Trident

– in the Scottish Parliament at on 6 August 2014.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Elaine Smith Elaine Smith Labour

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-10724, in the name of Keith Brown, on Trident.

We are tight for time this afternoon, and members who intend to speak in the open debate have been advised that speeches must be of five minutes’ duration. I ask the opening speakers to be as brief as possible in the time that has been allocated to them, because any time that we save can then be used in the open debate.

Photo of Keith Brown Keith Brown Scottish National Party

It is extremely important that we consider the issues that are raised in the motion, for a number of critical reasons. First, we must consider the current opportunity to remove obscenely destructive and indiscriminate weapons from Scotland for ever. Then we must consider the findings of the Trident commission, which reported last month, including the determination of the three main Westminster parties to proceed with Trident replacement and the massive costs that are associated with that decision. Finally, we must consider the impact of those costs—estimated at more than £100 billion at 2012 prices—on our expenditure on conventional defence equipment and on future budgets in general. Each of those issues is crucial to Scotland’s future, so it is extremely important that the Parliament consider them.

Six weeks tomorrow, the people of Scotland will have the opportunity to decide whether Scotland will once again take its place as an independent country. That choice, which I fully expect the people of Scotland to embrace, comes with this Government’s commitment to secure the removal of Trident nuclear weapons from an independent Scotland.

The Scottish Government and my party are determined to seize the opportunity to begin, in six weeks’ time, the discussions that will lead to the removal of nuclear weapons from Scotland. I cannot believe that there are not members of parties in the Scottish Parliament other than the Scottish National Party and the Green Party who would not be excited by that project, given that among the Parliament’s members are lifelong campaigners against nuclear weapons. Whatever their view on constitutional change, who would not be excited by the prospect of getting rid of nuclear weapons, especially when the alternative is a lifetime spent under the shadow of a new generation of nuclear weapons and delivery systems, and the yoke of their massive cost?

The vast majority of countries in the world neither have nor want nuclear weapons. Of the 193 United Nations independent member states, it is believed that fewer than 10 possess nuclear warheads, or aspire to do so. Three of the five states that currently host United States nuclear weapons have stated their wish to see the weapons’ removal.

The Scottish Government is a firm supporter of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Although some people might question the non-proliferation treaty’s success in relation to its ultimate aim of securing the reduction of nuclear arms, the NPT provides a clear basis for international management and control of nuclear material, technologies and information. We must build on that framework, to take the next step.

The Scottish Government believes that, rather than renewing and further developing their nuclear weapons systems, nuclear-weapons states need to focus their efforts on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. That is why, when we debated the issue in March last year, the Scottish Government lodged a motion that endorsed the five-point plan for nuclear disarmament that was set out by the secretary general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon. The plan builds on the NPT and calls on nuclear and non-nuclear-weapons states to fulfil their obligations under the treaty to pursue negotiations that lead to disarmament. I am glad to say that a majority in the Parliament supported that motion.

Having set out the context, I turn to the United Kingdom Government’s plans for the renewal of Trident nuclear weapons. The Prime Minister has said that in 2016 the UK Government will decide whether to replace the Trident submarine fleet. The decision, which prepares for Trident missiles with nuclear warheads being based on the Clyde through to 2060 and beyond, could have massive implications for the UK’s conventional defence forces, but if we look at the position of the three main parties at Westminster, we see that the so-called Trident “main gate” decision appears to have been made. Both coalition parties and Labour have signalled their support for a new fleet of submarines carrying Trident ballistic missiles, and questions remain around only the size of the fleet and whether nuclear weapons should be on patrol continuously.

It is particularly important for Labour back benchers who feel strongly about nuclear disarmament to understand that the alternative is the basing of massively powerful nuclear weapons and their delivery systems in central Scotland for the next 50 years or more. That is the alternative to what we propose. The current UK Government is sticking to its line that it has no plans to move those weapons from Her Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde. However, we believe that information that is critical to that decision—information on the costs and the consequences for the future of the UK’s armed forces—has not been made available either to members of Parliament at Westminster or to the general public.

On 1 July, the Trident commission, a cross-party inquiry led by representatives of the three main Westminster parties, published its concluding report. I disagree strongly with its support for the UK retaining nuclear weapons, and I was greatly concerned by its comments on the cost of Trident renewal and the impact that those costs could have on conventional defence personnel and equipment. The UK Government has provided estimates of the capital costs of replacing the submarine fleet that carries its nuclear weapons, of extending the life of the Trident missiles and of other infrastructure and warhead developments. According to the Trident commission’s report, those costs alone come to £50.6 billion at 2012 prices.

The Trident commission also estimates an annual in-service outlay on Trident running costs of around £1.5 billion at 2012 prices. Over an assumed operational lifetime of 35 years, that suggests a further £52.5 billion in running costs, taking the total potential cost of the UK Government’s Trident successor programme to over £100 billion at 2012 prices.

The Trident Commission’s overall financial assessment, which discounts future costs, suggests that the annual net present value of the Trident replacement system would average £2.9 billion per year. That is the equivalent of spending 9 per cent of the UK’s current defence budget on nuclear weapons each year. It also equates to between 20 and 30 per cent of the entire capital budget of all three services. However, as construction of the successor submarine fleet reaches its peak, the actual annual cash costs are projected to be even higher than that, at almost £4 billion a year by the mid-2020s, at 2012 prices. As the Trident commission recognises, that will

“place a heavy strain on MoD’s capital budget: in the period 2018 to 2030, between 20 and 30% of the whole defence capital budget shared between the three services will be spent on Trident renewal.”

Given the appalling cost overruns that tend to be typical of the Ministry of Defence’s projects—for example, the cost of the UK aircraft carrier programme rose from £3 billion to £6 billion in the blink of an eye—nobody really expects that the figures that I have just mentioned for the renewal of Trident will remain static.

The Trident commission’s concern echoes the comments of Professor Malcolm Chalmers of the Royal United Services Institute, who said in January 2013 that

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

That will mean, among other things, not enough helicopter support, not enough personal equipment for the troops and perhaps not enough troops. Those things are part of the price of Trident.

The Trident commission’s report goes further and states:

“Important defence projects currently in the pipeline will surely suffer delay or cancellation.”

Even more worryingly, it states:

“Retaining the deterrent could negatively impact on other valuable security and defence capabilities.”

It is clear that renewing Trident nuclear weapons will impact on the future procurement of defence equipment such as the T26 global combat ships that will be needed by UK forces at home and overseas. In that respect, the Scottish Government supports the Trident commission’s conclusion that the UK Government needs to be

“transparent about the cost to the public purse.”

A decision that commits to the spending of over £100 billion of taxpayers’ money and that has major consequences for future defence contracts at the expense of conventional defence capabilities is being taken without transparency about the costs and the impacts on other areas of defence spending.

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour

It has been stated clearly by Angus Robertson that savings from Trident will go into conventional defence—a policy that was repeated by Alex Salmond in his speech to the SNP conference in October 2012. Does the minister agree with that?

Photo of Keith Brown Keith Brown Scottish National Party

Jackie Baillie has already had the answer to that question. It is in the independence white paper, which says that we will spend £2.5 billion a year in Scotland on defence. Compare that with what we currently pay, which is £3.3 billion, even though only £1.7 billion, which is the amount from the last year for which records are available, was spent in Scotland. Therefore, we can both save on the budget and spend more on defence, which seems to be a pretty good solution for the people of Scotland.

On 8 July, the Deputy First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister calling for the true costs of Trident renewal to be made clear to the public. That includes transparency on the future UK defence projects that could be delayed, scaled back or cancelled in order to fund the replacement programme. To date, we have received no reply.

This Parliament should support the Government’s motion that such critical information be made available to defence personnel, to industry and businesses, to MPs and MSPs and, most important, to the public.

Photo of Neil Findlay Neil Findlay Labour

Is it not a bit rich for the minister to lecture other people about financial transparency, given that when people ask the Government about the transparency of the finances for an independent Scotland, they are rebuffed every time?

Photo of Keith Brown Keith Brown Scottish National Party

One can provide information for people who do not want to see or acknowledge that information. We have provided substantial information in the white paper and elsewhere on the matter. I would have thought that the UK Government’s lack of transparency on renewing Trident nuclear weapons would concern Neil Findlay, but we have not heard a word from him on the issue, which is unfortunate.

The call for greater transparency on the UK’s nuclear weapons programme is even more pressing when members consider that—this is another matter on which we have heard nothing from Neil Findlay—the UK Government has recently updated the UK-US mutual defence agreement, including on the transfer of nuclear weapons information, technology and material, without informing the House of Commons. In fact, that update came to light only because President Obama reported to Congress on the matter. Surely members other than those on the Government benches must be concerned about the lack of transparency.

The Scottish Government expects to be preparing for independence in 2016. A vote for independence is the only option that comes with a commitment to securing the withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Scotland. It is this Government’s aim to withdraw Trident from Scotland in the first term of the Scottish Parliament following independence. We believe that that is achievable and we look forward to sitting down with the UK Government to discuss the detailed timetable and to agree the arrangements. I assure the Parliament and the public that we would approach those discussions responsibly and that we would work closely with the UK Government to manage the withdrawal of Trident safely and securely.

On HMNB Clyde, the Scottish Government will maintain Faslane as an independent Scotland’s main naval base and as the home to our joint forces headquarters. The military personnel numbers based there will continue at around current levels, and Faslane’s conventional naval and forces HQ roles will support significant numbers of civilian personnel. We have given a commitment to work with the Westminster Government to preserve continuity of employment for all staff during the transition.

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour

How many naval jobs and how many civilian jobs to support those naval jobs would be at Faslane?

Photo of Keith Brown Keith Brown Scottish National Party

The crucial point is that we have said that we would retain those jobs because the number of naval and civilian jobs changes over time, as Jackie Baillie is well aware. We will retain the same number of military jobs, base the joint headquarters for our Scottish defence, and have the associated civilian jobs, at Faslane.

Under the UK Government, our armed forces personnel have been reduced to about 11,000. We intend to have 15,000 such personnel. That is an expansion of the armed forces rather than the issuing of P45s to people on the front line, as is the case now.

Some people will say that maintaining Trident at any cost is a price worth paying to protect our national security. I disagree. I support the view of former UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, who has commented that he does not consider Britain to be more protected by Trident. He also noted—quite correctly—that other countries, including Germany and Japan, are managing well without nuclear weapons.

This Parliament should signal its opposition to the renewal of Trident nuclear weapons and commit to working with nuclear and non-nuclear states in the pursuit of nuclear disarmament.

Scotland’s population share of the equivalent annual costs for the Trident replacement programme equates to about £240 million a year. To put that into perspective, that is more than we spend on the concessionary bus travel scheme and on our support for the bus industry. With a lifetime cost of around £100 billion and a peak cost of around £4 billion a year, Trident renewal, which we oppose on moral, economic and strategic grounds, could be achieved only at the expense of conventional defence programmes and procurement.

The choice that is facing Scotland is clear. On 18 September, vote for independence and for the withdrawal of Trident from Scotland, or leave that decision to the UK Government and face the possibility of another half century of nuclear weapons sailing from the Gare Loch.

I move,

That the Parliament supports the speediest safe withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Scotland; opposes the renewal of Trident nuclear weapons; believes that the predicted cost of around £4 billion a year in the mid-2020s for Trident renewal is totally unjustifiable; calls on the UK Government to set out which major defence procurement projects, or other areas of public spending, will have to be cut to pay for Trident renewal; notes that only a Yes vote in the independence referendum will guarantee the withdrawal of Trident nuclear weapons from Scotland; supports the aim of removing Trident within the first term of the Scottish Parliament following independence, and confirms its commitment to working with nuclear and non-nuclear states to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons.

Photo of Willie Rennie Willie Rennie Liberal Democrat

This afternoon’s debate perhaps gives us an indication of why the nationalist cause—the independence campaign—is struggling. The nationalists focus on 5 per cent of the total defence budget and leave ignored the 95 per cent of that budget that remains. That is perhaps why the independence campaign is struggling, and it is perhaps why people are concerned about the fact that a rather restricted campaign has been running and feel that we need a more comprehensive answer from the nationalists across a range of issues. I will try to address that.

This afternoon’s debate could be a big opportunity for the Government. After last night’s debate, perhaps it is licking its wounds and hunting for a game changer that will resurrect its campaign for September. Given that the public have a thirst for answers, the minister and his back benchers could provide some of those answers, but so far they have been far too limited.

First, I want to tackle some of the assumptions that the nationalists make on the issue. They imply that a person is not serious about nuclear disarmament unless they support independence. I put to one side the fact that, in this chamber, we are all disarmers—some of us are multilateral disarmers and some of us are unilateral disarmers. That is because the NPT requires all signatories to it to work towards nuclear disarmament.

We must consider the fact that there are many Labour members who support unilateral nuclear disarmament, but their commitment to that cause has been questioned by the SNP. I think that that is unfair and is something that they should reconsider.

I also believe that the SNP tries to apply that approach to a whole range of issues. It says that a person is not fully committed to childcare unless they support independence. I believe firmly in expanding childcare and have shown my commitment to that in this chamber. Do SNP members question my commitment to childcare?

The SNP also questions people’s commitment to Scotland. I have tremendous ambition for Scotland. I want Scotland to do more. I want us to have the best possible platform for Scots to achieve the great ambition that we have, using the great talent that we have, but I am questioned because I do not believe in an independent Scotland.

The nationalists also argue that Scotland becoming independent would automatically result in fewer nuclear weapons in the world, would benefit the country financially and would keep us safer, including on the Clyde. Some people have been convinced by those arguments, but let us look at each of them in turn. I turn first to cost. Scotland’s share of the cost of Trident is £200 million. I accept that we would no longer have to pay that. That is a small fraction of the total defence budget, but it is not insignificant—it is a reasonable sum.

However, if we compare that with the significant economic loss that would as a result be incurred in Jackie Baillie’s constituency

Photo of Willie Rennie Willie Rennie Liberal Democrat

I will not, just now.

Although the Scottish Government would benefit by £200 million potentially, 8,000 jobs would be lost, because the vast bulk of the annual cost of Trident is spent within the Faslane area. That would be lost to Scotland.

Photo of Willie Rennie Willie Rennie Liberal Democrat

Gil Paterson says that I am making it up. I invite him to explain exactly how I am making it up.

Photo of Gil Paterson Gil Paterson Scottish National Party

I thank Willie Rennie for inviting me to do so.

We will replace the jobs in question with the same number of jobs; it is just that they will not involve working on nuclear weapons. It is untrue that there will be fewer jobs.

Photo of Willie Rennie Willie Rennie Liberal Democrat

So, every penny of the £2.5 billion that is currently invested in the Trident nuclear weapon system, the vast bulk of which goes to Faslane and the Helensburgh area, will automatically be replaced—that is the commitment from the SNP Government. In an independent Scotland, we would spend £2.5 billion in that area alone. That is a new policy from the SNP, which has not been costed in the white paper. It would be very interesting to see the exact numbers.

Photo of Chic Brodie Chic Brodie Scottish National Party

I am not sure whether Mr Rennie is aware of this, but in 1983 the then Secretary of State for Scotland, George Younger, said that oil had been found in very exploitable quantities in the Clyde south of Arran. Indeed, a production licence—PL262—was given to BP in February 1984. Two months ago, Michael Heseltine confirmed that the MOD, for which he was secretary of state—

Photo of John Scott John Scott Conservative

And your question is, Mr Brodie?

Photo of Chic Brodie Chic Brodie Scottish National Party

The secretary of state had blocked all oil efforts in the Clyde. What does Mr Rennie actually support when he talks about costs, given the revenue that we had—

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Thank you. Mr Rennie.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Thank you, Mr Brodie. That is enough.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Mr Brodie! Sit down!

Photo of Willie Rennie Willie Rennie Liberal Democrat

If Chic Brodie wants to rejoin the Liberal Democrats, sit on these benches and make a speech—indeed, he could even lead for the Liberal Democrats on this subject in the future—I am sure that his constituents will be interested in the proposition.

We have just heard from Gil Paterson about an extra financial commitment of £2.5 billion for the Clyde. That is a tremendous commitment, and I would like to see the costing for it.

Photo of Gil Paterson Gil Paterson Scottish National Party

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I must ask you not to allow Mr Rennie to put words in my mouth. We were talking about employment, not about money being spent in Helensburgh.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Thank you, Mr Paterson. That is not a point of order, as I suspect a member of your experience is well aware. However, you have made your point.

Photo of Willie Rennie Willie Rennie Liberal Democrat

Perhaps I did not need to write a speech; my colleagues on the other benches would have helped me with it.

As I have said, we would have to weigh up the £200 million from which the Scottish Government would benefit with the 8,000 jobs that we would lose on the Clyde.

Secondly, on world peace, it is argued that the UK would have nowhere to put its nuclear weapon system and that it would somehow be forced to abandon it after Scotland had forced it from these shores. If the SNP thinks that along the very long shore of England and Wales there is no place at all to base those nuclear weapons, it is naive. The result is that we would have no fewer nuclear weapons in the world—

Members: Look behind you!

I am sure that someone is holding up the CND report that claims that apparently there is nowhere else to base these weapons along the UK’s very long coastline. Perhaps that organisation has an agenda. [Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Can we have a bit of order, please?

Photo of Willie Rennie Willie Rennie Liberal Democrat

Perhaps it is in favour of doing that at any price and at any cost. The reality is that there is a place for the nuclear weapon system in the rest of the UK, so such a move would not advance world peace.

The third argument is about safety on the Clyde. It has been implied that Glasgow, Greenock and Paisley are somehow under greater threat because the nuclear weapon system is at Faslane in Helensburgh. I suspect that if a nuclear bomb went off in Plymouth, Glasgow might be affected at some point and that there would be casualties in Scotland. The reality is that it has never happened and that there has never been an accident, but the SNP has tried to exaggerate the consequences. Glasgow and the west of Scotland would be no safer if we moved the nuclear weapons south of the border.

Photo of Willie Rennie Willie Rennie Liberal Democrat

I will not, just now. Some people have been convinced that if they believe in an independent Scotland they will secure a nuclear-free world.

Photo of Willie Rennie Willie Rennie Liberal Democrat

Not just now.

That is naive, and I think that those who are voting for independence on that basis have been misled. I would far rather maintain my influence over the weapons system to advance multilateral disarmament around the globe than abdicate our responsibility and refuse to take part in any discussions or contribute to the debate by creating an independent Scotland. That, for me, is far from looking to the global interest or trying to advance world peace; it is about turning in on ourselves and considering only what we regard as pure for ourselves and not what is in the interests of the wider world.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

You should be drawing to a close, Mr Rennie.

Photo of Willie Rennie Willie Rennie Liberal Democrat

To those who are considering supporting independence on that basis, I say that they should reconsider. They should not listen to the people on the SNP benches; they are selling them a pig in a poke, and it is not going to work.

I move amendment S4M-10724.1, to leave out from first “supports” to end and insert:

“recognises the Liberal Democrats’ commitment to reduce the UK’s nuclear arms and support global disarmament; notes that local SNP branches called for the refurbishment of Trident to be carried out at Rosyth; further notes that the removal of nuclear weapons from Scotland will not result in any fewer nuclear weapons in the world; notes that the SNP wishes Scotland to remain part of the NATO nuclear alliance; believes that the SNP’s defence policy is more of a slogan than a full policy; calls on the Scottish Government to use the 42 days until the referendum to explain from where it will recruit the personnel required for a Scottish military, how the correct balance of skills would be achieved and the timescale for achieving balance in the event of independence, and further calls on the Scottish Government to be clear on what will happen to the security of Scotland in the intervening period, given that this basic information has not so far been provided.”

Photo of Patrick Harvie Patrick Harvie Green

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate and to restate, as we should, a reminder that a majority of Scotland’s people and Scotland’s representatives at Westminster and in the Scottish Parliament have consistently opposed current UK policy on the nuclear weapons that are based here.

Yesterday, the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on nuclear disarmament heard from Bruce Kent of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and Ward Wilson from the rethinking nuclear weapons project. Bruce Kent’s voice in the debate is a familiar and much-respected one. He reminded us of the history of the anti-nuclear movement in the UK and shared with us something of the hope that is felt by activists north and south of the border that Scotland can lead the way by voting yes to independence and then giving an unequivocal no to nuclear weapons.

Many members will have heard before Bruce Kent outline the moral arguments against weapons of mass destruction, principal among which, of course, is the inability of nuclear weapons to discriminate between civilian and military targets. They are capable only of the mass slaughter of innocent people.

In the past few weeks, the world has reacted with horror to the civilian deaths that have been meted out in Gaza and the indiscriminate action that has not discriminated between civilian and military targets. It should be crystal clear that any country that used nuclear weapons in any context would be a pariah state for generations to come.

In addition, there is a moral dimension to what nuclear weapons symbolise—their cultural meaning. As my favourite fictional Prime Minister, Harry Perkins, put it when announcing the dismantling of Britain’s nuclear weapons:

“with this action, we shall also be dismantling the idea that our freedom somehow depends on the fear of annihilation. It is an absurd and obscene idea. We want no part of it.”

I hope that we can capture the ambition to turn that fiction into reality.

Ward Wilson, on the other hand, used yesterday’s meeting to outline the strategic arguments. His case, which is compelling, is that the ideology of nuclear weapons is based on myths that need to be exposed. There is the myth that nuclear weapons won the second world war. We can and should mourn the lives that were lost in such vast numbers in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but even after all this time, there remains no definitive reason to believe that either nuclear attack was the key event that led to the Japanese surrender. The Soviet Union’s entry into the war precipitated the immediate political response by Japan’s Supreme Council. The Japanese historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa has stated:

“The Soviet entry into the war played a much greater role than the atomic bombs in inducing Japan to surrender because it dashed any hope that Japan could terminate the war through Moscow’s mediation”.

The second myth is that nuclear weapons represent a leap in decisiveness. Even at the time of their development, that was a dubious claim. The bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki certainly killed on a mass scale, but so too did the firebombing that preceded them. The firebombing of Tokyo alone killed well over 100,000 people. That was on a par with the bombing of Hiroshima.

Seen from today’s perspective, that argument is even less credible. Nuclear weapons are the messiest and clumsiest of the weapons available. They are not only incapable of discriminating between civilian and military targets; they are incapable of reliable geographical targeting. To use them against a neighbour would be suicidal; even to use them against a distant state would have an incalculable impact on others nearby. At a time when military innovation is focused on precise, targeted and so-called surgical weapons, Trident and its like begin to look like an absurd relic and as convincing a piece of technology as the blunderbuss.

Thirdly, there is the myth that deterrence is safe and reliable. Nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be unable to deter states from taking illegal and unacceptable conventional action against their neighbours, as the situation in Ukraine demonstrates, despite that country’s membership of NATO’s partnership for peace. Beyond that, we should acknowledge the long history of near-miss incidents in which threats, accidents and even weather phenomena have been misinterpreted and could easily have led to nuclear exchanges with catastrophic consequences.

Nuclear deterrence is inherently unsafe, unstable and precarious. On the myth that nuclear weapons have kept the peace for 60 years, can anyone seriously look at the history of the past 60 years and say that, as we were told at the time, there is a clear dividing line between the pre-nuclear age and the post-nuclear age? We can look around the world and see the proliferation of conventional weapons. We can also see the UK’s record in wars, whether or not the involvement was for reasons we called justified, and the continued power of the arms industry. Nuclear technology has not kept the peace.

Finally, there is the myth that the nuclear genie cannot be put back into the bottle. The argument that nuclear weapons cannot be uninvented may be true, but that does not confer utility on a technology that has no useful purpose. There is a clear possibility and a growing momentum for a global ban on nuclear weapons, as was shown at the conference that was attended by more than 140 Governments in Mexico earlier this year.

A written constitution can achieve a ban on nuclear weapons in Scotland. Not only that, it can challenge the nonsense that a journey from unilateral disarmament to multilateral disarmament is in any way compatible with the UK’s policy of unilateral rearmament. I can only imagine the Commonwealth standard of mental gymnastics required to make that link. A yes vote is not simply about moving nuclear weapons from one place to another; it is about tipping the balance in the rest of the UK as well and winning the case against the renewal of this vicious system.

I move amendment S4M-10724.2, to leave out from “, and confirms” to end and insert:

“and a constitutional ban on nuclear weapons in Scotland; confirms its commitment to working with nuclear and non-nuclear states to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons; supports a global ban on nuclear weapons, and considers that the removal of Trident from Scotland would strengthen the case against renewal of the UK Government’s nuclear arsenal.”

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

I call Iain Gray, who has six minutes. We are very tight for time today.

Photo of Iain Gray Iain Gray Labour

Deterrence and disarmament is a profound and complex issue, which encompasses geopolitical calculation and moral argument, too. Beyond the absolutist position of pacifism, drawing distinctions between weapons and different modes of war is always difficult and often ambiguous. Patrick Harvie touched on this: we should note and remember that it was 69 years ago today that over 50,000 died at Hiroshima as the result of a single bomb blast. Yet we also remember this week world war 1, in which on a single day in a single battle over 50,000 men died on one side alone, victims of the most conventional of weapons.

I have never been a member of CND, but I campaigned against land mines, which kill just as indiscriminately but one person at a time. These issues are never black and white and none of this is made any simpler by the unpredictable nature of conflict. The cold war has ended but tension in Europe has not, and conflicts in the middle east seem never ending but always changing. Drones and cyber warfare pose completely new questions of defence, security and deterrence.

It is a pity, then, that we once again find ourselves debating such an issue as a tactic in the Scottish Government’s pursuit of independence. It is a tactic that its members return to because—Mr Brown did this today—they think that they have been terribly clever to spot that people in the Labour Party have different views on Trident. Well, here is a surprise: it has been like that since the 50s, when Britain first had a nuclear weapon. It has been like that since Nye Bevan made his famous “naked into the conference chamber” speech in the year I was born. We are a democratic party and we tolerate debate and argument and different views. I know that that is hard for the SNP to understand, but there it is and it has moved us in the right direction.

Photo of Keith Brown Keith Brown Scottish National Party

On the issue of tolerating different points of view, the member might remember that during a previous debate Michael McMahon described CND as

“the campaign for nuclear delusion.” —[Official Report, 20 March 2013; c 18010.]

Was that tolerant?

Photo of Iain Gray Iain Gray Labour

That is Mr McMahon’s view, and many of his colleagues would take a different view. That is the point that I am making. It is a difference and a debate that has taken us in the right direction over time.

Since the end of the cold war, the UK’s nuclear capacity has reduced by 75 per cent. The most recent Labour Government alone reduced available warheads from 300 to 160 and got rid of aircraft-borne nuclear weapons altogether. We have not committed to the replacement of Trident, either. I personally believe that multilateralism can work, but I acknowledge the views of many of my colleagues. I know that there is a perfectly respectable moral case for unilateralism. What there is not a moral or even logical case for is moving nuclear weapons a few hundred miles south and calling that disarmament. That is not disarmament; it is redeployment.

Photo of Iain Gray Iain Gray Labour

I am sorry.

That is not dismantling, which Harry Perkins did in the novel. It is dissembling. Worse still is the Government’s position that Trident should be moved to England, and then Scotland should join NATO, thus positioning itself four-square behind NATO’s nuclear deterrent, which would of course include the very Trident that we had just expelled.

“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 say that?”

Those are not my words but the words of Sandra White MSP, and she is right.

No wonder the SNP is split on this policy.

Photo of Iain Gray Iain Gray Labour

No wonder the SNP is split on the policy of NATO. Kenny MacAskill is no Nye Bevan, but he it was who had to be sent into the SNP conference to plead with it not to send the SNP into the referendum campaign naked on defence. However, that NATO position is hypocritical and dishonest.

The SNP is dishonest, too, on Trident savings, where we have a different story every day. They will pay for a conventional defence force. No, they will pay for childcare. No, they will pay for youth unemployment and colleges. And that is just what Alex Salmond has told us in recent months. I have a list of his colleagues spending the same money on pensions, schools, welfare, teachers and a dozen other things. Mr Brown is laughing, but he is going to spend the money on export opportunities. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but that is what he said. His colleague Angus Robertson is going to spend it on more diplomatic missions. The SNP may not be able to tell us what currency we will have, but at least we know that it must be a magic currency that can be spent over and over again on different things.

The truth is that the running costs of Trident are about £160 million per annum in Scottish share, and that would barely pay for this Government’s plans to cut air passenger duty.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

As you draw to a close.

Photo of Iain Gray Iain Gray Labour

It would pay for only a fraction of the corporation tax windfall that the SNP has promised our big companies. It would not replace the £230 million that Faslane injects into the local economy or the 11,000 jobs that the SNP’s policy places under threat there.

Disarmament is one of the great moral and political questions of the last three generations.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

You must close, please.

To reduce it to a referendum tactic, as the motion does, is simply wrong and we will vote against the motion.

Photo of Baroness Annabel MacNicoll Goldie Baroness Annabel MacNicoll Goldie Conservative

This is the third time in less than 18 months that I have spoken in this Parliament on Trident. Of course it is important, but given what is happening to our country in six weeks’ time, should we not be debating other things to do with Scotland becoming independent, such as the risk and uncertainty over the currency, European Union membership, pensions, the national health service and jobs? To judge from the pasting that the First Minister took last night, those would seem to be more pressing issues.

Indeed, it seems that not everyone agrees with the Scottish Government on Trident. According to a poll, 41 per cent of people agree that, if Scotland becomes independent, Britain’s nuclear weapon submarines should continue to be based here and 37 per cent want them to go elsewhere, so the Government does not even have a unanimity of position within Scotland.

As I have said before, nuclear weapons have an awesome capacity for destruction and they are expensive, but for the moment they are necessary. The SNP’s position that if we banish Trident from Scotland’s shores, our country will be safer and our conscience will be clear is both misconceived and completely flawed.

Photo of Baroness Annabel MacNicoll Goldie Baroness Annabel MacNicoll Goldie Conservative

No, thanks.

First, to achieve a safer world, as other speakers have said, we must use the forum of international influence and debate. We need to promote and deploy the existing non-proliferation treaty and focus the attention of the major world powers on multilateral de-escalation and disarmament.

Secondly, how credible is the argument that, by simply plucking Trident from Faslane and moving it down the coast without caring where it ends up, the world somehow becomes a safer place? That is a facile proposition, and I profoundly disagree with those who argue that removing Trident from Scotland will somehow make it a safer place.

Photo of Baroness Annabel MacNicoll Goldie Baroness Annabel MacNicoll Goldie Conservative

No, thanks.

We remain safer by retaining Trident at Faslane.

Thirdly, 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 immediate future. “Deterrence” is the key word.

It is precisely because of its destructive powers that nuclear weaponry has the capability to deter acts of aggression. That scale of deterrence is completely different from any other form. Last month, the Trident commission—an independent, cross-party commission—said that it is in the UK’s national interest to keep the Trident nuclear weapons system.

We simply cannot dismiss the possibility that a major direct nuclear threat to the UK might re-emerge. The fact is that since acquiring Trident, and its predecessor Polaris, we have had four decades of non-nuclear conflict. At present, as part of the UK, we have a strong defence capability. An independent Scotland’s defence capability would be much more limited, giving it much less clout and influence on the international stage. I genuinely believe that we all want to achieve multilateral disarmament but it cannot be negotiated from a position of weakness; it does not work that way.

Photo of Baroness Annabel MacNicoll Goldie Baroness Annabel MacNicoll Goldie Conservative

In fact, unilateral disarmament will only weaken the momentum for multilateral disarmament.

The other aspect of the debate is the consequence of independence for thousands of jobs in Scotland, many of them in the area of the west of Scotland that I represent. Those jobs are in the armed services and the many defence companies that rely heavily on contracts from the Ministry of Defence. The defence sector is a hugely important part of Scotland’s industry, employing more than 12,600 people in highly skilled, high-value jobs in areas such as design, manufacture, assembly and maintenance. Faslane sustains around 6,700 military and civilian jobs and that is projected to increase to 8,200 by 2022.

For the communities of Helensburgh and West Dunbartonshire and their local economies, precipitate removal of Trident from Faslane would have a disastrous effect. Faslane contributes £250 million to the local economy and the base indirectly supports more than 7,000 jobs in the area. If anyone wants to know how passionately people in that area feel, they should go to a public meeting on the issue. There will not be much support there for the Scottish Government’s motion.

We all aspire to a world that is free of nuclear weapons. The only way to achieve that is to work proactively and vigorously on the international stage to expand and enhance the non-proliferation treaty. The UK has an excellent track record in that respect. Unilateralism would be an absolute gift to any rogue nation or hostile power that was developing illegal nuclear capacity.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

The member is in her final minute.

Photo of Baroness Annabel MacNicoll Goldie Baroness Annabel MacNicoll Goldie Conservative

Let us not hide our heads in the sand; such rogue nations and hostile powers exist. At present, because of the existence of nuclear arsenals around the world, the possibility of further proliferation of nuclear weapons by rogue states and the continuing risk of worldwide instability and tension, the UK’s nuclear deterrent remains an important element of our national security.

That being said, and in line with the non-proliferation treaty, we are taking steps to reduce our nuclear arsenal. The Government is reducing the UK’s stockpile of nuclear weapons to no more than 180 warheads and a maximum of 40 per vessel. That will be complete by the mid-2020s.

As part of the UK, we are able to defend our own nation and citizens, and influence international debate. We all want a nuclear-free world, but the unilateral removal of Trident is certainly not the way to achieve it.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Thank you. Before we move to the open debate, I remind members that interventions from a sedentary position are no more welcome than they have ever been.

Photo of Bill Kidd Bill Kidd Scottish National Party

I declare that I am co-president of parliamentarians for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament and the Scottish representative on the global council of abolition 2000.

Members across the chamber favour nuclear disarmament, as indeed do members at Westminster, lest it be forgotten. Amongst others I have worked with are my good friends Jeremy Corbyn MP of Labour and the Liberal Democrat Baroness Sue Miller. I have worked with them and spoken to them at many international conferences overseas on achieving our joint aim of a world without nuclear weapons.

With that in mind, I believe that we should all see today as an opportunity to think about how Scotland, as the sole repository of the entire UK nuclear weapons arsenal, should look towards the removal of Trident and the timescale for that. As a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the UK has a duty to work towards ending these weapons of mass destruction. It is our duty here, whether as unilateralists or multilateralists, to work in honest good faith to achieve that end, not just to talk about it.

That must mean not upgrading or replacing Trident, at a cost of up to £100 billion, with the intention—because it is the intention of the British Government to do so—to maintain that system for the next 40 to 50 years. That does not demonstrate good faith with the NPT. It is our duty to work towards nuclear disarmament as quickly as possible. That is because we represent not only the people of Scotland but people around the world who believe that nuclear weapons are a danger to us all.

Why not continue to keep established nuclear weapons such as Trident? One or two voices in the wilderness are crying out, “Nuclear weapons are a good thing. They’ve stopped us from having wars.” I have not noticed them stopping us from having wars—there are plenty of wars going on. They might not be nuclear wars, but they are wars. In other words, Trident has not stopped a single war; there just has not been a nuclear war.

Nuclear weapons are not a force of nature. As Patrick Harvie said, they are not a magic genie from a bottle. They are an invention of man. They do not keep us safe in perpetuity because, like all man-made equipment, they are capable of failure. Like Karl Wallenda, the greatest tight-rope walker ever, we can walk the rope, suspended in the air, day and daily for more than 60 years, but one day, as unfortunately happened to Mr Wallenda, even with great skill and knowledge our luck can run out and devastating tragedy will be the outcome.

It might be asked, “What good are nuclear weapons against cybercrime, or in the war against illegal drugs? What good are they in the battle against the criminal madness of ISIS—the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria—as it rampages across the middle east? What good are nuclear weapons against the terror threats on our own shores?” Long-term security without nuclear deterrence involves investment in international cross-border co-operation and conventional armed forces.

From major military figures such as General Sir Hugh Beach, former master general of the ordnance of the British forces; General Ramsbotham, former commander of the field army; General Bernard Norlain, former chief of the French air force; to my friends and colleagues who have worked at the sharp end of missile delivery in the Royal Navy, retired Lieutenant Commanders Feargal Dalton and Robert Green—all of those are officers who have had to see oversee nuclear weapons in the real world. All of them believe that Trident has no utility to the military. All of them would rather have fully trained and equipped forces to defend their people than a genie with a magic wand that is supposed to cause fear in the ranks of enemies and keep us safe for ever.

Yesterday, in committee room 3, I held a meeting with guest speakers: the international lecturer and author Ward Wilson, who is in the gallery, and Bruce Kent of CND UK, who has said that he supports Scottish independence as a faster route to getting rid of Trident. It was a great meeting. It said a great deal. On top of that, I just received an email from the former mayor of Hiroshima, Tadatoshi Akiba, who says that he is looking forward to a successful debate today in the Scottish Parliament, paving the way to an independent Scotland joining the 2020 vision of a world free of nuclear weapons.

Photo of Michael McMahon Michael McMahon Labour

The principles that apply to war of any kind are that we have an obligation to avoid war if at all possible and the use of force must be a last resort. As Patrick Harvie rightly said, the use of force must be discriminate. Civilians and civilian facilities may not be the object of direct intentional attack and care must be taken to avoid and minimise indirect harm to civilians. The use of force must be proportionate. The overall disruption must not outweigh the good to be achieved and there must be the probability of success.

Having considered those principles, I cannot arrive at any other conclusion than that the fighting of a nuclear war must be rejected because it cannot ensure non-combatant immunity, and the likely destruction and enduring radiation would violate the principle of proportionality. The real risks that are inherent in nuclear war make the probability of success impossible. In a nuclear war there are no victors, only victims.

The argument for the possession of nuclear weapons as a deterrent is, for me, not an adequate strategy as a long-term basis for peace. It is a transitional strategy that is justifiable only in conjunction with the resolute determination to pursue arms control and disarmament.

We cannot make the world safer through the threat of nuclear weapons, and we can make the world safer from nuclear weapons only through mutual nuclear disarmament. That will require bilateral, multilateral and, if possible, unilateral decisions, but all done in co-operation. That is where the SNP’s position unravels beyond credulity.

Photo of Patrick Harvie Patrick Harvie Green

Would Mr McMahon acknowledge, simply as a matter of fact, that during this era of nuclear deterrence as a strategic concept the world has seen an increase in the number of nuclear states, not a decrease?

Photo of Michael McMahon Michael McMahon Labour

That is absolutely factually correct. There is no disputing that.

The end does not justify the means, but the end can and should inform the means.

Abolishing nuclear weapons is not a partisan or nationalistic issue; it is an issue of fundamental moral values that should unite people across national and ideological boundaries. However, in order to achieve nuclear disarmament, we must carefully assess every nuclear policy proposal in light of its potential to bring us closer to a world without nuclear weapons.

What we cannot do in an international debate on nuclear disarmament is use a constitutional debate that would do nothing more than move an existing nuclear facility from one side of a border to another, if we are serious about pursuing genuine nuclear disarmament throughout the world.

It is essential to translate the goal of a world without nuclear weapons from an idealistic dream or pious hope to a genuine policy objective to be achieved carefully and in the context of international dialogue.

There are valid questions about what new risks might arise as the world moves toward zero nuclear arms, and those questions deserve concrete solutions, which can be crafted only by committed international policy makers and experts.

Most world leaders, religious figures and other people of good will who support a nuclear weapons-free world are not naive about the task ahead. They know that the path will be difficult and will require determined political leadership, strong public support and the dedicated skills of many capable leaders and technical experts.

The non-nuclear aspirations of the SNP are welcome, but the contradictions between NATO membership and independent state action are incongruous. The SNP argues that an independent Scotland would have an independent defence and foreign policy that would defend Scotland’s national interests. However, the reality is that, as a member of NATO, it would be impossible for a Scottish Government alone to get rid of Trident.

The SNP also speaks about the

“speediest safe removal of nuclear weapons” and argues that we could see the dismantling of nuclear weapons within two years and their removal within the first term of a post-independence Government. However, the obstacles to that would be huge, not least from within the NATO alliance itself.

Whether we approve of Trident or not, it cannot be ignored that it is an assigned weapon to NATO, but the SNP wants us to believe that a Scottish Government would be asking to join that military alliance while, at the same time, wanting to undermine a core part of that alliance’s strategic strike force.

Replicating the existing facilities of Faslane and Coulport elsewhere in Britain—I agree with Willie Rennie that a new site would be found—would take at least a decade.

I do not doubt the sincerity of those in the SNP who wish Trident to be removed from our shores. I support that ambition, but I cannot support the SNP’s policy or the motion.

Photo of Christina McKelvie Christina McKelvie Scottish National Party

Trident is the elephant in our back yard—weapons of mass destruction that will cost us around £4 billion a year by the mid-2020s. Do we want them there? Do we want secret night-time convoys of warheads driving along the M8, or through my constituency, via the M74, or through the largest centres of population in Scotland? I do not think that we do.

Just in case anyone is unsure, I point out that moving those nuclear weapons and radioactive materials around by road is far from safe, whatever propaganda Annabel Goldie wants to give us today. A freedom of information request to the MOD revealed that there had been 70 safety lapses across the UK in five and a half years. Vehicles got lost, a fuse box failed, fuel leaked, brakes overheated, alarms malfunctioned and the gun flap of a vehicle “opened inadvertently.”

Members should not delude themselves: nuclear weapons are not safe. If there was to be some kind of accident—and the MOD concedes that that is possible—our Westminster defence chiefs would refer to it as “an inadvertent yield.” That language tells me something about how the MOD views a potential accidental Hiroshima. I suppose that the entire population of greater Glasgow would be not only an inadvertent yield but collateral damage.

It is not about the cost either. Just as important is the moral price—no, the price of immorality, because the very presence of Trident is an affront to any concept of morality.

David Cameron does not want Trident anywhere near his voters. Neither do I. He knows very well that he has a choice to make and that that choice will cost him voters but, after a yes vote on 18 September, Mr Cameron will have his own reality to face.

Scots have already paid too big a price to have those abhorrent weapons in their back yard. According to the Westminster Scottish Affairs Committee in October 2012,

“nuclear weapons in Scotland could be disarmed within days and removed within months.”

CND thinks that it would take a couple of years to decommission the weapons fully. The Government plans to have them out of here by the first post-independence session of the Parliament.

We in Scotland—and not only yes voters—have made it very clear that we do not want Trident. In fact, 80 per cent of Scots have said that it should not be replaced. In the chamber, members have repeatedly and conclusively voiced their opposition.

On Monday, Bruce Kent, vice president of CND UK, gave his backing to a yes vote because, as he points out, it

“would lead to the removal of immoral and illegal Trident from Faslane and Scotland” and, most likely, the rest of the UK. He added:

“It is quite clear that … the … Westminster parties have no intention … of getting rid of”

Trident.

When I first heard Bruce Kent speak, I was 15 years old and he inspired me to join CND. My young son, who is 16 years old, is sitting in the public gallery listening to the debate. I do not want his son to be sitting in the public gallery at 16, listening to the same debate years from now.

Bruce Kent spoke yesterday and has lost nothing of his conviction: Trident must go. How can anybody justify having the power to wipe out half the world? The real threats to world peace come from extremist terrorists, the 9/11 attacks, the irreconcilable divide between Israel and Palestine, the many tragic civilian deaths that we have seen in Gaza, the Sunni and Shiite split in Syria or the continuing internal battles in Afghanistan. Is anyone seriously suggesting that nuclear weapons will act as a deterrent to the Taliban?

I am not pretending that aggression is not a risk against which we must equip ourselves as far as practicable. I am saying categorically that nuclear weapons are not the way to do that. The reason that most countries in the world are trying to stop nuclear proliferation is very simple: they recognise that the more weapons of mass destruction are available, the more they will proliferate. Countries that had not considered acquiring the capacity start to feel under pressure. They think that they have to acquire it because everyone else is doing so. You know what? Halliburton will do them a great deal. That is not a good base upon which to build defence policy.

We have spent too long in enforced silence. It is time for the people of Scotland—the voices of our electorate—to say no to Trident, no to Westminster and yes to an independent Scotland where we have the freedom to make our own decisions according to our own choices and priorities.

Instead of wasting billions of pounds on Trident, let us make a positive choice for ourselves and employ another 3,300 nurses or 2,700 teachers. That is investing in the future; Trident is an investment in global murder.

Photo of Neil Findlay Neil Findlay Labour

I have forgotten to declare my membership of CND on my register of interests, so I put it on the record now. It may be helpful if, in the interests of transparency, others do so as well during the debate if they have such interests.

I also apologise to Bill Kidd for being unable to make the meeting yesterday. I intended to go but could not for other reasons.

I have been an opponent of nuclear weapons all my adult life, and my position is reflected by many people in the Labour Party and across the wider labour and trade union movement, so the fact that there are different views and opinions on nuclear weapons and Trident renewal is hardly a revelation or a secret. As Iain Gray pointed out, there have been differences in the Labour movement since the nuclear issue raised its head.

That range of opinion is further reflected across the wider political spectrum and society. People such as Labour’s former chief whip Nick Brown, Lib Dem MP Nick Harvey and former Tory MP and minister Michael Portillo, churches, trade unions and civic organisations are all coming out against Trident renewal. Such broad coalition building is important and is what organisations such as CND should be doing—they should build the broadest coalition in support of their aims, to convince people from all backgrounds through argument and debate that the case against Trident is strong and just.

It was therefore a great mistake for Scottish CND to break with consensus building by taking a position on the referendum. I think that, on reflection, it might regret that in the longer term.

Photo of Christian Allard Christian Allard Scottish National Party

I note that Mr Findlay said that he is a member of CND. I remember well the vote at the Scottish CND meeting. Mr Findlay was not there—can I ask why?

Photo of Neil Findlay Neil Findlay Labour

I was not there for a variety of reasons, but I know people who were there and who were disappointed by the position that CND took. Unfortunately, people cannot be at everything, as the member knows.

Let me be unequivocal.

Photo of Neil Findlay Neil Findlay Labour

No, thank you.

For ethical, financial and practical reasons, I oppose nuclear weapons and the renewal of Trident. Such weapons, which were designed with the use of some of the most fantastic and sophisticated engineering skills and ingenuity available, have only one purpose—the destruction of human life on an unprecedented scale.

Each of the current missiles has a range of up to 7,500 miles, is extremely accurate and has the destructive power of eight Hiroshima bombs. If that is just one bomb’s level of destruction, an all-out nuclear war or a unilateral attack that used modern weaponry would result in death and destruction on a scale that has never been seen before. In all conscience, I cannot support a system whose only purpose is to kill my fellow human beings on such a large scale.

However, I find the motion’s terms cynical and opportunist. The motion makes no attempt to build a broad parliamentary coalition against Trident replacement or to reach out and build the moral or practical case; it represents just a cynical and partisan attempt to use Trident as a referendum issue.

If a vote for separation—which is somewhat less likely now, given the First Minister’s performance last night—would bring us closer to Trident removal, why did the SNP decide, after years of opposition to the idea and just when it thinks that it is about to achieve its political raison d’être, that it would support joining NATO, which is a first-strike nuclear alliance? Is that not an odd position to take?

Even if the nuclear fleet sailed out of the Clyde to be moored in Barrow, the Tyne or the Mersey, would that make the world a safer place? Would it mean fewer nuclear weapons in the world? Of course it would not. It would simply displace the weapons. Moving Trident a few hundred miles south would not make me sleep more easily in my bed at night or salve my conscience one bit. Trident is not an out of sight, out of mind issue for me.

We have a far better chance of getting rid of Trident if we can convince UK public opinion, the military and politicians at all levels that Trident renewal is wrong and that the UK and the world will be a safer place without Trident.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

I ask you to draw to a close.

Photo of Neil Findlay Neil Findlay Labour

Then we should negotiate Trident away, as we will have much more negotiating power.

I will finish with a quote from the late, great Tony Benn, who opposed independence but was a lifelong peace campaigner.

Photo of Neil Findlay Neil Findlay Labour

Tony Benn said that, if we can find money to kill people, we can find money to help people. As always, he found a few simple and profound words to explain a complex issue.

Photo of Kevin Stewart Kevin Stewart Scottish National Party

Today, we should show leadership and try to persuade others in the world to follow our lead and eradicate nuclear weapons not only from Scotland but from the entire planet. Many arguments have been made today, but interesting things that former pro-nuclear supporters have said about Trident replacement must be brought to the fore.

Michael Portillo, the former UK Secretary of State for Defence, said on the BBC’s “This Week” on 2 November 2012 that Trident is

“completely past its sell-by date” and

“a waste of money”, and that it is

“no deterrent for the Taliban.”

Des Browne, the former Labour defence secretary, said in the Telegraph on 5 February 2013 that updating Trident with a like-for-like replacement

“will demonstrate to the international community that we intend to keep nuclear weapons on permanent deployment for decades while seeking to deny those weapons to everyone else. In the process, it will destroy any chance of building the broad-based international support required for a stronger non-proliferation and nuclear security regime”.

I agree with both those gentlemen.

I spoke about the need to take the lead. Treaties and moves to eradicate weapons systems have always required leadership. It took leadership from some nations to establish the respective United Nations conventions on biological and chemical weapons. Iain Gray mentioned landmines; it took leadership from some nations to establish the Ottawa treaty.

Photo of Iain Gray Iain Gray Labour

Does that not illustrate exactly what I was saying? The landmine treaty was agreed multilaterally. A significant number—indeed, dozens—of nations agreed together to give up those weapons. That was multilateralism.

Photo of Kevin Stewart Kevin Stewart Scottish National Party

No, it was not. In most respects it was unilateralism, as individual countries reached a point at which they could come together, although unfortunately some countries did not reach that stage and have still not signed up to the treaty. Individual countries got rid of their landmines before signing the treaty. That is unilateralism, and that is the way that we should go.

With regard to the comments from Neil Findlay and other members, I do not want to see nuclear weapons moved from Faslane to other parts of these islands, and I do not think that that will happen. Folk need to have a look at the evidence, some of which is gathered in John Ainslie’s publication, “No place for Trident: Scottish independence and nuclear disarmament”. It makes for interesting reading.

On page 12, Mr Ainslie says:

“In January 2012 the Telegraph, quoted an MoD source as saying, ‘Berths would not be a problem—there are docks on the south coast that could be used without too much fuss. But there simply isn’t anywhere else where we can do what we do at Coulport, and without that there is no deterrent.’”

He goes on to say:

“A former commander of Faslane poured cold water on any plans to relocate. Rear Admiral Alabaster said, ‘it would be very difficult—in fact, I would almost use the word “inconceivable”—to recreate the facilities necessary to mount the strategic deterrent, without the use of Faslane and Coulport, somewhere else in the UK.’”

That is one of the reasons why, if we vote for independence and say no to nuclear weapons in Scotland, they will be eradicated completely and utterly from these islands. I hope that, after that has happened, others will see that we have taken the lead and will do likewise.

In my book, spending £100 billion on Trident at a time of austerity is plain wrong—in fact, it is evil. As I have said in the chamber before, I would put teachers before Trident, nurses before nukes and bairns before bombs. I hope that every member will agree and support the motion today.

Photo of Malcolm Chisholm Malcolm Chisholm Labour

As Iain Gray said, there have been different views in the Labour Party about nuclear weapons since the 1950s, and I fully respect the views of colleagues who take a different position from my own.

I have supported campaigns against Trident in the three and a half decades since it was announced in the early years of the Conservative Government of the time. However, I have never supported Trident nimbyism and the futile distraction of moving it somewhere else.

That would not help the cause of international disarmament one little bit—any more than, for example, the movement of missiles from Belarus and Kazakhstan to Russia after the cold war had any disarmament consequences whatsoever. I argue that Trident nimbyism would actually make the situation worse, as it would strengthen the resolve of those in the rest of the United Kingdom who want to renew Trident, psychologically as well as strategically, and it would weaken the multilateral possibilities that still exist at UK level.

We have heard many examples of how thinking is changing, even within the military and political establishments. The previous speaker referred to Des Browne, the former defence secretary, but I could mention Michael Portillo, a former Conservative defence secretary who is now against Trident. Therefore, things are different now from 35 years ago. There are multilateral possibilities, but Trident nimbyism would weaken those possibilities.

Photo of Kevin Stewart Kevin Stewart Scottish National Party

Mr Chisholm says that he supports the likes of Des Browne, but can he tell us categorically here and now what the Labour Party position will be in the run-up to the next election? His defence spokesperson at Westminster, Mr Coker, seems to be very much in favour of a Trident replacement, as are the Tories and the Liberals.

Photo of Malcolm Chisholm Malcolm Chisholm Labour

I began my speech by saying that there are different views on that. The final decision will be taken in 2016.

Obviously, in general terms I am opposed to Trident, but another consideration is that if, in the event of a yes vote, the SNP sticks with the policy in an inflexible way, it will have to face the reality that there will be a heavy price to pay in the negotiations after independence. We already know that the fiscal situation will be more difficult in an independent Scotland than in the rest of the UK, but the fiscal challenges would become even greater because of the billions that it would cost to remove Trident, and we already know from the UK Government that that would be an important consideration in the negotiations.

That is why some strong voices in the peace movement do not believe that the SNP would stick with its policy. For example, Tim Duffy, who is one of the great peace campaigners in Scotland of the past few decades, in an editorial in the most recent edition of the Justice and Peace Scotland magazine, said that there were several problems with the logic of voting yes to get rid of Trident. One example that he gave was that the realpolitik of the situation would make it very tempting for the Scottish Government to accept a deal with the UK Government. It is interesting that, in the debate with Alistair Darling last night, the First Minister was keen to mention again and again the mysterious unnamed UK minister who said that there would be a shared single currency, but the First Minister did not mention that that unnamed minister said that there would be a single currency because the UK Government would do a deal on Trident. I am not saying that that will happen, but that is the kind of thinking that would be involved because, actually, Trident is the single most important bargaining counter that the Scottish Government has.

Another problem or doubt is that the Scottish Government might well have to choose between joining NATO and getting rid of Trident.

Photo of Malcolm Chisholm Malcolm Chisholm Labour

I do not have time to take an intervention, but perhaps Jean Urquhart was going to say that there are lots of countries without nuclear weapons in NATO. However, there is no precedent for a country that has kicked out a nuclear deterrent becoming a member of NATO.

We know that the story for the next six weeks will be that Trident will go and the money that is released will be spent on everything. The money is only a 20th of the defence budget, but we are told that it will go on conventional defence—a lot of Keith Brown’s speech was about that—while the previous speaker talked about spending it on health and education, and somebody else wanted to spend it on new jobs at Faslane. Of course, that is just a referendum ploy. Removing Trident would not solve the financial problems that an independent Scotland would face and it would not contribute to international disarmament—it is just an anti-Westminster stick and a pawn in the referendum game. As someone who has opposed Trident for three and a half decades, I strongly object to Trident being used as a pawn in the referendum game. The more that people think about the argument, the more they will see that it is not a good argument for voting yes.

Photo of Joan McAlpine Joan McAlpine Scottish National Party

I come from Gourock, on the Clyde, and my family still lives there, so the subject is close to my heart. I come from a family of Clyde sailors; my father and grandfather always kept modest boats, at Inverkip, Greenock and Port Glasgow. My childhood memories are of sailing to different parts of the Clyde and exploring lochs and coves in Cowal and Kintyre. I remember that such places seemed like God’s country. Going to places such as Loch Long and Carrick castle was a formative experience; we got a real sense of freedom.

However, even as children we soon began to realise that this country was not our own and that that freedom was illusory. I remember sailing up Loch Long on my father’s boat and being stopped by a military patrol boat and told that we could not sail to the western side of the loch because we would be too close to the Coulport base. It is clear that God’s country has been polluted by a great evil.

The destructive power of nuclear weapons is almost beyond our comprehension, so it is important that we remind ourselves just how destructive they are. The bomb in Hiroshima killed 200,000 people; the bombs that are carried on the Clyde subs are eight times more powerful than that, and there are a great many of them—each sub carries up to 16 missiles, each of which carries 12 bombs. Therefore, a submarine that is based fewer than 10km from where my family and thousands of other people live carries a destructive power that is 1,500 times greater than that of the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. I find it strange to hear members suggest that removing the weapons from Scotland would not make us safer.

The MOD modelled the possibility of an accident at the ship-lifting facility at Faslane and concluded that the “societal contamination” that could result is such that

“the risks are close to the tolerability criterion level”.

“Tolerability criterion level” is one of those bits of military jargon, like “collateral damage”. The MOD meant that lots and lots of people would be killed, but that such loss of life—from the UK MOD’s point of view—would somehow be tolerable.

It is clear that the weapons have nowhere else to go. In The Guardian last year, Rob Edwards reported:

“The MoD has revealed that the safety arrangements for Devonport do not permit the presence of submarines carrying Trident nuclear warheads.”

In a response that was provided under freedom of information rules, the MOD told The Guardian:

“Neither the Devonport naval base nor the Devonport dockyard ... safety case permit the berthing of an armed Vanguard class submarine”.

The Guardian went on to say that the MOD

“also disclosed that its internal safety watchdog, the Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator ‘has not provided any advice on the feasibility of docking of an armed Vanguard class submarine in Devonport dockyard’.”

The Guardian explained that that is because 166,000 people live within 5km of Devonport, compared with the 5,200 who live within 5km of Faslane.

The lives that could be lost if there was an accident at Faslane are just as precious as the lives that could be lost in a similar accident at Devonport. Of course, we do not know what kind of accident we are talking about. Given the destructive power of the weapons, a great many more lives could be lost.

It is clear that the MOD’s freedom of information response showed that the weapons cannot go to Devonport. The MOD considered alternative UK sites in 1981 and 1982 and concluded that it would be too controversial and expensive to start from scratch. It took 14 years to adapt Faslane and Coulport for Trident, and building a base from scratch would take much longer.

Therefore, removing Trident from the Clyde would remove it from the UK, whatever other members have said. That is why CND has taken the position that independence is the easiest and most achievable way of removing nuclear weapons from the UK, and that is why I have great pleasure in supporting the motion.

Photo of Stuart McMillan Stuart McMillan Scottish National Party

Today we have another opportunity to set out the case for or against Trident renewal. I suspect that the vote at 5pm will be akin to previous votes, but that does not make the debate any less important. Such a debate is important at any time, and one thing is sure: the policy decision on Trident renewal matters to many people throughout Scotland and the rest of the UK. As such, it matters in the debate on Scotland’s future.

I have stated before and I state again that I disagree with the renewal of the Trident programme and with nuclear weapons. The money for the nuclear programme could be better invested in other policy areas. I genuinely believe that Trident renewal is a missed opportunity by the UK Government and that the only way that we can remove Trident from Scotland is by voting yes next month.

We are consistently told that nuclear weapons are a deterrent against some big, bad bogeyman. In the past, that was the USSR and we saw an increase in the nuclear arms race as a consequence. Nowadays, however, the threat need not come from a country; it can come from individuals or from groups that have a particular cause, and the existence of nuclear weapons in Scotland has not stopped such individuals and groups undertaking their actions. Having nuclear weapons did not prevent an attack on Glasgow airport nor an attack on public transport in London.

One of the areas of discussion in the referendum debate is the future of Faslane. Faslane will have a future. The white paper states:

“We plan that Faslane will be an independent Scotland’s main conventional navy base, and will also be home to the HQ for the navy and the Joint Forces HQ for all of Scotland’s armed forces.”

I am sure that we all agree that an independent Scotland requires defence capabilities and a base. That is where Faslane will come into its own. It will require to be reshaped, which will create job opportunities for conventional forces.

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour

When I asked Keith Brown how many naval personnel would be retained at the base, he said that it would be the same number. Yet, on page 239, the white paper states:

“These arrangements will require around 2,000 regular and at least 200 reserve personnel.”

Where have the rest gone?

Photo of Stuart McMillan Stuart McMillan Scottish National Party

I am coming to that issue right now.

The comments that people from the no campaign have made about there being thousands of job losses are disingenuous and do little to inspire confidence in politicians and the work that we are supposed to do. By all means, they should highlight legitimate concerns where they exist, but they should not pluck numbers out of thin air, claim them to be fact and pass them off as being above scrutiny. They should stop taking the electorate for fools.

At the weekend, when I was out canvassing, I spoke to a teacher who was not aware that the UK does not have a written constitution—a dubious accolade that it shares with Israel and New Zealand. She was furious and asked how any nation can act in such a manner. With independence, Scotland will have the opportunity to have a written constitution. Furthermore, we will have the opportunity to ensure that, constitutionally, we can rid Scotland of nuclear weapons. What a fantastic legacy that would be for our future generations. With independence, we can secure the future of Faslane and the jobs that are there; we can rid Scotland of nuclear weapons, which we aim to do in the first term of an independent Scottish Parliament; and we can create a new Scotland by having a written constitution, which is sorely missing at the UK level. In that constitution, we can guarantee that there will be no nuclear weapons in Scotland again. In the years to come, I will be proud to explain to my daughters that I helped to create that legacy. It is a legacy that future generations will thank us for, instead of blaming us for failing to act when we had the chance.

Independence offers us the opportunity to take responsibility and to rid ourselves of Trident, thus saving our economy billions of pounds in wasted expenditure. It is estimated that, by the mid-2020s, Trident renewal will cost the UK £4 billion per annum, which is a huge amount of wasted money. It is estimated that Trident renewal will cost up to £100 billion at 2012 prices—what a huge waste of money. Just think of the other opportunities that could open up if we did not have nuclear weapons and nuclear submarines. We know that there is oil off the west coast of Scotland and that Westminster Governments have refused drilling licences to extract that oil. We also know that the extraction of oil requires huge investment in equipment, rigs and service vessels, not to mention workers. What kind of oil boom could we generate for Ayrshire, Inverclyde, Argyll and Bute and West Dunbartonshire?

Photo of Elaine Smith Elaine Smith Labour

The member is out of time, I am afraid.

Photo of Stuart McMillan Stuart McMillan Scottish National Party

The economic case for nuclear weapons does not stack up but threatens job security, job creation and investment. I will support the Government’s motion tonight.

Photo of John Finnie John Finnie Independent

I declare my membership of Scottish CND.

The Trident weapons system is the easiest way to illustrate a perversity of thought and futility of expenditure that are not unique to the UK, as the Trident nuclear system is heavily dependent on the US in many ways.

The obligation on every country—this applies no less to the minister here—is to assess the risks that a country faces and put in place mechanisms to address those risks. I commend the Jimmy Reid Foundation’s report, “No Need To Be Afraid”, which highlights that the risks shared by many countries relate to things such as continuity of energy supply, food, water—which is not a challenge for Scotland—and cyber attack. As many others have said, Trident and other such systems have done nothing to offset those risks.

We need human security. In 2003, the UN Commission on Human Security said:

“Human security means protecting vital freedoms. It means protecting people from critical and pervasive threats and situations, building on their strengths and aspirations. It also means creating systems that give people the building blocks of survival, dignity and livelihood ...To do this, it offers two general strategies: protection and empowerment. Protection shields people from dangers ... Empowerment enables people to develop their potential and become full participants in decision making.”

I like the use of the words “speediest safe withdrawal” that are in the minister’s motion. I do not see that as a withdrawal from Scotland, but as a withdrawal from service. That is a rich prize to gain and a rich contribution to give the world. I also like the words that suggest collaborative working. I commend Patrick Harvie’s amendment, which enhances that aspect and brings in the constitutional element. I hope that the Government will support that call.

We occupy a small planet. I see an important role for the UN. The UN General Assembly’s very first resolution, which was adopted unanimously, called for the elimination of nuclear weapons. There have been many fine words along those lines and I will quote some more of them.

“I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace: to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.”

Those are very fine words indeed. However, when one knows that they were uttered by President Ronald Reagan, that perhaps takes off some of their edge.

How has the scientific community turned its attention to the cause of mankind? The cause of mankind will never be served by the creation of more, better or smarter weapons. The drone wars are a cowardly compact, with an equally flawed legal basis for waging them.

It is interesting that a US President called on scientists to turn their great talents to “world peace”. In this unequal world, peace will always be more likely if we see progress for mankind, which would come with the eradication of malaria or AIDS. Indeed, that would do far more for humanity than nuclear weapons.

There is growing inequality around the globe, which could lead to conflict. Therefore, it is important that we share our resources with the developing world.

I see arms diversification as the future. I commend the reference in the Government’s white paper to that issue. We know that foreign and defence policies are inextricably linked. I commend some of the actions that have happened in Scotland. This city played its part, at a time of thawing relations in the cold war, when the Edinburgh conversations, which were high-level discussions between academics and military people, contributed to making the world a better place. Talks took place in Craigellachie about the dispute in the caucuses. That is the future that I want to see for Scotland: talks not tanks; talks not Trident.

We have a glorious opportunity. I differ from the minister, in that the issue is not about defence procurement; rather, it is about having a new outlook and a new Scotland—an outward-looking Scotland that is committed to social and environmental justice. We have one world; we have one humanity. If we work together and if Neil Findlay, for example, focuses his mind on the issue, he will see that, if he is genuinely committed to the eradication of nuclear weapons, there is but one route to go.

Photo of Neil Findlay Neil Findlay Labour

I hope that Mr Finnie will reflect on his emphasis on the word “genuinely”. Many people on the Labour side genuinely have that interest. He should not just assume that it is only on one side of the argument that people’s convictions are genuine. That is an insult.

Photo of John Finnie John Finnie Independent

Mr Findlay misheard what I said, because I was commending his position and saying that, given that position, we should all work together for a better cause. The likelihood is that the withdrawal of Trident will not be delivered within the present constitutional settlement, but that it would be delivered with a strong will. Bits of paper will not deliver it, but a commitment to deliver it will. I do not doubt for one second the commitment of the Scottish Government and those on the yes side to deliver that better world.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

I call Christian Allard, who will be followed by Lewis Macdonald. Speeches must be under five minutes. [Interruption.]

Fiona McLeod has a point of order.

Photo of Fiona McLeod Fiona McLeod Scottish National Party

On a point of order, Presiding Officer—it is a genuine point of order. I seek your advice. Is it possible for a member to intervene in the middle of another member’s speech when they have not been present to listen to that speech? I would appreciate your ruling on that.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

It is entirely up to the member who is speaking whether they wish to take an intervention. That is something that they must make a judgment on.

We are now extremely short of time, so the next three members to speak will have to adjust their timings accordingly.

Photo of Christian Allard Christian Allard Scottish National Party

I am delighted to speak in the debate on the day that we mark the 69th anniversary of the first use of nuclear weapons against the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Tonight, I will join the Aberdeen and district Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament group, of which I am a member, to commemorate that event at the fishermen’s hut on the River Dee in Aberdeen. I will speak at the event as a member of the Scottish Parliament for the north-east, as a member of Scottish CND and as a member of the international group, parliamentarians for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament—PNND—which I joined just after I became a parliamentarian in May last year. Like me, Neil Findlay is a member of Scottish CND, but I am a lot more active than he is. I invite him to come along to CND debates, because he is missed. We need to hear a voice such as his so that we can hear different views on the suggestion that, somehow, we can get rid of nuclear weapons in 50 years’ time.

As in previous years, on the beautiful banks of the Dee, speakers from a variety of political, community and faith groups will commemorate that catastrophic event and will warn the many people who will attend against the renewal of the UK’s weapon of mass destruction: Trident. I take the opportunity to call on the people of Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire to join us from 8.30 pm.

One of the speakers will be the Aberdeen Mosque and Islamic Centre imam, Imam Ibrahim. When Scotland’s Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, came to give his support to Aberdeen Mosque and Islamic Centre last month, the Aberdeen Central MSP Kevin Stewart and I heard how much Imam Ibrahim appreciated the Scottish Government’s support on Palestine. A few weeks later, I shared a platform with Imam Ibrahim, who was speaking on what is happening in Gaza today. Again, he welcomed the Scottish Government’s actions in support of Palestine. Imam Ibrahim talked of peace and how his family was trapped in Palestine. If nuclear weapons had succeeded—as they were supposed to do—in keeping the world at peace, I would not be talking about Gaza today. I really look forward to hearing what Imam Ibrahim has to say tonight.

I am also looking forward to hearing the contribution of Hilda Meers, a 90-year-old poet in the north-east who is a member of Scottish Jews for a Just Peace. She will not be able to attend tonight, but her words will resonate as some of us read a selection of her poems.

One voice that I will struggle to agree with tonight is the voice of another Labour politician telling the world that countries should disarm while voting for the UK to renew its Trident nuclear weapon system. Many other voices have parted company with that nonsense and have joined us in the campaign for an independent Scotland that is free from nuclear weapons. The people of Scotland are seeing through the same old endless rhetoric from Labour and all the other Westminster parties, which have no intention of getting rid of the UK’s nuclear weapons. I agree with Bruce Kent, who came to see us this week. He said that a yes vote in September would lead to the removal of the immoral and illegal Trident system from Faslane and Scotland.

Despite the fact that I have said in many public meetings that I and many other members, although perhaps not Mr Findlay, have attended over the past few months that a yes vote will not change a thing and that it is what we do afterwards that matters—

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Please draw to a close.

Photo of Christian Allard Christian Allard Scottish National Party

Let me assure the chamber that one thing will change: Trident is for the dustbin and will not be renewed.

Today we commemorate what happened in Japan 69 years ago. In 40 days, our answer will be yes—yes to a nuclear weapons-free Scotland.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Thank you very much. I call Lewis Macdonald, to be followed by Mark McDonald. I apologise, but I can give both of you only four minutes each.

Photo of Lewis Macdonald Lewis Macdonald Labour

In this week of all weeks, we should not make the mistake of thinking that we can address our strategic issues of defence and security in isolation from the wider world. A hundred years ago this week, the British Government of the day had to decide whether to resist Germany’s conquest of Belgium, and 75 years ago next month, another British Government had to make a similar decision about whether to go to war over Germany’s invasion of Poland.

In 1914 and 1939, those Governments took the tough decisions to go to war and like so many other Scottish men and women my grandfathers and my father lived with what happened in front-line service on land and sea. If this week we are serious about commemoration and learning from history, we must not abstract the question of defence from our shared experience or from the realities of the strategic choices facing our country and our friends in the 21st century.

The key driver of strategic policy since 1945 has been the unity of western European and north American countries in the north Atlantic alliance. Unlike the European Union, NATO is not an economic association; it is a military and strategic alliance, in which each member state promises to come to the aid of any other member state that is attacked by a third party.

The first question, therefore, for any candidate member of NATO is not the nuclear question, but the question whether to give the undertaking to meet armed force with armed force if the need arises. However, if the SNP’s answer to that question would be yes and that it would be willing to give that commitment if it were the Government of an independent Scotland, it would also have to answer the nuclear question.

The fact is that

“As long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance.”

That is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of policy, as spelled out in the strategic concept that was adopted by member states in 2010 as NATO’s road map for the rest of this decade and, indeed, as spelled out in every previous strategic concept. Of course, there are other member states of NATO that do not have nuclear weapons on their territory. By definition, however, no member state of NATO rejects the deployment of nuclear weapons as a component of NATO's collective defence. The strategic concept is the agreed policy of all members of the North Atlantic Council and is by definition supported by every NATO member state.

As a result, the then members of the SNP who said in 2012 that those who voted to join NATO would not get rid of Trident were absolutely right—and they are right in that respect to this day. NATO strategy is to retain and deploy nuclear weapons; the UK is one of three nuclear-armed NATO members; and Scotland is where the UK’s nuclear weapons are currently deployed. As a result, an independent Scotland whose first strategic priority was to remove those weapons would clearly be opposing the policy not just of the UK but of NATO as a whole. The idea that an independent Scotland could simultaneously expel Trident and join the Atlantic alliance is not credible from either side of the argument.

Photo of Keith Brown Keith Brown Scottish National Party

Much of the member’s case is built on the US and wider NATO view as he sees it that they would insist on Scotland retaining nuclear weapons. Is he aware of an article in the International Herald Tribune that quotes a US official as saying that the UK

“can’t afford Trident, and they need to confront the choice: either they can be a nuclear power and nothing else or a real military partner”?

The US does not want us to have this.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Mr Macdonald, you are in your final minute.

Photo of Lewis Macdonald Lewis Macdonald Labour

The minister has made a very helpful point, because the decision about the future of Britain’s nuclear weapons capability after 2016 has yet to be made. That is a decision on which many people in Scotland would want to have a say as citizens of the United Kingdom. A decision by the UK to remain a nuclear-armed power would carry much the same risks for a Scotland outwith the UK as it would if we were to remain part of the union, and a UK decision not to replace Trident would have significant implications for NATO and likewise would impact on Scotland whether or not we were part of the UK.

Surely the best way to influence the future debate on nuclear weapons in Britain, in NATO and on a global scale is to stay in the UK and the Atlantic alliance and ensure that our voices are heard and our interests considered when those decisions are made, not to walk away and leave the big strategic decisions of our century for someone else to make.

Photo of Mark McDonald Mark McDonald Scottish National Party

One day, Mr Smith, who lives in a quiet street, feels unsafe and insecure, so he decides to go out and buy himself a gun to protect himself and his family. He arrives home with the gun, knowing that it is only for protecting himself and deterring any threats that might occur. His neighbour across the street spots him arriving home with the gun and thinks to himself, “We must live in an unsafe street. I’d better go out and buy a gun.”

So it is with the idea of nuclear deterrence: it is there to protect us from a threat that does not exist. Annabel Goldie said as much in her speech. It is a threat that no longer exists, but there are nuclear weapons just in case somebody out there develops a nuclear capability and chooses to target it against us.

The point about renewing the Trident nuclear capability, whatever the size of that capability, and the idea that reducing the size of a nuclear deterrent is somehow an acceptable thing to do, is that one nuclear warhead is one too many, as far as I am concerned. Reducing the size of the capability does not matter. Unless it is reduced to zero, I am not interested, frankly.

The message that renewing the Trident system sends out to states that may or may not be trying to develop nuclear weapons capability is not that we are serious about nuclear disarmament; it is that we are serious about the continuation of nuclear deterrence or lack of deterrence in the current international system. We need to get beyond the idea that we are defending ourselves by having Trident on our shores. I am not suggesting that we are necessarily making ourselves a target, but there is no defence for Trident, because Trident itself is no defence.

I understand and accept that there are jobs that are linked to the presence of Trident on the Clyde, but I have a difficulty with supporting something of the ilk of nuclear weapons on the basis that jobs are attached to them, because I believe that the amount of money that is spent on Trident would be far better spent supporting far more jobs that are deployed in other ways.

Photo of Mark McDonald Mark McDonald Scottish National Party

I am sorry, but I have only four minutes. Trust me: we are on the same page on the matter anyway.

A 2007 report that was commissioned by Scottish CND and the Scottish Trades Union Congress—the Labour MSP Claudia Beamish, who was chair of Scottish Labour at the time, was among its authors—concluded that a renewal of Trident

“could place at risk up to 3,000 public service jobs. Few jobs resulting from investment in Trident replacement are likely to come to Scotland.”

We are therefore likely to see risks elsewhere because of the removal of funding in order to front-finance Trident.

I do not doubt for one second the sincerity of members in their position on disarmament, but I doubt their faith that the matter would be resolved by means other than a yes vote. The Labour Party often tells us that its position on the referendum is not so much to vote no; it is to vote no and then, hopefully, vote for and elect Labour in 2015 and everything will be all right. That is a leap of faith and a leap of logic that it has to justify.

The leap of faith on Trident that has to be justified involves not just voting no and then voting Labour in 2015; it involves voting no, voting Labour in 2015 and hoping beyond hope that the prevailing voices in Labour are those of Malcolm Chisholm and Neil Findlay and not those of Jim Murphy and Jackie Baillie. That is the difficulty that the Labour Party has to reconcile. It cannot come to the table and say with any categorical assurance that a no vote would result in a no to Trident.

What we can say categorically is that, while the world sits around the table waiting for somebody to blink, a yes vote gives us the opportunity to be the first ones to do so and to lead the way internationally.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

We now turn to the closing speeches. I remind members that, if they have participated in the debate, they should be in the chamber for closing speeches.

Photo of Patrick Harvie Patrick Harvie Green

I begin by taking on the suggestion that those of us who will vote yes and support disarmament all disrespect or resent in some way the diversity of views that exist on the other side of the independence debate. People would be pretty hard pressed to find anyone in the Green Party who wants to hang on to Trident, but they will find some. A small minority of our members will vote no and are not convinced of the case for independence. We are capable of having that debate in a spirit of respect and friendship. It is important for me to say that, because that is the spirit of debate that Scotland deserves.

Even though I disagree with it, I respect the position that is taken by some in the Labour Party who recognise that only a small minority of their members or MSPs might consider voting yes but who support the principle of disarmament.

I agree with Michael McMahon that this is not a nationalistic issue; this goal should be able to unite us across the independence divide. I merely suggest to those in my party and to others who are voting no and who want disarmament that we should apply the same test of realpolitik that Malcolm Chisholm suggests that we think about in the context of post-yes negotiations.

There may well be people on the Labour benches and elsewhere who are utterly sincere—I am convinced that they are—about their values over disarmament, but we know which way the 2015 decision will go. If the UK Parliament, in any conceivable balance of power after the 2015 election, makes that decision we know that it will renew Trident—let us be honest about that reality.

The economic argument has also been made and explored. There is an economic argument for getting rid of Trident. It is not the one that I put at the top of my list most often in these debates because, frankly, I would be for scrapping the thing even if it cost us money to do so instead of saving us money. I acknowledge that we will hear of a range of priorities for how best to use the £100 billion or so that would be saved over the long term by not replacing Trident. I could write a long list of priorities myself. Personally, I regard as the icing on the cake the privilege of being able to debate what our priorities for that money would be. Let us face it: there is work that needs doing that will have social, economic and environmental benefits for our society. The opportunity to create dramatically more jobs than Trident could ever create is one that I look forward to being able to debate.

Photo of Kevin Stewart Kevin Stewart Scottish National Party

I, too, want to be able to have that debate about priorities for where we spend that money. Does the member think that the UK Government should be open and transparent and say what will be cut to pay for the new nuclear weapon system, if it goes ahead with it?

Photo of Patrick Harvie Patrick Harvie Green

I suppose I would welcome that but, let us face it, that will not happen either, because we are dealing with an ideological position.

The strategic argument—any kind of strategic argument that says why possessing a nuclear weapon system is a good idea—has often been lacking. Annabel Goldie got closest to it, although she seemed to suggest that the strategic concept has not changed much since the cold war and that somehow we need nuclear weapons in order not to have nuclear war. That seems a very bizarre argument to me.

Let us remember that the promise at the beginning of this bizarre psychological experiment of mutually assured destruction was that it would keep the peace; it was not only that it would prevent nuclear war, but that it would prevent the power blocs from attacking each other conventionally. That has monumentally failed. Of course it failed, because it is based on the dehumanising ideology of game theory. At no point has anyone proposed an actual strategic benefit from possession of a weapon that could only ever be used if the finger on the button belonged to a psychopath.

The arguments around having a written constitution have also been raised. I know that there are arguments for and against having a single, codified written constitution. Iain Gray and I have debated that previously. However, whether we look at a single constitutional document or hundreds of years of constitutional documentation, constitutions should not just be a dry approach to the mechanisms of government but convey something about how we conceive ourselves, what kind of country we are and our values and ambitions. A commitment to peace should be central in that. A written constitution should have, as John Finnie said, not only a commitment to oppose weapons of mass destruction but a commitment to build economic, social and environmental justice around the world, which is the only long-term protection for human security and the only way for our world to move beyond the obsession with war and the aggressive projection of military power.

The final point that I want to make is to colleagues in the SNP. I have not heard this argument from their leadership—I am pleased about that—but I have heard it from colleagues in the SNP, who suggest that Trident has been used by the MOD to block the exploitation of oil on the west coast. If so, that is the only useful utility that Trident ever gave us. Swapping one weapon of mass destruction for another is not the vision that I subscribe to. If anyone ever sees the abolition of Trident as an excuse for the exploitation of oil on the west coast, there will—believe me—still be protest and debate and I will still be willing to risk arrest to stop it.

Photo of Willie Rennie Willie Rennie Liberal Democrat

As predicted, this debate has been marked by tired slogans and old songs. I suppose that it gives some confidence to the nationalist supporters in a campaign that is failing to secure the necessary momentum, but I suspect that it will fail to convince many undecided voters. I suspect that the argument will not carry much traction on the west coast and that it will not attract much support across the country. It has been seen as a bogus argument that will not result in what has been claimed.

The debate also poses a challenge to those who believe that the SNP proposition will save money, advance world peace and keep us safer. The proposition has been exposed—forensically, I think—this afternoon by numerous members including Malcolm Chisholm, whose phrase “Trident nimbyism” was an excellent description of the SNP position. Neil Findlay, who is a passionate supporter and member of CND, quite rightly believes that he can achieve his ambition through the route of the United Kingdom. Iain Gray described the proposition as redeployment rather than disarmament and said that moving Trident south of the border—flitting it to another part of the United Kingdom—would not necessarily make the world any safer.

Iain Gray also rightly criticised the SNP for using the issue as a tactic in the referendum and claiming that, somehow, only through this route can we achieve nuclear disarmament. The passion for disarmament that has been shown by many on the Labour benches is an indication that there is a strong group of people who are campaigning relentlessly for that ambition. We know that the tactic has found favour in many other areas as well.

On the one hand, the SNP argues that we should be nuclear free while, on the other, it argues that we should be a member of NATO. However, we know that being a member of the NATO alliance and the umbrella that that provides will require agreement that nuclear weapons and nuclear submarines be allowed into Scottish waters. On the one hand, we are sending Trident down south but, on the other hand, we are allowing it back into our waters. That is an inconsistent position, as Jean Urquhart rightly highlighted. She has said that membership of NATO would be a barrier to the removal of Trident, and she is right in that one respect.

In the 1990s, in my part of the world, the SNP campaigned vigorously for the refitting and refuelling facility to be based at Rosyth, somehow managing to bring two inconsistent positions together. The SNP does not want the submarines in our waters but is quite happy for them to be refitted here in Scotland. Its policy is riddled with such inconsistencies. That is why many people are rightly sceptical.

Photo of Willie Rennie Willie Rennie Liberal Democrat

Not just now.

The tactic also extends to the position on savings. Iain Gray highlighted the many times that the money saved has been spent. It has been spent over and over again on defence, childcare, youth employment and many other areas including personal care, pensions, free tuition fees, welfare, schools and teachers. Not only is it going to be spent on the defence of Scotland, it is also going to be spent on those many other areas. Many people who have been promised that extra spending will be extremely disappointed after independence to discover that it will not be possible to fulfil that promise.

We also discovered this afternoon from Gil Paterson that not only will every single penny of the Trident expenditure be spent in Faslane but there will also be cuts to other public services in order to fund the full amount—up to the 8,000 jobs. We know from Jackie Baillie that the 8,000 people who are employed in Faslane would be reduced to 2,000 because that is what the white paper says, so I assume that there must be cuts to public services in other areas. Perhaps Gil Paterson is in full support of that.

The debate also revealed a lack of interest in other areas of defence. As I said earlier, Trident accounts for only 5 per cent of the defence budget, but the other 95 per cent has been ignored this afternoon.

Let us consider the issues that need to be scrutinised. For example, the white paper says that we will have two frigates, four mine countermeasure vessels, two offshore patrol vessels, four to six patrol boats, auxiliary ships, 12 Typhoon jets, six Hercules C130J aircraft, 15,000 permanent personnel and 5,000 in reserve. All those figures are based on the assumption that every single Scottish member of the UK armed forces will agree to come back to an independent Scotland and serve in a Scottish defence force in the exact configuration that is required. Those figures are also based on the assumption that the UK Government will agree to the division of assets. What I want to hear from the minister, perhaps during his winding-up speech, is what the alternatives are if that does not come about. What is the plan B? What happens if the people do not come back and we do not get that division of assets?

The Government is more interested in the old songs and tired slogans than in the realities of a defence budget, and the sooner it understands that, the greater the chance it will have in the referendum.

Photo of Alex Johnstone Alex Johnstone Conservative

The debate has thrown up a mix of speeches. There have been some excellent speeches from members on both sides of the divide and some right rubbish in the middle, as usual.

Patrick Harvie talked about the history that got us to where we are today. However, in spite of the fact that he gave a good description, he failed to go right back to the start of nuclear weapons. History tells us that back in the 1940s, it became clear that a fascist regime that was waging unconditional war across Europe was developing nuclear weapons and the means by which to deliver them using missiles. The Governments of the allied nations at that time decided to come together to work on a single project to develop a nuclear weapon that would act as a counter threat to any nuclear weapon with which we were threatened.

The Manhattan project brought together the best brains that were available to us in the United States and here in Britain and, ironically, many Jewish exiles from the countries that were occupied by the fascist regime.

Photo of Alex Johnstone Alex Johnstone Conservative

By the time the Manhattan project had succeeded in creating that weapon, the war in Europe was over. The research project in Germany had failed to deliver that weapon.

Photo of Alex Johnstone Alex Johnstone Conservative

Those scientists were the first people to campaign against the use of the nuclear weapon that they had devised.

Photo of Alex Johnstone Alex Johnstone Conservative

No, thank you.

As we reach the point that has been mentioned by some members today—the 69th anniversary of the use of that weapon on Hiroshima and Nagasaki—I have to express my regret that the decision to use them was ever made. However, unlike Patrick Harvie, I do not have the benefit of 20:20 hindsight, and the people who made those decisions made them for reasons that were available to them at the time.

Before we leave history, it should also be noted that many people in the United States and the United Kingdom were convicted of treason for deliberately leaking the secrets of those weapons to the Soviet Union and other countries, believing that they were doing so to create the balance that we have talked about today as having kept the peace for many generations.

Photo of Alex Johnstone Alex Johnstone Conservative

No, I will not give way. I am expressing a view that differs from yours and, like your leader, you seek to talk over those with whom you disagree.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Through the chair please.

Photo of Alex Johnstone Alex Johnstone Conservative

That is not an acceptable practice in politics and I will not permit those who wish to do that to intervene.

We went on to hear from Annabel Goldie about the issues around the cold war that concern us. Yes, nuclear weapons brought about the cold war and kept the peace, but they did not keep the peace in conventional terms. That is why we should always be concerned to ensure that, as we go forward, we understand what nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation are about. This country has done a great deal to encourage and develop non-proliferation. Sadly, the number of nations that have acquired nuclear weapons in recent years has increased. However, this country has done its bit to ensure that they did not find that technology here.

However, nuclear disarmament is something that people understand in different ways. There are those who argue for unilateral nuclear disarmament. I will never argue for that, because I believe that unilateral nuclear disarmament, especially in a country that has done its bit to keep the peace, will not deliver our objective in the long term. In the distant past, the strategic arms limitation talks succeeded in vastly reducing the number of weapons that were being held by the major protagonists in the cold war. What we need to do now is to ensure that that multilateral approach continues.

Here in Scotland, we have to understand what the right position to take is. Those within the Scottish National Party and certain others—but not all—who support the yes campaign have made the mistake of believing that the presence and renewal of Trident are subjects on which they can gain some political credence. I believe that they are wrong. I believe that information contained within recent opinion surveys demonstrates that the people of Scotland have a far more substantial understanding of what nuclear weapons are about and how we would best dispose of them than do those who have spoken from the Government party’s back benches today.

The truth is that the loss of Trident would cost Scotland jobs and it would cost Scotland credibility in the longer term. What would we get from that? The money that would be saved in an independent Scotland’s budget by not having to fund the replacement of Trident would not achieve the objectives that Trident’s opponents have set out. As members have described, Angus Robertson says that it will all go into the military budget. Annabelle Ewing regularly says that it will plug the gap on welfare, in spite of the fact that, if we add it up, it does not come to a quarter of what would be required. It has been spent on youth employment, education, colleges—you name it, they will spend it. That, unfortunately, is a cynical ploy of a desperate campaign running out of steam. Not in my backyard is not a basis for a system of government and it is not a basis for a constitutional change.

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour

I am not naturally a cynic—[Laughter.] It would appear that the members of the front bench disagree. However, I suspect that much of our time in the next few weeks will be spent debating issues that are the UK Parliament’s responsibility, all in an attempt to further the cause of the SNP’s campaign for independence.

Might I suggest to SNP members as gently as I can that, after the First Minister’s performance last night, they might want to have a debate about currency? After all, the people of Scotland deserve answers to that most fundamental of questions. That said, I fully understand and sympathise with the SNP’s clear need to create a diversion. It is the oldest political tactic in the book—create a distraction and debate anything but the issue of the day, which is currency. However, the people of Scotland were not fooled last night and they will not be fooled in the future, so let us have the transparency SNP members have been calling for in this debate. Let us clear the parliamentary diary to have a debate on currency because I think that people would welcome that.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

However, the debate today is about Trident.

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour

Let me turn to Trident, Presiding Officer. My timing is impeccable.

I have always acknowledged that there are many different views in this chamber—across parties and even within parties. However, wherever we stand—as a unilateralist or a multilateralist—we have a responsibility to consider the consequences of our actions. Members have heard me speak before about the economic impact on Faslane and Coulport, and I make no apology for doing so again.

At the moment, 11,000 jobs depend on the base. There are 6,700 employed directly at Faslane and Coulport—that is the most up-to-date figure supplied by the MOD—and there are a further 4,500 jobs in the supply chain, using standard income multipliers for local economic impact—

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour

I want people to hear this because it is constantly questioned. The base provides £270 million a year spend in the local area. I have not made these figures up. They are sourced from the EKOS survey done for Scottish Enterprise Dunbartonshire about the economic impact of the base.

Because of the decision of the UK Government to make Faslane the base for the entire UK submarine fleet, the number directly employed is expected to rise to 8,200 by 2022.

I am used to the cybernats hurling abuse at me on Twitter and I am used to members in the chamber trying to shout me down—the members of the front bench did it again today. However, there is no getting away from those figures. They are facts. We are talking about real people who deserve to know whether they will have jobs if Scotland becomes independent. My local community needs to know what the likely impact will be. The jobs at Faslane are not low-paid, minimum-wage jobs. The people there are highly skilled workers, on good salaries. They account for one quarter of the full-time workforce in West Dunbartonshire. Their loss would have a devastating impact on the local economy.

The SNP claimed that only 500 jobs are at stake. Then the figure doubled, to 1,000. However, the reality is that there would not be a strategic need for the base, as currently configured. Angus Robertson, the SNP’s defence spokesman, consistently refused to guarantee that the number of jobs that would be retained after separation would remain the same. I will come back to Keith Brown in a minute. John Swinney slashed the budget for defence by more than a third, more than using up any notional savings from Trident.

At the same time, while ministers promise extra spending on health and education, the reality is that the budget is slashed and it is all going on conventional defence, according to Angus Robertson and according to Alex Salmond himself, in his October 2012 conference speech. The truth is that the SNP has not got a clue.

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour

In a minute.

It is interesting that Stuart Crawford, a defence consultant to whom the SNP used to pay attention, until he jumped ship to the Liberals, has said that Faslane would sustain only 1,000 jobs in the future. So what precisely are the SNP’s plans for the other 10,000? Are they simply to be thrown on the scrapheap? Do they not matter in an independent Scotland?

Photo of Keith Brown Keith Brown Scottish National Party

So far, we have heard four different figures for the number of jobs at Faslane from the different parts of the better together campaign. Could she explain that? Will she acknowledge the STUC’s estimate of 1,536 jobs sustained by Trident? Surely, if she is going to peddle a scare story, she should get it right with her colleagues.

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour

I am not peddling a scare story; I have been consistent for 15 years about the economic impact at Faslane. The SNP seeks to cloud that because it has no answers on jobs. To give it some credit, we can now examine some of its proposals. I understand why it has not told us about them before now because, on even the most cursory inspection, they fall apart. I asked the minister how many naval jobs would be provided. I was told that it would be the same—6,700, rising to 8,200. However, page 239 of the white paper simply says 2,000. Where are the other 4,500 to 6,000? I am happy to give way to the minister if he can tell me where those jobs are.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Can all sides conduct the debate through the chair, please?

Photo of Keith Brown Keith Brown Scottish National Party

I will respond by saying what I said to Jackie Baillie before, which is that we would guarantee the same number of military jobs at Faslane. However, she must reconcile all the different figures that her colleagues have given. We have heard four different figures. We have heard figures of 8,000, 11,000 and 6,000—which is right?

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour

I asked about naval jobs. There are naval jobs at Faslane. The minister replied about military jobs. He is going to put those people on the scrapheap.

Under the SNP’s proposals, we discover that Faslane is not a conventional naval base. I could have told you that. It will take 10 years to reconfigure so, from the outset, five of the 13 or so vessels that make up the Scottish navy will not be able to dock there. There will be no submarines, and experts say that we are unlikely to get any offshore protection vessels. We have two frigates. We hear that we could order another two. That is interesting. What frigates will the SNP build, because the intellectual property rights for the existing ones belong to the rest of the UK—a minor but important detail? Further, an international traffic in arms regulations licence is required from the USA to use any defence equipment—even a bolt or a screw—that originates in that country. Does the SNP even know what an ITAR licence is? Has it even made inquiries about how long that would take?

We are told that the SNP would commission the frigates in the first Parliament after independence. Two years to negotiate separation and a possible further four years before the order is placed means that, potentially, it could be six years before the shipyards get anything to build. What do they do in the meantime? Twiddle their thumbs?

I am told that it takes a year to build a frigate. I am also told that a frigate lasts for 30 to 40 years. Even if the Scottish Government replaces every single ship in the first few years, a Scottish navy will not sustain Scottish shipbuilding.

The ministers are laughing. They should listen not only to me but to those who work in the industry: Babcock’s, BAE Systems, the trade unions and the workers at Rosyth and at Faslane and on the Clyde. They are the experts and, to be frank, they think that the SNP’s plans are just plain daft.

Our ambition is to rid the world of nuclear weapons—to achieve global zero. The ultimate objective is shared but the mechanism by which we go about it is certainly not shared. The SNP is simply using Trident to win a vote to separate Scotland from the United Kingdom. It is not serious.

Photo of Kenny MacAskill Kenny MacAskill Scottish National Party

The open debate was remarkably good. There were a great deal of passionate and articulate speeches, even if I did not agree with some.

Annabel Goldie asked why we were debating. As Patrick Harvie and other speakers pointed out, we have always reflected on and sought to commemorate the bombing of Hiroshima. Sometimes it is in a members’ business debate and sometimes it is by a parliamentary motion, but it is appropriate that we should recollect it. Joan McAlpine made the appropriate point that, given the Rubicon that we crossed as we moved from the atomic to the nuclear age, it is more important than ever.

Iain Gray touched upon world war one, which it is appropriate to remember as we remember Hiroshima, but Christian Allard, Bill Kidd and others made the point that the possession of nuclear weapons has not stopped wars. Confrontations are going on as we speak. The world is most certainly not a safer place.

We have heard a range of views during the debate. I have marched alongside CND in support of nuclear disarmament and against Trident, so my position on the issue will come as no surprise. However, for the first time, the decision on whether we continue to be home to Trident nuclear weapons can be in Scotland’s hands.

On 18 September, the people will decide whether Scotland will, again, be an independent country. There are many reasons why I expect the people of Scotland to support that proposition: for jobs and the economy, for the environment, for fairness in our public services and policies. Those are practical reasons that will improve everyday lives, and there will be practical benefits to Trident’s withdrawal, such as the reduction of Scotland’s nuclear footprint and the freeing up of the millions of pounds of Scottish taxpayers’ money that are spent on its upkeep.

However, the question on nuclear weapons is perhaps most closely tied to our vision of the kind of Scotland that we want to be: a responsible and a peaceful Scotland that can take its rightful place in the world without the threat of nuclear weapons. Everyone around the chamber seeks that.

That is the context in which the Scottish Government will secure the withdrawal of Trident from an independent Scotland. We will also support a constitutional ban on the basing of nuclear weapons in Scotland to secure that withdrawal for future generations, as many speakers—including Christina McKelvie and Stuart McMillan—made clear.

That stands in stark contrast to the position of the three main parties in Westminster. They all support the replacement of Trident nuclear weapons—weapons that the UK Government has no intention of relocating away from the Clyde.

On 20 March 2013, the Parliament voted in opposition to Trident. The STUC, Scotland’s churches and others have also supported that call. Most importantly of all, polls regularly show that majority public opinion in Scotland is opposed to nuclear weapons and spending on Trident missiles. Nonetheless, we have heard that the UK Government stands ready to confirm, in 2016, an investment decision that plans for nuclear weapons to remain in Scotland for the next half century—another 50 years.

One thing is clear: independence is the only option to protect current and future generations from the prospect of nuclear weapons continuing to be based in Scotland against the will of the Parliament and the people whom we represent.

There are three arguments. The first is the economic argument. We have heard about the cost, at 2012 prices, of replacing Trident. The lifetime costs would be about £100 billion, which is the equivalent, every year, of spending 9 per cent of the MOD’s current budget on nuclear weapons. That is not what the military seeks. The annual costs would peak at about £4 billion a year by the mid-2020s, and Scotland’s population share of the equivalent annual outlay would be about £240 million per annum.

Renewing Trident would bring huge uncertainty for future conventional defence procurement, but to renew it when 1 million people in Scotland and many more across the UK are living in poverty is doubly wrong. The Scottish Government believes that it is wrong for the UK Government to commit to spending £100 billion on nuclear weapons at the expense of its conventional defence capabilities and while it continues to slash the social budgets on which those in greatest need rely day and daily.

There is a strategic and military argument. Some suggest that nuclear weapons are essential to our national security, whatever the cost. I do not accept that. We have heard that the presence of nuclear weapons has not prevented conflicts between nuclear and non-nuclear states. It could be argued that their possession by a select few could encourage others to acquire them, as we have seen.

Ultimately, I can conceive of no scenario that justifies the use of Trident nuclear weapons. As many other members have made clear, the consequences would be catastrophic.

Nuclear weapons present no deterrent to the threats that we face today or to those that we will face tomorrow. It is time for the UK and other nuclear-weapon states to fully embrace the NPT’s principles and to work towards the abolition of nuclear weapons.

We make the argument not just for economic and military reasons but on a moral basis. We must not forget that these are weapons of mass destruction—that rang out around the chamber. Their impacts are indiscriminate and devastating and their use brings unspeakable humanitarian suffering and widespread environmental damage. My view is therefore simple—there should be no place in Scotland or any state for nuclear weapons.

Exactly 69 years ago today, on 6 August 1945, a bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. That is one of the reasons why our debate is taking place today. Three days later, Nagasaki experienced the same fate. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed in horrific circumstances and the impacts remain visible to this day, as we heard in Bill Kidd’s narration from the representatives of that community.

It is truly disturbing to reflect on the scale of suffering and devastation that nuclear weapons can bring. Above all else, to avoid the use of such weapons in the future—whether by accident or by design—we must commit ourselves to ridding the world of their presence. We must do that through words and through deeds.

Only with independence can we secure Trident’s withdrawal from Scotland, and only with independence can we, through our written constitution, prohibit the basing of nuclear weapons on our territory. Only with independence can Scotland take its full place in supporting the pursuit of nuclear disarmament.

The decision is in the hands of the people of Scotland. I therefore call on the Scottish Parliament to support the motion and to send a clear message of our commitment to the withdrawal of Trident nuclear weapons and the pursuit of nuclear disarmament. This involves an economic argument, a strategic argument and—most important of all—a moral argument. I have pleasure in supporting the motion that my colleague Keith Brown moved.