Defence review dodges Britain's nuclear blind spot
Presented as a roadmap to 'Make Britain Safer', the review promised clarity and accountability, but it fails to confront the most pressing truths: that the UK's nuclear programme is financially unsustainable, strategically unbalanced, increasingly unaccountable and a real and present danger to us all.
These concerns are not hypothetical. In the final months of the last Parliament, I raised them on the floor of the House of Commons, not out of party dogma, but in response to serious and public allegations from Dominic Cummings, former chief adviser to the then prime minister, remember him? He described Britain's nuclear infrastructure as a 'dangerous disaster', responsible for the secret 'cannibalisation' of other national security budgets and shielded from meaningful scrutiny.
READ MORE: UK won't recognise Palestine at UN conference despite 'discussions', reports say
Whatever one thinks of Cummings or the nuclear deterrent, the substance of these allegations is disturbingly familiar. The National Audit Office (NAO) has echoed similar concerns, reporting a projected defence funding gap of up to £29.8 billion, with nuclear and Royal Navy costs rising the most sharply.
These are not partisan claims, they're structural failures.
That day in the Commons, the then-shadow defence secretary, now the Secretary of State, was present to hear them and now in government, he has chosen not to challenge or investigate them, he's just sidestepped them entirely.
Nuclear ringfencing: A cost we refuse to count
The UK Defence Review reaffirms the nuclear deterrent as the UK's 'top defence priority' and explicitly commits to protecting its funding through ringfencing, yet it offers no detailed breakdown of those costs and barely acknowledges the impact this has on the rest of the armed forces.
At one point, the review admits that nuclear spending 'might have forced savings in essential capabilities' – a remarkable understatement. Behind this phrase lies a wider truth: that the UK's defence strategy is being skewed by a deterrent whose costs are rising beyond control, shielded from accountability by MOD political taboo.
There is no analysis in the review of how ringfencing distorts capability development, procurement planning or readiness in the conventional forces. In a document designed to show how Britain will 'balance' risk and resilience, this omission is fatal.
Procurement dysfunction: Recognised, and untouched
The review admits what every oversight body has said for years: defence procurement is broken. Projects are delayed, over budget and misaligned with modern threats. Yet beyond nodding at the problem, the review offers no structural reform.
Cummings alleged that the MOD continued to fund 'legacy disasters' while gutting new capabilities. Those criticisms align with a long history of NAO reports, whether on AJAX, Type 26 delays or wider programme mismanagement. The review responds with little more than the promise of procurement 'measured in months, not years'.
READ MORE: 'Joy, celebration and warmth' of Palestinian art to be showcased at Edinburgh Fringe
Unsurprisingly, there's no serious roadmap, no new governance model, no mechanism to hold decision-makers in the MOD accountable and without these, the same dysfunction will continue to waste billions, no matter how polished the strategic language.
Where is the democratic oversight?
Perhaps most worrying is the review's treatment of oversight. Cummings claimed that key decisions about the UK's nuclear strategy were made through 'secret tunnel' processes that excluded even senior ministers. If true, this undermines the core principles of democratic governance of departments.
The review's answer is to propose that a new National Security Council (Nuclear), a closed ministerial subcommittee, should meet twice a year to review progress; that is not oversight, it's entrenchment.
There's a passing reference to potential 'enhanced parliamentary scrutiny under appropriate conditions' with no clarity on what that actually means, or how it would be applied, and no mention of expanding the role of Select Committees or publishing clearer data for Parliament as many
nuclear Nato allies do. For an area of defence with the greatest cost and risk, the lack of democratic scrutiny is glaring and frankly a dereliction of duty.
A missed opportunity
Labour's Strategic Defence Review 2025 had a rare opportunity to correct course by managing it more transparently, more accountably and with greater strategic realism. Even those of us opposed to the nuclear enterprise in its entirety couldn't and shouldn't oppose increased scrutiny.
That opportunity has been missed.
READ MORE: Freedom Flotilla urges UK Government to 'protect' ship from Israel as it nears Gaza
Instead of confronting the truth, the review restates familiar platitudes and leaves the public and Parliament no wiser about the scale cost, or consequences of the UK's nuclear commitment. The Defence Secretary, who heard these warnings first-hand from the opposition bench, is now in a position to act – he has chosen not to.
So, the central questions remain for the UK Government:
What is being done to stop the nuclear enterprise from distorting the wider defence budget? What safeguards ensure genuine democratic oversight of the UK's most dangerous and expensive defence programme?
Until these are answered, Britain's defence policy will remain unbalanced, unaffordable, alarmingly unaccountable and a real and present danger to us all.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
5 hours ago
- The National
Defence review dodges Britain's nuclear blind spot
Presented as a roadmap to 'Make Britain Safer', the review promised clarity and accountability, but it fails to confront the most pressing truths: that the UK's nuclear programme is financially unsustainable, strategically unbalanced, increasingly unaccountable and a real and present danger to us all. These concerns are not hypothetical. In the final months of the last Parliament, I raised them on the floor of the House of Commons, not out of party dogma, but in response to serious and public allegations from Dominic Cummings, former chief adviser to the then prime minister, remember him? He described Britain's nuclear infrastructure as a 'dangerous disaster', responsible for the secret 'cannibalisation' of other national security budgets and shielded from meaningful scrutiny. READ MORE: UK won't recognise Palestine at UN conference despite 'discussions', reports say Whatever one thinks of Cummings or the nuclear deterrent, the substance of these allegations is disturbingly familiar. The National Audit Office (NAO) has echoed similar concerns, reporting a projected defence funding gap of up to £29.8 billion, with nuclear and Royal Navy costs rising the most sharply. These are not partisan claims, they're structural failures. That day in the Commons, the then-shadow defence secretary, now the Secretary of State, was present to hear them and now in government, he has chosen not to challenge or investigate them, he's just sidestepped them entirely. Nuclear ringfencing: A cost we refuse to count The UK Defence Review reaffirms the nuclear deterrent as the UK's 'top defence priority' and explicitly commits to protecting its funding through ringfencing, yet it offers no detailed breakdown of those costs and barely acknowledges the impact this has on the rest of the armed forces. At one point, the review admits that nuclear spending 'might have forced savings in essential capabilities' – a remarkable understatement. Behind this phrase lies a wider truth: that the UK's defence strategy is being skewed by a deterrent whose costs are rising beyond control, shielded from accountability by MOD political taboo. There is no analysis in the review of how ringfencing distorts capability development, procurement planning or readiness in the conventional forces. In a document designed to show how Britain will 'balance' risk and resilience, this omission is fatal. Procurement dysfunction: Recognised, and untouched The review admits what every oversight body has said for years: defence procurement is broken. Projects are delayed, over budget and misaligned with modern threats. Yet beyond nodding at the problem, the review offers no structural reform. Cummings alleged that the MOD continued to fund 'legacy disasters' while gutting new capabilities. Those criticisms align with a long history of NAO reports, whether on AJAX, Type 26 delays or wider programme mismanagement. The review responds with little more than the promise of procurement 'measured in months, not years'. READ MORE: 'Joy, celebration and warmth' of Palestinian art to be showcased at Edinburgh Fringe Unsurprisingly, there's no serious roadmap, no new governance model, no mechanism to hold decision-makers in the MOD accountable and without these, the same dysfunction will continue to waste billions, no matter how polished the strategic language. Where is the democratic oversight? Perhaps most worrying is the review's treatment of oversight. Cummings claimed that key decisions about the UK's nuclear strategy were made through 'secret tunnel' processes that excluded even senior ministers. If true, this undermines the core principles of democratic governance of departments. The review's answer is to propose that a new National Security Council (Nuclear), a closed ministerial subcommittee, should meet twice a year to review progress; that is not oversight, it's entrenchment. There's a passing reference to potential 'enhanced parliamentary scrutiny under appropriate conditions' with no clarity on what that actually means, or how it would be applied, and no mention of expanding the role of Select Committees or publishing clearer data for Parliament as many nuclear Nato allies do. For an area of defence with the greatest cost and risk, the lack of democratic scrutiny is glaring and frankly a dereliction of duty. A missed opportunity Labour's Strategic Defence Review 2025 had a rare opportunity to correct course by managing it more transparently, more accountably and with greater strategic realism. Even those of us opposed to the nuclear enterprise in its entirety couldn't and shouldn't oppose increased scrutiny. That opportunity has been missed. READ MORE: Freedom Flotilla urges UK Government to 'protect' ship from Israel as it nears Gaza Instead of confronting the truth, the review restates familiar platitudes and leaves the public and Parliament no wiser about the scale cost, or consequences of the UK's nuclear commitment. The Defence Secretary, who heard these warnings first-hand from the opposition bench, is now in a position to act – he has chosen not to. So, the central questions remain for the UK Government: What is being done to stop the nuclear enterprise from distorting the wider defence budget? What safeguards ensure genuine democratic oversight of the UK's most dangerous and expensive defence programme? Until these are answered, Britain's defence policy will remain unbalanced, unaffordable, alarmingly unaccountable and a real and present danger to us all.
Daily Record
5 hours ago
- Daily Record
Keir Starmer's defence expansion plan 'will bring tens of billions of investment into Scotland'
Military intelligence experts say thousands of jobs will be created as billions are ploughed into key Scots locations. Keir Starmer's massive defence expansion plan will mean tens of billions of investment in Scotland's economy, leading military intelligence experts have told the Sunday Mail. Thousands of jobs will be created north of the border after the Prime Minister travelled to Glasgow last week to announce the largest sustained increase in MoD spending since the Cold War in the Strategic Defence Review (SDR). One of the authors of the report, Fiona Hill, yesterday warned Russia is already 'at war' with the UK, and said America is no longer a reliable ally against Vladimir Putin. And to counter the threat Philip Ingram, a former senior intelligence and security officer in the British Army, has told the Sunday Mail Scotland will need to play a leading role in an 'always on' ship building drive on the River Clyde, upgraded nuclear capability at Faslane, and a massive RAF expansion at Lossiemouth. He revealed billions will also need to be invested with established Scottish tech companies to develop drones, satellites, battlefield communications systems, missiles and guidance systems over the next decade. Ingram said: 'This is the first review in recent history that has been about increasing capability rather than cutting it and there is also pressure now coming from NATO not to just increase defence budgets to 2.5per cent of GDP, but to go to 3.5per cent and even higher. 'To put that in number terms our current defence budget is around £65.6billion. If we even go up to three per cent that takes you to £85billion and 3.5per cent takes you to just short of £100billion. 'Given Scotland's established military ship building, the fact that it is already the base for our nuclear fleet, and Scotland's position in supporting our defence industry generally, this will definitely mean tens of billions of pounds of new money going into the Scottish economy. 'It is going to mean thousands of new jobs for the civilian labour market in very high tech industries and that will stimulate a lot more requirements for people coming through Scottish universities and schools with technology and engineering skills. 'It also means much more money coming into supply chain industries right down to the burger vans because there are more people going to work with more money in their pockets who will be spending it in local communities. 'In town and cities where the high street is suffering this can stimulate a turn around. This is why the Chancellor Rachel Reeves is saying that investing in defence will underpin her strategy for growth. 'You are effectively taking taxpayers' money and instead of spending it overseas you are spending it on British manufacturing and that money is filtering through into the service industry and local communities. 'Companies for example working with drones or novel materials or new ways of communicating - and there are a lot of these companies in Scotland and Scottish Universities are focussing on this - there is big money coming, it is win win.' Keir Starmer launched the SDR alongside Defence Secretary John Healey at BAE Systems in Govan, Glasgow, last week. He promised to implement all of its 62 recommendations which included multi-billion pound expnasions of the Army, Navy and Air Force, new nuclear submarines, more soldiers, new weapons and equipment. Scotland was described as a 'linchpin', with generations of skilled workers to benefit from apprenticeships, jobs and rewarding careers in defence as spending increases to 3.5per cent of GDP in the next parliament. Ingram added: 'It is definitely not wrong to see this as tens of billions coming into Scotland. They way things are going with the international community it is not unrealistic at all. 'America, who traditionally supply a lot of defence equipment, has effectively shot itself in the foot because the UK and everyone else has been until now been buying from America because they had the capacity and it was cheaper to rely on them. 'But Trump has at the same time as pressurising people to increase defence capacity also turned around and said we might not support you if it came to war, we may not supply you if you are not in Donald Trump's good books. 'That was a Gerald Ratner moment, like saying all my jewellery is s**t, so there is now an opportunity for us to not only to manufacture our own defence equipment but to also start taking over parts of the global market. 'The UK is already the second biggest defence exporter in the world and we can quite easily build on that, and a big slice of that pie would go to Scotland.' As part of the SDR commitment the UK Government will spend around £11billion on front line kit and build at least six new munitians factories with Scotland a likely base for some of the investment given its established weapons companies. Around 7000 long range weapons will be built and the UK's aircraft carriers are to become 'hybrid air wings' housing drones, jets and long-range weapons. A hybrid Royal Navy that uses aircraft, drones, warships, submarines to patrol the north Atlantic around Scotland and beyond will be created as part of a military which will become '10-times more lethal' according to ministers. New F-35 jets, Typhoon jets and autonomous aircraft will be commissioned alongside expanded warship building operations. Defence Secretary, John Healey MP said: 'From Faslane to Lossiemouth, the importance of Scotland to our defence capabilities cannot be overstated; it provides vigilance and protection for everyone across the UK. 'With threats increasing, the SDR is clear on the need to move to warfighting readiness to boost deterrence and to grow our defence industry across the country. 'Scotland will be a linchpin in making Britain safer, with more generations of skilled Scottish workers benefiting from apprenticeships, jobs and rewarding careers in defence.' Join the Daily Record WhatsApp community! Get the latest news sent straight to your messages by joining our WhatsApp community today. You'll receive daily updates on breaking news as well as the top headlines across Scotland. No one will be able to see who is signed up and no one can send messages except the Daily Record team. All you have to do is click here if you're on mobile, select 'Join Community' and you're in! If you're on a desktop, simply scan the QR code above with your phone and click 'Join Community'. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose 'exit group'. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. 'Why defence announcement in legendary Govan shipyards felt personal for me' by Joani Reid, MP for East Kilbride and Strathaven and grand-daughter of legendary ship-building trade unionist Jimmy Reid Why does a political party like Labour exist? It's simple: to ensure that the wealth generated by working people, from electronic communication to shipbuilding and defence, is shared fairly and that the jobs created allow everyone to live decent, dignified lives. Our communities famously fought to keep the Upper Clyde shipyards open because they understood the dignity that hard, well-paid jobs brought to working people and their families. The UCS work-in wasn't about ideology but respect and survival. Tory ministers couldn't grasp why working people wouldn't quietly accept their jobs were surplus to requirements, and why they fought back against the devastating reality that closure would bring to their families and communities. This came into sharp focus for me this week as I stood in those same Govan shipyards at the launch of Labour's Strategic Defence Review. It felt personal. Here was Labour returning to Govan—not with empty promises but with real investment, real jobs, and a real future. For the first time in decades, government ministers came to announce billions in investment for Scotland, not just crumbs from an ever-shrinking cake. This investment will deliver thousands of high-quality, skilled jobs for our young people. But new defence industries don't appear overnight. To grow our industrial base, we need active government support and substantial investment in skills and infrastructure. Yet, incredibly, the SNP blocked a £2.5 million grant for a specialist welding centre in Glasgow last week due to their misguided opposition to defence-related spending. John Swinney's opposition is disgraceful. If he agrees Scotland needs armed forces, what exactly does he expect them to be armed with—paper darts? Investment isn't only about industry; it's also about properly caring for those who serve our country. The deplorable state of our defence estate urgently needs addressing. During my recent visit to Faslane, I saw condemned buildings riddled with unsafe concrete and personnel accommodation infected with legionnaires' disease—a regular occurrence, I'm told, due to outdated infrastructure. Service personnel described the poor conditions they endure daily, conditions that undermine morale and weaken our readiness. This shocking neglect from the SNP government and previous Tory administrations must end. The SNP must drop its ideological boycott of Faslane and ensure Scotland fully benefits from defence-related investments. Nobody wants conflict, but conflict may still find us. Putin's invasion of Ukraine shows that war in Europe isn't confined to the history books. It's a stark reminder that we live in unpredictable times, requiring vigilance and readiness. We must maximise our deterrent power and capacity to prevail in any potential conflict, whether on land, sea, air, or cyberspace. Protecting our way of life, values, and people demands this preparedness. Scotland must be at the heart of this renewal. Our people have always volunteered bravely for the front lines; now we must also lead in building advanced industries to counter the threats of the 21st century. Scottish innovation and ingenuity can position us as global leaders in cybersecurity, advanced manufacturing, and green defence technologies. Achieving this demands coordinated effort, targeted investment, and genuine commitment from our government. I'm immensely proud of our marine engineering heritage at Govan and Rosyth. But let's not overlook our broader industrial strength: manufacturing in Scotland is 60% higher in real terms than at the turn of the century. With world-class universities, skilled workers, and a robust industrial legacy, the foundations for becoming a global defence engineering powerhouse already exist—we just need to strengthen them further. Sixty years ago, strength in the shipyards meant muscle power—tough jobs for tough people. Today, it's about skills in chemistry, physics, maths, and cutting-edge technology. The Duke of Wellington once claimed the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton. The next battles will be won in our high schools, colleges, and universities. Let's position Scotland at the forefront, leading the charge for jobs and opportunity. Our children deserve nothing less.
New Statesman
a day ago
- New Statesman
The eco-centrists want the Green Party back
In last year's General Election, the Green Party quadrupled its representation in parliament (from one in 2019 to four in 2024, albeit). Caroline Lucas, elected in 2010, was for a long time the party's only MP. After years of the Green's representation in Parliament resting solely on Lucas's shoulders, July 2024 was a turning-point. 'I spoke in the House of Commons five times yesterday, on a range of topics,' Ellie Chowns, the Green MP for Northwest Herefordshire told me when we met on a drab evening at a café in St James's Park. 'We as Greens have got a much stronger voice [in Parliament] speaking day in day out on the issues that really matter,' Chowns said. Alongside her, Adrian Ramsay, the Green MP for Waveney Valley nodded. During our 45-minute interview, we were all variously forced to dodge the pigeons who kept flying dangerously close overhead. Ramsay has been the current co-leader of the party, alongside Carla Denyer, the Green MP for Bristol Central since 2021. But their term is almost up; the party will hold a leadership election later this year. While Denyer has decided not to re-contest, Ramsay, who has been a Green Party politician since 2003 felt he isn't done yet. He is running once again to be co-leader of the party once again, with Chowns as his co-star. Chowns and Ramsay's pitch to Green Party members is simple: a vote for them is a vote for two experienced leaders, who already have a position inside parliament and a proven track-record of winning elections .'We're the only candidates in this [leadership] election who have won under first-past-the-post,' Ramsay told me, 'and we want to build on that success, it is about substance.' He added: 'Anyone can say that they want to be popular,' Ramsay said, 'we've shown how you actually do it.' Chowns agreed: 'The only way to change politics is by winning more seats in the system,' she said, 'and Adrian and I have shown how to do that. You build the biggest possible coalition of voters.' The pair have received backing for precisely this reason from Green Party Grandees such as Lucas and Baroness Jenny Jones. This is all no uncertain dig at the pair's main competition: current deputy leader, Zack Polanski. Shortly after the May local elections, in which the party won an additional 181 councillors, current Polanski, launched a (not so surprise) solo-leadership campaign. His platform of 'eco-populism' has exposed a split in the party between the radical left wing (which Chowns and Ramsay indirectly describe as 'loudhailer politics') and those who want to appeal to a wider base, including former Conservative voters. Ramsay is irked by Polanski's decision to run. The current co-leader, who wrote the Green Party's handbook on how to win council elections, has spent most of his political career working out how to turn the party from a fringe group into a force capable of winning Parliamentary elections. The election of an additional three Green MPs last year, was the culmination of this, or so he says. Polanski's wants to position the Greens as a left-wing mirror to Nigel Farage and Reform. In fact, when I spoke to him shortly after he launched his leadership bid in May, Polanski said he may even actually 'agree' with some of 'Nigel Farage's diagnosis of the problems' . Chowns and Ramsay think this is the wrong approach. 'We've already demonstrated how ecological ideas can be popular,' Chowns said. She added: 'I don't aspire for the Green Party to ape Reform in any way neither in its content, not its style…We can't out shout Reform.' Polanski is a member of the Greater London Assembly, but if he is elected he will sit outside the machinations of Westminster; an arrangement which could cause more trouble than it's worth. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe 'There are some major pitfalls that would need to be addressed here,' Ramsay said, 'journalists look to what's happening in parliament to see where each party stands on the issue of the day because parliament is the centre of British political debate.' Having a leader outside of Westminster could become particularly troublesome if there is a disagreement between the party's leadership and its MPs. In some ways, this has already happened. Polanski has said the UK should withdraw from NATO, a policy which neither Ramsay nor Chowns support. 'If on that day you had the leader, who was outside parliament, speaking for the party saying I want to leave NATO and then our foreign affairs spokesperson in Parliament saying that the Green party want to stay there and reform NATO, then who do you look to as giving the Green Party's position?' This could get messy. Members of other parties are looking at this race, curious about where it could leave the Green Party (one sympathetic Labour MP told me they thought it would be a 'disaster' and would alienate much of the party's more moderate base). Polanski did not inform Ramsay or Chowns of his intention to run before going public with his campaign. When I ask the pair how things will work if Polanski does win, Ramsay said: 'I think that's for Zack to set out… he's certainly had no conversations with the MPs about whether that would work or how he would make it work.' As I went to ask my next question, Ramsay shot back, 'he's made no attempt to talk to us about it at all.' Though Chowns and Ramsay's campaign may not have landed as loudly as Polanski's, they have election-winning credentials. As Ramsay said, it took time to build the 'broad coalitions' which have pushed the Green Party to where it currently sits. With polling for the leadership election opening in a matter of months, the pair may need to ramp up the volume in order to win the fight; it won't take much time for that 'broad coalition' to be unpicked. [See more: Did Zia Yusuf jump, or was he pushed?] Related
