Trident

– in the Scottish Parliament at on 20 March 2013.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Tricia Marwick Tricia Marwick None

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-05988, in the name of Keith Brown, on Trident.

Photo of Keith Brown Keith Brown Scottish National Party

In December 1962, the Polaris sales agreement between the United States and United Kingdom Governments was announced. As a result of that agreement, which was forged in the cold war and amended in 1982 for Trident, nuclear weapons have been based on the Clyde for 45 years. The Scottish Government has called this debate because before us is an opportunity to break away from that cold war mentality and to bring new momentum to the cause of nuclear disarmament. In my view, it is the responsibility of every member in the chamber to play a positive role in supporting that aim.

Photo of Keith Brown Keith Brown Scottish National Party

If the member will let me get started, I am sure that I will take his intervention later.

Some will say that we should not be holding this debate and that such matters are for Westminster. I find that argument extremely odd, given the fact that Scotland hosts all the UK’s nuclear weapons. Scotland is uniquely placed to debate the issue; although, as a country, we are consistent in our opposition to nuclear weapons and although the values of peace and social justice are part of our national identity, the UK’s entire nuclear fleet is, as I have said, armed in and operates from Scottish waters. I therefore make no apology for saying that although powers over this might currently sit elsewhere, we can ensure that Scotland’s democratic voice on the most vital of issues is heard.

I will seek to set out the Government’s case for withdrawing Trident and try to make clear our commitment to nuclear disarmament and to our vision of a Scotland free of the presence and threat of nuclear weapons.

Photo of Willie Rennie Willie Rennie Liberal Democrat

I respect the position of the minister and the Government on unilateral nuclear disarmament. However, is he able to tell me whether, if Scotland goes independent, there will be fewer nuclear weapons in the UK and the world?

Photo of Keith Brown Keith Brown Scottish National Party

For the benefit of Mr Rennie’s education, I point out that the Scottish National Party’s whole raison d’être is self-determination. It is for individual countries to take their own view on nuclear weapons but we believe that we can set a lead by eliminating such weapons from our country. That is our role.

We will get the chance later to hear from Bill Kidd, who I believe was the only UK parliamentarian to attend earlier this month a major international conference in Oslo on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. He and others will wish to make their own points, but I feel that in debating these issues we must never lose sight of the truly devastating consequences of the use of nuclear weapons. We must be absolutely clear that these are weapons of mass destruction; they are indiscriminate and kill and destroy without grace or favour; and they devastate not just all military targets in their path but all civilians including children, all schools and hospitals, and all livestock and crops.

On this point, at least, I agree with the former UK Secretary of State for Defence Des Browne who, writing in The Telegraph on 5 February, said that

“large-scale use of nuclear weapons ... would be suicidal” and that

“even a small-scale nuclear exchange ... would affect at least a billion people and usher in colder temperatures than at any time in the past millennium.”

I also highlight the February 2013 report from the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament entitled “If Britain fired Trident—The humanitarian consequences of a nuclear attack by a Trident submarine on Moscow”, which sets out in horrifying detail the devastating humanitarian consequences of a nuclear attack on a large urban area—precisely the type of attack that Trident is designed to deliver. I note in passing that the Conservative amendment seeks to delete any reference in the motion to the devastating impact of nuclear weapons. It is clear that a nuclear attack would have catastrophic humanitarian consequences.

There is also an economic case to make in this argument. I have talked about the human cost of nuclear weapons, which is clearly far and away the most important factor, but there is also an unacceptable financial cost. The UK Government keeps the accounting on Trident confidential, but estimates suggest that running costs amount to around £2 billion per annum, with Scotland’s share estimated at around £163 million per annum or almost £500,000 each and every day. Furthermore, the UK Government’s plan to replace the current Trident fleet is projected to cost around £20 billion to build, with costs running to more than £100 billion over its lifetime. Although it is not due to decide on the plan until 2016, the Ministry of Defence estimates that it will spend around £3 billion for and in advance of that decision. Frankly, it is staggering that the UK Government is preparing to spend massive sums on nuclear weapons while at the same time cutting conventional defence forces and slashing social welfare budgets.

That is not just the view of the Scottish Government. On 22 January this year, Professor Malcolm Chalmers of the Royal United Services Institute said:

“sharp increases in spending on Trident renewal in the early 2020s seem set to mean further years of austerity for conventional equipment plans.”

Photo of Ruth Davidson Ruth Davidson Conservative

Does the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth speak for the Scottish Government? He suggests in his Swinneyleaks document:

“I have made clear to the Defence Workstream that a much lower budget must be assumed.”

He is planning to cut defence spending in an independent Scotland.

Photo of Keith Brown Keith Brown Scottish National Party

The point that the finance secretary has made is that around £2 billion is currently spent on defence in Scotland and we pay around £3.3 billion, so we could much more effectively finance conventional defence.

Former UK military leaders agree. Field Marshal Lord Bramall, General Lord Ramsbotham, General Sir Hugh Beach and Major-General Patrick Cordingley, writing in The Times in April last year, said:

“It may well be that money spent on new nuclear weapons will be money that is not available to support our frontline troops, or for crucial counterterrorism work; money not available for buying helicopters, armoured vehicles, frigates or even for paying for more manpower.”

We have seen that in spades with the recent basing review announced by the coalition Government. Even more clearly, in March 2012 the liberal think tank Centreforum said:

“Replacing Trident is nonsensical. There is no current or medium-term threat to the UK which justifies the huge costs involved.”

It is clear that the continuation of Trident comes at the cost of conventional defence jobs and cuts elsewhere.

Of course, there are those who will still say that the benefits of nuclear weapons to our national security are a price worth paying. I do not accept that argument and I never have. The presence of nuclear weapons has not prevented conflicts between nuclear and non-nuclear states. Indeed, recent developments in North Korea suggest that the risk of further countries developing nuclear weapons and potentially using them remains very much alive.

Also, at no point have I seen—nor would I expect to see—a conceivable scenario in which the UK would use its nuclear weapons. I would be interested to hear whether, during the debate, any of the Opposition parties can come up with a scenario in which we would use nuclear weapons.

Photo of Annabel Goldie Annabel Goldie Conservative

Having listened to the minister’s impassioned delivery, I ask him to explain whether he understands what is meant by a deterrent. It is difficult to prove a negative, but does he concede any merit in the concept of deterrence?

Photo of Keith Brown Keith Brown Scottish National Party

I understand that Annabel Goldie will not take my word for it that nuclear weapons provide no deterrent whatever, but I have just quoted a number of senior military people and I will quote some other figures—on her side in fact. Michael Portillo, a Conservative ex-Secretary of State for Defence, is a good example. He believes that nuclear weapons serve no purpose whatever. Perhaps the member will take their word for it that the weapons serve no strategic purpose whatever, least of all deterrence.

Photo of Bruce Crawford Bruce Crawford Scottish National Party

What deterrent were nuclear weapons to General Galtieri when he decided to invade the Falkland Islands?

Photo of Keith Brown Keith Brown Scottish National Party

None whatever.

General Sir Mike Jackson has recently said that there is no possibility that the UK would be able to retake the Falkland Islands. It no longer has the conventional power to do that, not least because of the money that it spends on nuclear weapons instead.

The argument that Trident secures a seat at the top table does not convince either. Economic strength and the capacity to provide aid and conventional support for international peacekeeping and humanitarian operations are far more powerful and positive levers.

Scotland has consistently opposed nuclear weapons. A majority of public opinion, our churches, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and wider civic society oppose Trident. Of particular importance to the Scottish Government is therefore the basing of Trident at Her Majesty’s naval base Clyde. Our opposition there is twofold. First, we are opposed to the possession of nuclear weapons wherever they are held. Secondly, but just as important, we object to nuclear weapons being based here against the will of the majority of the Scottish people.

We also object strenuously to the UK Government’s Trident replacement plans, which, if approved by the UK Government in 2016, will see nuclear weapons based on the Clyde beyond the middle of this century. Going further, we have made clear our intention to advocate that a written constitution for an independent Scotland should include a constitutional ban on nuclear weapons ever being based here in future.

We are also absolutely committed to pursuing the safe and speedy withdrawal of Trident following independence. It is for those reasons that we ask the Parliament, through this debate, to call on the United Kingdom Government to acknowledge Scotland’s opposition to Trident and to develop options for its withdrawal.

Photo of Jenny Marra Jenny Marra Labour

I am no great fan of Trident, but will the minister explain what evidence he has that the majority of the Scottish population is against nuclear weapons?

Photo of Keith Brown Keith Brown Scottish National Party

I could happily spend the rest of the speech giving the member evidence on that, but most recently a poll carried out last week showed that 80 per cent of people in Scotland—both from the yes and the no independence campaigns—are against Trident.

It is the duty of any Government to protect the best interests of its people, and there are those who claim that our commitment to remove Trident from Scotland is simply nimbyism. However, the wellbeing of all people in Scotland is in Scotland's interest, and that is why I believe that the Scottish Government should play a part in supporting disarmament around the globe. How much more moral authority do we have in convincing others to get rid of their weapons if we have done it first?

It is our vision for an independent Scotland to advocate for nuclear disarmament as an equal partner in the international community, and to add our voice and efforts to the growing number of nations calling for action on the reduction of such weapons. It is worth bearing in mind the fact that the UK Government is signed up to the non-proliferation treaty and United Nations charters that call for everyone to work towards disarmament in relation to nuclear weapons.

We also believe—[Interruption.] The Conservatives say, “Yes,” but they have given a cast-iron commitment to continue with Trident. The two things are not compatible.

We also believe that, under the current constitutional arrangements and recognising clear public opinion on the matter, which I have just cited in response to Jenny Marra, the Scottish Parliament has an obligation and an opportunity to make its position clear.

The international community has signalled its commitment to nuclear disarmament through mechanisms such as the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. However, to take the NPT further, we believe that a positive and fitting step would be to place on record our support for the five-point plan on nuclear disarmament of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. That plan calls on all NPT parties, and in particular the nuclear weapon states, to undertake negotiations on effective measures leading to nuclear disarmament. It calls on the permanent members of the UN Security Council to commence discussions on security issues and the nuclear disarmament process, and for all parties to pursue new efforts to bring the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty into force.

Photo of Keith Brown Keith Brown Scottish National Party

I cannot. I have taken a number of interventions and I would like to try and finish in the short time that is left.

Nuclear weapon states should also provide greater transparency and accountability in the pursuit of nuclear disarmament, and all parties are called upon to pursue complementary measures for the elimination of other types of WMDs and new efforts to combat WMD terrorism.

In conclusion, the Scottish Government believes that Trident nuclear weapons are unsustainable morally, economically and strategically; that their replacement and continued basing at Her Majesty's naval base Clyde would be contrary to the clearly held view of the Scottish people; and that the Parliament has a clear and positive role to play in support of global nuclear disarmament.

I have one further point in response to Jenny Marra. The Parliament has voted against Trident; that was the express view of the Parliament in 2007 and subsequently.

The Parliament has a clear and positive role to play in support of these ends. For those reasons, I am happy to support the motion in the Government’s name and I advocate the removal of Trident from our shores on behalf of the people of Scotland.

I move,

That the Parliament acknowledges the devastating humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons; endorses the Secretary-General of the United Nations’s five-point plan for nuclear disarmament; calls on the UK Government to acknowledge the opposition of the Scottish Parliament to nuclear weapons and to the presence of Trident in Scotland, and further calls on the UK Government to explore options for the removal of Trident ahead of the so-called main gate decision in 2016.

Photo of Ruth Davidson Ruth Davidson Conservative

The question is why anyone would rise to advocate the retention or replacement of a nuclear weapons system or platform. The SNP would have you believe that only the immoral, the trigger-happy, the war-crazed, the Dr Strangelove-esque, intent on destruction, would do so, but that is a false depiction, for I support the retention of Trident and my party supports the retention of Trident because we are a party of responsibility.

The first responsibility of any Government is the defence and the security of its people. Further, I believe that it is the responsibility of individual countries to work for security and stability around the globe. Continuous at-sea deterrence has been the ultimate safeguard of the nation since 1968. The UK’s membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization alliance and our commitment and progress as a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty mark us out as a responsible global citizen.

Photo of Alasdair Allan Alasdair Allan Scottish National Party

The member talks about global responsibility. Does she feel that the 180 or so countries in the world that do not posses nuclear weapons are acting irresponsibly?

Photo of Ruth Davidson Ruth Davidson Conservative

I think that the UK is the only recognised nuclear power under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty that has a single platform for weapons and a single set of warheads, and which has managed to reduce its number of warheads in the past 13 years. The fact that it has set out clear principles not to threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries shows that it is a country of responsibility. Now, we must look at non-nuclear countries that are becoming nuclear threats. There are a number of countries that were not nuclear powers when the nuclear non-proliferation treaty was started but which have gone on to become nuclear powers—they are countries of irresponsibility.

Photo of Ruth Davidson Ruth Davidson Conservative

No, thank you; I was dealing with the member’s colleague.

In the assertions and emotion that have come from the SNP on the issue of nuclear weapons down the years there has been a distinct lack of facts, so I would like to introduce some. Why do we have nuclear weapons in this country? In what circumstances could they be deployed? What work is going on to reduce nuclear capability in the UK and across the wider world?

SNP members are correct that in terms of pure destructive power, nuclear weapons pose a uniquely terrible threat. It is precisely because of that threat that they have a capability to deter acts of aggression that is on a different scale to any other form of deterrence.

A number of enduring principles underpin the UK's approach to nuclear deterrence. The first is the focus on preventing nuclear attack. The UK’s nuclear weapons are designed not for military use during conflict, but instead to deter and prevent nuclear blackmail and acts of aggression against our vital interests that cannot be countered by other means. The notice to fire the Trident D5 missiles has been increased to several days since the cold war ended, and the missiles are not targeted at any country.

Secondly, the UK will retain only the minimum amount of destructive power required to achieve its deterrence objectives. Since 1997, the UK Government has reduced the upper limit on operationally available nuclear warheads by nearly half. That reduction is continuing, with a commitment to reduce the number still further into the mid-2020s.

Photo of Ruth Davidson Ruth Davidson Conservative

Not at this time.

The third key principle is that the UK’s nuclear deterrent supports collective security through NATO for the Euro-Atlantic area. Nuclear deterrence plays an important part in NATO’s overall defensive strategy, and the UK’s nuclear forces make a substantial contribution to that.

Our nuclear defences are designed to keep our country and the countries that we are allied to safer in an unstable world. I cannot predict the future threats to our nation over the next 50 years, and neither can SNP members. Members on all sides of this chamber would wish to see a nuclear weapon-free world and I believe that all parties are committed to multilateral disarmament. The SNP has not explained how unilateral disarmament—or, indeed, just kicking Trident down the road to England—would help to achieve that aim. There is no evidence that others would follow the UK down a unilateralist route. There would need to be compelling evidence that a nuclear threat to the UK’s vital interests would not re-emerge in future before we could responsibly contemplate such a move. We cannot mortgage our long-term national security against such assumptions.

The UK takes its international responsibilities seriously. As well as reducing the upper limit of operationally available nuclear warheads, Britain is the only nuclear weapon state recognised under the NPT to have a single platform, single delivery system and single warheads. Britain has significantly reduced not just the scale but also the readiness of its nuclear system. HM Government’s transparency regarding its arsenal and its declaratory policy regarding its use are designed to foster trust among states and to help encourage other states to reduce nuclear weapons as we have done.

Photo of Ruth Davidson Ruth Davidson Conservative

I will give way in a second.

The SNP’s approach to this most serious of subjects, however, is muddled, confused, cynical and posturing. After decades of opposition, the SNP says it wants an independent Scotland to shelter under the security umbrella of a nuclear NATO alliance, while disrupting the very capability of that umbrella.

For me, Sandra White explained the contradiction best when she said:

“It’s not enough to say that you believe in independence and then say that you want to belong to Nato. As far as I’m concerned, it’s hypocritical to say we shouldn’t have nuclear weapons and we want to belong to Nato—how dare we”.

Photo of Keith Brown Keith Brown Scottish National Party

Does the member not believe that the real hypocrisy lies in saying that we are responsible enough to have nuclear weapons and other countries are not? Will she also acknowledge the fact that we have not said that we want to shelter under anybody’s nuclear umbrella? We want the world to be rid of nuclear weapons—that is an entirely consistent position.

Photo of Ruth Davidson Ruth Davidson Conservative

We want to be rid of nuclear weapons too, and that is why we are using the leverage that we have by reducing our own stockpile to work with other countries around the world to do that. The SNP has given us no evidence that unilateral disarmament or kicking Trident down the road will achieve that.

As yesterday’s debate was a cynical attempt to use a 10-year-old conflict for naked politicking on a referendum for independence, so is today’s. The SNP appears to want it both ways—anti-nuclear today but in a pro-nuclear alliance tomorrow. Why is the SNP’s defence spokesman now championing NATO? Is it because of a commitment to the UK’s allies or because he believes in international co-operation to keep Europe safe? No, it is to win the referendum. At the SNP conference in October, Angus Robertson said:

“Do not disregard the evidence; when asked, 75% of respondents said they would wish an Independent Scotland to remain ... you can boo, but do not disregard the evidence. ... Walking away from our neighbours and allies will not help us win a referendum in 2014.”

The rest of us support NATO because we believe in standing shoulder to shoulder with our allies to secure the safety and security of the modern world; the SNP supports NATO to huckle votes to break up Britain.

Photo of Ruth Davidson Ruth Davidson Conservative

No thank you, not at this time.

The other argument that we hear is the money argument, which is that Trident is expensive and the money could be better spent elsewhere. We can quibble about the sums, but the yes Scotland campaign put a notice on its website last week saying that Scotland’s share of Trident is £163 million a year—a figure repeated by the minister. Trident supports more than 6,500 jobs in Faslane, which makes it the biggest single-site employer in the whole of Scotland. In the coming years, that is due to rise to more than 8,000 jobs, as the rest of the submarine fleet relocates to HMNB Clyde.

For the nationalists, that £163 million a year, which supports high-quality jobs for people across the west of Scotland, could be spent better elsewhere—many times over. At conference, the First Minister suggested that the money could be put to other defence spending. In the same week, he suggested to the BBC that the money could be spent on youth unemployment and colleges. Nicola Sturgeon has suggested that it could be used for tackling child poverty. That is a change from October, when she suggested that it could be spent on welfare. The day before, she had a shopping list of nurses, teachers, schools and hospitals.

Photo of Ruth Davidson Ruth Davidson Conservative

No, I want to make progress.

Angus Robertson has promoted using that same money for conflict resolution and, then, for front-line services. In June, it was to be used for infrastructure projects; in July, it was for other defence spending. By 6 March this year, he had allocated the money to tackling inequality. His Westminster colleague, Stewart Hosie, has suggested that the same £163 million should go to shovel-ready projects.

In this Parliament, the money has been earmarked by Christine Grahame and Joan McAlpine for job creation, by Alex Neil for health and education, by Christina McKelvie for nurses and teachers, by Bill Kidd for welfare, by George Adam for school building and by Kenny Gibson for further defence spending.

However, all of that is at odds with the man in charge of the money. In John Swinney’s secret document, the finance secretary says that defence spending will be cut. He says:

“I have made clear to the Defence Workstream that a much lower budget must be assumed.”

Photo of Ruth Davidson Ruth Davidson Conservative

No thank you, First Minister.

However, that £163 million will not go far, because Swinneyleaks also states—

The Presiding Officer:

First Minister, the member is not giving way.

Photo of Ruth Davidson Ruth Davidson Conservative

The £163 million will not go far, as Swinneyleaks also states that it will cost nearly four times that amount to run a Scottish tax system every year. That is a rise of more than £300 million per annum on Scotland’s contribution to HM Revenue and Customs.

The debate on today’s motion, like that of yesterday, is not about having a considered discussion on Scotland’s future defence needs; it is a naked, cynical attempt to hijack the parliamentary timetable and rabble-rouse ahead of the referendum. We have seen, from the flip-flopping over NATO, that the nationalist’s position is to harbour under a nuclear umbrella while grand-standing over attempts to dismantle that nuclear capability. We have seen, from their multiple-entry bookkeeping on the cost of Trident, that they see nuclear’s defence contribution as a cash cow that they can milk in every debate. We can see, from their disregard for a considered approach to multilateral disarmament, their ignorance of the measured steps that the UK Government has taken—

The Presiding Officer:

The member needs to wind up.

Photo of Ruth Davidson Ruth Davidson Conservative

And we have heard from the mouth of Angus Robertson that their position on Trident and NATO is nothing more than a vote grabber for the referendum.

The first responsibility of Government is the security of the nation. Continuous at-sea deterrence is a cornerstone of that security.

I move amendment S4M-05988.2, to leave out from “devastating” to end and insert:

“fundamental responsibility of any government to provide for the security of its citizens now and in the future and to cooperate in securing international peace and stability; recognises the uncertainty of global military threats and, therefore, the requirement to maintain an effective defence capability in the UK, including a nuclear deterrent; understands that significant foreign nuclear arsenals remain and that some are being enlarged and modernised; supports the UK Government’s commitment to progress on multilateral nuclear disarmament; notes the importance of building on the non-proliferation treaty; believes that the unilateral removal of Trident would be irresponsible and negligent, and supports the UK Government’s efforts to maintain stability and security for its citizens and internationally through the maintenance and renewal of Trident.”

Photo of Jean Urquhart Jean Urquhart Independent

I am sure that it has not escaped the notice of those members in the chamber that I am the only member of the independent and Green group to speak in the debate. It is unfortunate that business has been scheduled during the PCS strike, and that it has kept my fellow group members away from the debate. Members of all parties had to cross picket lines today but the topic of Trident is so central to my support for independence that I decided to come in to speak to my amendment.

At the outset, I make it clear that I support every element of the Government’s motion and applaud its decision to bring the subject to the chamber for debate. Our amendment is designed to add strength to the motion and not to replace, denigrate or contradict it. I also express my sadness, but not my surprise, at the better together campaign issuing a briefing in advance of today’s debate on what they think is the positive case for Trident and attempting to score points against the Government over the issues raised in my amendment. I thought that, at least on the issue of squandering billions of pounds on unnecessary, unworkable and immoral weapons of indiscriminate slaughter, there would be some sort of consensus and serious debate, regardless of constitutional preference. However, it seems that the better together campaign is now a cold house for anti-Trident campaigners. It has alienated churches, unions, peace groups, and the majority of the people in Scotland.

It will not come as news to many in the chamber that the issue of an independent Scotland’s NATO membership led me to become an independent member. I cannot support Scotland’s membership of a nuclear alliance, particularly when it pressurises its members to spend a minimum of 2 per cent of their gross domestic product on defence, regardless of the geopolitical circumstances of the time. Not surprisingly, NATO expects a contribution to its military common fund from each member state. In 2011-12, that amounted to £106.7 million from the United Kingdom. That means that, even if we could secure an opt-out from any collective military efforts, we would still be contributing financially to drone attacks on civilians and other aggressive military action.

I doubt that those who rail against NATO actions in Afghanistan will make allowances for Scotland because we were not the country that pushed the button. The UK should have been outraged when two innocent young Afghanis were killed recently by NATO troops because they thought that they were terrorists. There was hardly a whisper from the UK Government.

Nuclear weapons are a stain on humanity, whether they are in Scottish waters, American bases or Russian silos. The argument of those who wish to keep Trident essentially boils down to, “After you, I insist,”; in the Labour Party’s case, if it is cheap enough, it does not seem to mind. However, a Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament report entitled “Nowhere to Go” highlights the fact that there are no viable alternative bases for Trident in the UK. If we get rid of Trident from Scottish waters, it is gone for good. My concern is that the disarmament of the UK would not be in NATO’s interests and that barriers will be erected against such a step.

Although Canada and Greece have removed nuclear weapons from their soil as members of NATO, I believe that those weapons had reached their sell-by date and those countries had the strategic cover of close neighbours who host nuclear weapons. The imposition of nuclear missiles on German, Belgian and Dutch soil, against the wishes of their Parliaments and citizens, should be a warning to us all about the co-operative nature of NATO.

Norway’s experience with NATO should also be a lesson. Although Norway has successfully resisted the imposition of nuclear weapons on Norwegian soil, it has not succeeded in changing NATO’s nuclear policy, which was reaffirmed last year at its Chicago conference. Every member of NATO is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, but no significant efforts have been made to reduce the number of weapons that the alliance holds and shares. The treaty has therefore failed.

Photo of Bob Doris Bob Doris Scottish National Party

I have a lot of sympathy with much of Jean Urquhart’s amendment but will she also acknowledge that the Scottish Government has made it clear that if it comes to a choice between NATO and a nuclear-free Scotland, a nuclear-free Scotland will win every time?

Photo of Jean Urquhart Jean Urquhart Independent

I accept the member’s statement—of course I do. However, there is a positive alternative to NATO membership that allows Scotland to act as a responsible global citizen. There are many examples of other nations that operate outside NATO and yet are more than adequately prepared to defend themselves. Those countries are not pariahs on the world stage and are not subject to threats from abroad. Given the recent St Patrick’s day celebrations in America, one would have to be very brave to claim that Ireland’s non-membership of NATO has somehow resulted in its isolation or affected its ties with the world’s remaining superpower. Ireland, along with a number of other non-NATO countries such as Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria and much of central and eastern Europe, is a member of partnership for peace, which promotes bilateral co-operation between NATO and the partnership for peace countries on a case-by-case basis.

The Presiding Officer:

The member needs to start winding up.

Photo of Jean Urquhart Jean Urquhart Independent

Although some of those countries plan to accede to NATO, others view partnership for peace as an opportunity to co-operate internationally without compromise and without signing up to a military alliance that is predicated on a nuclear first-strike policy.

The Presiding Officer:

You must bring your remarks to a close, Ms Urquhart.

Photo of Jean Urquhart Jean Urquhart Independent

As the SNP campaign for nuclear disarmament briefing in advance of the NATO debate stated, an independent Scotland

“should not sneak timidly onto the world stage, afraid of our own shadow.”

Getting rid of Trident would herald the beginning of real nuclear disarmament, as would a distinctly different Scottish defence policy.

I move amendment S4M-05988.1, to leave out from “and further” to end and insert:

“; considers membership of NATO to be a barrier to the removal of Trident, whether as part of the UK or as an independent Scotland; believes that membership of an alliance predicated on a nuclear first strike policy is as harmful to Scotland’s international reputation, and poses the same threat from external agents, as the presence of a nuclear deterrent in Scottish waters; notes that European countries such as Ireland, Finland and Sweden are not members of NATO and are still considered to be full, cooperative members of the international community; further calls on the UK Government to disarm Trident and not to replace it with any other nuclear weapons system, and commits to ensuring that, in the event of independence, Trident will not be permitted to operate from Scottish waters.”

Photo of Kenneth Macintosh Kenneth Macintosh Labour

It is customary to begin parliamentary debates by saying how pleased one is to be participating. However, I will not repeat that sentiment this afternoon. In fact, it is difficult not to be deeply sceptical about the SNP’s reasons for and motivation behind calling today’s debate. There are some in the SNP, as there are in Labour and other parties, whose politics have been shaped more by the cause of nuclear disarmament than by any other issue. Some might view the renewal of Trident as having such importance that it should at all times have precedence over any other pressing matters. The commitment of members such as John Finnie and Jean Urquhart is such that they were prepared to leave their party over its equivocation on the issue.

The timing of today’s debate, however, seems to owe as much to the difficulties in which the SNP has found itself in recent weeks as it does to the topicality or otherwise of Trident renewal. The revelation that John Swinney and other senior figures in the SNP are aware of the uncertainty that surrounds Scotland’s finances post-independence, the recognition of the unpredictability and volatility of oil prices, and the worries over the risk that independence potentially poses to jobs and pensions are just the latest in a series of setbacks to the independence cause that have put the SNP on the defensive. That appears to be at least part of the reason why we are having an entirely spurious debate on Trident this afternoon.

Photo of Stuart McMillan Stuart McMillan Scottish National Party

Ken Macintosh talks about uncertainty. Can he provide some certainty to the Parliament and tell us who the UK would use nuclear weapons against?

Photo of Kenneth Macintosh Kenneth Macintosh Labour

If a question could sum up the pointlessness of this afternoon’s debate, that one from Mr McMillan would take the biscuit. I point out to Mr McMillan that this is not the only place where Scotland has representatives. I object to the line that, somehow, the members of the SNP sitting here have entire moral authority or the authority of representative democracy on the matter, when that is not the case whatsoever.

Keith Brown rose—

In a minute, minister.

If I was one of the many people who have devoted their lives to campaigning to rid not just this country but the world of nuclear weapons, I would be worried that my cause was being hijacked and used to further the SNP’s political ambitions. I would be concerned that today’s discussion of Trident is simply a proxy for a debate on independence, rather than a debate in its own right.

Few members, if any, do not wish Britain to help rid the world of its nuclear weapons. Most of us will have given serious thought to how Scotland and Britain can set an example and take a lead on the matter, as we are conscious of the need to promote stability and lessen the chances of nuclear weapons being used in any context around the world. The United Kingdom is one of the most important signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which has more signatories than any other weapons treaty and is arguably one of the most successful arms limitation and disarmament agreements in history.

By working with others, the UK has helped to make significant progress in reducing nuclear weapon stocks. Since the end of the cold war, the combined arsenals of the UK, the USA, Russia and France have been cut by 75 per cent. The previous Labour Government reduced the number of warheads in each Trident submarine from 96 to 48 and the number of operationally available warheads from 300 to fewer than 160. At least partly as a result of such actions, my children are not growing up in the shadow of an imminent nuclear strike or facing the cold war threat that would have been familiar to some in previous generations.

Photo of Keith Brown Keith Brown Scottish National Party

Does Ken Macintosh recognise that it is perfectly legitimate to ask whether, if people intend to spend £100 billion on something, they have some idea of the circumstances in which they would use it?

On the question of equivocation and uncertainty, can Ken Macintosh say whether he supports the replacement of the Trident nuclear missiles and whether his party leader, who is absent today, supports the establishment of a new version of Trident?

Photo of Kenneth Macintosh Kenneth Macintosh Labour

The minister has introduced a new line of argument, on the cost of Trident. The interesting thing about that argument is that that is not a question of moral leadership. If we get rid of nuclear weapons because we want to make a statement, that is one thing; if we get rid of them because we cannot afford them or because we choose to spend the money on something else, that is a morally ambiguous statement. [Interruption.]

Photo of John Scott John Scott Conservative

Members should have a little bit of courtesy, please.

Photo of Kenneth Macintosh Kenneth Macintosh Labour

That sums up the ambiguity at the heart of the SNP.

The cold war may be over, but democratic accountability has yet to take root in China. Russia and America still hold large numbers of nuclear weapons, and I need hardly remind members of the developments in North Korea and Iran. Those are serious matters, and it is clear that many in this country hold strong and conflicting views on how we can best address them.

I do not claim to hold a monopoly of wisdom on nuclear disarmament, and I fully recognise that it remains an issue that provokes serious consideration and discussion in the Labour movement, but the purported unanimity of the SNP on such a heated issue, until recently at least, always struck me as slightly implausible at best. I was not surprised to see the fracturing of that brittle façade at the party’s last conference.

I understand the claim, or at least the hope, of many campaigners that disarmament by Britain would give our country additional moral authority but, as the SNP has discovered, abandoning our nuclear deterrent while hiding behind the nuclear umbrella of NATO is an altogether more ambiguous signal. I simply quote the SNP’s former national secretary Duncan Ross, who said that the NATO plan

“undermines our position as a party of principle and integrity. It is fundamentally dishonest that we could join Nato and then get rid of nuclear weapons.”

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

I regret that you must draw to a close.

Photo of Kenneth Macintosh Kenneth Macintosh Labour

This week, Johann Lamont highlighted that there are any number of debates to be heard on issues over which the Parliament has authority, including the implementation of the Leveson findings, and agreed to swap time with the SNP and bring back the issue of Trident at another time, but the SNP did not agree to that. That says everything about the SNP’s motivations today.

Photo of Bill Kidd Bill Kidd Scottish National Party

I wish to note that I am a co-president of parliamentarians for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, which has more than 800 members from more than 80 Parliaments around the world. I am also a member of the global council of abolition 2000 and Scottish CND.

The Norwegian Government invited me to an international conference that was held in Oslo two weeks ago, whose remit was to discuss the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. Some 127 Governments were represented, and there were more than 500 delegates from non-governmental organisations around the world. We heard from the Red Cross about how just one 1-megatonne bomb would create such a level of death, injury and civil damage that no country could possibly cope with it. Even countries that co-operated with one another would have difficulty in bringing any succour to those that had had that unfortunate occurrence happen to them. I said “unfortunate occurrence” but, obviously, an unfortunate occurrence is getting hit by a car when crossing the road or falling seriously ill. Somebody would have had to have dropped that 1-megatonne bomb on the country—they would have taken that choice, and they would have had that choice because they had a nuclear arsenal.

Only those countries with a nuclear arsenal present a danger to the world that this will come about. It is therefore incumbent on the countries that have these weapons to take their humanitarian impact seriously. However, the P5—the permanent five members of the United Nations Security Council, all of which are nuclear weapons states—refused to take up their invitations to speak at the conference alongside the other 127 nations that deigned to speak on such a serious issue.

The pretext of the P5’s refusal of these invitations was that the conference, which was addressed by the International Committee of the Red Cross, scientists, physicians and survivors of nuclear test explosions, was a distraction from the nuclear disarmament in which the P5 are engaged. For all we know, they might be engaged in it for another 50 years—after all, that is the plan for Trident. To my mind, that was just arrogant, patronising tosh.

Of course, such tosh comes from the likes of the Westminster Government, which has committed us all in the UK to £100 billion of present and future expenditure on a weapon that can never be used because it is too dangerous and threatens mass destruction and environmental devastation from which the world might never be able to recover. The P5’s remarks did not go over well with a great majority of the world’s nations that had attended the conference. That said, I note that, although the conference was a one-off, there was a vote for a follow-up conference, to which the P5 will again be invited to explain their position on the humanitarian effects of nuclear weapons.

I have spoken at many international conferences to put forward my view that the wish of most people is for a world without nuclear weapons; I believe that the same is the case in this chamber. However, that is not going to happen simply because we wish it to happen. Someone has got to do something about it. The proposal from members on these benches is that, in an independent Scotland, there be no place for Trident or any other nuclear weapons system. That would leave Westminster having to find another home for its weapons of mass destruction. However, such a place could not be in England or Wales because, as some might be surprised to learn—although they should not be surprised, because this is well-known expert opinion—there is nowhere else for Trident to go on these islands other than where they are at the moment. In some people’s minds, that means Scotland will have to remain the repository of these weapons on behalf of the UK. I do not find that acceptable and will campaign and argue against such a view.

When Trident leaves Scotland, it will be heading for the knacker’s yard. We are not threatening to put it in Merseyside, Devonport or indeed Milford Haven in Wales. I note that the last was another option that was discussed but, once people noticed that there were three petrochemical facilities in the area, they thought that it might be a bit too dangerous to put Trident there and went against the idea.

As for the jobs at Faslane and Coulport, there are, according to the MOD, 564 jobs that are directly linked to Trident, while the conventional naval base accounts for the employment of all other staff. It is the intention of SNP members that the conventional naval base will take up the staff who are employed on Trident.

Moreover, the loss of so many conventional military jobs under the Westminster Government—we remember the disgraceful redundancy notices that were handed out to our front-line troops while on duty in Afghanistan—is another example of how money is being wasted on Trident and is therefore not available to maintain our useful conventional forces.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

You should be drawing to a close, Mr Kidd.

Photo of Bill Kidd Bill Kidd Scottish National Party

Internationally, nuclear weapons-free zones are a growing phenomenon and the way forward for more and more nations and regions in our world. That is how I want our country to go forward. Trident is wrong and I want us to support Ban Ki-moon’s call for a nuclear weapons convention that leads to a nuclear weapons-free world.

Photo of Michael McMahon Michael McMahon Labour

The Austrian philosopher Paul Watzlawick once said:

“The belief that one’s own view of reality is the only reality is the most dangerous of all delusions.”

He died in 2007, so it is possible that he could have made his observation after watching the development of the SNP, but even if he did not, his apposite observation is certainly a valid interpretation of the thinking of the Scottish Government when it comes to its position on nuclear missiles. “Deluded” hardly suffices to describe the SNP’s current defence policy. “Fantasy”, “illusion”, “pipe dream”—you name it, the SNP concocts it.

For example, it appears that NATO rules will not apply to the SNP—oh no. When Angus Robertson rolls his tank on to the lawn of NATO headquarters to tell it to get Trident out of Scotland, the might of the biggest military alliance that the world has ever known will cower in fear as he raises his kilt, “Braveheart” style, to moon NATO into submission.

The SNP has decided—as a matter of principle, mind you; not as part of a cynical attempt to convince a sceptical electorate in the run-up to the referendum—that it is possible for Scotland to be both a member of the NATO nuclear club and to have its own set of rules to play by. Although Germany can oppose nuclear missiles on its soil and still be forced to have them, and smaller NATO countries can object to nuclear missiles crossing through their territory yet can do nothing about it, Scotland should have no fear, because NATO’s might will not stand like a mighty oak in the face of a resolution that was passed at the SNP conference; it will wither as if it were naught but a weed and shrivel under a barrage of assertions from the first battalion of the Brigadoon foot-in-mouth regiment.

As with all the SNP myths, this one is based on the notion that Scotland has some kind of moral superiority over the rest of the UK. What kind of morality is it that suggests that you are better than someone else by sending them something that you do not want for yourself? That is like feeling good about throwing a dog poo over the fence into your neighbour’s garden. There is nothing to feel superior about in doing that; that is just another delusion on the part of the SNP. The SNP thinks that the Scottish people will be more likely to vote for independence if it can convince them that an independent Scotland can get rid of nuclear weapons.

The recent poll that was conducted for Scottish CND—the organisation that is itself becoming more like the campaign for nuclear delusion—clearly indicates that Scots who want to be part of the UK are as much opposed to nuclear weapons as the separatists are.

Photo of Chic Brodie Chic Brodie Scottish National Party

Can the member help me? He talks about independence. Who owns the code on the guidance of Trident missiles once they have been fired—the UK or the USA?

Photo of Michael McMahon Michael McMahon Labour

The member knows. We are not arguing that independence is the issue here; it is SNP members who are arguing that independence will solve the problem. We know that Trident is not an independent nuclear deterrent in the way that—[Interruption.]

Photo of Michael McMahon Michael McMahon Labour

No, I did not. If you look back at what I said, you will find that I did not say that.

Most people know—because Scots are not stupid—that it is not possible to wish difficult situations away just on a political whim. International relations are not as simple as the SNP spin machine would have us delude ourselves, and the general populace knows that.

Jean Urquhart, the Greens and the other independent MSPs are absolutely right when they state that membership of NATO—whether as part of the UK or as an independent Scotland—is a barrier to the removal of Trident. A country that is in NATO must accept that it is part of an alliance that is centred on a nuclear first-strike policy. Therefore, if we are to get rid of nuclear missiles in Scotland and be part of NATO, we must get the UK to play its part in making NATO a nuclear-free alliance. Making Scotland independent will not remove the UK’s or NATO’s nuclear arsenal.

Like me, many people will recognise that it is the UK that holds Trident and that only the UK can get rid of it. If Scotland stays part of the UK, it can play a part in any decision to remove Trident or to prevent its replacement. If Scotland leaves the UK, it will become like Ireland—a near neighbour that can do nothing to influence what happens with Trident.

I have no doubt that a truly independent Scotland could, like Ireland, be free of nuclear missiles on its territory, but a Scotland that is in NATO will not be able to pick and choose like a neutral country.

Photo of Keith Brown Keith Brown Scottish National Party

Does the member accept that only three members of NATO have nuclear weapons and that all the rest of them do not? It is perfectly possible to be a member of NATO and not have nuclear weapons. The vast majority of members of NATO are in that position.

Photo of Michael McMahon Michael McMahon Labour

The minister must accept that it is not possible to say that Scotland would not have nuclear weapons on its soil—the situation would be the same as it is for Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands. It is not possible to be part of NATO but not to play by the rules of NATO.

The Scottish Government will win the vote at 5 pm and will satisfy and reassure itself. However, deep down, SNP members have to know that the Scottish Government is deluding itself with its position on Trident. The split that emerged at the SNP conference showed that ordinary party members understand what the Government is trying to do. No doubt those same SNP MSPs who opposed the change in policy but who stayed in the party will be back in line tonight and will once again be fully signed-up members of the Stepford gang.

Come 5 pm, as Dr Carl Sagan said,

“It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”

SNP members can keep fooling themselves if they like, but the Scottish people will not be fooled by their posturing next autumn.

Photo of Christina McKelvie Christina McKelvie Scottish National Party

At present, there are more than 200 nuclear bombs in Scotland. Most of them are on Trident submarines operating from Faslane, 25 miles from the centre of Glasgow. That is almost enough bombs to wipe out humanity. In 2007, the UK Government said that building a replacement for Trident would cost £20 billion and that the running costs would be £1.5 billion a year for 30 years. That gives a minimum of £65 billion. What else could we spend that £65 billion on?

Trident is economically inept, morally repugnant and spiritually bereft. The presence of these weapons in Scotland’s waters is an insult to the people of Scotland. It is an insult to all of us who believe that peace is preserved by diplomacy before war and by compassion before coercion. It is an insult to all of us who believe in spending public money more wisely.

I am not a pacifist, but I recognise the impotence, vanity and sheer waste in a weapon such as Trident. It cannot be a defensive weapon, and we are promised that it will never be used in aggression, so what exactly is its purpose? I would rather be a citizen of a nation that looks to persuade and co-operate rather than bully and cajole, and I would rather be that citizen safe in the knowledge that my country and my world were free of weapons of mass destruction.

I was saddened when Labour turned its back on disarmament and fell in love with the bomb. I was saddened when a Labour Government in London decided to renew Trident at a time when Paul Sinclair and Iain Gray were special advisers to that Blair Government. That was bad enough, but we discovered on Monday that Labour wants to do it on the cheap. Not only would it send these monstrous weapons on patrol around the world; Labour wants sailors to go to sea in substandard equipment carrying the world’s most dangerous cargo. We know enough about Labour’s record of sending people into harm’s way with substandard equipment from its days of waging war in Iraq. It could be even worse if the submarines are unsuitable.

The Ministry of Defence told us in January that Trident is too dangerous to be stored in England—so that is why it is in Scotland. The final decision has been delayed by the Westminster Government until after the independence referendum. That means that Scotland might save the UK from itself, by voting yes and removing the option. However, there is no way of telling what people who want to keep these horrific packages of death would do—they might want to foist them on an English city, which is just as abhorrent for me.

Photo of Christina McKelvie Christina McKelvie Scottish National Party

I have heard enough from better together today.

The sheer inhumanity of spending billions of pounds on buying and running these things while forcing people out of their houses by cutting their benefits is breathtaking. I cannot believe that a single member of the Parliament would sanction that, and I hope that I am proved right.

I make a plea to members. If they are spared long enough to die in their old age, what do they want to tell their children and grandchildren their legacy is? What do they want their political legacy to be? Will they be content to say that they supported another generation of immoral monsters lurking on our west coast? Will they be happy to have spent yet more public money on unusable, unthinkable and outdated carriers of multiple death? Will they be able to look back with a clear conscience and say that, at a time of restricted public spending, they were content to spend that money on weapons rather than welfare, on death machines rather than health machines and on poison rather than people? Can they look their future selves in the eye and say, “Yes, those are my priorities.” I am proud to say that I will put people first, I will put health first and I will put welfare first.

Labour seems to have developed an obsession with squirrels lately.

Photo of Christina McKelvie Christina McKelvie Scottish National Party

Look—there’s a squirrel!

However, that obsession is better than its obsession with war and weapons of mass destruction. I would rather focus on removing these weapons from Scottish waters.

Labour abstained on the vote on the debate on the Iraq war yesterday and supported the Tories in taking more money from benefit claimants in London. Need I mention workfare? I only hope that a tiny remnant of principle remains and that we will see an echo of the memory of the once-proud Labour principle of nuclear disarmament. Labour’s principles are threadbare now. Labour members are barely distinguishable from their Tory colleagues in the better together campaign.

Defence may be a reserved issue under the strict legal terms of the Scotland Act 1998, but morality, decency and common sense are not. We have a moral duty to oppose that which we see as a waste of national resources. We also have a duty, which was engaged in our name in 1960, to seek complete nuclear disarmament. Whether like me people see nuclear weapons as immoral and illegal under international law, or not, we each have a duty to seek their removal.

The case against nuclear weapons covers morality, public expenditure, legality and the imperative of treaties that were signed in our name, to say nothing of the waste of having our armed services holding weapons that cannot be used. We have the opportunity today to make it clear that we believe that nuclear weapons have no place in Scotland and no place in our world, and we should take that opportunity and vote for the Government’s motion at 5 o’clock.

Photo of Rob Gibson Rob Gibson Scottish National Party

In his book, “Arguing for Independence: Evidence, Risks and the Wicked Issues”, the late Stephen Maxwell wrote:

“independence could be expected to bring substantial environmental benefits ... the reduction, if not complete elimination of the greatest discrete non-carbon threat to Scotland’s environment” and that of our neighbours through the scrapping of Trident and all nuclear submarines.

Photo of Rob Gibson Rob Gibson Scottish National Party

Not at this time.

I will explore the environmental impacts of the Trident missiles and nuclear submarines that threaten Scotland’s very existence. Their removal from Faslane and Coulport is supported by three quarters of Scots, or more. It would reduce the risk to Scotland’s environment of exposure to catastrophic damage caused by major nuclear accidents or by deliberate terrorist attack. However, UK policy concentrates its entire fleet of nuclear-powered submarines at Faslane, thus adding seven planned Astute class hunter-killer subs to the existing Trafalgar class and the Vanguard class Trident strategic missile craft. Even basing Astute and Trafalgar subs at Faslane perpetuates the threat of terrorist attack or catastrophic accident with their highly destructive conventional weapons, including cruise missiles, to which cyber attack adds new complications.

An accident could happen, not just at Faslane but anywhere that is frequented by nuclear submarines. Therefore, as Scottish CND has pointed out, the whole of Scotland is at risk. The UK Government ruled out an alternative home for Trident when Scotland regains her independence. It says that 166,000 people live within 5km of Devonport dockyard while only 5,200 live in a similar zone around Faslane. “Societal contamination” would be close to the “tolerability criterion level” despite the 2.5 million Scots who are living around Glasgow. But what is new? Unionists have been turning a blind eye to popular fears about nuclear accidents ever since Polaris was based at Holy Loch instead of Fort William or Mallaig.

As for the safety of submarines, Trident warheads and the life cycle of strategic weapons of mass destruction, we need some evidence. In April 2011, the Sunday Herald revealed that HMS Vengeance limped back to its Clyde base on auxiliary motors after a training exercise had to be cut short when an object blocked its propulsor—a large encased propeller at the stern—and slowed down the Trident sub John Large, a nuclear consultant, said in The Guardian:

“One of our top-secret stealth submarines was suddenly crippled at sea, making her a lame sitting duck on the surface.”

Another Trident submarine, HMS Vanguard, collided with a French nuclear submarine in the north Atlantic in 2009. The MOD has admitted that 16 crashes involving UK nuclear submarines took place from 1998 to November 2010 and that more than half of those accidents occurred in the seas around Scotland: three around Skye, one near Lewis, one in the Firth of Clyde and another in the North Channel off Galloway. Two more were in unspecified places “west of Scotland”. Moreover, another accident in the Mediterranean in 2009 had gone unreported. Those incidents were revealed as a result of parliamentary questions by Angus Robertson MP, the SNP’s defence spokesperson.

On 16 December 2012, another newspaper report told of nuclear submarine HMS Vigilant, which had recently undergone a £300 million overhaul, being disabled on the way home to the Clyde after test-firing a Trident missile in the Atlantic off the coast of Florida on 21 October. The incident was revealed by one of its crew members, who tweeted:

“Stuck in the USA for Xmas.”

In a PQ answered in July 1998, George RobertsonLord Robertson of NATO—told Jeremy Corbyn that warheads on the Trident missiles would serve 25 to 30 years of the Trident force but that

“disposal costs will depend upon future plans for the use or disposal of fissile material from the warheads.” —[Official Report, House of Commons, 14 July 1998; Vol 316, c 167W.]

Irradiated materials such as those used in the fuel cores of the submarines are hazardous and very difficult to transport. Dounreay, Rosyth and Devonport send them to Sellafield for reprocessing, but low and intermediate-level material goes by road, rail and sea in a steady and dangerous stream. Although discharges into the sea are highly regulated, it all makes for a huge radioactive legacy.

On 22 October 2010, the nuclear submarine HMS Astute ran aground near Broadford in Skye for 10 hours, causing huge repair bills and raising concerns in Skye. Last November, the submarine was dubbed “slow, leaky, rusty”; according to a headline in The Guardian,

“Britain’s £10bn submarine” was

“beset by design flaws”.

However, last December, the former defence minister Sir Nicholas Harvey on behalf of the Liberal Democrats argued for a compromise on Trident, telling the Nuclear Education Trust that only two Trident submarines could be replaced or, indeed, that the Astute class could carry nuclear warheads.

Photo of John Scott John Scott Conservative

You should be drawing to a close, Mr Gibson.

Photo of Rob Gibson Rob Gibson Scottish National Party

All that I can say is that Danny Alexander is now in charge.

The environmental hazards of warheads, missiles and nuclear submarines are a constant danger to Scotland and it is up to us in this Parliament to lead the fight to get rid of them for us and our neighbours for ever.

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour

This week, members might be forgiven for thinking that they have been elected to a different chamber, given that an overwhelming majority of our parliamentary time has been spent on debating issues that are the UK Parliament’s responsibility.

Having spent a little time reflecting on the SNP’s motivations, I begin to understand that this is nothing more than the parliamentary equivalent of Christina McKelvie’s shouting, “Look—there’s a squirrel!” Such is the SNP’s cynicism that it is using our parliamentary time to build up a head of steam prior to its conference at the weekend in the vain hope that delegates will not notice just how incompetent it has been at running the yes Scotland campaign. After all, even the cybernats have monstered elements of the campaign and have been openly critical on Twitter of a number of key figures.

I sympathise with and understand the SNP’s need to create a diversion, but it is all very disappointing. In that respect, at least, it is being consistent in its operation. It is all reminiscent of groundhog day—another SNP debate, another reserved issue. How about debating some of the things that the SNP is responsible for? How about debating national health service waiting lists? On that point, I will take Jim Eadie’s intervention.

Photo of Jim Eadie Jim Eadie Scottish National Party

I thank Ms Baillie for taking my intervention, but I want to encourage her to address the issue of Trident. Does she not accept that the UK has responsibilities under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? Does she see the expansion of Trident as compatible with that obligation?

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour

I have got the point. He is eating into my time. He had nothing to say about NHS waiting lists. [Interruption.] I hear Joe FitzPatrick’s voice warning that we cannot discuss NHS waiting lists. Perhaps that is a little bit too tricky just now. How about the bedroom tax? Cue Joe FitzPatrick. [Interruption.] No, no: steer clear of that one. The SNP does not want to expose the fact that it is doing nothing to mitigate the worst impact on the people of Scotland. How about child poverty? Oh, but it has made no progress on that. Let us stick to blaming Westminster. Let us not debate the things that the SNP has responsibility for because it would be found out.

I turn to the substance of the debate.

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour

I have heard enough from Mr FitzPatrick.

I have always acknowledged that there are many different views in this chamber, across parties and within them. However, wherever we stand—as a unilateralist or a multilateralist—we have a clear responsibility to think through the consequences of our actions. People have heard me speak before about the economic impact of Faslane and I make no apology for doing so again. There are 11,000 jobs dependent on the base, 6,500 employed directly at Faslane and Coulport—[Interruption.]

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour

No, I will not. Mr Brodie should listen.

There are a further 4,500 jobs in the supply chain, using standard income multipliers. On top of that, a further 1,500 to 2,000 jobs are coming to the area due to the decision to relocate all the UK’s submarines there. Those figures were supplied by the MOD and by Scottish Enterprise, which commissioned a survey from EKOS into the economic impact. While I know that members are all very keen on debating the numbers and that it excites many of them, let me be frank. The SNP looks ridiculous when it claims that a lesser number are affected. At one stage, it was only 500 and then it doubled to 1,000. However, the reality is that there would not be a strategic need for Faslane and Coulport and all the jobs would go.

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour

No.

There is a suggestion that the Scottish navy would be based at Faslane, but no one in the SNP could tell me how many submarines or frigates that would mean, or even how many fishery protection vessels. The truth is that the SNP does not know and certainly will not say.

What is the reason why the SNP will not say? Maybe it is because Angus Robertson has consistently refused to guarantee that the number of jobs already at Faslane would be retained after separation. Maybe it is because John Swinney talked in his leaked paper about slashing the amount spent on defence. Maybe it is because the SNP just does not have a clue.

It is interesting that Stuart Crawford, a defence consultant to whom the SNP pays attention, has said that Faslane would sustain only around 1,000 jobs as the future base of a separate Scottish navy. What does the SNP intend to do with the other 10,000 people? Are they simply to be thrown on the scrap heap? Do they not matter in an independent Scotland?

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

The member is in her last minute.

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour

The SNP does not even begin to consider the impact that that would have on the shipbuilding industry on the Clyde. Ninety per cent of the orders received by Scotland’s shipbuilding industry are awarded by the MOD. Separation would threaten those jobs, too.

I say as gently as I can to the SNP and, in particular, to Christina McKelvie, who I am pleased to see is back in the chamber, that the SNP’s policy is to use the money saved from Trident to fund conventional defences. It is not for welfare or for funding hospitals and schools. It is not for tackling child poverty. Please stop pretending like this because it is disingenuous and it diminishes members’ contributions.

Finally, there is nothing moral or principled about the SNP’s approach. Simply moving Trident south of the border does not reduce nuclear weapons. The SNP may promise a constitutional ban, but by joining NATO it is explicitly allowing NATO partners to use Scottish waters for nuclear subs, something that its own First Minister confirmed on the BBCPolitics Show” straight after the SNP conference.

I ask the SNP to please stop posturing and get on with the responsibilities that it has.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

I remind members that courtesy is paramount in the chamber, please.

Photo of Colin Keir Colin Keir Scottish National Party

It is always nice to follow Jackie Baillie.

“Our independent deterrent has become virtually irrelevant except in the context of domestic politics. Rather than perpetuating Trident, the case is much stronger for funding our armed forces with what they need to meet the commitments actually laid upon them.”

That is not from the letter mentioned by the minister but from another written to The Times in January 2009 by former chief of defence staff Field Marshal Lord Bramall, former Adjutant General Lord Ramsbotham and General Sir Hugh Beach, the former deputy commander-in-chief of UK land forces. They pointed out that the huge cost of replacing Trident would be better spent on improving conventional forces. They say:

“We argue that it is conventional weapons that we now need for their pinpoint accuracy and their ability to help our forces in the sort of conflicts that are taking place”.

That means that we have to question the huge expense of Trident, which is limiting what we can do.

They point out that it is also clear that Britain’s nuclear deterrent is not truly independent. We do not own the missiles and it is absolutely unthinkable that we should ever consider using it or threatening to use it without the clearance of the United States. The generals point out that Trident is an inappropriate weapons system—for example, they cannot see Trident being used against nuclear blackmail by international terrorists. Trident is a cold war weapon; it is not a weapon for the situation that we are in now. It is suggested that the decision to renew Trident was driven more by political considerations than the true requirements of national defence.

When we consider the defence and basing reviews of current and past Westminster Governments, the arguments for ditching Trident become clearer. Current planning by the Liberal Democrat-Tory coalition requires that the number of full-time army personnel be dropped to 82,000. That means that you will be able to fit the entire British army into Wembley stadium with 8,000 seats to spare. Does that make Trident a first strike weapon? I think that that is morally repugnant and we should fight against it. As Bill Kidd pointed out, that, along with soldiers being handed their P45s as they return from Afghanistan, shows the true commitment that Westminster has to our fighting forces.

We do have weapons of mass destruction and they are sited less than a couple of hours’ drive up the motorway from the Parliament. Over the years there have been countless debates on nuclear weapons, countless protests and numerous protesters arrested. At no point has any Prime Minister, Secretary of State for Defence or—even more worrying—Secretary of State for Scotland taken the slightest notice of those protests.

In my opinion, those who have held such offices of state have all held similar views. It is a set of views based on the past power of the British Empire. I am convinced that many senior politicians and Westminster mandarins still believe that Britain is a huge world power and that atlases are dominated by the colour pink. There is also the fear that, should those abhorrent weapons be given up, Britain would lose all influence with the major powers of today. Even the generals dispute that in their letter.

Under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty five states—the US, the UK, France, Russia and China—are apparently legally entitled to possess nuclear weapons. How can it be right that any country in the world can have a legal power to obliterate all the others on the planet? Surely none has that right.

In Scotland we have a crazy situation in which the views of the vast majority of the population are solidly against nuclear weapons. The irony is that if every member sent from Scotland to the Westminster Parliament was mandated by the Scottish voters to get rid of the weapons of mass destruction on the Clyde, they would lose the vote—it is as simple as that. It is the basic arithmetic of having only 59 out of 650 MPs. Besides, I do not see a mad rush south of the border to re-site the nuclear missiles down in Portsmouth, Devonport or wherever. That makes us really redefine the phrase “democratic deficit”.

I, for one, am sick and tired of waiting for Scottish Westminster politicians, particularly Labour ones, to use the influence that they claim they have and to show the so-called union dividend. As we have seen this afternoon, the self-proclaimed party of socialism is now firmly nuclear—there is no change there—and all those Labour politicians who have appeared on countless stages over the years can now be disregarded. It has been shown that the party is hypocritical.

The bases that are currently being used for our nuclear forces will be required after the missiles have been removed. A strategy will be put in place to ensure that Scotland is defended properly. I believe that any constitution that is drawn up should have a declaration against weapons of mass destruction ever being deployed here. We cannot trust Westminster Governments of any political persuasion to get rid of those weapons of mass destruction or to look after our conventional forces. Next year, Scotland will get to choose between a Parliament that will end the existence of nuclear weapons on our soil and the Westminster Parliament, which will keep them. I believe that Scotland will vote yes to a nuclear-free Scotland. I support the motion.

Photo of Stuart McMillan Stuart McMillan Scottish National Party

This is an important debate, particularly for the 80 per cent of Scots who oppose these weapons of mass destruction, as indicated in a recent opinion poll. Last week, the UK Secretary of State for Defence came to Scotland to tell us that an independent Scotland could not afford to defend itself. Perhaps he should have paid a bit more attention to the Ministry of Defence’s spending patterns, which, over the past 10 years, have resulted in an underspend of £7.4 billion in Scotland. In other words, we contribute more to the UK defence budget than we get back. The only time that Scotland gets more than the rest of the UK is when cuts are announced or when it comes to the siting of weapons of mass destruction.

The defence secretary also attempted to pour scorn on an independent Scotland’s defence capabilities. He claimed that, if Scotland were to get a share of existing UK assets, it would get

“half a submarine and under one Red Arrow.”

Surely that poor excuse for an argument highlights the shockingly poor state of the UK’s current conventional defence capabilities. If the UK Government is relying on the Red Arrows to defend these islands, we have a major problem.

Trident has been a constant drain on the MOD’s resources—so much so that the UK Government has cut back on conventional defence to pay for it. Currently, Scottish taxpayers pay £163 million a year towards the running of Trident. Furthermore, it costs £350 million a year to fund the design work for the renewal of Trident, which sustains 1,200 jobs. That amounts to £300,000 per job per year, which is a lot of money for one job. We have to ask ourselves what else that £300,000 per job per year could deliver for our communities.

The voices that are warning about Trident renewal come from various sources and not just the SCND or anti-nuclear politicians. Professor Malcolm Chalmers of the Royal United Services Institute is on record as stating:

“sharp increases in spending on Trident renewal in the early 2020s seem set to mean further years of austerity for conventional equipment plans.”

That is because Trident will account for a massive 35 per cent of the MOD’s capital expenditure. Some Conservatives are against Trident. The former defence secretary Lord King has stated:

“It is certainly not obvious to me that there is any longer a need for a major nuclear system based on 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week availability.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 January 2013; Vol 742, c 1243.]

His colleague former defence secretary Michael Portillo is also on record as stating his objection to Trident. He said:

“No—it’s completely past its sell-by date.”

He continued:

“It’s a tremendous waste of money. It’s done entirely for reasons of national prestige ... and at the margins it is proliferation.”

However, the best argument that I can marshal against Trident today comes from an email that was sent to me by a constituent in advance of today’s debate, which states:

“Dear Stuart McMillan, your party has an admirable record on consistent opposition to the immoral and obscenely expensive weapons of mass destruction sited at Faslane. Please do pass on my full opposition, don’t be fobbed off with pretended practicalities. If it is at all possible, get rid of them now! (Don’t even wait for independence!).”

That came from the Rev David Coleman, the minister at the Greenock west United Reformed church.

We are all aware of the Labour-led Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster spreading fears and smears about defence and saying that the rest of the UK state would not order Scottish goods for its armed forces. We have heard that again today from Jackie Baillie. In one of that committee’s reports, we are told that no Royal Navy vessels would be built in Scotland. However, the report omitted the comments from Vice Admiral Andrew Mathews, who confirmed that the UK Government would keep the option to build such vessels on the Clyde if Scotland became independent. Who are we to believe—a partisan Labour MP protecting his Tory masters or a vice admiral of the Royal Navy?

Furthermore, given that the UK has ordered fleet auxiliary tankers from South Korea, why would it not turn to Scotland, whose workers and yards build a world-class product? Why would a future London Government deny itself the best product on the market? Perhaps the ultimate irony is that, allegedly, a future London Government would not be prepared to order ships from Scotland but would be prepared to order Trident from the USA.

Removing Trident would not mean that there would be no future for Faslane—quite the opposite, in fact. Scotland needs a defence base on the Clyde, and the SNP has given a commitment to operate conventional naval forces from HMNB Clyde following independence. We believe that the Trident weapons system that is currently based on the Clyde is not sustainable morally, strategically or economically. As the report that was produced jointly for the STUC and Scottish CND highlights, there is a future for Faslane and that report demonstrates that

“the replacement of Trident will cost Scotland more jobs than it will provide”.

Who knows, actually? As is highlighted in an article in this weekend’s Scottish Sunday Express, following research carried out by my colleague Chic Brodie, there may potentially have been 30 years of lost economic opportunity from non-Trident jobs.

As the STUC and Scottish CND report stresses, the funding that is currently wasted on weapons of mass destruction could be directed to boosting the national and local economy, particularly in the west of Scotland. Have no doubts that independence will bring a positive future for the Faslane base, which will serve as Scotland’s main conventional naval facility. The funding that is being wasted on Trident will be redirected to boost local and national economic growth in industries that would benefit from the skills base that is currently at Faslane.

The UK Secretary of State for Defence has said that the SNP’s plans are vague and lack credibility. Well, what is not vague are the cuts in welfare spending, such as the bedroom tax, that are paying for Trident missiles. If the supporters of Trident want certainty, as I challenged Ken Macintosh earlier, why do they not tell us who they are prepared to use the missiles on? There is absolutely no certainty—

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

You should be drawing to a close, please.

Photo of Stuart McMillan Stuart McMillan Scottish National Party

The only certainty that we have today is that a yes vote in 2014 is the only way to remove these weapons of mass destruction from Scotland.

Photo of Stewart Stevenson Stewart Stevenson Scottish National Party

The debate has engaged people who, though they have a variety of views, are united in the common belief that the Trident missile system has served any purpose that it may once have had.

The argument that I want to develop is that investing in Trident kills our servicemen and women. Having been engaged in this subject since I first became a member of CND, almost from the outset in the 1960s, I suggest that we look at what the UK Government has to say about Trident. The UK Government says that Trident is the “ultimate guarantee” of our national security against nuclear adversaries. Perhaps a case can be made for that, as the Tories will continue to argue, but politics is about making choices. First, Trident is not a weapon that the UK Government is able to control, as the US decides when, where, how and whether such weapons can be used.

More fundamentally, as a defence strategy, Trident fails utterly. The real threats to Scotland—and, for that matter, the UK—are not now from nuclear nations. That is not the paramount issue. The threats come entirely from elsewhere and are the kind of threats that need to be dealt with by soldiers and by boots on the ground. When we spend money on nuclear weapons, we take money away from capability for those who put boots on the ground.

As the minister highlighted in his opening remarks, there are effects from the defence choices that we make. In Kosovo, it was reported that many of the soldiers could not get their mark 4 radios to work effectively in the mountainous terrain. Fortunately, the mobile phone network worked reasonably well, so soldiers paid for their own calls on their own telephones to tell headquarters what was happening on the front line. That lack of investment in modern equipment put troops in danger.

In Iraq, the very simple problem is that it is a bit hot, but the MOD did not seem to know that. Reports were that the rubber in the soles of the soldiers’ boots was melting. Many of the soldiers used the internet to order leather-soled boots so that they could march across the deserts of Iraq. A choice was made to spend on Trident and a choice was made to provide inadequate equipment to our military in areas of threat.

Afghanistan illustrates the point even more. I choose a particular point in time, when there were 66,000 US troops in Afghanistan, mainly in Helmand, who experienced a casualty rate of 3 per cent. There were 9,000 UK troops in Afghanistan at the same time, with a casualty rate of 4.9 per cent—a 60 per cent higher casualty rate among UK soldiers. Why was that? The reason was captured by United States defence secretary Robert Gates. It was all down to helicopters—having them or not. Initially, the US did not have enough helicopters in Afghanistan. Robert Gates reported that no double amputees were surviving battlefield injury. Once the US put in helicopters—and they now have a large number of them—the helicopters could not only scoop up the injured and get them back to the hospital, where they now largely survive; they could also transport troops to areas of difficulty in comparative safety, free from interventions from roadside improvised explosive devices.

The UK has very few helicopters in Afghanistan. What is the effect for our soldiers of that difference in investment in equipment? The effect is that difference in the casualty rate. That is 177 soldiers, whose families do not have them now. The people of Wootton Bassett, to their eternal credit, have turned out on each occasion that a coffin comes back. They would not have wanted those 177 soldiers to be returned and marched down their street, and neither would I. The price of Trident is bodies, when we do not equip our soldiers to undertake that most difficult mission that we ask of them. I do not deploy any argument about the conflicts themselves. I utterly support the soldiers and demand that we divert the money away from that weapon which cannot and will not ever be used, into properly equipping our soldiers so that they can defend our interests.

This is not something that I have felt passionate about in the last five minutes: I have always felt passionate about it. I remember, during the Cuban missile crisis, a friend being sick at the side of the rugby pitch when a black cloud appeared, because he thought that it was a nuclear cloud. This is something that engages real people in real concerns. Trident must go.

Photo of Claudia Beamish Claudia Beamish Labour

Whatever our way of tackling the dreadful issue of nuclear weapons—whatever our approach—nuclear weapons are an unacceptable part of our world. That said, very few constituents have raised the issue with me recently, although many constituents have contacted me about other issues. Many of those issues were very immediate; some were desperate; and many were about devolved matters, or concerns that we could mitigate. Kinship carers are living under pressure; young people are worried about finding or keeping a job; and many people have constant worries about transport. This week, we might also have debated the very current issues around the Leveson inquiry and developments here in Scotland.

To state the obvious, defence is a reserved issue. However, we are here today with a debate on the future of nuclear weapons. There are a range of opinions on that matter in my political party and other parties. Decisions on the future of Trident should be based on evidence and on what is in our national interest. Would the world have believed that apartheid could be deconstructed, or that the Berlin wall would fall?

In our own small ways, we all tackle issues as momentous as nuclear weapons in the best way that we can. I and others have held and continue to hold a principled position against nuclear weapons. Long ago, I lived between Upper Heyford and Greenham Common. Along with others, I was what we called a legal observer for my group. I was then involved in direct action, and I was arrested, charged and convicted for obstruction. Although that was a small thing in the grand scheme of things, it was a hard decision to take as a young teacher. I feel saddened not so much for myself but for those who have made a lifetime commitment to working to rid us of nuclear weapons—much more than I have done—that they can find their principled position muddled up and sucked into the constitutional issue here in Scotland.

The Financial Times contributor Max Hastings, who is pro nuclear weapons, commented earlier this month:

“Professor Sir Michael Howard, at 90 still Britain’s wisest thinker on strategy, surprised me recently by saying that he now opposed the Trident replacement. I reminded him that he had always favoured it. ‘Yes, but as Keynes said, when circumstances change, I change my mind,’ he said. ‘We simply can’t afford it any more.’”

There are indeed questions to be asked and answered about cost and Trident replacement—about cost in relation to the straitened times in which we and many of our constituents find ourselves here and now, and about spending, some of which might be shifted from our defence budget to other priorities such as child poverty. The list must not be too long, however, if there is indeed to be such a shift.

What is Trident for now? One could raise questions about the utility of nuclear weapons and their central role in NATO strategy. Most people would agree that the world has moved on, and that the threats that are faced by countries such as ours are more to do with asymmetrical warfare than was the case in the past. Should NATO members perhaps focus their efforts on counterterrorism and counter-insurgency, rather than retaining a surplus of nuclear weapons? Could it be argued that the UK’s diminishing defence budget could be better used through contributing to collective defence in that manner?

In 2007, I made a contribution to a paper about the economic and employment consequences of cancelling Trident. In the chapter concerned, I explored the opportunity that defence diversification presented to the renewables industry. Some of the figures have been rightly challenged, and they are not up to date any more anyway. Indeed, some of the arguments have moved on. In geographical terms, it could be argued that the locus of renewables is now more focused in Aberdeen and the far north. However, there are many other possibilities to consider—

Photo of Claudia Beamish Claudia Beamish Labour

No, I need to make progress. I want to get on to other matters, too.

There are many other possibilities in addition to conventional defence. To highlight but one, there is the chance of retrofitting and building wellboats for fish farms here in Scotland, which was brought up at the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee during deliberations on the Aquaculture and Fisheries (Scotland) Bill.

There is potential for this Parliament to urge the UK Government to do more work with regard to cutting nuclear weapons within the alliance structure of NATO and as a member of the Security Council.

Photo of Claudia Beamish Claudia Beamish Labour

I need to finish—I am going into my last minute.

We could be ideally placed to encourage other nuclear states to work towards realising article VI of the NPT, which obliges signatories

“to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament”.

As a member of the Security Council, the UK, encouraged by this Parliament, could also make efforts to implement the five-point plan, which suggests that Security Council members could

“commence discussions, perhaps within its Military Staff Committee, on security issues in the nuclear disarmament process.”

I am not saying that the answers to any of the questions that I have posed will be anything other than deeply complex to disentangle if we are to work towards diminishing the horrible risk that is presented by nuclear weapons in our world. We must all try to do that, however we can.

Photo of Marco Biagi Marco Biagi Scottish National Party

I commend to all members the scrap Trident campaign activity that will be running from 13 to 15 April. More details are available on the web. One Labour MSP has already supported it, and I am hopeful that others will follow—or at least I was, before I heard their speeches.

I draw attention to that activity because for me, the cause is not just political; it is personal. Although I represent our nation’s capital, I—in common with the majority of my constituents, I think—was born somewhere else. I grew up on the shores of the Clyde, not 5 miles from Faslane. My family’s shop in Helensburgh thrived on the custom that naval personnel brought to the town; I have relatives who still work at the base; and, frankly, I can still close my eyes and visualise the Kilcreggan peninsula with the great black silhouette of a Vanguard-class submarine sailing in front of it.

Growing up with nuclear weapons so close by, I saw what I can only call a form of madness. We knew that the nuclear weapons were there, but the only way to live our lives was to put out of our minds the inevitable conclusion. We just put up with the situation.

Nuclear weapons exist for one purpose. We cannot use them for peacekeeping, for disaster relief, or for humanitarian intervention. We can use them only for mass destruction: the destruction of cities—all the terrible human cost of the Iraq war in one place in one second—or the destruction of armies. Any army that we would fight would be composed of young men who were forced from their homes to take up arms and a uniform, who were marched into their graves for the high offence of having been conscripted by a Government that was almost certainly despotic in its nature.

We can talk of deterrence—there has been a lot of talk of deterrence today—but that is just code for threatening to do such things rather than doing them. The difference between committing mass slaughter and threatening to commit mass slaughter is a fine moral hair to split.

Nuclear weapons are the weapons of politicians, not of generals. They are the weapons of presidents, prime ministers and tinpot dictators who want to strut on the world stage or sit on the UN Security Council—leaders who know that they would hide in their bunkers if their own people were consigned to destruction. If my nation was ever, God forbid, to suffer a nuclear attack, I would want to see those who perpetrated the attack being held accountable, not the hapless millions who already had to endure the misfortune of being ruled by them.

Deterrence can work in many dimensions. Many countries have substantial conventional deterrents and choose to seek their security through conventional means, such as Brazil, Japan, and Germany—for all that Germany has had its difficulties in achieving that. One country that gave up its nuclear weapons, post-apartheid South Africa, is a fine example that we have held up as a model to follow in many situations. In this, too, let us look at its example.

I am a bit perturbed by the tone of the debate thus far. It was not so long ago that the Labour Party agreed with this. The Helensburgh branch of the Labour Party in 1999—back before I had the right to vote, I must add—endorsed nuclear disarmament to applause from CND, but those days are long gone.

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour

Does the member accept that what we are arguing about are the 11,000 jobs, and that irrespective of the adoption of a unilateralist or a multilateralist position, the Helensburgh branch of the Labour Party would agree that we need to take care of the jobs too?

Photo of Marco Biagi Marco Biagi Scottish National Party

We have to keep employment up in that area, but I see the unedifying sight of Labour politicians trying to portray scares and smears; they are riding this unemployment fear like Major Kong riding the bomb at the end of “Dr Strangelove”.

The fear of unemployment is potent, but perhaps Jackie Baillie should look at the report that was authored by the MSP just a few seats to her left, Claudia Beamish, which sets out—as well as alternatives—its analysis of the 11,000 jobs figure.

Let us remember that Faslane is more than Trident; it is Scotland’s only full-scale naval base. We need only look at Norway’s main base—I will not try to pronounce its name—with its thousands of personnel to see the potential for employment in the housing of Scotland’s conventional naval forces after independence. Faslane is Trident’s current digs—no more, no less—and I do not believe that an independent Scotland, whether in or out of NATO, would have any problems with getting rid of those weapons. Although I put on record my views on that issue, and I have explained them in detail elsewhere, I do not agree with the first part of Jean Urquhart’s amendment.

Next year, Scotland has an opportunity. Only if this country votes yes will we serve Trident with final notice to quit for now and ever more. We will deliver a message to the councils of the world that we are no longer willing to just put up with it, and instead of putting nuclear weapons out of our minds, we will put them out of our country for good.

Photo of Kenneth Gibson Kenneth Gibson Scottish National Party

Trident is a cold war relic that was specifically designed to flatten Russian cities. It is a military dinosaur that is rapidly losing public support.

Today we have heard no good reasons for retaining nuclear weapons, never mind for renewing them for another half century. There are countless reasons why we should not commit to lumbering future generations with the obscenity of Trident. It makes no military sense, there is a serious moral question about deploying weapons that are designed specifically to slaughter millions of civilians, and the cost is astronomical.

The logical conclusion of the pro-Trident argument about the big, bad world out there is that every nation should rush to develop nuclear weapons. Turkey, perhaps, or Saudi Arabia—maybe Japan. How safe would we be then?

Strategically, Trident’s worth is minimal. No one believes that it can or ever will be used. In reality, it is a desperate attempt by London to assert the illusion of British power post-empire. Air Commodore Alastair Mackie, vice-president of CND and former hydrogen bomber pilot summed up the situation by saying:

“We regard having a deterrent as a virility symbol, like a stick-on hairy chest.”

Of course, the notion that Trident acts as a deterrent is demonstrably nonsense. As Field Marshall Lord Bramall explained, Trident renewal

“would not deter any of the threats and challenges—now more economic than military—likely to face this country in the foreseeable or even longer-term future.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 January 2013; Vol. 742, c 1229.]

Michael Portillo described renewing Trident as “nonsense”; it is strange to see Labour to the right of him on the issue. Well, maybe it is not.

Nuclear weapons do not deter terrorist groups, insurgents, rogue states or dictators. They did not deter Argentina from invading the Falklands, Vietnam from fighting the USA and China in the sixties and seventies, or Egypt and Syria from launching the Yom Kippur war. On the contrary, attempting to acquire nuclear weapons led to Israeli air strikes on Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981, and on Syria’s al-Kibar nuclear facility in 2007. I do not doubt that Iran’s nuclear ambitions will end in the same way.

Of course, committing to an expensive nuclear arsenal necessitates lower spending on conventional forces, which reduces defence capabilities. Ring fencing finance for Trident while cutting genuinely important defence spending means that it is now a case of all fur coat, as they say. Indeed, UK forces have suffered from chronic equipment shortages ranging from helicopters to armoured vehicles to boots and body armour. Service personnel have been sacked by email, strategically important bases have been closed, aircraft carriers have been built although there are no aircraft, and £4 billion-worth of Nimrod aircraft was hacked to pieces without ever having flown.

Despite those shortcomings in conventional defence, the UK Government, backed by a Labour Party that is desperate for votes in the south-east of England, looks set to commit to Trident renewal with its eye-watering multibillion pound price tag.

The Tories have not wavered in their support for nuclear weapons, but Labour is all over the place, as in every other policy area. Labour members opportunistically bob and weave, trying to face two ways at once; that is hardly surprising, given that they come from a party that believes in nothing but the pursuit of office. On the one hand, Labour claims to support multilateral disarmament, but Ed Miliband and Jim Murphy say that voting no in Scotland’s referendum would guarantee another 50 years of Trident. They are the ones who are bringing Trident into the constitutional debate. It is time that Labour listened to the Scottish people, 81 per cent of whom are against Trident renewal, but the loyalty of Labour’s puppet leadership in north Britain is to the bosses in London, not to Scotland.

We hear plenty of scaremongering that, following independence and Trident’s removal, Faslane will close and thousands will lose their jobs. We have heard some of that today. Those claims have been exposed as wildly inaccurate at best and deliberate falsification, which is what I would say. An independent Scotland will base conventional naval forces at Faslane and improve Scotland’s naval defence capability. That will not be difficult, especially considering the fact that Westminster does not take the defence of the North Sea seriously, with no frigates, corvettes or destroyers in Scotland, and all air reconnaissance being provided by Norway following the destruction of the Nimrods.

As for those who are directly employed on Trident, only 564 are actually based at Faslane at an annual estimated cost of more than £300,000 per job. There is no doubt that that money could be invested more constructively and create many more jobs in the civilian economy or indeed in conventional armed forces.

Of course, as alleged multilateralists, Labour members want those jobs to go as well—just not right now. Once again, they show themselves devoid of principles or conviction, as Ms Baillie made clear in her speech. Her remark about 11,000 jobs was absolute nonsense. Given the assumption that there would not be a boat of any size there—

Jackie Baillie rose—

Jack and the beanstalk—as predicted.

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour

I am sure that the member did not mean to make any personal insults and that he will reflect on that.

When the member visited Helensburgh to debate this very issue, the people made him aware that 11,000 jobs were dependent on the base. Does he not believe anyone else then?

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Mr Gibson, you might wish to reflect on your name calling.

Photo of Kenneth Gibson Kenneth Gibson Scottish National Party

I will reflect on that in due course. No one mentioned this 11,000 figure and Ms Baillie knows fine well that that is complete nonsense.

Fourteen of the 15 newly independent republics that emerged from the dissolution of the Soviet Union

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

I have a point of order from Jackie Baillie.

Photo of Kenneth Gibson Kenneth Gibson Scottish National Party

—excluding Russia, removed the 9,775—

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Point of order, Mr Gibson!

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The member might have no respect for me, but I would have thought that he should respect your position as Presiding Officer.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

I thank Ms Baillie for her point, which is not a point of order. Nevertheless, Mr Gibson and I will be having a conversation later. Please continue, Mr Gibson.

Photo of Kenneth Gibson Kenneth Gibson Scottish National Party

I look forward to that, Presiding Officer.

Fourteen of the 15 newly independent republics that emerged from the Soviet Union’s dissolution, excluding Russia, removed the 9,775 nuclear warheads collectively on their soil. At the time of its independence, Ukraine had the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal, bigger, indeed, than China, France and the UK combined; however, in less than five years, it had completely removed all nuclear weapons, which was a far more challenging task than removing Trident from the Clyde. Other post-Soviet nations took even less time. Tactical nuclear weapons were also removed by Poland, the Czech Republic and the former East Germany, and Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, Libya and South Africa have all cancelled their nuclear weapons programmes.

In conclusion—

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

I would be grateful if you could close.

Photo of Kenneth Gibson Kenneth Gibson Scottish National Party

—if Trident leaves, the MOD has already ruled out moving it to England, pointing to the unsuitability of housing Vanguard submarines there and the potential risk to the local population, which was not taken into account in Scotland. With Labour flip-flopping on the issue and the Tories’ bloody-minded commitment to this nuclear vanity project it is clear that only independence will ensure that weapons of mass destruction are forever banished from Scotland.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Many thanks. We move to the closing speeches.

Photo of Jean Urquhart Jean Urquhart Independent

We have had a good debate and, again, I repeat my support for the Scottish Government’s bringing this entirely relevant matter to the chamber.

Ruth Davidson’s suggestion that the retention of Trident nuclear missiles showed responsible government led to Alasdair Allan’s brilliant question whether she was also suggesting that every country without a nuclear deterrent was irresponsible. Of course, the answer was that they were when perhaps the answer should have been that countries without nuclear weapons are more responsible with regard to global as well as local security.

Photo of Ruth Davidson Ruth Davidson Conservative

My point was that the UK was a responsible signatory to the NPT and that countries such as North Korea and Iran that, since the NPT’s establishment, were seeking to bring on nuclear weapons were indeed irresponsible.

Photo of Jean Urquhart Jean Urquhart Independent

I rest my case. We still have not heard a reasonable answer to Alasdair Allan’s still relevant question.

All sides of the chamber will agree that multilateral disarmament is to be desired, but how do we achieve that? Somebody has to go first and I believe that, with independence, Scotland could do that and be the leader in the world as it has been in so many other areas.

We heard extraordinarily emotive language from Ms Davidson, who talked about us

“walking away from our neighbours”.

In fact, we will be walking towards our neighbours.

Ruth Davidson gave us a terrific list of alternative uses for the money that would be saved by ending the nuclear deterrent, all of which have been suggested by members of the SNP. There is no lack of ideas—it is a shame that she could find nothing to recommend Trident.

Photo of Ruth Davidson Ruth Davidson Conservative

The comment about

“walking away from our neighbours” was a direct quote from Angus Robertson at the SNP conference, which I believe the member attended. My point in listing the huge number of alternatives was to point out the number of times her former colleagues in the SNP have spent the £163 million for Trident. By my reckoning, it is about 20 times per year.

Photo of Jean Urquhart Jean Urquhart Independent

I am well aware of what the member intended, but the point is that those are all worthy areas on which to spend the money and areas where it is needed.

Ken Macintosh stated that the SNP is somehow not serious about getting rid of Trident and that the debate was some kind of jokey waste of time so that a bit of rhetoric about independence could be heard. How dare he? Many people have an ambition to rid the United Kingdom of nuclear weapons, but the difference is that his party has had its shot and failed.

Photo of Kenneth Macintosh Kenneth Macintosh Labour

I certainly did not think that the SNP was joking—independence is a deadly serious matter. However, how does the SNP’s desire to get rid of Trident square with its desire to remain as a member of NATO?

Photo of Jean Urquhart Jean Urquhart Independent

The SNP has explained its position on that. I do not agree with it, so why would I try to explain it?

There is a real issue for the Labour Party. We know about the number of people with Labour Party membership cards who believe that the only route now to be rid of Trident on the Clyde is to vote yes in the referendum.

Mr Macintosh suggested that the issue that he again highlighted is shattering the unity of the SNP. I should know about that. The disagreement is not over the outcome of unilateral nuclear disarmament; it is about the route that we take to achieve the goal. The big common factor—and the big difference with the Labour Party, which has failed in its ambition—is self-determination by the Scottish people. I can assure Mr Macintosh that, on that, there is no disunity. Labour needs to understand that inescapable fact. Better together? I do not think so.

What a funny wee speech from Mr McMahon. When someone knows that they are wrong, they often cover it up by poking fun at people who are trying to deal with a serious subject. He is right that the Scots arnae stupit. They have had 60 years of political rhetoric and claims that we will be rid of Trident from the Clyde, but nobody has achieved it. Now, it is within the grasp of the Scottish people to achieve self-determination and unilateral nuclear disarmament, and to head towards multilateralism. I urge them to do that.

Those members who are not in the SNP or the Independent and Green group need to think on this: if they believe, as most of us seem to do, that the only option that is open is the one that everybody has, come October 2014, will we be closer to being free of Trident if we vote yes to better together, or if we vote to be able to make the decision for ourselves? I ask members to support my amendment.

Photo of Annabel Goldie Annabel Goldie Conservative

The debate has been emotionally highly charged, which was predictable because the issue of nuclear weapons does not permit ambivalence. My opponents might be surprised to hear me say, on an issue of such magnitude, that robustness in the views of both sides of the argument is important. I say that because the debate must never become static or atrophied. Indeed, I concede that the United Nations secretary general’s five-point plan is an important contribution to the debate.

During my lifetime, I have seen a major change in attitude to nuclear armaments. Historically, over centuries, defence strategy has depended on outthinking, outsmarting and outequipping the enemy.

In any debate on defence, there will be a viewpoint that considers war to be unjustifiable in any circumstances. Although I respect that opinion, I cannot agree with it. The ancient Roman writer Vegetius said:

“Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.”

Who desires peace, let him prepare for war. Time and again, history has demonstrated the wisdom of that observation. Of course, every alternative option should be explored before that decision of last resort but, in the face of implacable evil, war is the last resort.

In any debate on nuclear weapons, I accept that there are, among the opponents of such weapons, many people who accept the need on occasion for war, but cannot accept the justification for that weapon of last resort. Again, I understand that position; I respect that opinion, but I do not agree with it.

If debate is not about exploring why people hold views and about subjecting those views to examination, debate is sterile. Part of that examination is to discover whether there is any conjunction of sentiment and, if there is, to clarify where there is a divergence of opinion.

So—let me introduce what may be an unexpected contribution. If I am asked, “Do you instinctively like nuclear weapons?” No, I do not. If I am asked, “Do you think that they have an awesome capacity to destroy?” Yes, I do. If I am asked, “Do you feel that their cost is troublingly expensive?” Yes, I think that it is. If there were a march tomorrow to support multilateral nuclear disarmament, would I be on it? Yes, I would, and so would many others in this chamber.

Photo of Annabel Goldie Annabel Goldie Conservative

I will just make this point.

What, then, separates me from those who seek unilateral disarmament? We both want the same things: peace and stability. That is the nub of the debate. I believe that the fundamental principles that are relevant to nuclear deterrence have not changed since the end of the cold war and are, sadly, unlikely to change in the near future.

“Deterrence” is the key word. Mr Brown neither considered nor engaged in that debate and—to my disappointment—nor did his colleagues. To be fair, Mr Biagi tried to, but did not address the matter of deterring illegal nuclear developments. The fact is that since acquiring that deterrent, we have had four decades of non-nuclear conflict. What we all want to achieve, which is multilateral disarmament, cannot be negotiated from a position of weakness. It does not work that way.

Photo of Keith Brown Keith Brown Scottish National Party

Annabel Goldie said:

“Who desires peace, let him prepare for war.”

What is the logical extension of that argument? If every country builds for war and uses nuclear weapons as part of that construction, where does that lead us?

Photo of Annabel Goldie Annabel Goldie Conservative

It is in my opinion simply self-evident, in relation to the general strategy of having defence capability, that it is a foolish nation that does not accept that, at times, the only way to deal with implacable evil is to be prepared to defend the position of the country and its citizens.

On negotiation, it is precisely because of their destructive powers—as Ruth Davidson said, the “uniquely terrible threat” that nuclear weapons pose—that they have the capability to deter acts of aggression. That scale of deterrence is completely different from that of any other form of deterrence.

Photo of Annabel Goldie Annabel Goldie Conservative

I want to make progress with my point.

That is why I believe that unilateralism, however well intended that view is and however sincerely it is held, will achieve the exact opposite of peace and stability. It will destroy any capacity to negotiate and will weaken the momentum for multilateral disarmament. It will give succour to the aggressive, the acquisitive and the despot who are nuclear armed, and it will make the world a more dangerous place.

I profoundly disagree with those who argue that removing Trident from Scotland will somehow make Scotland safer. If their proposition is, “If we don’t have nuclear weapons here, no one will attack us”, I have to say that from the perspective of any hostile aggressor on the impact of such a nuclear strike, the United Kingdom and France, which have nuclear weapons, have one and the same geography as Scotland. Perversely, we remain safer by retaining Trident at Faslane; the removal argument is spurious.

For the communities of Helensburgh and Dunbartonshire and their local economies, precipitate removal of Trident from Faslane would have a disastrous effect; Jackie Baillie made the point eloquently. Kenneth Gibson made a characteristically robust and, at times, provocative contribution. However, the response from his friends in these seats was nothing compared to the response that he got at the public meeting in Helensburgh, where his remarks cut no ice whatever.

We all aspire to a world that is free of nuclear weapons. The only way to achieve that is to work proactively, vigorously and with commitment to expanding and enhancing the non-proliferation treaty. The UK has an excellent track record in that respect, which is why I feel that unilateralism would be an absolute gift to any rogue nation or hostile power that was developing illegal nuclear capacity. That is why I support the amendment in the name of Ruth Davidson and oppose the Scottish Government’s motion.

Photo of Richard Simpson Richard Simpson Labour

There have been a number of passionate and thoughtful contributions to the debate, although I would not include Kenneth Gibson’s contribution in that description.

I detect a universal view that the world would be a better place without nuclear weapons. The fact is that we cannot put the clock back and uninvent nuclear weapons. Since the first use of atomic weapons in July 1945, that genie has been out of the bottle. A nuclear-missile submarine deterrent has been in operation continuously since 1968—initially with Polaris and then with Trident. It is agreed across the chamber that no matter what our views are, we should at least continue to work hard for multilateral disarmament, which has already achieved a 75 per cent reduction in our nuclear arsenal and that of others.

Under the strategic defence and security review 10, there will be further progress. The UK has reduced its nuclear warheads from 360 to 160 and, under Labour, we withdrew the WE177 capability. If Britain did not have nuclear weapons, I would not advocate our acquiring them, but history has bestowed them upon us. I would echo the words of Gerald Kaufman MP, who said:

“I say clearly that I do not want nuclear weapons; I am not happy we have got them, but we have got them. Divesting ourselves of our nuclear weapons would be regarded by many as an act of self-indulgence.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 17 January 2013; Vol 556, c 1113.]

Photo of Mark McDonald Mark McDonald Scottish National Party

The member said that he, like the SNP, seeks nuclear disarmament. Why does his party portray the SNP as being the only party that threatens jobs at Faslane if he too wishes to see the end of nuclear weapons there?

Photo of Richard Simpson Richard Simpson Labour

We should move towards nuclear disarmament, but there is a difference between nuclear submarines and nuclear missiles. His party appears to want to get rid of both. The basing of the Astute class and the Vanguard class, if it is finally proceeded with, will mean that the submarines will be based there—[Interruption.]

The Presiding Officer:

Order. Let us hear the member.

Photo of Richard Simpson Richard Simpson Labour

The submarines will be based there, except under an independent Scotland.

In 2009, President Obama said:

“The threat of global war has gone down but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up.”

The 2006 white paperThe Future of the UK’s Nuclear Deterrent” posited three scenarios. The first is the re-emergence of a major nuclear threat, which is possible but—I hope—unlikely. The second is of states’ newly acquiring nuclear capability; we have discussed generally the threat of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. The third scenario is of state-sponsored nuclear terrorism. The white paper states that

“We make no distinction between the means by which a state might choose to deliver a nuclear warhead ... whether by missile or by sponsored terrorists”, and goes on to say that a state identified as “the source of material” could expect a proportional response.

In other words, deterrence, which has always been at the core of our nuclear programme, remains an important fact that is completely denied by the SNP. They did not even discuss the question of deterrence, which I think continues to be important.

History teaches us that major wars tend to start when dictators believe that democracies are too weak to stand up to them. The assurance that mutual deterrence provided in preventing the cold war from becoming hot is a lesson from the past that should be recognised and not lost on us. The reality is that it is not the weapons themselves that we have to fear, but the nature of the regimes that possess them.

Photo of Richard Simpson Richard Simpson Labour

I am sorry, but I must make progress.

Nuclear weapons can be controlled only through the non-proliferation treaties, which underpin the world’s determination to block Iran and other countries from developing such weapons. Whereas democracies are reluctant to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear dictatorships, the reverse is, I believe, unlikely to be true. No quantity of the conventional forces that were espoused largely by SNP members can compensate for the military disadvantage that would face a non-nuclear country in a war with a nuclear state.

On funding, no decision has as yet been made on the replacement of the D5 Trident missile, which will continue in operation until 2042. In the meantime, the review that is seeking a cost-effective alternative, which has been progressed by the Cabinet under Liberal Democrat pressure, continues.

Photo of Richard Simpson Richard Simpson Labour

No. I am sorry, but I must make a little more progress.

Let us assume that RUK—the rest of the United Kingdom—proceeded to the main-gate decision in 2016. It would then have to bear the additional cost that would have been our share, which would be an additional £2.5 billion. Would the rest of the United Kingdom thank Scotland for the higher share of the costs of Trident? Indeed, if, as members have suggested today, the rest of the UK was forced into unilateral disarmament by an inability to house the submarine fleet with its missiles elsewhere in the United Kingdom, would the rest of the United Kingdom thank us for that? That would come on top of the fact that independence would force us to pay additional costs, due to the loss of the European Union rebate, of £3.2 billion. What would the SNP’s negotiating position be with the rest of the United Kingdom if we were forcing it to bear those additional costs?

A central theme in our concerns today has been that the SNP has reversed its stance on NATO. How could an independent Scotland shelter under a NATO nuclear umbrella after declaring unilateral independence with no nuclear weapons? It seems to me that applying for membership on that basis, in the negotiations after independence, would be quite hypocritical. As one commentator has pointed out, that would be like joining a golf club on the basis that the other members agree to play only with their putters. The SNP’s position is hypocritical, and I applaud the stance of Jean Urquhart and others who have made that point very strongly.

Another question is whether the First Minister has another secret set of legal advice on the issue. Would the SNP be accepted into the NATO alliance swiftly after declaring independence, or is that something else that we would need to negotiate—negotiating on the basis that we would force NATO to remove its nuclear weapons? Would we disallow nuclear weapons from our territorial waters? Again, that seems to me to be quite ridiculous and hypocritical.

The Presiding Officer:

Dr Simpson, you must bring your remarks to a close.

Photo of Richard Simpson Richard Simpson Labour

I think that I am in my last 30 seconds.

On the savings from cancelling Trident, Ruth Davidson eloquently expressed the SNP’s repeated use of those savings. The money could be spent only once.

On jobs, Jackie Baillie made the case that it is quite clear that, under independence, the base at Faslane would be far smaller.

The central theme is that this Parliament should get back to debating the issues that are within our scope. This week, we should have been debating press regulation, but our offer on that was rejected. We should have been talking about ameliorating the bedroom tax. Those are the issues—

The Presiding Officer:

Mr Stewart! That is enough.

Photo of Richard Simpson Richard Simpson Labour

Those are the issues that this Parliament should be addressing; we should not be talking about the issues that are under debate, which do not fall within our purview.

I rest my case.

The Presiding Officer:

I will not have members shouting across the chamber. If you want to make an intervention, do so but do not shout like that again.

I call Keith Brown to wind up the debate—you have 10 minutes.

Photo of Keith Brown Keith Brown Scottish National Party

We have heard quite a wide range of views during the debate, and I will try to respond to as many points as I can. There were quite thoughtful contributions from Claudia Beamish and Annabel Goldie, but for me the stand-out speeches were from Bill Kidd and, especially, Marco Biagi, who gave an excellent speech in support of his views.

Before I address the points that were made during the debate, I would like to reflect briefly on what has become the inescapable consensus; that nuclear weapons are the single most destructive force in the world today and that we would all, without exception, welcome their abolition.

That alone should compel us to do all that we can to support the conditions for their removal, whatever our views may be on the length and nature of that journey. To those who question our competence in debating the issue, I say simply—as I said when first I spoke—that the vast majority of people in Scotland vehemently oppose nuclear weapons. The vast majority of—in fact, all the nuclear weapons in the UK, are in Scotland. Of course it is competent and right that this chamber discuss that.

Jackie Baillie in particular derided the use of Parliament’s time in debating the issue, although she discussed everything apart from Trident, which is under debate. In my time in local government I went to many meetings with Labour councillors at various councils across the country at which we discussed nuclear-free zones, issues to do with Palestine and all sorts of matters for which councils have no responsibility but which they felt were very important. That debate was not opposed by the Labour Party at that time. It would be well for the Labour Party to look back—

Photo of Malcolm Chisholm Malcolm Chisholm Labour

This is the first debate on Trident that has been called by the Government in the best part of six years. Does the minister not understand that people are genuinely angry that the debate comes this week, after the debate on Iraq and before the statement on the date of the referendum? The timing of the debate, the wording of the motion and the substance of the speeches have tied this subject, as far as the SNP is concerned, into the whole argument about independence. That is deeply regrettable and it is why nobody in this chamber will support Keith Brown’s motion, except those who support independence.

Photo of Keith Brown Keith Brown Scottish National Party

On Malcolm Chisholm’s point about the wording of the motion, I would like to know what he and the Labour Party find so offensive about acknowledging the devastating humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, about endorsing the United Nations secretary general’s five-point plan or about acknowledging the opposition of the Scottish Parliament to nuclear weapons. What is so objectionable about those points?

The Labour Party should survey the wreckage of its 2011 election campaign and ponder where its blind hatred of the SNP has taken it.

First, we heard people who were for many years involved with CND—an honourable cause—being denigrated as delusional. That was from Michael McMahon. We have heard people being described as “naive” or “cynical” because they oppose nuclear weapons. Michael McMahon still thinks that that is the case. Labour might like to ponder the fact that it denigrates—

Photo of Keith Brown Keith Brown Scottish National Party

No, I will not take an intervention. Labour might want to ponder the fact that it denigrates people who have supported it. What about the Labour MP Joan Ruddock, long-time member and leader of CND? Was she delusional as well? That is how the Labour Party has got itself into the position that it is in now.

Stewart Stevenson made a telling contribution when he talked about the real costs of Trident—what we are paying for Trident currently and what we are being asked to pay in terms of the equipment that is being foregone by troops on the ground; he mentioned helicopters and boots in particular. When the Prime Minister dropped by my street one day, I challenged him on that very issue of helicopters and equipment. He did not really give me an answer and it ended up in a bit of a rammie, if I can call it that. The simple fact is that the Labour Party is all over the place on the issue—as, I think, Kenny Gibson said. It will be interesting to see what it does in a few minutes, when we come to the vote. Will there be another abstemious action by the Labour Party, in which it will not vote? In the same way, it abstained from supporting the Tories in the vote on workfare in the House of Commons yesterday—the Tories’ dirty little helpers.

It is also very telling that none of the Opposition spokespeople—Ken Macintosh, and Ruth Davidson, who was asked—could come up with a scenario in which they would use the £100 billion-worth of weapons that they want to procure for this country and site in Scotland.

On the matter of Labour deriding its own history, Jim Murphy derided those who said they were against nuclear weapons and had supported CND in the past as “flirting with surrealism”. That is what he said about people who genuinely believed in the Labour Party and in unilateral nuclear disarmament. We heard more “flirting with surrealism” this afternoon, when Richard Simpson decided to compare nuclear weapons with not putters, but drivers in a golf bag. That was surreal—I have no idea what he was talking about. His suggestion—that we would restrict ourselves to using only putters, rather than using the drivers or the woods that he equates with nuclear weapons—was “flirting with surrealism”.

We have set out the reasons why we believe the motion should be agreed to by Parliament. I cannot for the life of me think why any part of the motion—despite what Malcolm Chisholm said—might prove to be impossible for the Labour Party to support. Malcolm Chisholm might quibble with the timing of the debate, but it is only the SNP that has previously brought the issue to Parliament, in 2007 and 2008. His party has had the chance to do that at any time, if its members had felt as strongly about the subject as they say they do, but it has not done so. Today, Labour members have denied that we should ever debate the subject, so how can we be criticised for the timing? There is no reason why the Labour Party and those who genuinely wish nuclear weapons to be taken away from Scotland cannot easily support our motion.

An interesting question about the Labour Party’s position is this: Where is it showing leadership? Its leader is not even here. She is meant to be in charge of all the Labour MSPs and all the Labour MPs in Scotland, and she is meant to speak for the Labour Party, but she is not even here. I am willing to take an intervention from any Labour member who can tell me what Johann Lamont’s position is on the replacement of Trident.

It is our priority, as good global citizens, to support and promote global nuclear disarmament. That is the right thing to do.

Ken Macintosh rose—

I will give way to Ken Macintosh—if he can tell me what the views of his leader are on the replacement of Trident. Over to you, Ken.

Photo of Kenneth Macintosh Kenneth Macintosh Labour

Those views were laid out to the SNP in a letter, which offered to give up our debating time to debate Trident if the SNP would debate an issue of the day—the Leveson report. Why did the SNP not use its time to debate Leveson this week?

Photo of Keith Brown Keith Brown Scottish National Party

The SNP chooses what it wants to use its time for, and likewise the Labour Party chooses. The Labour Party could have chosen to discuss Trident at any time, but it has not done so. That speaks volumes.

We await the outcome of the Trident alternatives review, which is being led by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. We hope that the review explores options that do not rely on the continued use of HMNB Clyde as the UK’s nuclear deterrent base. On the subject of the base, the most distasteful part of the entire debate has been the moral bankruptcy of Jackie Baillie. She said that it is worth protecting jobs at Faslane only if we spend hundreds of billions of pounds on nuclear weapons. There is no moral case for that. It is reprehensible to try to equate the two things.

We ask for Parliament’s support on the motion, although we have always realised that there would be convinced opposition to it. The Conservatives have possibly held a consistent position, as has been mentioned, but there is no consistency in the Labour Party position. Labour members have the chance to remedy that, however, by supporting the motion.

I conclude with a point that was made by President Barack Obama.

The Presiding Officer:

You may continue until 4.59.

Photo of Keith Brown Keith Brown Scottish National Party

I refer to the words of Barack Obama, who made a very famous speech, of course. It is worth bearing in mind that he is President of the country that has the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world, and even he seems to realise the dangers. He said:

“So long as any state has nuclear weapons, others will want them.”

I was trying to make this point before: it is very hard for one state to have the moral authority to tell another state that it cannot have nuclear weapons because it is not responsible, but for that state to say that it is responsible. We cannot do that—that is moral hypocrisy.

President Obama said:

“So long as any state has nuclear weapons, others will want them. So long as any such weapons remain, it defies credibility that they will not one day be used, by accident, miscalculation or design.”

Rob Gibson made some telling points about some of the accidents that we have suffered here in Scotland involving nuclear submarines around our shores.

President Obama went on to say about nuclear weapons:

“any such use would be catastrophic. It is sheer luck that the world has escaped such catastrophe until now.”

That is not entirely true, of course: as we know, two nuclear explosions happened in Japan already. It is also worth pointing out—to rebut the point that we should not discuss such issues—that this Parliament has debated the effects of nuclear weapon tests on our citizens. We debated that with all-party support, I think. If we can discuss testing of nuclear weapons, why cannot we discuss Trident, too?

The Scottish Government believes that the moral, economic, strategic and democratic case for withdrawal of Trident nuclear weapons is clear, and that the time is now right to bring new momentum to the pursuit of nuclear disarmament. I call on the Scottish Parliament—on all those who have a conscience in relation to this—to send a clear, strong and positive message to the UK Government and the international community by supporting the motion.