The SRC Referendum on UofG Arms Divestment is now finished. View the results here. This page will be kept for posterity and transparency.

Should the University of Glasgow stop investing in companies that earn more than 10% of their revenue from the arms and defence industry? - The 'Yes' case

The University of Glasgow takes pride in its ethics, social responsibility and sustainability. Despite this self-purported reputation, it continues to invest and thus support companies that are profiting from the warfare that is caused by the arms and defence industry. As students we have a responsibility to hold our University accountable and demand that its investments align with its values. The arms trade is inextricably linked to global instability, fueling conflicts that displace communities, exacerbate humanitarian crises, and perpetuate cycles of violence all of which directly contradict the university’s commitments to sustainability, social justice, and global responsibility. That's why we are calling on our peers to vote ‘YES’ for divestment from companies that earn more than 10% of their revenue from the arms and defence industry.  

By investing in arms companies, the University is facilitating global conflicts which violate fundamental human rights. This campaign believes that there is no justification to continue with extremely unethical investments. Just as the University has divested from fossil fuels and tobacco due to their harmful impacts, it must now take a stand against the arms trade. Our investment should reflect peace, justice and human dignity, not violence or profit. There are very few alternatives whose consequences match the severity of arms companies. This is not a matter of politics, or economics, but of human rights. 

The University of Glasgow’s refusal to divest from arms companies violates the sanctity of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, fueling conflicts, poverty, and environmental destruction, particularly in the Global South. While wealthy nations profit from arms sales, countries such as Yemen, Sudan, and Palestine, suffer war, displacement, and economic collapse. The arms trade sustains systemic inequality, as militarised economies in the Global North benefit from devastation elsewhere. Military activity worsens climate change, disrupts education, and destroys healthcare. By investing in arms manufacturers, the university enables war crimes and human rights abuses, directly contradicting its SDG commitments and ethical responsibilities.

Continuing to invest in arms companies undermines the and contradicts the university’s stated values. Other leading UK universities, including Southampton and St Andrews, have already divested from the arms trade. Glasgow can and should follow their example to remain a leader in ethical investment. As ethical investment becomes an increasing priority for young people and academic institutions, aligning financial practices with social responsibility can improve student recruitment, alumni engagement, and partnerships with organizations that prioritise sustainability and peace. 

Additionally, divestment reduces financial risks associated with the volatile arms industry, ensuring more stable long-term investments.  Many arms manufacturers rely on government contracts, which can be unpredictable and subject to sudden policy changes, economic downturns, or international sanctions, making them a risky long term investment. As global pressure for ethical investment intensifies, institutions tied to the arms trade may face public backlash and legal challenges. Holding such investments not only threatens the university’s financial stability but also undermines its ability to attract ethical funding sources, academic collaborations, and students who seek institutions committed to progressive and responsible practices. By reinvesting in ethical and sustainable sectors, the university can support industries that directly benefit students and society, such as technology, healthcare, and renewable energy, ultimately creating more opportunities for research, innovation, and job prospects for graduates.

The basic arguments for the ‘No’ Campaign Team are concerns regarding the financial impact of divestment on the University, uncertainty over possible alternatives and the importance of the UK defence sector, which aligns with the University Court’s decision to continue arms-based investment in November 2024 owing to concerns surrounding public image and various existing research relationships.

In response to these arguments, this campaign believes that the University is financially capable of divesting with a variety of ready-made alternatives already within its Endowment Fund. The University Court reported £247 million in the University of Glasgow’s Endowment Fund comprising 1000+ securities as of July 2024, with various estimates suggesting that investment in arms-based organisations encompasses £6.8 million (2.75%) of the total. Furthermore, a financial report produced by the University in late 2024 emphasised the retention of a “strong financial base” underlining a healthy position. Thus, to suggest the University would be destabilised and without financial alternatives after divestment from arms-based organisations disregards the generally healthy financial position of this institution, the wide array of existing investments and the success of already having divested from fossil-fuel and tobacco-based companies. 

There are countless alternative investment opportunities that align with ethical principles and provide stable returns. The global market offers a wide range of options, from renewable energy and sustainable technology to social impact funds and green bonds. These investments not only align with the University’s values but also contribute to a more sustainable and equitable future. Divesting from arms companies is not just the right thing to do morally. It is also a financially sound decision. By reallocating these funds to ethical investments, the University can strengthen its financial position while upholding its commitment to social responsibility. By reallocating funds to sectors that drive innovation and sustainable development, the university can create more research opportunities, industry partnerships, and career pathways for graduates. This shift would strengthen Glasgow’s position as a forward-thinking institution, attracting top-tier students, researchers, and external funding from organisations that prioritize ethical investment.

With regard to the arguments surrounding research and concern for the University’s public image as cited by the University Court, let us emphasise this; no argument, whether it concerns reputation, finances or research, overcomes the importance of the people suffering at the hands of arms developed by these companies, such as those in Gaza and Yemen. BAE Systems, of which the University possesses significant assets, provides lethal F-35 bombers to the Israeli government that have been used in the deadly airstrikes on Gaza, in addition to profiting off the Saudi-Yemen conflict that has induced a huge humanitarian crisis for the Yemeni people. Such examples persist; Leonardo S.p.A has provided the Israeli government with naval weaponry that was used in the October 2023 attacks on Gaza, with this relationship continuing and providing a further exemplification of the companies this University invests in. An institution of higher learning should not be complicit in such murderous atrocities no matter what research such companies aid; this is what damages public perception - and student perception - of the University, as opposed to the concern over signalling sentiment against the UK defence sector. As already emphasised, some UK universities have taken similar steps; Glasgow would not be alone in arms divesting and thus this concern surrounding reputation is a poor explanation for an inexcusable level of inaction. 

The university cannot credibly teach ethics, international relations, or human rights while financially supporting companies that contribute to war and suffering. Such investments erode the moral authority of the institution, weakening its ability to serve as a space for intellectual integrity and global leadership. A university’s endowment should be a tool for building a better future, not financing industries that actively undermine peace and development. Alternative research relationships can be fostered and adjustments can be made, but for Gaza, the reconstruction that will eventually follow the continuing devastation as a result of Israeli warfare supplied by arms companies will be far more than an ‘adjustment’ - does the University really wish to be complicit in this?