The UK government is pumping billions more into defence, pitching it as both a shield against global threats and a shot in the arm for local jobs. But does spending big on tanks and warships really fuel growth — or is it a myth that needs busting?
Rising Threats, Rising Budgets
Prime Minister Keir Starmer says the UK must be “battle ready”. With Russia rattling its sabres and China flexing its muscles, NATO members are under pressure to up their game.
So, Britain’s defence budget will rise from about 2.2% of GDP now to 2.6% by 2027 — and possibly hit 3% by 2030 if the economy can handle it. NATO’s new goal? A hefty 5% of GDP by 2035.
Big numbers, big promises.
Scotland’s Slice of the Defence Pie
BAE Systems, for one, says it spent £550 million with 300 Scottish suppliers last year alone. Shipyards on the Clyde have long been a cornerstone of Scotland’s defence industry. Politicians love to pose in front of half-built warships, hailing the “good union jobs” they bring.
Starmer visited BAE’s Glasgow yard last month, declaring: “We must now seize a defence dividend for the British people.” He wants new jobs, new skills and a bit more pride flowing into towns that feel left behind.
Critics Fire Back
But not everyone’s buying the story.
Professor Karen Bell from the University of Glasgow calls for “urgent scrutiny”, pointing out that defence spending has one of the lowest employment multipliers of any public investment. Put bluntly: you might get more bang for your buck — and more jobs — from building schools, hospitals, or even wind turbines.
She’s not alone. For decades, economists have argued whether military budgets truly boost growth. Some studies say yes — defence contracts can protect manufacturing jobs, foster innovation and support entire communities.
Others argue it’s a dead end — tying up money that could have built better roads, trained more nurses, or tackled housing crises.
The Jobs That Keep Coming — or Going?
There’s no doubt that thousands of Scottish families depend on shipbuilding, aerospace and advanced engineering tied to defence contracts.
But it’s lumpy work. One year you’re building frigates for the Royal Navy. The next, the order book dries up. Communities in places like Rosyth and Govan know that story all too well.
One upside? The highly skilled nature of the jobs means better pay than many service-sector roles. But how stable is it, really?
Where Does Scotland Stand?
In Scotland, the debate gets political fast. Defence contracts help unionist politicians argue that staying in the UK brings big economic wins. Independence-minded critics point out that an independent Scotland might spend differently — perhaps shifting more towards renewables or civil infrastructure.
Meanwhile, global tensions — from Ukraine to the South China Sea — show little sign of easing. That means defence money will keep flowing.
What’s the Verdict?
The truth is messier than slogans. Yes, defence spending keeps certain industries alive. Yes, it can bring high-quality work to places that sorely need it. But no, it’s not a silver bullet for wider economic woes.
And when the contracts stop or the threats change, what then?
The government says the new billions will bring a “defence dividend” to communities from the Clyde to Cornwall. But as Professor Bell reminds us, maybe the country should be asking: is this really the best way to spend our money?
