A No voter framed the anxiety in terms of allegiance, arguing that some communities “feel little allegiance to the traditional god and country values” at the military’s core. That argument, the floor rated highest, carried the vote: the outcome was a clear rejection of the idea that weakened national unity can be worked around.
The winning side’s case was not one argument but several. Some warned that people “taught to hate everything about our country” would be less willing to fight for it; others blamed “governments [that] have cut funding” and called for the armed forces to be rebuilt rather than sustained as a diminished power.
Yes voters answered that the forces’ problems were material, not ideological. Its most-respected case pointed to “professional capability, decent pay, and advanced technology”, while another insisted that “Soldiers leave because their wife gets fed up with the housing”; the two sides were often arguing about different causes of the same crisis.
The wider argument here was about whether military readiness is chiefly a problem of belonging, resources or relevance. One No voice cut through the institutional language with “Warfare has changed. Drones and missiles seem to be used instead of armed combat”, while other contributions ranged from opposition to nuclear weapons to fears about internal division and a lack of readiness.
On this self-selected platform, No found a more resonant story than the practical case for fixing conditions: not a single theory of defence, but a shared sense that the country’s ability to defend itself has become harder to assume.
15 Opinions
It's clear there is a sizeable section of the population that would not side with the UK and who, as an example, would reject the draft if it was necessary in the event of a war. Depending on who the war was against, we may even find many enemies amongst us and be fighting battles on the home front. That's before taking into account the decimation of our forces and lack of readiness. The Naval fleet is in a poor shape.
People have seen how Hermer and Starmer are targeting service personnel. We should increase our Gurkhas to 3 or 4 Battalions to increase our forces
Warfare has changed. Drones and missiles seem to be used instead of armed combat. Tanks costing 3 million are now destroyed by drones that cost a couple of thousand.
Our services are on their backside and with the hangover of DEI, etc recruitment hasn't been taken up . RAF BANNED WHITE MEN! Disgusting, inverted racism pushed as fairness
There are now more illegal fighting age me than men in the army . Let that sink in ! We are cooked!
Soldiers fight for their fellow soldiers, and their family, wherever they are from. Soldiers join up because the work suits their character, wherever they're from. Soldiers leave because their wife gets fed up with the housing, wherever they're from..
Modern warfare has changed dramatically- Ukraine’s brilliant adoption of tech, drones etc. Iran v tired big old bully. Attitude to war has changed. Public more cynical and aware from social media. Politicians and wealthy benefit (staying far away in safety) - whilst throwing other peoples children in to battle. Money should be diverted to improving social care, education, health…
The SNP are a fifth column aided spiritually by Putin for his own cause.
NO Not so much due to national unity, but simply because governments have cut funding & reduced our armed forces capability Britian needs to give it's collective heads a wobble & wake up to the fact that we're not a world power anymore & think again! My suggestion is get rid of the hellishly expensive 'nukes' as we'll never use them. Then use the money to rebuild our failing forces into a modern effective homeland defence force like many other European countries have done
When more and more people are taught to hate everything about our country, no wonder more people will be less willing to fight for it.