Summarize
Kate ForbesSaturday October 10 2026, 8.24pm BST, The Sunday Times
With warnings over Russia growing louder, Scotland must use its industrial strengths and confront hard questions on military readiness and nuclear deterrence
Saturday October 10 2026, 8.24pm BST,
“When you go home, tell them of us and say, for your tomorrow, we gave our today.”
Those words are inscribed on the Kohima war memorial — the scene of one of the bloodiest engagements of the Second World War where the Allied forces halted the Japanese invasion of India. The memorial is dedicated to the soldiers of the 2nd British Division, including the Cameron Highlanders.
The epitaph, a modern rendition of J M Edmonds’s text, is read in every Scottish — indeed, British — town that commemorates the fallen soldiers of the last century.
But what of the central message, “tell them of us”? That is more than commemorative; it is a warning.
The peace my generation and my parents’ generation have enjoyed was never free or inevitable. It was funded by the massive downpayment from our grandparents. They paid with their lives — in jungles, mud and barbed wire — for peace. But not for ever. The responsibility still falls on future generations not to default on payments.
There have been wars and rumours of war over the past few decades, but I cannot recall another time, even during crises, when the alarm bells have rung so loudly, sounded in unison by such different leaders. In recent weeks, Mette Frederiksen, the Danish prime minister, declared that “the hybrid war against Europe has intensified”. Russia, she stated, was seeking to “intimidate and sow discord” and that it was “ever more aggressive and assertive”.
Donald Tusk, the Polish prime minister, warned of intelligence that indicated Russia would soon test Nato countries with “hybrid drone and missile strikes”. At home, Sir Richard Knighton, chief of the defence staff, declared this to be “the most dangerous period that I have known”. The UK, he said, must be ready for a long war.
Each of these interventions was well reported, but do the public wish to hear them? After all, no British politician has won an election in recent months — to be prime minister or otherwise — because they promised to get our country ready for war. The issue is that everything we do prioritise is underpinned by national security.
A few weeks ago, in conversation with high school pupils, I shared my concerns about the increasing likelihood that there will be a global conflict in their lifetime. Immediately after answering, the headteacher jumped up to reassure them that they should not take fright and, if my answer had caused alarm, then support was available.
If we can’t even acknowledge the realities of our age, how can we expect serious public discourse about what is required in response?
In recent years, residents on some Scottish islands, including Shetland and Tiree, have discovered just how catastrophic it is to lose all connectivity, when subsea cables were destroyed by storm. In a moment, all communications were suspended. It was a comprehensive shutdown of health, education, social care, transport and justice systems, all of which are now virtual.
Mirror that on a UK-wide scale (albeit with differences, I accept) because of intentional sabotage to our subsea cables by an adversary, and you will quickly realise the connection between everything we care about and warfare.
The Covid pandemic was the last national crisis. We appear to have forgotten the pertinent questions asked about our preparedness for that calamity.
During the Covid inquiry, there was much regret that, with hindsight, collectively we did not heed warnings fast enough, see the signs soon enough and stockpile supplies substantially enough. I can already see the questions posed by the next national inquiry to this generation of leaders. What did they do when confronted with consistent, informed and vehement warnings about the growing threats to our national security?
A national, collective shift is required. The Times reported this week that the prime minister was considering delaying decisions on defence funding until autumn next year. By that point, it will be just over two years until the target date of 2030. That is roughly the same time period since the strategic defence review was published, which set out the urgent steps to reverse the deterioration of our country’s defences. The response has been anything but urgent.
This investment isn’t theoretical — it buys, builds and invents. All of that has a lead-in time — ships, planes and autonomous weapons cannot be fabricated within days of funding received. At the risk of stating the obvious, the longer it takes for the funding to be identified and invested, the longer Lord Robertson’s warnings ring true: “We are under-prepared. We are under-insured. We are under attack. We are not safe … Britain’s national security and safety is in peril.”
Scotland is uniquely well placed to support the innovation and industry required. Our critical growth industries — space, robotics, quantum and photonics — backed by our brilliant universities, underpin the areas of greatest potential in this new age of evolving risks.
Our shipbuilding industry has won big contracts to build frigates for our allies. We have brilliant shipyards, with incredibly talented workers. But we could double that capacity — and more — by rapidly upskilling the workforce and supporting innovative teams in our universities to develop cutting-edge technology.
A year ago, the SNP government changed its position to allow public funding to be used for munitions, demonstrating that it is possible to adapt policy in face of emerging threats. This year’s programme for government committed to a defence industrial growth programme, the first that I can recall.
The SNP conference next week is a vital opportunity for delegates to weigh up the gravity of the moment, engage in debate and give party leaders the space and support in government to take quick decisions on matters of defence and resilience. It would be deeply unfortunate if the opportunity was bypassed. For a party that seeks to self-govern, build relationships with close allies, like Denmark, and serve Scots, this issue is as urgent as it gets.
There is an added responsibility on delegates not to ignore this debate because of the SNP’s long-standing opposition to nuclear weapons, which is foundational to the party’s DNA. In this moment of great instability, the post-Cold War nuclear non-proliferation architecture is starting to crumble. More nations, intentionally or unintentionally, are standing at the threshold of developing nuclear weapons, some because they are being driven toward self-reliance. The boost in nuclear energy around the world also means that countries have potentially easier (and cheaper) ways to develop nuclear weapons. How to respond to nuclear adversaries, like Russia, isn’t theoretical. It is a live question.
And we might not have terribly long to come up with answers.
