Divestment referendum: The campaigns weigh in

The ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ Campaigns detail their arguments, and why you should vote for them in the upcoming divestment referendum.

Voting in the SRC referendum is due to open at 9am tomorrow via the the SRC app and website, closing at 5pm on Thursday, with results announced the following hour.

Yes for Divestment: Why the University of Glasgow must cut ties with the arms trade

by Maryam Shabbir and Isaac Beckley

The University of Glasgow prides itself on ethics, social responsibility, and sustainability. Yet, despite this self-professed commitment, it continues to invest in companies profiting from violent warfare. As students, we have a duty to hold our institution accountable and ensure its financial decisions align with its ethical stance. That is why we urge our peers to vote “YES” for divestment from companies that derive more than 10% of their revenue from the arms and defence industry.

The Ethical Imperative

The arms trade fuels global instability, displaces communities, exacerbates humanitarian crises, and perpetuates cycles of violence, disproportionately affecting Global South countries such as Palestine, Yemen, and Sudan. By investing in arms companies, the University of Glasgow directly facilitates conflicts that violate fundamental human rights and stands in opposition to the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. 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. Investments should promote peace, justice, and human dignity; not violence and profit.

Response to the No Campaign

The No Campaign emphasises the importance of supporting Ukraine as a reason not to divest. Our campaign takes an unapologetically firm stance in its support for Ukraine against the Russian war of aggression, and pro-divestment activism does not undermine that. The UK defence sector will not collapse based on the University’s divestment. As emphasised by the No Campaign, “There is no substantiated evidence indicating any financial repercussions for the arms sector as a result of such divestments.” Framing the argument in this manner, divestment would have no impact on the capability of arms companies to continue supplying the Ukrainian Government. 

In addition, our campaign believes that the University does not possess enough shares in arms companies such as BAE Systems to significantly influence policy, thus weakening the No Campaign’s argument for shareholder activism.

Financial Feasibility of Divestment

Similar concerns have been raised regarding divestment, and the financial destabilisation the University and its research partnerships could face. However, the University of Glasgow’s own financial reports suggest otherwise. As of July 2024, the University's Endowment Fund stood at £247 million, with estimates suggesting only £6.8 million (2.75%) invested in arms-based companies. This is a small fraction of the total portfolio, and viable alternative investments exist within and outside the University’s existing investments. 

From a financial perspective, divestment reduces risks associated with the volatile arms industry. Many arms manufacturers rely on government contracts, which are unpredictable and subject to policy changes, economic downturns, and international sanctions. Reinvesting in ethical sectors such as renewable energy, healthcare, and sustainable technology would not only align with the University’s values but also ensure more stable, long-term returns.

The University’s Moral Obligation

Perhaps the most despicable aspect of the University’s arms investments is its direct link to conflicts causing immense human suffering. The University holds significant assets in companies like BAE Systems, which supplies lethal F-35 bombers to Israel, aircrafts that have been used in devastating attacks on Gaza. BAE also profits from the Saudi-led war in Yemen, which has fuelled one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises. Similarly, Leonardo S.p.A has provided naval weapons to Israel, contributing to continued violence in Gaza.

This University cannot credibly teach ethics, international relations, or human rights while simultaneously funding companies that contribute to such catastrophes. Ethical partnerships can be cultivated, but the reconstruction of war-torn communities like Gaza will take far more than an adjustment. The University must ask itself; does it truly wish to continue to be complicit in these atrocities?

No for Divestment: Why the University must keep investments in the arms trade

Parth Naik 

As part of the No Campaign, we are often labelled as “pro-genocide” among other Ad Hominem statements, which are just buzz terms in an attempt to sway votes based on emotions and temporary grievances instead of principle and logical reasoning. We would like to showcase the reality of divesting, one that is based on facts.

Financial Feasibility of Divestment

The Yes Campaign claims that the University “invested” £6.8 million into arms based companies. This is not true. In 2023, £2.5 million was actually the total valuation of the shares that the University owned of companies in the arms industry. However, this is not the same as investing, and we can prove using a simple example. For example, if our campaign buys one share for £10 today, and next month the value of one share rises to £100, the equivalent claim by the Yes Campaign would be that our campaign invested £100. This is a fundamental error that has been carried forward mistaking initial investment and valuation being the same thing; a very basic economic concept. 

Furthermore, the University has heard from its students and disinvested from arms companies, lowering the sum to £1.2 million in 2024. Moreover, a common misconception is that student’s tuition fees are funding arms companies. This again, is not true and involves something called the endowment fund. The endowment reserve of the University consists of financial donations by individuals or companies which are to be invested. It does not contain any funds from student’s tuition, meaning that no student money goes to arms companies.

The potential outcome of divestment should be discussed by comparison to recent activity in the stock markets. A divestment of £2.5 million is a weekly occurrence in the stock markets of BAE Systems, and a divestment of £2,424,513.69 (which is almost seven times larger than the University’s shares in BAE) occurred on 12 of March. As a result, the value of BAE has went up by 0.3% the next day, which is insignificant considering that random daily value fluctuations have a standard deviation of 2%. It should also be considered, that performing a £1.2 million transaction incurs banking fees that are in the other 0.01-0.05% for most companies, therefore divestment would cost the university about £50,000. In summary, if the University were to divest from defence companies completely it would lose around £50,000 in fees, and the defence companies would not even notice as similar transactions happen every day.

The University’s Moral Obligation

However, it fundamentally revolves around a principle. The national terrorism threat level in the United Kingdom is currently classified as level 3: Substantial - indicating an attack is probable. Furthermore, given the United States' reluctance to support Europe during times of conflict and crisis, it is now more crucial than ever for the European defense sector to receive backing from European nations and educational institutions to achieve self-sufficiency. 

The Ethical Imperative

This debate can be illustrated through a straightforward analogy. On commercial flights, the safety briefings provided by cabin crew indicate that in case of an emergency, oxygen masks will deploy. They explicitly instruct passengers to secure their own masks before assisting others. This is due to the necessity of being in a condition to aid those around you. If you focus solely on aiding others, you may find yourself unable to assist yourself.

Even though divestment would achieve nothing more than hurting the finances of the University, some students campaign for it as a form of virtue signalling. Whether or not it is ethical to invest in companies that keep NATO countries safe is up for debate. We believe that this discussion should be had without reducing funding for student services. Therefore we consider “NO” to be the referendum vote that hurts students the least.

Published 25 March 2025