Replacement of Trident
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-3866, in the name of Chris Ballance, on the replacement of Trident.
The United Kingdom Government is deciding now whether to replace Trident, Britain's nuclear weapons system. The decision will determine whether we will have weapons of mass destruction based in Scotland, at Faslane, for the next 40 years. That is a crucial economic, strategic and moral issue for Scotland, and I am delighted to welcome to the public gallery so many visitors from the Church of Scotland, the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Trident Ploughshares and nukewatch Scotland.
This Green party debate focuses on the recent legal opinion that the use of nuclear weapons is illegal; that the threat of the use of nuclear weapons is illegal; and that the proposed replacement of Trident is illegal. The need to distinguish between enemy combatants and civilians is central to international law on war crimes. Nuclear weapons injure and kill civilians indiscriminately.
It has been suggested that the UK Government will simply agree the replacement of Trident without recourse to Parliament, despite the strategic implications, the £15 billion price tag and adverse public opinion. The decision will be taken not at Holyrood or even at Westminster, but in the White House and at the Pentagon, with number 10 simply signing the cheque. Scotland must voice its opinion on a decision that would make us a target, that would give us yet more nuclear waste and that would be illegal.
Mr Ballance will be aware that, along with many thousands of members of the Labour and trade union movement, I am supportive of the terms of the Green party's motion. For clarity, and for the record, are the Greens going to accept the facile amendment that has been lodged by the Scottish National Party?
We will hear the debate and decide which way we will vote at the end of it.
The motion draws on a legal opinion that was provided by Rabinder Singh QC and Professor Christine Chinkin of Matrix Chambers—Cherie Blair's own firm. That opinion is quite clear: the use of Trident or its replacement would
"breach customary international law, in particular because it would infringe the ‘intransgressible' requirement that a distinction must be drawn between combatants and non-combatants."
Given the fact that the explosive power of each warhead is at least eight times that of the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima, that point can hardly be in dispute.
Furthermore, the 1998 Rome statute of the International Criminal Court states:
"Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians … which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage"
is a serious violation of the laws of warfare, as is
"Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings … which are not military objectives".
More damning, the Matrix Chambers lawyers go on to consider whether even the threat to use such weapons might be illegal. Citing the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the "Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons", they note:
"If the envisaged use of force is itself unlawful, the stated readiness to use it would be a threat prohibited under Article 2, paragraph 4"
of the United Nations charter. So, it is illegal to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons.
However, there is more. The legal opinion finds that the replacement of Trident would be likely to constitute a material breach of article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. That article states:
"Each of the parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."
Let us be clear about this. If the UK unilaterally extends, enhances or improves its nuclear provision, it will be tearing up the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, having abandoned any vestige of commitment to
"pursue negotiations in good faith".
Where will that leave the prospect of negotiating away the nuclear weapons that are already in existence? Where will that leave the prospect of persuading countries that do not have nuclear weapons not to acquire them?
The world is considerably worried at the moment about the nuclear ambitions of Iran. How can we expect to persuade Iran to respect the NPT when we treat it in so cavalier a fashion? How hypocritical are we? If we are serious about nuclear disarmament, we need to do something about it. Let us begin by deciding that we will not seek to replace the Trident system, nor extend its life. For once, let us take the lead instead of following the United States of America.
Nuclear weapons are irrelevant against today's threats. What we need is greater respect for the United Nations, a strengthening of international law and action in support of our treaty obligations. The use of nuclear weapons, the threat of their use and the planned replacement of Trident are illegal and against our international treaty obligations. Let us today, in the Scottish Parliament, send a clear message to Whitehall that Scotland expects Downing Street to uphold the rule of law.
I move,
That the Parliament believes that the United Kingdom should not seek to replace the Trident nuclear missile system; notes that in 2005 the UK Government reaffirmed its commitment to all its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 1967 (NPT), including its legally binding obligation to negotiate nuclear disarmament in good faith; agrees with the legal opinion of Rabinder Singh QC and Professor Christine Chinkin of Matrix Chambers on 19 December 2005 that any replacement of the Trident system would constitute a material breach of Article VI of the NPT, and calls on the Scottish Executive to seek an early assurance from the UK Government that it will fully comply with our legal obligations in respect of the NPT and that it will not seek to replace the Trident nuclear missile system with another weapon system of mass destruction.
Only four days separate them. One is considered to be more mature and reflective; the other is considered less well developed and always in a hurry. I am not describing siblings or even members in this chamber—I am contrasting motions that have been lodged by the Greens. One was lodged by Mark Ballard on 20 January; the other was lodged by Chris Ballance on 24 January. Both of them cover the subject of Trident. The fundamental difference is that Mark Ballard's motion calls for
"the fullest possible public debate",
whereas the motion in the name of Chris Ballance wants us to decide now.
So, what is the Greens' position? Or do they have several? I do not necessarily mean that as a criticism. There are lots of conflicting views within individual parties, and rightly so. Indeed, many members have not made up their minds.
Will Jackie Baillie give way?
In a second.
What is true is that the decision on whether to replace Trident will be momentous, and I agree with Chris Ballance that it is one of the critical economic and strategic decisions that the UK faces.
I am glad that Jackie Baillie has been perusing the motions so carefully. She will be aware that a motion has been tabled at the House of Commons, calling for the fullest debate. However, there was no opportunity for MSPs to indicate that they, too, wanted to have the fullest debate. As Chris Ballance has pointed out, under the current proposals, that debate will not take place in the House of Commons, which is the first step that we need. The truth is that Trident is illegal to use, is illegal to threaten to use and breaks our treaty obligations. Without a debate being held at Westminster, how can the issue be discussed?
I say to Mark Ballard—who has taken up a substantial amount of my time—that I always study his motions with interest.
I will give you extra time because of that intervention, Ms Baillie.
Mark Ballard's motion was the right one. I want a full debate. I believe that there is the maturity in our democratic process to enable that debate to take place constructively. I welcome the early input from the Catholic church and the Church of Scotland, which both have a long-standing opposition to nuclear weapons. I welcome the input of trade unions, which have campaigned in the Labour Party against nuclear weapons. Indeed, the Scottish Labour Party conference has adopted a consistent anti-nuclear position. I do not dismiss any of that, but I also want to know the views of communities throughout Scotland, including those in the vicinity of Faslane.
There are questions that we need to have answered and options that we should explore fully. Does Trident need to be replaced? Is the current system obsolete? What will the international context be in 20 to 30 years' time, and what will be the consequences of our actions? People have heard me speak before about the economic impact of Faslane, and I make no apology for doing so again. The 7,000 direct jobs and 4,000 further jobs in the supply chain represent one quarter of the total workforce in the Dumbarton constituency. That is a staggering number of jobs in what is considered to be a deprived area. In the past, I have been accused of using that as some kind of an excuse for keeping nuclear weapons. Far from it—those are the facts; they might be uncomfortable, but they are very real. The hard politics is about having the maturity to get beyond the rhetoric and accept our responsibility to the people who work in the defence industry; that comprises 31,000 jobs at Faslane, Rosyth and across Scotland.
I hope that the Greens reject the Scottish National Party's "facile amendment"; Bill Butler's wording was spot on. I hope that the Greens realise that the Notting Hill nats would pull us out of NATO, tell us that they have the answers to the questions about the likely economic impact of that action, and—wait for it—base the Scottish navy at Faslane. Meanwhile, Alex Salmond is busy saying that the SNP would base the Scottish navy at Rosyth. Which is it to be? Perhaps the Scottish navy will be so big that it can be based at two different ports. Just in case we were in any doubt about the size of the Scottish navy, it will be seven frigates with 100 staff. What will the SNP do about the other 31,000 jobs that depend on defence?
I respect all views that are expressed in this chamber, but I will continue to argue that if we want to rid the UK of nuclear weapons, we will have to mitigate the consequences of so doing. Real action, not rhetoric, and having the fullest possible debate will give us time to consider all aspects of the issue.
We all want peace and a nuclear-free world. I know of no sane person who wants nuclear weapons to be used. The difference lies in how we try to achieve that. I believe that the Labour Party has a good record. Nuclear Lance missiles are gone. Maritime nuclear capability on surface ships is gone. Air-launched nuclear weapons are gone. Trident is our only nuclear weapons system and it now has a third fewer warheads. We place high priority on arms control and non-proliferation and we would all agree that the two principal ways of achieving those are through the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty. We are unequivocally committed to those.
From the words of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence, I am clear that no decision has been taken about the replacement of Trident. I do not want them to make that decision until they have heard what people think. We have an opportunity to influence that decision. Mark Ballard's motion acknowledged the central importance of having
"the fullest possible public debate";
I agree with that. Whether it is the Greens' green paper or the Liberals' white paper is not the issue for me; the issue is whether we reach out and engage with the people who matter most—ordinary people in our communities.
I move amendment S2M-3866.4, to leave out from "believes" to end and insert:
"notes that in 2005 the UK Government reaffirmed its commitment to all its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 1967; notes the commitment of all three major UK parties to retain an independent nuclear deterrent; notes the comments of the UK Government that no decisions on replacing Trident have yet been taken; believes there should be the fullest possible public debate on any decision to replace the Trident nuclear weapons system, considering all possible options including non-replacement; notes the significant reductions in the United Kingdom's nuclear weapons arsenal; is committed to the goal of the global elimination of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, and wishes to see the United Kingdom continue to work both bilaterally and through the United Nations to urge states not yet party to non-proliferation instruments to become so, to remain committed to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and to make further progress toward significant reductions in the nuclear arsenals of the major nuclear powers."
I welcome the debate and the Green party's motion. First, I will deal with the issue of nuclear weapons being seen in today's world as some sort of deterrent. I never accepted the old arguments, which were made during the cold war, that somehow the UK's nuclear weapons capacity helped to keep the peace and avoid further wars. It did not stop General Galtieri invading the Falklands, even though the Argentines never possessed the nuclear bomb. I never accepted the arguments, but at least there was a considered rationale that could be used by those who supported the UK's possession of weapons of mass destruction.
The collapse of the cold war has entirely removed any justification for the UK's possession of strategic nuclear weapons. Perhaps they will come in the debate that Jackie Baillie wants, but I have heard no convincing arguments about why the UK needs to spend £15 billion to £25 billion on creating the son of Trident. That money could be much better used for our public services and to help our economy. It would also produce a heck of a lot more jobs than Trident ever did.
Should we replace Trident because two or three other nations now possess nuclear weapons? As far as I know, none of them has either the motivation or the capacity to attack the UK. Should we do it because of the threat of terrorism? Surely that cannot be the case. I would like to know how a suicide bomber who is intent on martyrdom would be stopped because we have Trident on the Clyde. I cannot believe that we would deploy a nuclear weapon against a Muslim city, creating a modern-day Hiroshima, because that truly would unleash an unimaginable conflagration. The truth is that the end of the cold war killed off any intellectual arguments that might have existed in favour of any UK requirement to retain weapons of mass destruction.
Of course, the UK now has a changed position, which was adopted first by the Tories; later, Labour abandoned its principle of no first strike in favour of defending vital overseas interests. That means that Trident could be used pre-emptively and, as Chris Ballance said, the very threat of that could be seen as illegal under customary international law because
"it would infringe the ‘intransgressible' requirement that a distinction must be drawn between combatants and non-combatants."
It is self-evident that such weapons of mass destruction cannot be used against combatants only.
Replacing Trident would breach article VI of the 1996 nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which expects all signatories, in good faith, to cease the nuclear arms race at an early date and to work towards complete disarmament. Replacing Trident could not be seen as working towards disarmament
There is little or no prospect of the UK abandoning its commitment to WMD. It was the Labour Wilson Government of the 1960s that first built, launched and named the Polaris fleet. It was the Jim Callaghan Government that struck the Trident deal in a beach hut in Guadeloupe. The Labour Party's 2005 general election manifesto stated clearly that the party is committed to retaining an independent nuclear deterrent, therefore it comes as no surprise that Labour is intent on deciding during the lifetime of the current Parliament to create the son of Trident. The Tories are wedded to the arguments of the past every bit as much as Labour is, and we can see from the Liberals' amendment that their position is not much different.
It is quite clear—and no "facile argument"—to say that the only way and the best way to get rid of Trident on the Clyde and to rid Scotland of nuclear weapons is for Scotland to become independent. It is absolutely clear that all the unionist parties are wedded to the idea of continuing to have this weapon of mass destruction on the Clyde. I have heard others talk about Trident being some sort of independent deterrent for Scotland. Well, the US supplies the missile system because we lease it from there. A US satellite system guides and aims the weapons.
It services them as well.
The US also services the weapons and produces all the goods that the system requires. No one should kid themselves that this weapons system is independent and that any future weapons system would be in any way independent.
The decision to use the weapons will not be made by the UK; we will have to be the cover for the US if it ever decides to use battlefield nuclear weapons, which it says are more usable and smaller. I say to Bill Butler that the arguments for Trident are facile, not the argument that independence is the only way of stopping it. The unionists are wedded to the idea of new systems coming on; no one should kid themselves any other way.
I support the Green party's motion, but I hope that Parliament will accept the SNP's amendment.
I move amendment S2M-3866.1, to insert at end:
"and believes that the best way to ensure that nuclear weapons are removed from Scotland is for Scotland to become an independent nation."
The remarks that Bruce Crawford made about Labour represent the difference between a party that is in permanent Opposition and a party that is in Government or which has the potential to stay in Government.
It is my earnest belief that nuclear weapons have proved to be the most successful means of peacekeeping that the world has ever known. Since nuclear weapons were used at the end of the second world war—it is questionable whether the US would ever have dared to use them if Japan had had a nuclear weapon—they have been seen as weapons of deterrence. As such, they have worked.
Will the member give way on that point?
I will give way to Mike Rumbles later.
After that, things moved on and we had the cold war and the Cuban missile crisis. As one who was at sea during that period, I can confirm that the build-up in military activity was evident. Many felt that war was inevitable, but the Russians backed down so it did not come about. Their only reason for backing down was that nuclear war would have been inevitable. That was totally unacceptable to them and to all sane individuals.
In the 1980s, with the talk of star wars, we saw the arms race gathering pace. Irrespective of that, the situation was found to be too expensive to maintain, even for the major nations. Without a doubt, the collapse of the Berlin wall and the reduction of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to a Commonwealth of Independent States were brought about because of nuclear deterrence and because nuclear war was beyond contemplation.
Will the member give way?
As promised, I give way to Mike Rumbles.
Phil Gallie's argument seems to be that nuclear deterrence on a global scale has succeeded. Therefore, if every nation had nuclear weapons, the world would be a safer place. Is not such an argument complete bunkum?
That is not my argument at all. I agree with the non-proliferation treaty, which accepted that five nations—China, France, Russia, the UK and the USA—could continue to possess nuclear weapons. Since then, India, Pakistan and perhaps Israel have gained nuclear weapons and others—North Korea and Iran—have made moves to do so. I do not want such an expansion to take place, but I recognise the reality that the world may sometimes be able to do little to prevent other nations from taking control of nuclear weapons. In such circumstances, only a balance in any nuclear stand-off will work.
Will the member give way?
I do not have time, as I have only four minutes.
It is interesting that Labour Party members such as Tony Blair seem to have converted totally to the Trident option. Although Tony Blair was a member of CND back in the early 1980s, responsibility changed his mind. He recognised that his commitment must be to the defence of the UK, but our wider worldwide responsibilities for defence were a major factor in the position that he took as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
I believe that we can influence the current world situation and help to prevent further expansion of nuclear weaponry. We have already seen a considerable reduction in Britain's nuclear capacity—I give credit to Jackie Baillie for making that point—and we can lead the way along those lines. However, the arguments of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s for unilateral disarmament are long since passed.
It would be a massive folly if Britain were to turn its back on the retention of a nuclear deterrent. A replacement for Trident does not mean an upgrading or increase in capacity but a standstill situation. I would approve of that.
I move amendment S2M-3866.2, to leave out from "that the United Kingdom" to end and insert:
"it essential that the United Kingdom should continue to play a full and effective role in the world and in NATO and that to do that requires the continuation of an effective defence capacity; notes that as long as other countries have nuclear weapons it is essential that Britain has the capacity to address that threat; supports the principle of replacing or updating the current Trident system with a successor generation nuclear deterrent when necessary; believes that there should be an objective of multilateral global nuclear disarmament, and further believes that, however, that objective can only safely be achieved by ensuring that no rogue dictatorships have the capacity to use nuclear weaponry unchallenged."
It is worth stating at the outset that nuclear weapons are an evil of our time. The day that dawns when the last dreadful such arsenal is dismantled will be a day of deliverance not only for humankind, but for all life on the beautiful blue globe that is our planet.
I am pleased to set out the Liberal Democrat approach to nuclear disarmament. In the 2005 UK general election, Liberal Democrats reaffirmed our long-standing commitment to work for the elimination of nuclear weapons on a multilateral basis. We would maintain the UK's current minimum nuclear deterrent until progress had been made towards multilateral disarmament. Indeed, the terms of my amendment are taken in part from our 2005 manifesto.
As members have said, the considerable uncertainty that surrounds the future of Trident and any possible replacement missile system is, frankly, unacceptable. Westminster must confirm a date for debating a subject that is of such overriding importance. Apparently, the Prime Minister has committed the UK Government to making a decision about the future of Trident during the current Westminster Parliament. We call on him to publish a white paper on the issue to inform the British public of the full background to any such decision.
I understand that the Liberals want a white paper to deal with the future of Trident, but do they support the doctrine of a pre-emptive first strike to defend Britain's national interests, which has been adopted both by the Tories and by the Labour Party?
No, we are not in favour of pre-emptive first strikes. I very much doubt that Bruce Crawford's characterisation of the position of other parties is a true reflection of their views.
As the Trident missile system is a costly part of the UK's defence system, it is crucial that we have an informed public debate on the issue and that a decision is then taken by a vote in the House of Commons. For a fully informed debate to take place, it is vital that the Government publishes a white paper to provide details on, for example, alternative proposals and costs and an assessment of the environmental and economic impact that a replacement nuclear deterrent system would bring.
Any white paper must take into account the possible strategic security context over the next 20 to 30 years. Trident is essentially a relic of the cold war. At whom are its missiles now to be pointed? That is a key question that any white paper must address. The white paper must also consider the different options that are available and the true deterrence capability of any new defence system.
In signing the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as a nuclear-weapon country, the UK made an historic commitment to nuclear disarmament. The UK has contributed to disarmament by cutting its nuclear stockpile by 70 per cent since the end of the cold war. As Jackie Baillie mentioned, that has happened in a number of ways, including the abolition of air-launched nuclear missiles. The Trident submarine fleet has been reduced to four submarines that are capable of carrying the D5 nuclear missile system. Of those, only one submarine is on patrol at any given time. Furthermore, the 48 warheads that are carried on board are no longer pre-targeted and several days' notice is needed for the missile to be fired.
The Green party motion alleges that
"replacement of the Trident system would constitute a material breach of Article VI of the NPT".
However, article VI commits all nuclear countries
"to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament".
Indeed, I take issue with the central part of Mr Ballance's motion that there is a legal, rather than political, case against replacement. Given the UK's express commitment to nuclear disarmament and the principle of irreversibility, any replacement for Trident that increased the UK's nuclear weapons capability would be incompatible with our international obligations. The motion refers to
"legal obligations in respect of the NPT"
in the context of an increase in our nuclear capacity rather than a replacement of the current system. In our view, it is inappropriate to include such inexact wording in any motion that is agreed to by the Parliament.
It is disappointing to note the failure of the recent conference on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the failure of the world summit to make any further progress on nuclear disarmament. We urge the UK Government to initiate international arms reduction talks. In passing, however, I must welcome today's initiative at the UN by the UK and France that aims to restrain Iran's efforts to join the nuclear club. Together with global warming and pandemics, nuclear proliferation must be one of the most severe threats to mankind.
The Liberal Democrat view is that the UK Government has still to make a case for a replacement system for Trident. In any event, the current system and any successor must be part of multilateral nuclear disarmament talks. A replacement for Trident should have no greater strength of fire-power than the present system, but we would much prefer Trident to be phased out as a result of a successful stage-by-stage worldwide disarmament initiative.
I move amendment S2M-3866.3, to leave out from "believes" to end and insert:
"wishes to see the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons; notes the UK Government's commitment, made in June 2005, to reach a decision on the replacement of the Trident system by the end of the current Westminster Parliament; further notes that the Secretary of State for Defence stated in June 2005 that ‘no decision on any replacement for Trident has been taken, either in principle or otherwise'; calls on the UK Government to publish a White Paper on the issue in order to stimulate a full public debate; further calls on the UK Government to press for a new round of multilateral arms reduction talks, and believes that the UK's current minimum nuclear deterrent should be retained for the foreseeable future until sufficient progress has been made towards the global elimination of nuclear weapons."
We move to the open debate. We have four speakers, each of whom will have four minutes.
The issue is one of justice, environment, finance, health and communities, to name but a few. However, as yet, no minister has come to the chamber. That shows utter contempt for the subject of the debate, those who support nuclear disarmament, the Scottish Green Party and the Parliament.
The subject is reserved to Westminster.
I have just said that the debate is about finance, environment and justice and that it matters to communities. The chamber is well attended; the Executive could have had the decency to have a minister in the chamber to listen to the debate. Scott Barrie may disagree, but the Scottish Socialist Party believes that it should have done so.
I thank the Green party for using its time today for this debate. I also thank Scottish CND, Trident Ploughshares, nukewatch Scotland, the churches, Women in Black, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the Iona Community, the Scottish Centre for Nonviolence and all those who work towards peace in what is sometimes a very aggressive world. Groups, organisations and individuals that campaign, educate, lobby and take non-violent direct action have held the issue in the public domain for decades. We should thank and pay tribute to them for their work. Without that effort, the public would know nothing about the brutality of weapons of mass destruction.
However, the public do know about that and politicians should note that they have rejected nuclear weapons time and time again. The 2005 Greenpeace MORI poll found that 80 per cent of the public are against the UK using nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state. It is possible that the Government already knows that; perhaps that is why it pretends that some states have nuclear weapons. It makes it possible for the Government to attack as it pleases—or as Mr Bush pleases.
The hypocrisy on the part of Bush and Blair around the issue is astounding. The current accusations against Iran have again set the war ball rolling. Of course, much of the sabre rattling includes the use of the words "nuclear weapons". It is all reminiscent of the run-up to the attack on and occupation of Iraq. How can Blair, Bush and their followers tell Iran that nuclear power and nuclear bombs will not be allowed when they continue to develop deadly weapons?
We constantly hear that Iran and North Korea should not develop the bomb. I agree: all of us should step back from domination and annihilation. The warnings that are being given to North Korea and, in particular, Iran sound to me like someone saying, "If you even look like you are going to develop nuclear power, we're going to use our nuclear bombs to put you back in your place." However, not so much as a finger has been wagged at Israel, which has now built an arsenal of up to 200 weapons. Where is the outcry about that illegal act? Why has no threat been made of invasion or sanctions against Israel?
Perhaps we do not threaten countries who have the capability to fight back or that do not have oil. Perhaps the weapons that countries such as Israel have are nicely placed to attack neighbouring countries—countries that could get in the way of capitalism—or perhaps Israel's agenda suits the west. We can speculate but, at the end of the day, nuclear weapons mean that the world has become a very dangerous place. The arms race continues to grow.
Jackie Baillie said that an extension of nuclear weapons is not on the Government agenda, but it is. Indeed, on 23 February, part of a British nuclear weapon was detonated underground in the Nevada desert. The test was named Krakatau, after the volcano that killed 36,000 people, and contributed towards the new weapons programme. I see that Jackie Baillie is shaking her head in denial. Instead of doing that, she should keep her eye on the ball and work to block any moves in that direction.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I do not have time. I have only a minute.
We have a little bit of time in hand this morning.
On you go, Jackie. I understood from Frances Curran that you had said I had only a minute, Presiding Officer.
I am impressed with your time-keeping, Presiding Officer.
Does the member recognise the very real issues about employment at Faslane? What does she propose to do about them?
There are many issues at Faslane that the community is concerned about, because it is the main employer in the area. I planned to address that issue later in my contribution. We use the skills of workers and invest resources in the base. Why do we not diversify and use the workers and skills in other areas? It is not as if their skills do not need to be used. Also, if we decommissioned, there would be jobs for thousands of years simply in taking care of and overseeing decommissioning. No one would set up a firing squad just to give people a job. We should find something useful for the Faslane workers to do.
One minute.
The existence of weapons of mass destruction threatens global security. If anyone decided to attack the UK, they need only hit the Faslane naval base. If that were to happen, we would fall on our sword. The consequences would be utter hell on earth.
The Scottish Parliament could take action if it had the will to do so. Many members were members of CND; indeed, I believe that Jack McConnell was once a member. If we had the will, we could disallow the use of our roads for the transportation of materials to and from the bases. The Parliament could also support the protesters who often go to jail in an effort to protect the country and the planet. As opposed to hiding under a stone, the Executive could ensure that it spoke up and did something about what is happening in Scotland. There are reasons why a minister should be in the chamber today.
Last week, a group of cadets aged between 14 and 18 visited the Faslane naval base. The young people were taken through the stages of a mock war; they were shown how weapons work and taken through the whole scenario. If those young people had been shouting on the street, some MSPs would have had an antisocial behaviour order slapped on them and yet there they were at Faslane, learning to kill on a grand scale. Our children should not be exposed to violence in that way. That is not something to be proud of. Is it any wonder that society is becoming more violent? As part of their daily education, our children should be taught peace and justice; they should not be taken through the motions of hatred and murder.
The Executive and the Parliament should listen to the people of Scotland. We should uphold international law. We should join the many, many countries around the world that do not invest in weapons of mass destruction. We should distance ourselves from aggression and hatred. We should move towards peace, safety and unity. We can do that only through disarmament.
As Chris Ballance made clear earlier in the debate, we are now approaching decision time on the next generation of British weapons of mass destruction. As we heard earlier, previous Labour Governments have used ministerial powers to put those decisions through on the nod. It is outrageous that that could also happen with the next generation of British nuclear weapons. The reason why it is being done in that way is to avoid proper scrutiny. As Chris Ballance pointed out, it is illegal to use or threaten to use Trident; upgrading it would break our treaty obligations.
I am not sure where Jackie Baillie gets the idea that there is a difference between saying that it is outrageous that the subject is not being debated and saying that it is outrageous that we should even contemplate using nuclear weapons. The reason why the debate is being avoided is because the use of nuclear weapons, the threat of their use or their upgrading would break our treaty obligations and international law.
Euan Robson spoke about the meaning of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which is the treaty that we are asking Iran to stick to in asking it not to build up a nuclear weapons capacity. As has been said in the debate, the treaty requires us to cease the nuclear arms race. How can upgrading Trident or spending billions of pounds on upgrading our weapons of mass destruction be a ceasing of the arms race? Clearly, it is a continuation of the arms race.
For those such as Phil Gallie who continue to look at Trident through the lens of the cold war, I say that it is time for some home truths. As Bruce Crawford pointed out, the UK Government has made it perfectly clear that Trident is now a weapon of first use. Time and time again, ministers have refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear enemies.
Will the member give way?
No. We have heard enough from Phil Gaillie.
As Bruce Crawford said, that goes against customary international law. Phil Gallie would like those laws not to apply to us, but they do. The NPT applies to us, as does international law. It is illegal to use or to threaten to use Trident.
As for the idea that Trident is a deterrent, I pose the question: a deterrent against what? Osama bin Laden or al-Qa'ida? Perhaps it is a deterrent against bird flu. Nobody has a clue who this weapon is supposed to deter. The cold war is over. There is no USSR and no more mutually assured destruction. Like the generals of old, we are preparing ourselves to fight the last war, not the next one. We have an opportunity to move on and to place ourselves alongside the vast majority of nations in the world that have no desire or need for weapons. We should take a lead in fighting the wars of the next century, against poverty, injustice and environmental destruction.
In the meantime, we continue to transport nuclear warheads the length of the country, in great lumbering convoys that are like dinosaurs in more ways that one. From Aldermaston to Coulport, we continue to expose millions of people to appalling risks as the convoys travel up the A74, the M74, the A1, the M9 and the M80. Each convoy carries 8kg of plutonium, which is one of the most dangerous substances known to man. I ask members to imagine what would happen if there was an accident. The risks of an accident might be small but they are still far too high for Scotland's population.
Throughout Scotland, there is opposition to new generations of weapons of mass destruction and to the convoys that would transport those weapons through Scotland. If we value the rule of law and expect to lead by example, let us show that Scotland takes seriously its international obligations, the rule of law and the NPT. We need a proper debate to air such issues, which is why I urge members to support the Green motion. Scotland neither wants nor needs more weapons of mass destruction.
I have heard nothing in the debate from any of the British unionist parties that convinces me that they will uphold article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Only an independent Scotland can rid Scotland and the British isles of nuclear weapons and it is imperative that we do so—[Interruption.] Members are laughing, but when Labour members say that nuclear weapons are a Westminster issue, I become even more convinced that only an independent Scotland can get rid of Trident.
Sandra White said that an independent Scotland could rid the British isles of nuclear weaponry. How on earth could that happen? An independent Scotland would have no influence over the rest of the British isles.
I said that an independent Scotland would rid Scotland of nuclear weapons and could help to rid the British Isles of them—[Interruption.] Members are demonstrating their unionist principles, which proves that the unionist British parties will stick together, regardless of the fact that 80 per cent of the Scottish population want to get rid of Trident. Members might laugh, but Trident is not just a Westminster issue; it is an issue for everyone in Scotland.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I do not have enough time.
The fact that four Trident missiles are based just outside Glasgow at Faslane is a Scottish issue and not just a Westminster issue. We should consider the reality of Trident's capability, which is thousands of times greater than that of the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima, which members have mentioned. However, some members think that this is a British, unionist, Westminster issue. Nuclear weapons are an issue for humanity and a moral issue. A Trident missile can be launched silently and reach places as far away as Russia and China—and everywhere else in the world—but members say that that is a Westminster issue.
We should be honest about the fact that, as Bruce Crawford said, we have no say in where weapons of mass destruction are deployed. However, America will have a say, because when Bush tugs at the leash, Blair follows. Nuclear weapons are not just a British issue; they are an American issue. We have nuclear weapons in this country because Aldermaston relies on the Americans for nuclear technology and training and for all the parts of Trident missiles. Bruce Crawford made that point very well. We do not have an independent nuclear deterrent and other people have said so, including Labour politicians, one of whom will be turning in his grave. Harold Wilson said that our nuclear weapons are neither independent nor British and are not a deterrent. Roy Hattersley has written:
"No one seriously imagined that the British bomb … could ever be used … without American assistance."
It is time that we realised that Trident is here to aid America in its aim of world domination. We are being used and Scottish people are suffering.
Jackie Baillie talked about employment. The maintenance of the Trident system currently costs us £1.5 billion every year and it would cost up to £25 billion to replace Trident. What could an independent Scotland do with that kind of money?
I will tell members what we could do with that money. We could provide an extra 5,000 intensive care beds every year for 10 years. We could pay for an extra 16,200 qualified dentists every year for 20 years. We could pay for 62,500 extra police officers every year for 20 years. The Scottish people want decent services; they do not want Trident. We should not kid ourselves about the British unionist parties; only an independent Scotland will get rid of Trident, which is what the Scottish people truly want.
I thank the Green party for securing this debate in the Scottish Parliament.
We have heard the reasons in international law why we should not replace Trident. Trident is a legacy of the cold war and I have not heard of a logical scenario in which it could or should be used as a weapon of defence or offence.
Trident and Faslane represent a genuine threat to people who live in the central belt of Scotland and beyond. The Trident system is a target for terrorist groups and no one should try to tell me that there is 100 per cent security at Faslane. A few years ago, three older pensioner ladies broke into the Faslane complex and wandered about for about six hours before they were apprehended. If lady pensioners can do that, the mind boggles at the thought of what terrorists could do if they broke into the complex and at the danger that people face in the central belt of Scotland and beyond. Accidents happen. According to Sod's law, if something can happen, it will.
If the funds for Trident's replacement were thrown at nuclear waste disposal, nuclear power stations could be built and waste could safely be contained. We would also be able to get rid of Trident, because the biggest problem is that no one knows what to do with the waste, which is not disposable. We should throw the money at waste disposal, build safer nuclear power stations and get rid of Trident, which might please some CND members.
Phil Gallie's description of the early days of the cold war and the stand-off strength of nuclear weapons is probably right, but he was talking about the situation nearly 50 years ago and it is time to move on. We should make Trident, not nurses, redundant.
Members will have four minutes for winding-up speeches, with the exception of John Home Robertson, who will have five minutes, and Patrick Harvie, who will have seven minutes.
The Liberal Democrats have a long-standing commitment to work for the elimination of nuclear weapons on a multilateral basis. Although the replacement of the Trident missile system is a reserved issue, it is absolutely right that the Scottish Parliament should debate the matter. However, I wish that we could have had a real debate, because the few minutes that we have been given make a mockery of debate. Today's debate seems to have been designed to generate publicity for the Green party rather than as a genuine attempt properly to debate a hugely moral issue.
Will the member give way?
Let me get started.
I could not agree more with the Catholic Bishops Conference of Scotland, which said in a statement on Trident on 11 April:
"The Church teaches that it is immoral to use weapons of mass destruction in an act of war: ‘Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities or extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation.'"
A war that was engaged in such a way could never be described as a just war. I believe in the concept of a just war, or I would never have spent 15 years of my adult life in the Army. My war role was as a nuclear, biological and chemical warfare warning and reporting officer in the British Army of the Rhine. I trained to help to fight a conventional war on the north German plain, in which we always assumed a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union. Thank God, the nuclear threat from the old Soviet Union has gone, but Trident and other strategic nuclear weapons remain.
I was particularly taken with the address that Cardinal Keith O'Brien gave on Easter Sunday, when he urged Scots:
"Enter this debate and demand that these weapons of mass destruction be replaced, but not with more weapons. Rather, replace Trident … with projects that bring life to the poor."
Like Mike Rumbles, I was moved by some of the comments from our faith communities. However, does the member agree with comments from his Liberal colleague Alan Reid, MP for Argyll and Bute, who says that a replacement for Trident is vital?
No, I do not. On moral grounds alone, we should not spend billions of pounds on a replacement for Trident. On military grounds, the money would be a complete waste. Can any sane person believe that there are any circumstances at all in which a UK Prime Minister would order the release of our strategic nuclear deterrent to rain mass destruction on innocent lives on a global scale? No; the theory of mutually assured destruction is indeed mad. However, I am not a CND supporter, because I draw a distinction between strategic nuclear weapons of mass destruction such as Trident, the use of which would be completely indefensible, and other tactical low-yield weapons that are designed for defensive use on battlefields.
Given that we would never use the Trident missile system, why are we even contemplating replacing it? The reason can only be politics. It would be unfortunate if the UK Government felt that, to be a world player, we need to be in the strategic nuclear club, but I cannot think of any other reason—certainly not a military one—why the Government would even contemplate meeting the huge cost of replacing Trident.
Of all the amendments before us, members should support the Liberal Democrat one. As Euan Robson said in moving it, nuclear weapons are an evil of our time. The Green motion, rather than point to the important political or moral case, argues that a legal case can be made against replacing Trident. The Liberal Democrats do not support the Greens on that. The use of Trident is not a practical, political or moral option in any circumstances and any Prime Minister who authorised its use would indeed be mad. I urge members to support the Liberal Democrat amendment.
I make it absolutely clear that, despite Bruce Crawford's comment about pre-emptive strikes, we are totally and absolutely opposed to pre-emptive strikes in all circumstances—our policy has been based consistently on the use of deterrents. We believe that the United Kingdom should continue to play a full and effective role in NATO, which requires the continuation of an effective defensive capacity. For as long as other countries have nuclear weapons, it will be vital that NATO has the capacity to address that threat. Therefore, we endorse the principle that we should prepare to replace the Trident system with a successor generation of nuclear deterrent.
Of course, we support multilateral disarmament. We supported the test ban and non-proliferation treaties and other measures to that end. However, as Churchill stated, the problem is that
"An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."
I say to Mike Rumbles that those who claim that conventional weapons are sufficient defence against a threat from a nuclear power risk wishful thinking.
I will take a quick intervention from Mike Rumbles, and then I must get on.
Will Lord James say in what circumstances he would authorise the use of a strategic nuclear weapon if he were Prime Minister?
Happily, I will never be Prime Minister, but I can tell Mike Rumbles straight away that, for a deterrent to be credible, the potential aggressor must believe that it is capable of being used.
The 2003 defence white paper stated:
"the continuing risk from the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the certainty that a number of … countries will retain substantial nuclear arsenals, mean that our minimum nuclear deterrent capability … represented by Trident, is likely to remain a necessary element".
Churchill summed up the matter when he said:
"Once you take the position of not being able in any circumstances to defend your rights against aggression, there is no end to the demands that will be made nor to the humiliations that must be accepted."
What should our policy be? Phil Gallie referred to the Cuban missile crisis, when the world came closer to nuclear war than at any other time. President John F Kennedy hit the nail on the head when he said that
"we prefer world law in the age of self-determination, to world war in the age of mass extermination"
and that
"if a beachhead of co-operation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavour, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved."
It follows that, in all possible circumstances, we should avoid wars, through the involvement of the United Nations, which Kennedy called
"the protector of the small and the weak and a safety valve for the strong".
However, I challenge those who wish to give up our nuclear weapons unilaterally with an unanswerable question: who would follow our example?
I will end with a comment by Dean Inge, who told his congregation that it is no use for sheep to pass resolutions about vegetarianism when there are wolves about that like mutton. He was right because, for evil to succeed, it is necessary only for the good man to do nothing. I submit that the renewal of Trident is extremely regrettable but essential.
As usual, the debate hinges on the belief among the British parties that, somehow, the greater the debate, the more likely we are to have a decision at Westminster. In this case, we are talking about a decision that would lead to the reduction and removal of nuclear weapons. However, the evidence of the past 30 or 40 years shows that Britain has no intention of removing nuclear weapons with the current state of the world. However, the state of the world as analysed in London is different from the state of the world as seen by people in other places. Britain's role as a world power with vital interests increases the threat for those of us who live in this country, in England and Wales and in many other countries, because it increases the danger that nuclear weapons will be used at some point.
The threat of the illegal use of nuclear weapons is against the UN charter. We cannot allow the rules of that most important of international bodies to be flouted. Someone must take the initiative and start to follow the rules. It would be much more honourable for members of the Parliament to support the view of the churches, particularly the Church of Scotland, which has stated frequently that nuclear weapons are immoral. Many members agree that they are immoral but then call on Her Majesty's Government to replace the Trident missile system with a new generation of weapons of mass destruction. Why cannot the members who represent the British parties grasp that initiative and accept the potential?
Jackie Baillie talked about having the fullest possible debate. It is important that we ask the Labour Party why the Prime Minister and his Cabinet refuse to have that debate at Westminster. The reason is that they are not prepared to have a public discussion on an issue on which they know that they do not command the support of the majority of people in the British isles. As Mark Ballard said, that is typical of the way in which Labour makes decisions. We are told, "Leave it with me, son—we know best." That attitude is at the root of the decision at Westminster. I hope that the members of the Labour Party in Scotland will start to distance themselves from that approach to politics.
Rob Gibson claims that the people of the British isles, including those in Scotland, are against replacing Trident. If so, why do the majority of them support the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats, which advocate the replacement of Trident?
The reason is that we do not have an electoral system that allows a balance of views and which can, therefore, show exactly how people feel. The situation that Phil Gallie describes is what we get with the first-past-the-post system for Westminster.
Malcolm Rifkind has said that Trident is used to support Britain's vital interests, which increases the need to upgrade the system. Geoff Hoon has said that Britain is prepared to use nuclear weapons to protect Britain's vital interests. However, the Scottish Parliament has an opportunity to act and to be a catalyst for change.
The SNP amendment is about a simple matter: if we in Scotland decide to be independent, the difficulty of maintaining a nuclear deterrent here will act as a catalyst for the UK to rethink its position.
The SNP amendment makes it clear that one of the ways to break the deadlock of all this debate that never gets anywhere is for Scotland to be independent and for the issue to be faced. There has been plenty of learned debate on the subject, but can any member tell me of any other catalyst that will make the British parties see sense and change their minds? The Green motion, with the SNP amendment, is the route to progress and to a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons for ever.
Rob Gibson and his colleagues in the SNP have been expressing their undying opposition to nuclear weapons. I seem to recall that, not long ago, nationalists joined some of the rest of us in protesting vehemently against Malcolm Rifkind when he took the Trident refitting contract away from Rosyth to Devonport. If members are opposed to having the submarines, there is a whiff of hypocrisy about their wanting the jobs that are associated with refitting them.
There is a colossal distinction between civil nuclear power, which generates electricity to sustain life and civilisation, and nuclear weapons, which are designed to obliterate entire cities. Nuclear missiles supposedly are retained to ensure that they are never used. We heard that argument from James Douglas-Hamilton. I confess that I have never been entirely comfortable with the logic of nuclear deterrence.
As I will not be able to take part in the next debate, which is on the storage of nuclear waste, I will refer to an obvious link between the two debates. I will be happy when the time comes to decommission Britain's four Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines. However, I do not want to add to the fleet of nuclear hulks that are already tied up at Rosyth and Devonport. Redundant submarine reactors should not be corroding in the water of the Firth of Forth; they should be in safe, permanent storage on dry land.
I must challenge the Greens and their nationalist fellow travellers on their absurd position on the storage of nuclear waste. We have inherited a legacy of difficult and dangerous material, whether we like it or not. The independent Committee on Radioactive Waste Management has just concluded that it can and should be put into safe, permanent geological storage, but the political zealots in the Green and nationalist parties do not want that solution to be achieved.
I look forward to John Home Robertson's interventions in the next debate, even if he is unable to make a speech, but does he intend to address the motion for this debate?
I was just moving on to that. The Greens' top priority is to obstruct civil nuclear power stations, regardless of the need to cut carbon dioxide emissions. Their logic would leave the nuclear hulks that I mentioned to rust in the water at Rosyth docks indefinitely. That is an abdication of responsibility to future generations.
I am a veteran of House of Commons Defence Select Committee annual reviews of the Trident programme back in the 1990s. We reported on how the programme suffered delays and cost increases that make the Holyrood building seem like a bargain—although our wonderful British media did not seem to care about military overspending. Such is life—it's aye been like that.
I was opposed to Margaret Thatcher's Trident programme because I was not convinced by the logic of mutually assured destruction when the Soviet Union was collapsing. I came to that issue from the left, but I recommend the devastating critique of the theory of nuclear deterrence that was made by none other than Enoch Powell on 7 June 1987. I did not think that Trident made sense at the end of the cold war, and I cannot for the life of me see how al-Qa'ida can be deterred by ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads now.
As Jackie Baillie and others have said, these issues will be addressed by our colleagues at Westminster when the four Vanguard SSBNs—ship submersible ballistic nuclear submarines—reach the end of their lifespan. The decision will not be made here, and it will not be made any time soon. We will all have our say in the public debate in due course. Today, I suggest that the Green motion should be amended so that we can make sense of what is really just an opportunistic stunt. If we in this Parliament want to be taken seriously, we should not agree to silly motions.
We might begin to take the Scottish Green Party seriously on these issues when its members agree about the need for safe, permanent storage of nuclear waste. Of course, protest groups do not really want solutions; they thrive on frustration. I am not interested in frustration. I want to help to achieve real solutions to these big problems for our nation and for the wider world. That is the big difference between the Labour Party and some of the other groups that are represented in the Parliament. I strongly urge the Parliament to support Jackie Baillie's amendment.
I thank members for their contributions to the debate, which I have found stimulating. I admit that my mood shifted markedly when I listened to John Home Robertson, who decided to attack the Greens for even bringing the debate to the chamber, despite many members saying that they welcome an open, full debate on replacing Trident.
I recognise that there are people in all parties, not just mine, who agree with us about the replacement and retention of Trident, and who have worked on the issues for many years. I refer not only to members of those parties that will support the motion or the amendment against replacement, but to people in the Tory party who reject replacement. This matter is not cut and dried down party lines; there is debate in all parties.
The previous time the Parliament debated the matter, in January 2002, the focus was on the retention of Trident. This time, we have lodged a motion specifically on the legal issues around replacement. I say to Mr Rumbles that that is not a rejection of the moral or political case; it is simply a different take on the issue.
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
No, thank you. I want to talk about Jackie Baillie's amendment, which seems to provide the only serious criticism of our motion. It raises serious issues, which is why we are having an open and full debate. Having such a debate does not mean having no position and simply asking everybody else what they think; it means saying what we think. That is why Mark Ballard's and Chris Ballance's recent motions are entirely compatible.
On jobs, I do not pretend that there are simple answers, any more than I would pretend to farmers in Afghanistan that there were simple answers about how they might make a living if, as we want, poppy production for heroin ceased. The principle is the same. I am not prepared to accept that jobs alone justify an immoral act—in this case, the retention of nuclear weapons.
I support the Enterprise and Culture Committee holding an inquiry into how areas such as Jackie Baillie's constituency can diversify their economies. I ask her whether any Labour members on that committee have proposed such an inquiry to consider the issues in the detail that they merit. Jackie Baillie said that the Labour Party is unequivocally committed to the non-proliferation treaty. In the previous debate, in January 2002, she spoke about "action, not rhetoric". Today, we have an opportunity to say no to replacement and yes to the non-proliferation protocol. When we come to decision time, we will have the option to make action, not rhetoric, the priority.
Will the member comment on the part of the Labour amendment that
"notes the significant reductions in the United Kingdom's nuclear weapons arsenal"?
Does he accept that there was a reduction but that, although particular weapons were removed, Trident ended up being a lot stronger, more powerful and much more penetrative than previous nuclear systems?
Certainly, and any attempt to replace it would, by definition, given technological progress, also upgrade at least some systems.
Bruce Crawford has been attacked over what some members have called a facile amendment. Not only did he focus on the legal issues that we have raised, but he defended his amendment. Scottish independence is not the only conceivable way to achieve disarmament, but independence would make it far more likely. The UK could choose to get rid of or not replace Trident but, given the climate in UK politics, I do not think that it will. If Scotland as an independent country were to get rid of Trident, I would have a double celebration.
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
No, thank you. I wish to turn to Phil Gallie's points. He said that nuclear weapons have worked and have been successful in keeping the peace. There may not have been the massive conflagration that many people feared, but there has not been a day of world peace in the entire history of nuclear weapons. A fictional Labour Prime Minister said that he wanted to dismantle the absurd and obscene idea that our freedom must depend on the fear of annihilation. It would be blissful if we had a real Prime Minister who spoke with such passion.
Phil Gallie argued that this country should lead the way in working towards disarmament, but do our current defence and foreign policies mean that we do so? Of course they do not. Members should consider the proliferation incentives that have been created for India, Israel, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea and compare the number of proposals for sanctions against or invasion of Iran with those that have been made with respect to North Korea. We know that North Korea already has nuclear weapons, which is why no one proposes to invade it to dismantle its capabilities.
Euan Robson said that members should support the Liberal Democrats' amendment. I would welcome a white paper from the United Kingdom Government, which would be a useful contribution to the debate, but while white papers often precede new legislation on which members of Parliament are permitted to vote—sometimes even according to their consciences—that would not happen in this case. The UK Government has said that MPs will not yet be allowed to vote on the matter. That is why I cannot support the Liberal Democrats' amendment. Mike Rumbles spoke in support of it and talked about how much he disagrees with replacing Trident, but the amendment calls for retention of our nuclear capability for the foreseeable future, which I cannot support.
Rosie Kane mentioned the Executive's non-attendance at the debate. I am happy to give ministers their lie-in, which I hope they enjoy. However, I will ensure that they are represented in at least one way by quoting what Cathy Jamieson said as a candidate for election to the Parliament in 1999 rather than as a member or a minister:
"For me, and many others in the Parliament, the continued production of nuclear weapons and the potential dangers, is a moral issue. A challenge for the Parliament, and the political Parties would be to have a genuinely open consultation with the people of Scotland on the question of Trident, and allow MSPs to vote according to their conscience."
I agree with one thing that Mike Rumbles said: this is a moral issue. I get bored and sick and tired of people who say that moral issues in politics are about finger wagging and who people go to bed with. That is narrow-minded nonsense. There are great moral issues of our age, for example the degradation of our environment, the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers in our communities and the treatment of prisoners. Retaining or replacing Trident is one of the great moral issues. It is disappointing that all three parties that dominate Westminster politics are committed to retaining nuclear arsenals. As a result, none of the many voters in Scotland who reject nuclear weapons has a real choice. Westminster, as Martin Luther King once said of the western world, has guided missiles and misguided men.