Meeting of the Parliament 18 June 2025
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.