
Global crisis poses defence dilemma for John Swinney
In the aftermath of the recent US strikes on Iran, Holyrood politicians wanted to know if Scottish facilities such as the government-owned Prestwick Airport were excluded from use in such attacks.The Scottish government's External Affairs Secretary Angus Robertson assured MSPs that Prestwick had not played any part in this particular operation.He also pointed out that the airport is regularly used by the air forces of the UK's allies such as the US and Canada - an important revenue stream for Prestwick.That doesn't quite answer the question, but it does help clarify the careful balance the Scottish government is trying to find amid wars in the Middle East and Ukraine and President Donald Trump's uncertain position on the defence of Europe.
The Holyrood administration seems keen to avoid undermining the UK's positions on defence and foreign affairs at such a sensitive time of international conflict.First Minister John Swinney echoed the prime minister's call for "de-escalation" in Iran following the US strikes while warning of the potential dangers of the military intervention.He did not openly condemn President Trump for taking the decision to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.SNP ministers want to be seen as reliable partners to the UK's allies in Nato in the event that one day they might be seeking independent Scottish membership of that alliance.At the same time they are sensitive to opinion in their own party, and beyond that, favour a diplomatic rather than a military approach to conflict resolution.
The SNP's Westminster leader Stephen Flynn tends to be less nuanced in his contributions, at one point comparing the current situation with the build up to the Iraq war.It certainly seems fair to observe a difference in the tone of comments from Scottish ministers and some other SNP politicians.To be clear, international relations are under UK government control. The Scottish government does not have a formal role in decision-making but can express its views and potentially lobby UK ministers.In Scotland, the most obvious policy clash is over nuclear weapons.The UK government is committed to maintaining the Trident nuclear weapons system and the four Clyde-based submarines designed to deploy nuclear armed missiles.UK ministers believe this is essential to deter Russia and other states with nuclear weapons from pointing them in our direction.The SNP is fundamentally opposed to the possession of nuclear weapons, which they believe could encourage proliferation.As the party's 2024 election manifesto makes clear, the SNP "has never and will never support retention or renewal of Trident".Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer recently described this policy as "wrong-headed".
More generally, the SNP's opponents consider their anti-nuclear stance to be in direct conflict with their support for Scottish membership of Nato in the event of independence.Nato is a 32-country military alliance underpinned by the potential use of nuclear weapons.The SNP point out that most Nato countries do not have nuclear weapons and that Finland has just joined as a non-nuclear member. Finland is not, however, seeking the removal of nuclear weapons from its territory.Both the UK and Scottish governments agree that there is a need to increase UK defence spending as a share of national economic output or GDP.The prime minister is not only seeking to present this as a commitment to protecting UK interests but as an economic opportunity that could bring good jobs to all corners of the UK.The idea of a defence dividend was underlined by his decision to launch the UK's strategic defence review at the BAE Systems naval shipyard in Glasgow.That suggested a longer term commitment to Scottish shipbuilding. There was also the hint that proposals for a UK-wide network of munitions factories could include new or expanded facilities in Scotland.
The Scottish government has not objected to increased UK defence spending north of the border, although the first minister made clear to me in a recent interview that he favours the cash being used for conventional rather than nuclear defence.Labour has used this extra spending to raise questions about how the Scottish government deploys its economic and skills development resources to support the defence sector.The UK defence secretary, John Healey, accused SNP ministers of "student union politics" when it emerged that a specialist welding centre planned by Rolls Royce for Glasgow could be under threat because it was being denied a £2.5m grant from the economic development agency Scottish Enterprise.The Scottish government said the facility to support the construction and maintenance of submarines was not eligible for funding because of a longstanding policy of not allowing public money to support the manufacture of munitions.
In a Holyrood debate, the Conservatives urged the SNP to change this stance - which seemed to draw sympathy from the SNP's former defence spokesman Stewart McDonald.Writing on social media, he said that "it pains me to see we are not evolving with the serious times we live in".Deputy First Minister Kate Forbes defended the policy and pointed to other financial support the Scottish government had given to defence firms for diversification and training.In a BBC interview, she also described the ban on backing munitions production as the "current position", which seemed to hint at the potential for adjustment.There is supposed to be an update on a review of the human rights criteria to be applied when considering applications for devolved public support before Holyrood breaks for the summer.There are certainly those who want the Scottish government to do more to help grow the defence industries based in Scotland that support jobs.Economic growth is after all supposed to be one of the Scottish government's four priorities.There are also those such as the Scottish Greens who want them to do less. They believe it is morally wrong to subsidise bomb making and the firms that carry out the work.The SNP's manifesto called for a ban on arms sales to Israel. In power, Labour has suspended some arms export licences.The SNP supports the recognition of a Palestinian state, which Labour has said it would do as part of a renewed peace process with Israel towards a two state solution.The former first minister, Humza Yousaf, criticised the UK's decision to use anti-terror laws to proscribe a pro-Palestinian group for vandalising RAF planes. He said this was a ludicrous over-reaction.
There has been a further row about a donation of NHS equipment from the Scottish government to Ukraine.This was given on a humanitarian basis which under rules that are followed by the UK and other countries prevents its use in a military context.Some have argued that this gift should have been made in a different way so that it could have gone to the frontline if required.These issues do not just draw dividing lines between the SNP and its rivals to the left and right of the political spectrum in the run up to the Holyrood election in 2026.Defence and foreign policy is also a sensitive political issue within the Labour movement.The prime minister's commitment to boost spending is welcomed by defence unions who see improved prospects for their members.There are those on the Labour left like the former Scottish party leader Richard Leonard who have publicly expressed concern that the UK government is prioritising weapons over welfare.The initial increase in defence spending is principally being funded by a raid on the overseas aid budget.Sustained increases might squeeze the cash available for public services which would inevitably cause significant rows within the Labour party never mind with its rivals including the SNP.A Labour rebellion is already underway at Westminster over the government's attempts to slow the growth in welfare spending by cutting some benefits.It is not of course possible to spend the same money twice and choices must be made.As UK defence spending rises, so do the tensions within Scottish politics over how best to use public resources to meet the challenges of an unstable world.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

The National
7 minutes ago
- The National
Holyrood passes legislation to abolish SQA exams body
The Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) is set to be scrapped and replaced by a new body called Qualifications Scotland. The Education (Scotland) Bill was passed by 69 votes to 47 late on Wednesday evening, following two days of debate. As well as abolishing the SQA, the bill also sets out plans for a new chief inspector of education, who will be tasked with inspecting nurseries, schools and colleges across Scotland. READ MORE: 100 charities challenge Ian Murray and Scottish Labour to oppose UK welfare cuts The bill states that Qualification Scotland will have to give equal weighting to both British Sign Language (BSL) and the Gaelic language. It also outlines that the new body must consider the needs of pupils who use BSL or learn in BSL. The new body is expected to be up and running in the autumn, after this year's exam results are released. It comes almost five years after the 2020 exams scandal, where marks for more than 124,000 pupils were downgraded after exams had to be scrapped as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. Speaking as the legislation was passed, Education Secretary Jenny Gilruth said the bill would "fundamentally create a new and a different type of organisation which works with the teaching profession differently". Jenny Gilruth And speaking after the vote, Gilruth said: 'The successful passage of this legislation shows this Government is serious about implementing the changes needed to drive improvement across Scotland's education and skills system. "The creation of a new national qualifications body is about building the right conditions for reform to flourish; the new body will ensure that knowledge and experience of pupils and teachers are at the heart of our national qualifications offering." Gilruth added that the new chief inspector would have "greater independence and the power to set the frequency and focus of inspections". READ MORE: SNP MPs join Labour rebellion in bid to kill off benefit cuts 'Throughout this process, I have been determined to work with other parties on this vital legislation. I am also grateful to teaching unions and other organisations across civic Scotland who contributed to its development," she continued. 'Taken together our major programme of education and skills reform will bring about the changes needed to meet the needs of future generations of young people." The bill was backed by the Scottish Greens, who said that the new body "will put the voices of teachers and students at its heart". The party's education spokesperson, Ross Greer, who has previously campaigned for an overhaul of the exams body, said he was pleased MSPs had voted for "this fresh start in Scottish education". Ross Greer He said: "Senior leadership at the SQA was given the opportunity to change over many years, but refused to do so. "Replacing the organisation with one legally required to listen to teachers and students will end this constant cycle of scandals. "Now we can begin rebuilding the trust which was so completely destroyed over the last decade and put the focus back on supporting students." But he added that such reform needed to be followed up with "urgent work" to reduce teachers' workload and an overhaul of the "Victorian-era" end of term exams system towards a model of ongoing assessment. Greer also hit out at Scottish Labour, who voted down the bill on the basis it did not go far enough. "Labour's vote to protect the scandal-plagued and unaccountable SQA is bizarre," he said. 'How can anyone look at the mistakes of recent years and think it can continue? We need real change for students and teachers, which this bill will deliver." READ MORE: UK nations unite against Labour's 'inadequate' devolution approach Both Labour and the Tories voted down the bill on Wednesday. Pam Duncan-Glancy, Scottish Labour's education spokesperson, said: 'We needed a qualifications system fit for the future, one that respects the efforts of learners, supports the judgment of teachers, and earns the trust of employers and universities. 'We needed a curriculum that is broad and inclusive, we needed an inspectorate that can challenge where necessary but also celebrate excellence. But on reform this is a job unfinished.' Meanwhile, Scottish Tory education spokesperson Miles Briggs said the new body was "little more than a rebrand of the SQA". 'The SQA needed an overhaul, not a cosmetic makeover, and the changes proposed fall way short of what is required to ensure the organisation can operate effectively and is properly accountable," he added.


BBC News
34 minutes ago
- BBC News
No 10 in talks with Labour MPs over changing welfare policies as it faces growing rebellion
Update: Date: 07:52 BST Title: Labour rebel: New welfare criteria 'totally arbitrary way' of allocating support Content: Labour MP Toby Perkins tells the BBC he finds the proposed welfare changes "very difficult to support". 'I don't disagree that we need reform, but just because we need reform doesn't mean that any reform is the right one," he tells BBC Radio 4's Today programme. The bill would change how people are assessed for personal independence payment (Pip) and universal credit (UC). Perkins says the new criteria are a "totally arbitrary way" of delivering them. He describes the proposed reforms as cruel, and hopes the government will "get to the right place" before the vote on Tuesday. Perkins urges the government to "take a pause", saying: "Let's try and make sure we don't end up having damaging changes in amongst what ultimately, primarily, are some very positive changes." Update: Date: 07:46 BST Title: Why is the government trying to cut welfare spending? Content: By Ben Chu It is concerned about the rise in the number of people claiming working-age benefits in recent years and the implications of this trend for the public finances. Last Autumn, the government projected that the numbers of working-age claimants of Pip in England, Scotland and Wales would rise from 2.7 million in 2023-24 to 4.3 million in 2029-30, external, an increase of 1.6 million. At that time, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the government's official forecaster, projected, external that the overall cost of the working-age benefit system would rise from £48.5bn in 2024 to £75.7bn by 2030. That would have represented an increase from 1.7% of the size of the UK economy to 2.2%, roughly the size of current spending on defence. Ministers argue that this rising bill needs to be brought under control and that changes to the welfare system are part of that effort. It is worth noting though that - even after factoring in the planned cuts - the OBR still projected, , externalthis bill to continue to rise in cash terms to £72.3bn by 2030. And the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) still projected, , externalthe total number of working-age Pip recipients to rise by 1.2 million between 2023-24 and 2029-30 - after the cuts. In this sense, the main effect of the Pip cuts would be to reduce the increase in claimants that would otherwise have occurred. Update: Date: 07:43 BST Title: Trade minster speaking to BBC Content: Trade minister Douglas Alexander is speaking now to BBC Breakfast - we'll bring you the key lines as he's asked about the welfare bill. Update: Date: 07:39 BST Title: Labour 'pretty united' on welfare reform – what Starmer has said Content: Just yesterday, Keir Starmer stood firm when asked about his proposed welfare changes. Speaking to the media, Starmer said the Labour party was "pretty united" on reforming the welfare system and dismissed criticism as "noises off". Earlier, his deputy Angela Rayner told the House of Commons that a vote on the government's welfare bill will go ahead as planned on Tuesday. In his conference with reporters, Starmer admitted that making changes to welfare was "tough going" but said, "the important thing is to focus on the change that we want to bring about". He argued that the current welfare system "doesn't work as it stands for people who desperately need help to get into work or for people who need protection". "We were elected in to change that which is broken, and that's what we will do, and that's why we will press ahead with reforms," he added. Update: Date: 07:30 BST Title: A Labour-led rebellion – what's the welfare changes row about? Content: The row over Keir Starmer's proposed welfare changes began when more than 130 MPs, including 120 from Labour, signed an amendment to reject plans to cut disability and sickness-related benefit payments. The government says the changes will save £5bn a year by 2030. Cabinet ministers have reportedly been calling Labour MPs to ask them to take their names off the amendment. So far, only one Labour MP, Samantha Niblett, has removed her name. MPs who signed the amendment include both new MPs from the 2024 intake and those who were in Parliament before Labour's election win. The rebels say they oppose the plans because of the number of people expected to be pushed into relative poverty, a lack of consultation, and what they say is an inadequate impact assessment on the jobs market. Update: Date: 07:25 BST Title: Welfare system broken but we want to get changes right, says No 10 source Content: Henry ZeffmanChief political correspondent More for you on this story now. A No 10 source tells the BBC: "Delivering fundamental change is not easy, and we all want to get it right, so of course we're talking to colleagues about the bill and the changes it will bring. "We want to start delivering this together on Tuesday." The source adds: "The broken welfare system is failing the most vulnerable and holding too many people back. "It's fair and responsible to fix it. There is broad consensus across the party on this." Update: Date: 07:20 BST Title: No 10 considering possible changes to welfare policies Content: Henry ZeffmanChief political correspondent Downing Street has confirmed it is in talks with Labour MPs about possible changes to the government's welfare policies. In a notable softening of tone, No 10 said that they "want" to hold a vote on Tuesday - as is currently planned - and admitted that getting the policy right was "not easy". This is a developing story, we'll have more for you on this shortly.


Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Readers' Letters: Everything seems to be getting worse in Scotland
The Scotsman's round-up of life in Scotland today dismays reader Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Yesterday (25 June) we had another edition of The Scotsman which exposes the calamitous state of our nation. Page one reveals more misery for cancer patients with treatment times dropping alarmingly. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Then we have the highest delayed discharge figures since records began in 2016. Awful statistics which explain why beds are unavailable for other patients and procedures. First Minister John Swinney's government is full of ministers unqualified for their role, says reader (Picture: Jane Barlow - Pool/Getty Images) Next up, we discover that the tartan biscuit tin is not as empty as we are told on a daily basis, with the news that Dundee University is to receive a bail-out over three years of £40 million – no doubt this will assist in covering the debts incurred by 'free tuition' for Scottish students, that is, those who can get a place at the expense of a fee-paying 'foreigner' from over the Border or abroad. Then on to house building, now at its lowest level since 2012. Anyone with an iota of common sense knows that the best way to stimulate an economy is house building – again the Scottish Government are complicit in this appalling statistic with their net zero restrictions adding exorbitant costs to builders. And then we have the bloated Civil Service, with almost one manager per member of staff. Another example of the profligacy of the SNP in power. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad And to put the tin lid on this depressing read, class sizes in Edinburgh will be breached to 'save costs'. Of all these examples of the mess we are in, this is the worst, as we fail our next generation and their prospects go down the tube. And at the head of all these examples are the failed 'Ministers' given top jobs with exorbitant salaries and pensions, most with no experience, some of whom can hardly construct a sentence coherently when interviewed. While it was a dreary read to start the day, I applaud the Scotsman and its correspondents for their diligence in bringing this to our attention. The only way to sort this out is at the ballot box in 2026 – but what will be left of our 'services' by then? 'Not much' is the clear and obvious answer. David Millar, Lauder, Scottish Borders Keep it Scottish? Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Early this week, the BMA claimed that the NHS is 'dying'. The following day more bad news on cancer treatment in Scotland emerges and as we wait for a statement of some kind we are told Health Secretary Neil Gray is on a trip to Japan – is his favourite football team doing a pre-season tour? Is it any wonder that a third of Scots are now forced into using private healthcare – the very thing the NHS was created to prevent. The problems in the NHS are myriad. But in Scotland they are multiplied by the SNP's apparent insistence on putting a 'Scottish' slant on everything – the latest example being the NHS app in wide use south of the Border for years, which had to be somehow 'Scottified' for use north of the Border. It is madness. Think of the census fiasco when their insistence on an entirely Scottish version cost millions and left gaps in our records. Why cannot we have an administration that will concentrate on Scottish matters and attempt to make life better for all Scots and forget the nationalist claptrap? Alexander McKay, Edinburgh Line of duty So the Health Secretary is in Japan? Not only has he left his post at a time of real crisis for those unfortunate Scots recently diagnosed with cancer but his carbon footprint looms large too. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The SNP seems more interested in bailing out the Edinburgh International Book Festival whose previous sponsor, Baillie Gifford, was dumped by those on the left for the firm's perceived links to oil and Israel. Surely this has nothing to do with appearances there by Nicola Sturgeon and friends? The SNP is failing Scotland in all areas. Holyrood elections are very close. The election can't come soon enough. Gerald Edwards, Glasgow What about Wales? According to Dame Jackie Baillie, the latest figures on NHS Scotland cancer waiting times are 'disastrous' and an indication of 'the SNP's mismanagement of the NHS'. If that is indeed the case, then how would Dame Jackie describe the situation in Wales, perhaps 'catastrophic'? In Wales the devolved Labour government has not only given up (since 2019) on reporting the 31-day target for the start of treatment, which NHS Scotland is achieving in 94.1 per cent cases and NHS England in 91.3 per cent of cases, NHS Wales is only achieving the 62-day target for initial referral to start of treatment in 60.5 per cent of cases. On the 62-day target, NHS Scotland at 68.9 per cent is performing 13.9 per cent better than Wales and NHS England at 69.9 per cent is performing 15.5 per cent better. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Of course, the broader picture is that across the UK the NHS is struggling as cancers are increasingly suspected earlier and people are living longer (NHS Scotland has seen 17.5 per cent and 6.3 per cent increases in 62-day and 31-day referrals since the pandemic) while staffing levels continue to suffer as a result of Brexit and hostile UK Government immigration policies. Stan Grodynski, Longniddry, East Lothian Fair play Murdo Fraser is right to criticise the Robertson Trust's half-baked proposal of a guaranteed income (Perspective, 25 June). Yet the principle is valid, provided it's paid from resource values, as in Norway and Alaska. More generally, publicly created land values should be restored to the citizenry, with them deciding which state services they wish to purchase. Childless people should not, for example, be taxed to pay for other peoples' kids' education. George Morton, Rosyth, Fife Turbine whoppers Good on Councillor Ruraidh Stewart and Skye residents protesting against the developers' plans to 'repower' Ben Aketil wind farm, near Dunvegan (your report, 23 June). The downright dishonesty in claiming larger turbines are more efficient is breathtaking, and shame on the remote Scottish Government for falling for the spin! Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Did our brick-sized mobile phones double or half in size as they became more efficient? The farcical industry claims that larger turbines are more 'efficient' could not be further from the truth! Current turbine blades have been tweaked, over many years, to the nth degree, but the inexorable laws of physics demand that all that can now be done is to make the turbines even larger, even more materials hungry, even more space consuming, even more destructive to our landscapes, even more difficult to recycle, even more damaging, even more unsightly and, with blades that travel in excess of 200mph, even more lethal to wildlife. They are foisting giant, offshore turbines onto beleaguered rural communities, onshore. Far from boasting about 'super' turbines we are in reality being subjected to yet another load of whoppers from the wind industry! George Herraghty, Elgin, Moray Price of life Now that inflation has pounced onto food and airfare prices once again, it just highlights that the cost of living crisis is real and pounding everyone's pockets, as previously. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad While Sir Keir Starmer talks about cutting green levies for business, by up to 25 per cent – what about everyone else. So with supermarkets offering their own special deals with store card advantages and high street stores offering continual all year round sales, one has to ask, what is the true and real price of anything, these days? Archie Mackinnon, Glasgow Unfair attack During the weekend Sir Keir Starmer defended the US bombing of Iran when he said it was necessary to 'alleviate' the threat of Iran developing a nuclear weapon. I wonder if he recalls an incident during a speech by Benjamin Netanyahu at a meeting of the UN Security Council in 2012, when the Israeli leader brandished a cartoon of a bomb and insisted Iran was close to developing a nuclear weapon. In 2015, the US estimated Iran could produce enough fuel for a nuclear bomb in 12 months if it was so inclined. In an article published on 13 September 2021, the New York Times claimed Iran was just a month away from being able to produce sufficient fuel for a nuclear bomb! So why has Iran not produced that bomb long before now? Our Prime Minister also said at the weekend, 'We call on Iran to return to the negotiating table and reach a diplomatic solution to end this crisis'. Perhaps Sir Keir should ask himself who caused the crisis by mounting an illegal attack on a sovereign state? It has evidently also slipped his mind that Iran was at the negotiating table when it was attacked! Alan Woodcock, Dundee Hold on to hope Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Amidst all the discussion around assisted dying it is important to distinguish between the terms 'terminal' and 'incurable' when describing life-threatening disease. Terminal should only be used when death is imminent – days, weeks or at most a few months. In recent media announcements several famous people have had their advanced cancers described as terminal, when they are obviously very much alive and in some cases only in the early stages of treatment. Today most cancers – even at stage 4 – are treatable, where appropriate management can result in good quality of life for considerable periods of time. Incurable, yes, but so are many common conditions such as diabetes, hypertension, arthritis etc. In many thousands of conversations with patients at the time of their diagnosis and treatment planning I have emphasised that although their disease is incurable it is certainly not a death sentence. Hope is a very valuable medicine in its own right. Doctors should never withhold truth about the seriousness of any illness but the prognosis for any individual depends on their specific response to treatment, and good communication should prevent automatic assumption a diagnosis of cancer implies imminent death. So please could the media stop using the word terminal as a blanket term for all advanced cancers. Thank you. (Professor) John F Smyth, Edinburgh Write to The Scotsman