Nuclear Weapons-free Zones
The next item of business today is a members’ business debate on motion S3M-7072, in the name of Bill Kidd, on Scotland’s nuclear weapons-free zones. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament believes that New Zealand has set a good example with the establishment of a succession of nuclear weapons-free zones; would welcome the establishment of such zones in Scotland in homes, classrooms, places of work, communities, local authorities and in the environs of the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, with the aim to register Scotland as a single-state nuclear weapons-free zone with the United Nations, and would further welcome the development of a protocol for Scotland requesting that the nuclear weapons states honour such a zone by not deploying nuclear weapons on Scottish territory and by guaranteeing not to threaten or use nuclear weapons against Scotland.
12:32
I thank the members who are present who kindly signed my motion to allow this members’ business debate to take place. I also thank those who have come here to observe the debate, including my parliamentarians for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament colleague Rob van Riet, who has travelled up from London especially for that purpose.
Nuclear weapons-free zones are now in existence across the world, from single-state nuclear weapons-free zones such as New Zealand and Mongolia to whole continents such as the entirety of central and South America, and from nations such as South Africa, which once harboured nuclear programmes, to countries closer to home such as our western European neighbours, from whose lands America’s tactical nuclear weapons will soon be removed and whose citizenry aims to keep things that way.
The great majority of countries around the world are looking to unburden themselves of the 20th century legacy of nuclear weapons, which has affected them either directly or has made them live in the shadow of those weapons of mass murder. Sadly, all of us know of the countries that are termed rogue states, such as Iran and North Korea, which occasionally embark on brinkmanship against the existing nuclear states that hold permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council. That causes all of us concern. We are also aware of nations such as India, which has pretensions to a place at the top table, and its neighbour Pakistan, whose nuclear capability sits cheek by jowl with a Taliban insurgency in its northern marches. Then there are countries such as the United Kingdom and France, which cling to the idea of a post-imperialist importance through the maintenance of costly and unsustainable nuclear programmes, under the guise of deterrence.
However, we in Scotland could follow the example of New Zealand, where a nuclear weapons-free movement took root in the 1960s and grew to be a national statement of intent when, in 1997, the New Zealand Government declared its nation to be a nuclear weapons-free zone. Like New Zealand, Scotland can and should campaign via a popular organic movement led by the civic population of our nation, for the establishment of a nuclear weapons-free zone Scotland.
That should be done by means of a straightforward non-Government education programme, through which the Scottish people can debate the issues around the pros and cons of the Trident and nuclear weapons issue. I believe that, home by home, classroom by classroom, workspace by workspace, our land will become a coherent series of nuclear weapons-free zones. In that way, Scotland can join the majority view of countries at the United Nations that have signed the non-proliferation treaty in good faith—and not as a smokescreen for ill intentions.
To that end, NWFZ Scotland has written to schools, colleges, universities, faith groups, trade unions and businesses. It has produced cards such as the one that I am holding now, which allow individuals and groups to make contact to obtain further informative and display materials.
Lest anyone doubt that we are pushing at an open door, let me quote a recent YouGov poll, in which 67 per cent of respondents said that the UK Government should not buy a replacement for Trident, but should instead secure conventional defences. Only 13 per cent supported Trident replacement. To say it might seem pointless—no, it does not, because, fortunately, Jackson Carlaw has been good enough to stay in the chamber for the debate—but 56 per cent of Tory voters against replacement of Trident and only 28 per cent are for it.
The proposal for the NWFZ Scotland campaign grew from an event in the Parliament that I sponsored in October to celebrate the UN international day of peace. Senior figures in the disarmament movement spoke about nuclear weapons, about how we can free our country and about how we can stop those weapons spreading across the world. Among the guests was Marian Hobbs, former Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control in the New Zealand Government. I have with me a recently received message of support from her to NWFZ Scotland.
“Dear Bill,
I am so impressed to read your Parliamentary Motion advocating for Scotland to develop a network of nuclear weapons-free zones leading to NWFZ Scotland.
A nuclear weapon-free zone in Motherwell, in Pitlochry, in Kirkwall, in Ullapool, in Aberdeen has two effects.
The first is education. When the local authority proposes such a nuclear weapon-free zone ... there is a public debate within the community, and having that debate is very important. People become too used to the threat of nuclear war, it seems so remote”.
Once a nationwide grass-roots movement develops in small towns, suburbs, schools, churches or wherever, the nuclear weapons-free mentality becomes strong. That is what happened in New Zealand.
The second effect is national. It is that
“the nation’s politicians can defend its nuclear weapon free status, because behind them are thousands of small communities who have thought about, argued about and finally adopted that status.”
That chimes perfectly with the recent message from the UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-moon, to last month’s Dublin seminar that was held by Pax Christi in honour of Bruce Kent. The secretary-general restated that positive advances such as a new strategic arms reduction treaty—START—and further advances at the 2010 non-proliferation of nuclear weapons review should be built on, so as to outlaw the nuclear weapons that curse our world. They should be eliminated, and the risks that they pose should be removed. They offer mankind nothing but a threat of no future whatsoever. I hope that the Parliament will lend its support to the aims of such a campaign as our contribution to the secretary-general’s vision, through which the people of Scotland can become fully informed on the issues around the nuclear weapons that are in their midst, and can decide on having a nuclear weapons free-zone Scotland.
12:39
I thank Bill Kidd for securing today’s debate. This is a topic of huge importance and relevance at this time. As we have heard, support from around the world is growing for ridding ourselves of nuclear weapons, and local authorities and communities in Scotland can make a real difference by declaring themselves nuclear weapons-free zones.
Let us take a minute to think about why we aspire to be a nuclear weapons-free zone. Nuclear weapons are designed with one purpose, which is to kill large civilian populations. We cannot hide from the fact that a nuclear weapon is a bomb, not a deterrent. They are weapons of mass destruction.
Governments have rightly argued that weapons such as landmines are immoral and should be banned under international law because of their detrimental effect on civilian populations. The international community finds unacceptable the image of a young child in Cambodia who has lost a limb as a result of a landmine, but it is apparently acceptable that the girl and her baby brother, parents and grandparents, and everyone whom the family has ever met, should be obliterated in a nuclear explosion.
As we heard from Bill Kidd, that might be the UK Government’s view, but it is certainly not the Scottish people’s view. Two thirds of Scots oppose the renewal of Trident. The average Scot is concerned that, at a time when we face the largest cuts in public spending since the 1920s, spending £100 billion on weapons of mass destruction is not just immoral but economically unjustifiable.
Nuclear weapons have only one purpose: to kill large numbers of civilians. They have been no use to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it could be argued that by diverting money that could have been used to support the military on the front line they potentially cause the deaths of UK soldiers.
Nuclear weapons are no use as a deterrent, as Commander Robert Green pointed out in his book, “Security Without Nuclear Deterrence”, in which he drew on his knowledge as an operator of British nuclear weapons to make the case that such weapons would not deter a nuclear first strike. The rationale of deterrence enthusiasts is that we would be safer if every state had nuclear weapons, because there would be a balance and every nation would be afraid to use its bombs, for fear of retaliation. If nuclear weapons would make the world safer, it seems odd that NATO’s nuclear powers are so concerned about the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea.
The deterrence argument is nonsense; fewer weapons, not more weapons, will make the world safer. I wonder whether any member thinks that New Zealand’s decision to declare the country a nuclear weapons-free zone has made it more likely to suffer a nuclear or other attack than it would have been if it had invested in a nuclear weapons programme.
The majority of Scots are against nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. A move to register Scotland with the UN as a single-state nuclear weapons-free zone would be an important expression of Scots’ views and would send a clear signal to the Westminster Government that it should not spend £100 billion of our money on new nuclear weapons.
12:42
I value the sentiments in the motion and I know how committed Bill Kidd and other people are to the cause of peace. I value Bill Kidd’s work on the issue. There is a wide peace movement throughout civic society in Scotland, which has particular support from Scottish churches, for example. We should continue to encourage the movement to grow.
It is unfortunate to try to marry anti-nuclear arguments with arguments for statehood. After all, nuclear fallout takes no notice of borders, be they local, regional or national. However, I applaud the aspiration of having nuclear weapons-free zones.
I was delighted when Dundee City Council declared itself a nuclear-free local authority and joined a network that now comprises more than 70 councils throughout Scotland, England, Wales and Ireland to support the policy work of nuclear-free local authorities. Nuclear-free local authorities tackle in practical ways and within their powers the problems that civil and military nuclear hazards pose. They have linked up with the worldwide organisation Mayors for Peace, which supports the 2020 vision campaign for the elimination of nuclear weapons by 2020. I know that members share that vision.
The cross-party group on nuclear disarmament has had excellent meetings and has heard from excellent speakers, including Bruce Kent. Most significant, perhaps, was the memorable event in the Parliament in 2006, when we welcomed the peace walkers who had walked the 85 miles from Faslane to Holyrood. Of course, we have also welcomed peace walkers since then.
The recent meeting that Bill Kidd mentioned, which was co-hosted with the Edinburgh peace and justice resource centre, was held on international peace day, 21 September. That was an important date, which provided the inspiration for the debate. That successful event was attended by about 100 people, including nine MSPs. I was delighted to introduce the speakers: Bill Kidd; Alyn Ware of parliamentarians for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament; Shetland’s Sandy Cluness for Mayors for Peace; Dr Rebecca Johnson, the director of the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy, who works on nuclear weapons policy development; and, lastly, the wonderfully titled former New Zealand Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control, Marian Hobbs.
The nuclear-free zone label can be symbolic only, but New Zealand’s status as a nuclear-free zone is enshrined in the nation’s legislation. It is the first western allied nation to legislate for a nuclear-free zone, effectively renouncing the nuclear deterrent.
I raise deep concerns about the proposed UK-French defence agreement. The planned arrangements for co-operation break the spirit of the non-proliferation treaty and the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. That implies that there is little chance of major nuclear weapons reductions or eventual abolition until at least 2060. It is against article 6 of the NPT, which issues a good-faith challenge to all states to pursue negotiations on the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date, and on nuclear disarmament. It is also, of course, against the Mayors for Peace 2020 vision. Parliamentarians need to work together with NFLA and Mayors for Peace to urge an essential change in direction towards the abolition of nuclear weapons.
I thank Bill Kidd for his continued work and congratulate him on securing this rather delayed debate.
I finish with the words of “The Scottish Peace Covenant”, which declares:
“We desire that Scotland should be known for its international contribution to peace and justice rather than for waging war”.
12:46
I thank Bill Kidd for bringing his motion to Parliament in the debate, if only for its nostalgia value. It takes me back to the grand old days when the arguments against unilateral disarmament were comprehensively lost in the face of the decisive action of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher when they stood together, resolved to introduce new Pershing cruise missiles at Greenham Common. We now know that the cold war was won at that crucial moment. It was then that the Soviet President, Mikhail Gorbachev, changed course.
It all seems such a long time ago now. Of course, there will be people who like to pretend that decisive action and resolve had nothing to do with it and that it was inevitable that Gorbachev would lead the change. I prefer to believe Mr Gorbachev himself. As chance would have it, a decade ago, I found myself placed next to Mr Gorbachev each day for a week while on holiday. When he arrived at the hotel, I was reading John Campbell’s biography of Mrs Thatcher, and he immediately came over to me and struck up a conversation. “Let me tell you this,” he said. “Never let anyone tell you other than that it was the three of us—Reagan, Thatcher and me—who worked together to achieve this. The contribution of all three of us was vital.” I am sorry to say that the contribution of the unilateralists, Bruce Kent among them, and the promoters of nuclear-free councils did not rate a mention.
What I find dangerous about the motion is that it contains a further attempt to subvert historical truths in classrooms. I argue that, far from being taught that they should feel safe in nuclear-free classrooms, pupils should be taught just how grateful—
Will the member give way?
No. So many members are ranged to speak on the side of anarchy.
Pupils should be taught just how grateful they should be that strong Governments and leadership from a succession of Conservative and Labour Prime Ministers ensured that our preparedness and the security that we derived from nuclear weapons kept the peace and prevented any further European or worldwide conflict in the post-second world war world into which I was born and in which their parents were raised.
I have no brief to belittle New Zealand. Suffice it to say that mainland Europe was the key strategic theatre of concern and that we should be concerned with our future security and that of our immediate neighbours.
I understand the debate about where we go next. I happen to believe that a submarine-based nuclear deterrent remains vital. It is not difficult to envisage Britain being left defenceless in a new technical age by an electromagnetic pulse—EMP—event. With communications and power paralysed, the potential threat of a submarine-based response would be our only effective deterrent. For as long as the threat to us exists, with the history that we have behind us—one of courageous intervention, which has undoubtedly left a sour taste in the mouths of those whom we have intervened against—we cannot pretend that we may not yet be a target and a trophy prize to others.
I find the spirit underpinning the motion desperate, dangerous and risible. There are no such things as nuclear weapons-free homes, classrooms, places of work, communities or local authorities. Scotland is part of a nation—the United Kingdom—that is a nuclear weapons state. It is a nonsense to pretend that, in Scotland, we can posture against our own national defence capability while being defended by it. To be frank, to invite our potential adversaries to promise not to use such weapons against us and to ask us to rely on such assurances is bewilderingly naive.
I argue against the motion out of a conviction for our national defence and security. I do not doubt that Mr Kidd has a conviction too, but the motion matches the heights of fantasy of even the most ludicrous of the barking-mad campaigns of a generation ago. I am astonished at the continuing contradiction that SNP members rail against any reduction in defence spending but acknowledge not a job lost or a pound no longer spent in Scotland were their policy of abandoning our national defences ever to be realised.
I recognise that an alternative view that has its roots in the traditions of the pacifist movement exists, but it remains a minority view. I fully accept that the case for our nuclear defence must be renewed with each generation. However, even as I face a rump of unilateralist evangelists, I am in no doubt that fantasy is no substitute for defending our country. To indulge in fantasies about nuclear weapons-free classrooms and the like is a parlour game and not a strategy for the defence or the security of Scotland or the United Kingdom.
12:50
I congratulate my colleague Bill Kidd on securing the debate. Jackson Carlaw made what was probably the best speech for independence that I have heard—lots of people will now be joining the SNP and even Marlyn Glen might change her mind from what she said in opening her speech. Jackson Carlaw basically said that, if we want to blow up millions of people and spend billions of pounds, we must remain a member of the UK, so I am glad that I am a member of the SNP. I look forward to a nuclear-free independent Scotland. I have never been called an anarchist before. Jackson Carlaw’s speech was the best recruitment message for the SNP and I hope that he will make more such speeches. People will have an independent nuclear-free Scotland.
I return to the subject of the debate. Some people might look on the zones as a grass-roots initiative and might be a little sceptical—Jackson Carlaw is obviously more than that. I will put the situation in perspective. We have heard that nuclear weapons-free zones have been established throughout the world. Wales, which has been mentioned, was declared a nuclear weapons-free zone in 1982, after all 22 of its local authorities announced their support for the measure. We should pursue the initiative. I suggest that we write to ask all our local authorities about it, and publish their answers, with the aim of registering Scotland as a nuclear weapons-free zone.
In the USA, some native American nations—they are not states—such as the Shoshone have declared their land to be a nuclear weapons-free zone because they objected to it being used for missile bases or radioactive waste dumps. That is the grass roots for us. Cities such as New York, Chicago, Oakland and Berkeley have joined the growing movement. More than 17 million Americans live in nuclear-free zones. That is people power again.
The continent of Antarctica is a de facto nuclear weapons-free zone under the 1959 Antarctic Treaty. The earth’s orbit and the moon and all other celestial bodies are also de facto nuclear weapons-free zones under the 1967 outer space treaty. The list goes on—more than 4,300 nuclear-free zones exist in 37 countries. Let us be clear that, although the initiative might have started at the grass roots, it is a global movement that is gathering momentum hour by hour and day by day. It is time that we aspired to join it.
One inspirational aspect of many of the movements is that they have gone from the bottom up, as I have said, rather than from the top down. That process has been achieved by people working on the ground with grass-roots movements and listening to what people want. People want nuclear-free zones and no nuclear weapons in their countries.
We as representatives of the people should listen to that growing voice and do everything that we can to support the initiative. We as parliamentarians should do everything that is in our power to help Scotland to join the growing movement, to add our voice to the global desire and to declare our country nuclear weapons free, in the hope that we will one day live in a nuclear-free world.
I was going to say that we all share the aspiration, but we have heard otherwise from other members and, unfortunately, no Lib Dems are present. We should all share the aspiration, which we will achieve only if we all—I include Jackson Carlaw—join together to push the initiative as far as possible to ensure that Scotland becomes a nuclear weapons-free zone.
12:54
I have a treasured collection of genial insults. To William Hickey’s description of me in the Daily Express as a jackbooted goose-stepping eco-fascist, I can add the view that I, along with the rest of us in the chamber, am a “bewilderingly naive” anarchist fantasist. Thank you very much indeed, Jackson Carlaw.
I am reminded of a story of a parkie who approached an old man who was distributing peanuts in the Meadows in Edinburgh. When the parkie asked him why he was throwing peanuts on the ground, the old man looked up at him and said, “It’s to keep the elephants away,” to which the parkie replied, “But there aren’t any elephants in the Meadows.” The old man said, “Yes, it works, doesn’t it?” That sums up my feeling about the theory of deterrents: it is, quite simply, peanuts.
I have been campaigning against nuclear weapons for more than 50 years. In that time, progress has been made. I grant Jackson Carlaw that the very real fears of imminent nuclear warfare that overshadowed our lives in the late 1950s and early 1960s have subsided. We have a nuclear arms limitation treaty, there has been a huge reduction in the stockpiles of nuclear weapons that were held by the US and the then Soviet Union, and there are high levels of transparency in the international inspection regime.
However, we are in a dangerously developing situation in which a number of smaller states are queueing up to become nuclear powers, so there is no room for complacency, no reason to reduce our efforts and every reason to press for the UK to set an example by becoming the first ex-nuclear power in the world, which would put pressure on those smaller countries that want to join in the ghastly dance of death by getting their own nuclear weapons.
At Faslane demonstrations, I am regularly asked why. Why do we still demonstrate? Why bother, as Jackson Carlaw would put it? My reply is always the same. The issue has not gone away and successive Governments need to know that there is, has been and always will be, for the foreseeable future, huge civic support for the idea that we should rid ourselves once and for all of our entire nuclear armoury.
We are here to show our support for the NFLA group, which has more than 60 members in the UK and Ireland, and the work that it does, and for the scientific groups, groups of doctors and countless others, as well as the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, that demonstrate regularly and show that there is entrenched cross-party, cross-sectoral civic support for any Government that may have the courage and wisdom to abandon our nuclear armoury for ever.
I would also like to reflect on the work of the international organisation Mayors for Peace, which now has 4,301 “bewilderingly naive” anarchist fantasist members from 145 countries. They aim to persuade all the world’s Governments to negotiate a nuclear weapons convention by 2020. Hiroshima is bidding to hold the 2020 Olympics and hopes to combine the games with a festival for peace. That would be a powerful combination of ideals, which I hope will attract worldwide support.
I conclude by paying tribute to the work of Chris Ballance, a former Green MSP, in pursuing peace education, and to the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on nuclear disarmament, Marlyn Glen and Bill Kidd, for bringing the debate to Parliament.
12:58
I, too, thank Bill Kidd for bringing the debate to Parliament.
I begin by declaring my membership of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and of parliamentarians for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, and by reflecting on the fact that it is extremely unfortunate that not one Liberal member has bothered to participate in the debate, just as no Liberal participated in last week’s debate on Afghanistan.
At the crux of the motion is a simple idea—that of popular self-determination and the will of the Scottish people to state their opposition to the stationing of nuclear weapons in Scotland. The beauty of the nuclear weapons-free zone initiative lies in its simplicity. Ordinary citizens can be encouraged to declare their homes, workplaces, schools and any other spaces nuclear free. In that regard, I am happy to declare my home and my parliamentary and constituency offices nuclear weapons-free zones, and I encourage others to do the same. I accept that that is largely a symbolic gesture. However, it is not unimportant. Declaring any area a nuclear weapons-free zone may seem like a quiet or modest protest, but cumulatively, if more and more people declare their space as nuclear weapons free, the message to the UK Government will be loud and clear. Let us make Scotland a nuclear weapons-free zone in reality.
To see the success of such popular movements, we need look no further than New Zealand. Popular opposition to nuclear weapons culminated in New Zealand passing strong anti-nuclear legislation and becoming nuclear free. The popular will to make Scotland a nuclear weapons-free zone exists. Opinion polls indicate time and again the opposition of people in Scotland to weapons that continue to make the world a more dangerous place.
We are constantly told that, among the dangers of the modern world, the primary danger to our security is global terrorist networks. Although those arguments are sometimes overblown, I accept that that is the threat we face. However, a nuclear weapon cannot be deployed against an extraterritorial force such as terrorism. It is futile in the extreme.
I enjoyed Jackson Carlaw’s speech, although I disagreed with it entirely. I will say what I would have said in my intervention, if he had been bold enough to accept it. I hope that he will be brave enough when he is the leader of the Tories in this place, as he surely will become. By talking about the contribution of Gorbachev, Thatcher, Reagan and other “Spitting Image” puppets from my childhood, he reinforced our argument that the cold war is over. Why, then, are we trying to perpetuate the arms race? Why are we spending £100 billion on a new generation of Trident?
However, there is, the world over, growing consensus about the need to take positive steps towards global nuclear disarmament. The new START treaty, agreed by President Medvedev and President Obama, is indicative of the growing consensus on achieving a nuclear-free world. In Scotland, and in this Parliament, there is a commitment to nuclear disarmament. In June 2007, we voted overwhelmingly—by 71 votes to 16—against the renewal of Trident. Without checking the Official Report for absolute accuracy, dare I say it that Jackson Carlaw was probably included in the 16.
The political will in this Parliament can be conveniently ignored by Westminster—circumstances that will persist even once the Scotland Bill has been passed. It is regrettable that there appears to be no chance of the UK Government disarming at any time in the near future. At Westminster, there is a lamentable and distinct lack of will to take necessary and constructive steps towards nuclear disarmament. We see that from the Tory position; we also see it from the Labour position, although we have heard from some honourable exceptions today, and I am sure that we will hear another shortly.
We need the full powers of independence to make Scotland nuclear free in reality. In the meantime, though, I commend the direction that is suggested in Bill Kidd’s motion, just as I commend Bill Kidd for securing the debate.
13:02
Like others, I congratulate Bill Kidd on securing the debate. I am curious about which anarchists Jackson Carlaw knows, because I wonder whether anarchists would have sat quietly and listened to his drivel.
I recognise the major role that was played by New Zealand in helping to progress the campaign for nuclear disarmament. The New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987 is an extremely important piece of legislation, which prohibits
“Entry into the internal waters of New Zealand by any ship whose propulsion is wholly or partly dependent on nuclear power”.
It also prohibits any citizen of New Zealand from manufacturing, acquiring or possessing any nuclear explosive device. That pioneering legislation came about as a result of increasing unease in New Zealand about the cold war and as a result of concern about the number of American nuclear ships docking on New Zealand’s coasts.
In the early 1980s, the ruling party in New Zealand, which had a majority of one, decided to vote against a bill to ban nuclear arms-empowered ships. However, anti-nuclear campaigner Marilyn Waring decided to vote with her conscience and support a ban. According to her account, Waring was dragged into the whips’ office and subjected to verbal abuse. The Prime Minister, Robert Muldoon, decided to take the issue to the people and called a snap general election. Unfortunately for him, the people overwhelmingly supported the stance of the anti-nuclear Labour Party, which swept to power on the promise of enacting nuclear-free zones. Waring did not seek re-election and has spent her time since lecturing on issues of feminism and human rights.
Legislation such as that sets an example to the rest of the world. It requires brave people such as Waring to take a stance. It is fair to say that it has required bravery on the part of the New Zealand Government to stand up to the might of the American military machine and refuse to back down.
As the motion suggests, Scotland too could play its part with the establishment of nuclear-free zones in homes, classrooms, places of work, communities, local authorities and—I note what Jamie Hepburn said—the environs of this Parliament. That would send a clear message to the international community about the strength of feeling in Scotland against the use of nuclear weapons.
We have something of a position against Trident in this Parliament—I say “something” because the vote was to support the position that Trident should not be replaced at this time. Personally, and I am sure like others in the chamber, I do not want it to be replaced at any time; I know that I am not alone in that view.
The majority of Scots oppose the Trident nuclear programme, for a variety of reasons. Besides the abhorrent nature of such destructive weapons of mass destruction, the cost is overwhelming, particularly at a time of imposed economic austerity. The UK Government estimates that renewal of the programme will cost somewhere in the region of £20 billion, but Greenpeace estimates the real figure would be closer to £100 billion. How many affordable homes could we have for that amount of money? How many new jobs could be created? How many people could be taken out of poverty? CND believes that the cost of replacing Trident can be paid only at the expense of jobs and public services. The establishment of nuclear-free zones in Scotland would make the point about the futility of nuclear weapons clear.
For years there have been health fears about the legacy of nuclear tests, and I note that last year the French Government announced that it was prepared to compensate people who were involved in nuclear testing and had suffered illness as a result. I have constituents in Coatbridge and Chryston who were involved in similar British tests in the 1950s and 1960s. They have spent years fighting for compensation, but they have not had it. There has been no justice for my constituents who have suffered ill health, and that is unacceptable.
The evil of nuclear warfare is indisputable. Storing our own weapons of mass destruction is wrong, replacing them is wrong, and using them would be an abomination. I was pleased that Bruce Kent spent time with my family on the evening of the peace walk. Unlike Jackson Carlaw, Bruce Kent will be remembered for devoting his life to promoting peace and nuclear disarmament. Scotland could help that cause by sending a clear message against weapons of mass destruction by establishing nuclear-free zones. By doing so, we could educate future generations about the danger of living in a world with the threat of nuclear annihilation.
13:07
I thank Bill Kidd and congratulate him on raising this important matter in Parliament. I welcome the opportunity to discuss nuclear weapons-free zones in the chamber.
The debate gives us the opportunity to remind ourselves that we have the chance to help our children to grow up with a philosophy of peace and a clear understanding of the implications of their actions in the world. We have the chance to lead by example and to take a statesmanlike approach to non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament.
Other parts of the world have shown us what Scotland could achieve if we were free to decide our own position on nuclear weapons. We may not currently have the scope to remove the weapons of mass destruction from Scottish soil, but we can still make a united stand against the possession, threat and use of nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons-free zones operate at both the macro and micro level. At the macro end, we have five regions covered by nuclear weapons-free zone agreements: Latin America, the south Pacific, south-east Asia, Africa and central Asia. They show what can be achieved when countries unite to stand against nuclear weapons.
As Bill Kidd and Elaine Smith have mentioned, at the micro level New Zealand took a courageous step towards a nuclear-free world in 1984 when it barred nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed ships from using its ports or entering its waters. New Zealand followed that with legislation that means that for more than 20 years its people have benefited from being the citizens of a nation whose nuclear-free zone status is protected by statute.
The approach in New Zealand is grounded in a long-term opposition to nuclear weapons. Three decades of anti-nuclear weapons campaigns culminated in the creation of nuclear-free zones, enshrined in legislation. That shows what a nation can do when it has control over its sovereignty and cultural identity. It sets an inspiring precedent for other nations to follow.
I was lucky enough to chair the working group on Scotland without nuclear weapons, which published its report in November last year. The creation of the group represented an important landmark in the Scottish Government’s aspiration for Scotland to be free of nuclear weapons.
The group raised concerns about the ways in which nuclear weapons are stored and transported in our country. It highlighted the fact that local authorities are not always aware when nuclear weapons are being transported through their areas. Although there is a balance to be struck in ensuring that security-related information is not shared too widely, we believe that much more can be done.
The group also highlighted that we should start the process of peace education at a very early age. We already support peace education as part of the curriculum for excellence and we support teachers with material on peace education through Learning and Teaching Scotland’s website. Our young people have the potential to make a change and it must start with education.
Let us turn to Trident. In Scotland, we are in a unique position. Scotland is home to the UK’s nuclear weapons arsenal but, as a country, we are opposed to the possession, threat and use of nuclear weapons. As Bill Kidd said, a recent opinion poll considering cuts in defence demonstrated clearly that 67 per cent of the Scottish people do not want Trident to be replaced. In June 2007, the Scottish Parliament voted conclusively for a motion congratulating the majority of Scottish MPs on voting in the House of Commons to reject the replacement of Trident.
Jackson Carlaw is not only in a minority in the chamber today; he is in a minority in the Parliament and in the country. We know that the Conservatives have never been particularly good at listening to the people of Scotland, or at listening to what the Parliament says in this regard. However, one would have thought that they might be persuaded by some of the generals who have recently come out against the possession of nuclear weapons. Writing in The Times in April this year, Field Marshal Lord Bramall, General Lord Ramsbotham, General Sir Hugh Beach and Major-General Patrick Cordingley expressed “deep concern” that the future of Trident had been excluded from the strategic defence review that followed the election. They cautioned that suppressing discussion of the issues or dismissing alternatives would be “a big strategic blunder”. The generals say that the Government will threaten both front-line forces and global disarmament talks unless it considers different ways of spending the £80 billion that is required to replace the fleet of Trident submarines.
The moral arguments against Trident have always been clear. There may have been an argument for a deterrent in the past—especially in the 1960s and 1970s—although I never accepted that argument. The trouble now is that those who argue for the deterrent policy position cannot tell us who the weapons would be pointed at or who the threat is. If there is a threat out there, they should tell us who it is and back up their argument.
The economic arguments against Trident are now crystal clear. So far, the UK Government has spent £320 million on the replacement of Trident before even starting to build the first submarine. The approximate cost of procuring the submarines is a staggering £25 billion and the total potential cost of maintaining the system, including new infrastructure and missiles and extending the life of the current submarines, is approximately £100 billion. It already costs £2 billion a year to keep the current Trident fleet operational. We cannot afford to spend that money on a deterrent that we do not need. It is equivalent to the cost of the new Forth crossing, which is estimated to cost between £1.7 billion and £2.3 billion. As Elaine Smith has said, that would buy about 4,000 firefighters, the same number of nurses or more than 2,000 junior doctors each year between 2012 and 2017.
I welcome this opportunity to reiterate the Scottish Government’s opposition to the presence of nuclear weapons on our soil and I very much look forward to the day when Scotland can join New Zealand as a proud country whose nuclear-free status is firmly set out in legislation.
13:14
Meeting suspended until 14:15.
14:15
On resuming—