, which is ludicrous.
Let me be entirely clear: I believe that the first duty of every Government is ensuring the security of the country and the population. That will not be achieved by giving hugs and kisses to those who threaten us.
Let me be clear that the only place in the world that has benefited from a flower power revolution is Portugal, in 1974, when soldiers put carnations in their guns to prove that they were not going to fire at civilians. Every other country has to use bullets to defend itself and fight against aggression. Countries need weapons to defend themselves, and they need to be confident that their politicians will give them the ability to defend themselves.
In very short and simple terms, our armed forces need to walk softly but carry a stick in order to defend us against the growing turbulence across the world. One has only to look at Iran, North Korea, Russia and China as central places where division is being sowed.
I highlight some of the comments that we have heard about Ukraine. I will quote Lorna Slater and see whether she will stand up to defend this. On 5 March 2025, she said:
“Support for Ukraine is wide and deep. Not since the end of the cold war have Europe’s values been tested as they are being tested now. In the face of Russia’s aggression, however, we are resolute.”—[Official Report, 5 March 2025; c 93.]
We are resolute, but we do not seem to be resolute in providing Ukraine with the ability to defend itself. That is a completely mixed message.
John Swinney stood before us and said:
“Here in Scotland, we will, forever, stand with Ukraine.”—[Official Report, 4 March 2025; c 13.]
We will stand with Ukraine, but we will not defend it or allow it to defend itself.
Those are the sorts of mixed messages that we get. I have lots of other examples of that for lots of SNP members who have not turned up to the debate. The SNP wishes to diversify rather than defend the country. Let me say, as an ex-soldier, that that is pure hypocrisy and not understandable.
16:42
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, and I second the amendment in the name of my colleague Mr Johnson. It is a very sensible amendment and I encourage the Government to support it in full, as Stewart McDonald, the former SNP defence spokesperson, has indicated it should. He provides cogent analysis that we can have an ethical policy on arms export sales—there is cross-party consensus in that regard—notwithstanding the need for serious and robust investment in this country’s defence capabilities. Ultimately, that is what this debate is about.
Scotland contributes a great deal to the UK’s defence and to NATO’s defence collectively. That is never more the case than through our shipbuilding industry, in which I worked prior to my election to the Parliament—indeed, I believe that I am the only serving parliamentarian in Scotland who has a background in the shipbuilding industry. I also had the opportunity to serve as a Scottish Enterprise account manager for two years, during which time I worked with businesses—mainly, small and medium-sized enterprises—across the aerospace, defence and marine sectors in Scotland. Therefore, I have a fairly deep understanding of the potential of Scotland’s defence and maritime industries, and I am increasingly concerned by the hostility that is expressed towards them by the Government.
A recent example was the Government denying Rolls-Royce a support grant to establish a naval welding centre at the Scottish Government-supported National Manufacturing Institute in Inchinnan and to replenish the space at Rolls-Royce that has been vacant for some years since the end of the maintenance, repair and overhaul activity. That was a huge opportunity for high-value manufacturing development in Scotland, but the Scottish Government spurned that opportunity to crowd in investment in an area that desperately needs it. I am really grateful that the UK Government has stepped in to offer alternative grant funding to ensure that the project goes ahead, but that should provide the Scottish Government with a reality check on its position. We need those industries and we need to support them.
In the past, the Government in Scotland has supported our shipbuilding industry. For example, a £360,000 grant was provided for the applied shipbuilding skills academy at Scotstoun, which is a great asset not just for BAE Systems but for the country’s wider shipbuilding ecosystem. When I worked at BAE Systems, we regularly collaborated with Ferguson Marine—indeed, the only thing that is keeping Ferguson Marine operational today is subcontract work on the fabrication of steel units for the type 26 frigate programme. It is rather ironic, therefore, that the Government’s amendment to today’s motion is about diversification away from defence at a time when the Government is engaged in precisely the opposite—it is increasing its dependence on defence work to sustain commercial shipbuilding activity on the Clyde. We could, of course, go into detail about public procurement reform and the need for support to increase ferry production, but that is perhaps off the topic of the debate.
I encourage the Government not only to reflect on the emerging consensus—the reality of geopolitics in Europe, the need for security, the need to defend our country—but to recognise the immense contribution of shipbuilding in Glasgow and the wider Clydeside area, which is still the region’s largest manufacturing employer. Quite frankly, some of the comments from back benchers, which cast aspersions on the industry, were absolutely disgraceful. The facilities are not bomb factories and the funding cannot come from the largesse of those companies alone. The Government should engage and be proactive with and supportive of those industries, not dismissive of them.
The message that is going out to more than 4,500 people who work in shipbuilding in Glasgow and the west of Scotland needs to be much more positive and supportive of that industry and must recognise the immense value and wealth that it creates for our country. Although the Government explored those opportunities for diversification, its industrial policy is so incoherent that it is actually driving commercial shipbuilding opportunities away rather than in.
Immense opportunities exist to work in collaboration across the industry. Indeed, I chair the cross-party group on maritime and shipbuilding—which several members attend—where we are looking at those opportunities. It would be helpful if the Government made its defence support policy much better and much more rational instead of reactionary. The need for sure ethical safeguards for defence export sales should not be met at the expense of the need to build up our defence industry. We are an island nation and we need a navy.
You need to conclude.
That is fairly axiomatic.
Thank you, Mr Sweeney. Paul McLennan will be the final speaker in the open debate.
16:46
This debate is taking place at a time of heightened tensions in many parts of the world. My thoughts are with those people who are suffering from the many wars and conflicts that are raging at the moment. Too many innocent people are being killed. As a Parliament, we have the responsibility not to further inflame conflicts by funding the manufacturers of munitions—indeed, the Scottish Government and its agencies have a long-standing policy that public money should not support the manufacturers of munitions.
The Scottish Government has produced robust guidance for its executive agencies and public bodies on how they should undertake due diligence on businesses before establishing an investment relationship. I will touch on that in a second.
Scottish Enterprise has been clear that its human rights due diligence checks are regularly reviewed and updated in line with its most recent guidance. I am aware of the review that is under way, which must be robust and as extensive as possible.
In the chamber last night, we discussed the horrors of the current situation in Gaza, where 55,000 Palestinians have been killed by the barbarism of the Israeli regime. Israel has had help with weapons and munitions from the UK and the US. That must stop. We must be unequivocal about this: the UK Government must stop supplying arms to Israel. In Scotland, we must ensure that no Scottish Enterprise funding finds its way to supporting companies that provide munitions to Israel.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will not—I have only four minutes.
The Scottish Government values the role of the defence sector in Scotland, the many jobs that it supports and sustains, and the value that it adds to the Scottish economy. Public money that Scottish enterprise agencies use is focused on supporting companies that are wholly or partially involved in defence activities with skills development and diversification. That ensures that Scotland continues to support and secure jobs in the defence, aerospace and shipbuilding sectors and the work that they do.
I will move on to some of the specifics of the debate. On the specifics of the motion, Scottish Enterprise considered that the project that it had been discussing with Rolls-Royce in partnership with the Malin Group for work on an attack submarine was unfortunately ineligible for potential funding. Scottish Enterprise did not receive a formal application for funding from Malin.
The Scottish Government provides business support via enterprise agencies to companies that operate in defence markets. Since the Scottish Government came to office, £45 million-worth of support has been allocated through enterprise agencies to defence companies or companies that are partially involved in defence activities. The Scottish Government recognises the importance of aerospace, defence and the shipbuilding sectors to Scotland’s economy and is committed to ensuring that Scotland is the home of manufacturing and innovation. Scottish ministers continue to engage with industries across the country as part of that work, including through our support for defence markets, diversification into civilian markets, training support and job creation.
The defence sector not only is critical to our national security but is a strategic driver of Scotland’s future workforce. As Gordon MacDonald mentioned, the Scottish Government is also investing up to £2 million in developing engineering skills in the Glasgow city region, working with the Clyde maritime cluster.
In conclusion, we will hear—we have heard already today—people say that the Scottish Government does not support the defence sector. As I have outlined in my short speech, the Scottish Government has funded and will continue to fund the defence sector in Scotland. The proposal from Rolls-Royce and the Malin Group for work on an attack submarine was, unfortunately, ineligible for the potential funding. The Scottish Government has a long-standing policy of not providing funding for munitions—the decision that was made by Scottish Enterprise on the matter demonstrated that.
We move to closing speeches. I note that Mr Rennie is not in the chamber, despite having participated earlier. I will expect an apology and an explanation for that.
16:50
My apologies to fellow members for not taking interventions during my opening speech. I just wanted to get my remarks on the record, and I will be very happy to take interventions during my closing speech.
In response to Edward Mountain, I say that there is complete coherence in my remarks. I fully support my previous remarks on Ukraine and its fight against an oppressor in Russia’s illegal war. That does not send a mixed message on how we use public funding.
If Lorna Slater’s remarks were completely coherent, how will Ukraine defend itself against Russia if it does not have any weapons with which to do so? Is it just supposed to hug and kiss it out?
Mr Mountain will have heard my opening speech, which neither mentioned Ukraine nor condemned arms sales to Ukraine. What it condemned was public money being used to fund companies that are selling arms to countries that are committing war crimes. I know that Mr Mountain is an ethical person and that he would not condone war crimes. I would not support companies that are profiting from creating war crimes with public money.
I have heard Scottish Green politicians say that the United Kingdom itself commits war crimes. Is it the Scottish Greens’ position that the United Kingdom Government should not be supplying weapons to itself?
It is a bizarre proposal that Mr Carlaw puts to me. Clearly, no country should be committing war crimes. A country needing to defend itself from an illegal invasion, such as that of Russia, is a different matter to what the UK Government is currently doing, which is being complicit in a genocide that is being committed by Israel. We need to call that out when we see it. The UK should not be supplying weapons, munitions or intelligence to countries that are committing war crimes. That should go without saying.
Lorna Slater says that we should be supporting Ukraine. Does that include supplying munitions to that country? Therefore, should we be supporting the manufacturing of munitions on that basis?
That was not the subject of my speech. My opening remarks were specifically about the use of public funding to support massive corporations. The question is whether we give public money to massive corporations that are making billions from selling to countries that are committing war crimes. That is the topic to which I restricted my remarks. I note that BAE Systems, Raytheon and Leonardo—all of which rake in massive profits—are likely to do even more of that, whether or not I have an opinion on it, because of the instability that exists in the world. The sums that they are being given by the Scottish Government through Scottish Enterprise would be better spent on building wealth in Scotland, rather than on companies that are profiting from suffering around the world.
[Made a request to intervene.]
I will take an intervention from Paul Sweeney.
I cannot give you all of that time back.
That is fine.
I want to ask about a particular example. The £360,000 Scottish Enterprise grant that has been given to BAE Systems to create the applied shipbuilding skills academy in my region of Glasgow is a positive in my view. Does Lorna Slater agree?
It is not at all clear to me that corporations such as BAE Systems, Raytheon and Leonardo, which are raking in billions, need the money. They have their own deep pockets. Why take money away from projects that would benefit us in Scotland? That is money that is not being spent on our NHS or on developing wealth for our communities in Scotland. Every bit of public money comes with choices, and the Scottish Government should choose to spend that money wisely and on matters that improve things in Scotland.
I now call Jackie Baillie. You have up to four minutes, Ms Baillie.
16:54
Four minutes is not a lot of time in which to sum up the debate, so let me get straight to the point and start with the wise words of Stewart McDonald, the former MP who used to be the SNP’s spokesperson on defence. He has already been referenced by Stephen Kerr, but this is well worth repeating. This is what he said:
“Having worked hard on defence policy for my party when an MP, it pains me to see we are not evolving with the serious times we live in.”
Stewart McDonald, who is the SNP expert on defence, is absolutely right. In these uncertain times, with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, and now the war between Israel and Iran, the world is now undoubtedly a less stable place. It is therefore the most important task of any Government to provide security for the country and its people.
Mr McDonald had more to say. He said that we should be more ambitious in our support of Scotland’s domestic defence sector, while still maintaining our commitment to good human rights practice. Indeed, he said all that in the policy paper “Think Like a State, Act Like a State”. Despite John Swinney’s recent rhetoric about dusting down his aspiration for independence, the SNP’s attitude to defence clearly demonstrates that it is incapable of the grown-up thinking and action required. Instead, the defence industries are treated like a dirty little secret and, as we now know, the SNP would send forces personnel into the field with peashooters.
That is what lies behind the bonkers decision on Rolls-Royce. There was almost universal astonishment that the SNP Government withheld a grant of £2.5 million to Rolls-Royce for a welding centre. Why? In so far as I understand its thinking, it was because the people being trained might work on the construction of a submarine, which has munitions on it. The training opportunities and the good jobs that Rolls-Royce would have provided for people in west and central Scotland should have been welcomed. So, too, should the investment by the Malin Group in establishing a marine technology park in West Dunbartonshire.
Will the member take an intervention?
No.
Apparently, it is SNP Government policy not to fund any jobs relating to munitions—a policy that is not fit for the world as it is now, a policy based on ideology, not security, and a policy that is inconsistently applied.
Will the member take an intervention?
No.
Can the cabinet secretary explain to me why Ferguson’s shipyard, which is owned and funded by the SNP Government, is able to do contract work for BAE Systems, which builds warships? Just in case she did not know, warships have munitions on them. Thank goodness that John Healey, Labour’s Secretary of State for Defence, has said that he will step in, because the SNP has failed to step up.
Conscious of the time and drawing my remarks to a close, I welcome the strategic defence review. I very much welcome the investment that has been brought forward by a UK Labour Government: billions of pounds for improved housing for forces personnel and for new submarines, which will have a direct and positive impact on His Majesty’s naval base Clyde in my constituency. I am very grateful to those at the base, both serving personnel and staff, who are working for partners such as Babcock, which, through their efforts, contribute to the security of our country. We need to equip them to do their job, however.
Defence might be reserved, but growing the economy, investing in manufacturing and providing skills and training are all devolved and the responsibility of the Scottish Government. The SNP has lost sight of that. Instead, it wants to play student politics. It is simply not serious. It is time for change.
16:58
At the outset of my closing remarks, let me speak once again about the importance that we place on Scotland’s defence sector, which plays a vital role—
Will the Deputy First Minister take an intervention?
I will take an intervention, early though it is in my speech.
I thank the Deputy First Minister for giving way. Does she not accept that the debate has exposed the credibility issue that the SNP now has with business? In quiet meetings, the SNP gives businesses warm words, be they about hospitality—with hotels struggling with the implementation of the visitor levy—or about the Scottish defence industry. Is it the case that the very few pro-business ministers lack influence in the Government, or is it the reality that they are not as pro-business as they make out?
That was more speech than intervention. The ironic thing about the debate is that we have parties on both sides of us making directly contradictory accusations about the Scottish Government. Both cannot be true.
That is why I am happy to set out the Scottish Government’s position. There is an added irony, particularly from Craig Hoy, but from across the Conservatives, who frequently accuse the Scottish Government of spending too much money in areas that are undoubtedly reserved under the Scotland Act 1998. We will remember this debate the next time that they accuse us of doing that.
The defence sector is a cornerstone of high-value manufacturing in this country, supporting more than 14,000 jobs and contributing £3.3 billion annually to our economy through world-class capabilities in shipbuilding, aerospace and advanced technologies.
The one point on which I would agree with colleagues across the chamber is in identifying the strengths of those industries here in Scotland. That is precisely why we have invested considerable funding to support innovation, workforce training and the wider industrial base—another point that has been sorely missing from Opposition speeches. That is also why we continue to support firms as they evolve, ensuring that Scotland retains and grows its share of defence, aerospace and shipbuilding work, with all the economic and employment benefits that brings.
In my engagement with the sector—
Will the Deputy First Minister take an intervention?
I will finish this point and then, if I have time, I will bring the member in.
In my engagement with the sector, which I am delighted to see Craig Hoy recognise, the point is made to me repeatedly about the skills that are required in an area of growth. That is an area where the Scottish Government undoubtedly has responsibility, and I am actively engaged in ensuring that there is a pipeline of people and skills. [Interruption.] Having already promised Murdo Fraser, I would not want to cut him off by taking another intervention.
We have to invest in the pipeline of skills, and we are investing in that future pipeline, including the £185 million to support apprenticeships.
I will take the intervention from Murdo Fraser.
I wonder whether the Deputy First Minister can clarify one point that has come up during the debate: how does the construction and maintenance of a submarine meet the definition of munitions?
Scottish Enterprise reviewed the opportunity—a formal application was not made—and concluded that it was not consistent with the policy. [Interruption.]
The investment that we are making is helping to secure a resilient and future-ready workforce—
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
I am just about to close.
It is a workforce that will continue to drive economic value and support Scotland’s place at the forefront of innovation and manufacturing excellence.
17:02
I will start by congratulating Murdo Fraser on the comprehensive programme of defence industries that he identified in his speech.
I also congratulate Daniel Johnson, Paul Sweeney, Edward Mountain and Jackie Baillie on what I thought were first-class, direct speeches that spoke to the very heart of the issue of the defence of this country.
I also pay tribute to the hero of this afternoon’s proceedings, Angus Robertson, who was, in fact, the only member of the Government who was prepared to sit beside the Deputy First Minister. I watched Fiona Hyslop come in, note that the Deputy First Minister was sitting on her own, unsupported, on the front bench, and bravely sit in the row behind her.
I am reminded of when it used to be that the slogan of the Scottish Government was “Stronger for Scotland”. Well, the last time that it was stronger for Scotland’s defences was when Derek Mackay sat on the front bench as its financial spokesman and actively campaigned on behalf of Thales in Govan for the ground-support vehicles that were needed to be manufactured here in Scotland, and, no doubt, deployed in the defence of this country.
The Scottish Government could take the advice of someone such as Stewart McDonald, who sat with Mr Robertson at the Palace of Westminster, where he spoke knowledgeably on defence matters, and who is now clearly at war with his own back-bench friends here in the Scottish Parliament. However, instead of his advice, the Scottish Government is now taking the advice of the Scottish Greens.
Here is the nub of the issue, as far as I am concerned: how can the Scottish Government contemplate advice from the Greens, who, when we had a reception in Parliament during apprenticeship week for more than 100 16-year-olds working in a whole diverse section of the defence industries in this country, had Ross Greer on a megaphone outside this Parliament condemning them and egging on those who were pushing, shoving and spitting at them and accusing them of committing genocide? How is that supportable?
Let us face it—the Scottish Greens are against Britain’s defence industries. They have accused Britain of committing war crimes. Ross Greer has talked about the war crimes of Churchill. The Greens talk about the war crimes of the UK Government, all the way through to the present Government. They talk about the need to be transparent, but in order to be transparent, it is necessary to be free, and in order to be free, it is necessary to have strong defences that allow us to defend our own country.
Fifty years after a politician said that one’s first duty to freedom is to defend one’s own and acquired the sobriquet of the “Iron Lady” for her trouble, Lorna Slater looks to Kate Forbes and tells her that, instead, she should stand before our enemies and posture as the organic food lady. What possible defence of our country would that represent?
Will the member take an intervention?
I will, since Ms Slater was gracious enough to give way—eventually.
Is the member trying to suggest that Winston Churchill did not commit war crimes?
I think that that stands as a helpful example of why the Scottish Government should think twice about any association with the Scottish Greens.
We are talking about the Scottish Government’s lack of investment in the Rolls-Royce potential in the Clyde. I heard Mairi Gougeon say—unbelievably—that the Government is in favour of Scotland’s defence industries and its armed forces, because we need to defend ourselves, but that it is not in favour of giving our armed forces anything to defend themselves with. That is a completely unacceptable position.
In 1989, when the Berlin wall fell, perhaps there were grounds for putting on rose-tinted spectacles. Maybe we were briefly seduced by the kind of world that we thought we might all be going to live in, but the world is evolving around us right now. We should celebrate the fact that we have leading defence industries here in Scotland that employ the very best of our young people at the forefront of technology. We need to get behind them and be part of the defence of this country and the free world.