The University of Glasgow should continue investing in companies that earn more than 10% of their revenue from the arms and defence industry.

(Find out more at: www.dontdivest.co.uk)

• Ethical concerns: Reducing support for companies that produce life-saving defensive equipment would be unethical.
• Financial impact: Divestment would limit the University’s investment options, potentially reducing funding for student services and research.
• Graduate employment: It is worth supporting the NATO defence industry because it offers meaningful and well-compensated employment for STEM and languages graduates.
• Solidarity with international students: Currently, surplus equipment from the British defence industry is being used to save the lives of Ukrainian alumni and protect the loved ones of our Eastern European students.
• Shareholder power: Remaining as a shareholder allows the university to have a say in the decisions made by these companies. This will allow us to make positive change from within. Divesting is purely symbolic and gives shareholder power to potentially unethical investors, whilst having no financial impact on the target companies.

Common ground between Yes and No campaigns.

We believe that both sides of the referendum wish to make the world a better place, but disagree about the best way to do so. While the “Yes” campaign suggests that the best way to do so is by slowly divesting from arms, our campaign focuses more while reflecting on the current geopolitical realities. Currently, Ukraine is deadlocked with a now 3 year war against Russia and the world is virtually dividing itself in many ways. Thus, we believe that Europe now more than ever needs the greater support of its European partners and allies including the United Kingdom. And whichever side you vote for, will set a precedent that will be established across all universities in the United Kingdom.

Principle

"Si vis pacem, para bellum" - "If you want peace, prepare for war" as articulated by the Roman philosopher Vegetius, encapsulates a fundamental principle that has shaped global security throughout history. This adage has demonstrated its significance across generations, with the most stable era in human history being maintained by strong military capabilities and strategic deterrence.

The defence industry assumes a crucial role in upholding national security and fostering global stability, especially in our increasingly unpredictable world. A strong defence sector serves as a critical deterrent against aggression and safeguards democratic values. The same democratic values which allow for fundamental human rights to be guaranteed for all in the eyes of the law. Historical evidence supports this assertion:

The principle of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) during the Cold War, and arguably within the current geopolitical context, illustrates how sophisticated military capabilities can, in an ironic twist, usher in a climate of peace. The level of research and development in the arms industry, including nuclear deterrence, has resulted in a scenario where major powers perceive the initiation of conflicts with similarly armed nations as undesirable. The result? NATO's collective defence principle, backed by advanced military technology, has successfully averted significant power conflicts in Europe for more than 75 years - an unparalleled period of peace in the continent's history. Moreover, it has allowed the preservation of democratic values which allow for this university to function as it is today. The ability to think critically on political issues, which are contrary to the incumbent government’s stance, along with the ability to freely practice the faith of your choice without fear.

The Russian Invasion of Ukraine exposed critical weaknesses in the European arms industry, the overreliance on the United States defence products for self defence. The war has highlighted the need for increased capacity to produce weapons, equipment, and ammunition domestically within Europe in order to reduce reliance on the United States and be self-sufficient. Thus, investments into companies like BAE and QinetiQ are now more than ever important to promote and sustain domestic arms production and independence from relying on the United States for arms. This situation emphasises that investment in defence capabilities is not just about preparing for war, but about maintaining the ability to respond effectively to sudden security challenges based on principles that are supported by this country.

However, as warfare has evolved, so has the role of the defence industry in shaping civilian and military lifestyles. The defence sector has taken massive strides to tackle emerging challenges like cybersecurity, countering disinformation, and protecting critical infrastructure. It's worth noting that many technologies initially developed for defence purposes have found crucial civilian applications, driving innovation across various sectors. For example: GPS (sat. nav.), Microwaves, duct tape, cargo containers, computers, velcro, epipens, radar, sonar, jet engines, non-perishable food (cans and vacuum packs), digital camera sensors, ICBMs (space exploration), the internet. The university by divesting thus loses potential chances of contributing towards the development of future technologies that may benefit civilian life greatly.
 

Effects on the University

Arms companies, irrespective of individual perspectives, offer consistent and lucrative investment opportunities. Divesting from these companies might reallocate the university’s endowments towards less reliable assets, which could result in diminished investment returns and a subsequent decrease in funding for scholarships, bursaries, hardship grants, research initiatives, and student programs.

The university also stands to gain directly from funding associated with defence research. From 2017 to 2023, contributions exceeding £600,000 from BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce have facilitated the enhancement of laboratories, PhD scholarships, and vital equipment. Comparable institutions, such as the University of Bristol, experienced a notable 22% decline in engineering funding following similar divestment actions in 2019.

78% of Mechanical Engineering students are involved in defence-related projects, including drone swarm simulations in collaboration with QinetiQ. Discontinuing these partnerships could adversely affect graduate employability across various sectors, including renewable energy and fintech.

Boeing sponsors the annual Aerospace Innovation Challenge in Glasgow. Rolls-Royce invests in turbine research that is essential to achieving net-zero aviation objectives. Discontinuing these partnerships could inadvertently disconnect students from invaluable real-world research and development experiences.

Dissociating from defence companies could potentially jeopardize entire research sectors that focus on mechanical engineering, aerospace, materials science, and control systems. These esteemed researchers frequently bring significant funding, which plays a pivotal role in sustaining state-of-the-art facilities and enriching student opportunities.

Defence subcontracting often support advancements in non-lethal innovations. For example, drone technology initially designed for surveillance purposes can subsequently contribute to disaster response efforts or enhance environmental monitoring initiatives. The University Defence Research Collaboration (UDRC), which includes esteemed researchers from Glasgow, promotes advancements in signal processing for defence applications while simultaneously benefiting fields such as healthcare and telecommunications. Moreover, LiDAR technology initially used for autonomous drones in warfare has found its use in driverless cars.
 

Precedent (examples to reflect on):

In 2019, Cambridge University strategically divested from certain companies to align with climate goals. The result was that other investors acquired the stock, and the companies experienced no financial detriment. Moreover, the new shareholders likely did not prioritize the University’s ethical considerations. The essential point is that divestment does not negatively impact target companies; it merely reallocates ownership to investors less concerned with ethics.

In 2016, the University of Southampton transitioned its endowment to a fund that excludes arms manufacturers. The companies continued to thrive and secured government contracts, remaining unaffected by the university's actions. There is no substantiated evidence indicating any financial repercussions for the arms sector as a result of such divestments. The arms industry is sufficiently robust and well-resourced to withstand minor institutional divestments.

Last year, Brown University declined a proposal for divestment from military-related companies. The complete case study can be found on our website (dontdivest.co.uk). Their findings indicate that without financial interest, the divestment holds symbolic value only.

These instances prove that maintaining shareholder status enables the University to express ethical concerns and advocate for change within the companies, as opposed to withdrawing and allowing them to expand without internal scrutiny.
 

By voting NO, you are supporting the University’s current investment approach, maintaining financial responsibility and supporting the students' future.

References to studies and articles that we used to arrive at the above conclusions are available on our website: www.dontdivest.co.uk

We campaign because our security matters!