Trident
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-5355, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on Trident.
A recent opinion poll asked people in Scotland whether they thought that this Parliament should have the power to decide whether nuclear weapons remained on the Clyde, and 61 per cent said yes. Unfortunately, we do not yet have that power, but we have the opportunity today to make our voice heard. We can speak on behalf of the vast majority of people in Scotland who oppose the replacement of the Trident nuclear system. I ask MSPs in all parties who have honourably opposed Trident over many years to vote today with their conscience; I ask for all of us to say loudly and clearly to the United Kingdom Government, "Think again."
I will set out the case against Trident renewal, which is first and foremost a moral case. Each and every Trident warhead is a weapon of mass destruction in its own right. The detonation of just one would kill more than 200,000 people. Trident is morally indefensible. A Prime Minister who took this country into an illegal war in search of weapons of mass destruction that did not even exist should, if there was a shred of principle or consistency in his arguments, understand that better than anyone.
The case against Trident is not just moral; it is also about how to make this world of ours a safer place to live in. We live in uncertain times, but the replacement of Trident risks making the world more dangerous, not less. It will not help the process of disarmament and non-proliferation; it will hinder that process.
There are those, including the First Minister, who have tried to characterise the debate as a choice between multilateral and unilateral disarmament. In their world, those who back a new Trident just want to have something to bargain away; in their view, the rest of us would give up something for nothing. I would say simply this: read the white paper carefully. It is not a route map to disarmament. On the contrary, it seeks to defend nuclear weapons in principle. It makes the case for keeping them in the UK for the next 50 years. Perhaps worst of all, it does not rule out a first-strike nuclear attack. That is why we must oppose the proposals in the white paper.
The white paper's central premise is that a country is safer with nuclear weapons than without. That argument is fundamentally wrong. Eight countries in the world have nuclear weapons; 180 do not—and they are no less safe because of it. Being nuclear free is the international norm, and we should be striving to make it even more so and to make Scotland normal in that regard. However, the argument is not just wrong but is inherently dangerous. It provides a rationale for any other country that is trying to justify having nuclear weapons of its own.
Tony Blair says in the white paper that nuclear weapons are
"the ultimate assurance of our national security."
But every Government wants to protect its country's national security, and rogue Governments will always use national security as an excuse to do whatever they want to do. There is absolutely nothing to stop any of them using Tony Blair's argument to justify developing nuclear weapons of their own. In truth, many of them will use that argument and the end result will be not disarmament, but an acceleration of the nuclear arms race. That is why anyone who genuinely believes in reducing the nuclear threat in our world must oppose the proposals in the white paper.
It is not just the logic of the Government's argument that would make the world a much more dangerous place to live in, but its sheer and blatant hypocrisy. It is hypocrisy for the United Kingdom to maintain a nuclear deterrent while arguing that other countries should not develop one. That hypocrisy is deeply damaging in today's world and rides roughshod over the non-proliferation treaty.
This may come as news to Tony Blair and the supporters of a new Trident, but that treaty does not give the privileged nuclear club carte blanche to do whatever it likes. That treaty was a bargain. Countries that did not have nuclear weapons promised not to develop them and in return the five nuclear states, including the UK, promised that they would negotiate in good faith to achieve disarmament. That was the quid pro quo. Replacing Trident would be a breach of our side of that bargain, which would make it much more difficult to persuade others to keep theirs.
Over recent years, the UK has given up air, ground and operational theatre nuclear weapons. What effect has that had on other countries that are still intent on developing them?
The idea that the UK has had nuclear disarmament in recent years does not hold water. In the white paper, Tony Blair says that he wants to reduce warheads by 20 per cent, but if we read the small print we find that the number of warheads that will remain deployed at sea will stay the same. It is the warheads that are already in reserve that we are going to get rid of. It is double-speak and it is spin. Trident makes this world a more dangerous place.
The key questions are these: for what and at what cost? Like my colleagues in the Scottish National Party, I have always been opposed to nuclear weapons, but at least, during the cold war, they had some sort of rationale. We knew who they were pointed at and what they were designed to deter. The threats in today's world are entirely different. Nuclear weapons will not deter suicide bombers. In an uncertain world, where would Trident be targeted? That question, which was posed by Jim Wallace only two weeks ago, has still not been answered. The suspicion lingers that the decision to replace Trident is more about building monuments to Tony Blair than it is about national security. If we do not speak out now, we will all pay a heavy price for it; £25 billion is a conservative estimate of the financial cost. I, for one, would rather see that money spent on health, education and pensions, and on ensuring decent conditions and equipment for our conventional forces, which have been badly let down by this Government.
For all those reasons, I believe that the proposals in the white paper must be opposed. This is our chance as a Parliament—as the Scottish Parliament—to speak up for common sense. I urge all members to seize that opportunity today.
I move,
That the Parliament notes the publication by the UK Government of its White Paper on the future of the Trident nuclear missile system on Monday 4 December 2006; recognises the need for a full debate to explore the military, economic and political consequences of Trident renewal and believes that a convincing case can be made, in military, economic and political terms, for the non-replacement of Trident, and calls on the UK Government not to go ahead at this time with the proposal in the White Paper.
I welcome the debate initiated by the UK Government on the future of Trident. This is the first time that a Government has called for a national debate on the independent nuclear deterrent and I hope that many people throughout the country will take part in it and will contact their Westminster MP to make their views known. After all, in spite of what the SNP would like us to believe, the UK Government will make the decision on Trident.
Will the member take an intervention?
No.
This should be a debate not about the constitution, but about Trident. The UK Government will make the decision on Trident in due course, and Scotland is ably represented by MPs who will take part in that decision. They will have to consider our national defence needs and our international obligations in the light of changing world circumstances.
The argument is about whether our defence needs can be met without having an independent nuclear deterrent. My belief is that an independent nuclear deterrent is not necessary and I would argue for no renewal of Trident. I did not believe in its necessity during the cold war, when we had mutually assured destruction and worried about nuclear winter rather than climate change, and I believe less in it now. For starters, I do not know whom we would aim it at, and the consequences of using it cannot be contemplated.
Possibly uniquely among MSPs, I have visited the sites in Hiroshima and Nagasaki where the nuclear bombs were dropped 60 years ago. Those desolate places are moving and compelling. They consist of flat, empty acres within crowded Japanese cities. There are some statues, portraying the theme of peace, gifted by other countries. There are strings of little origami cranes—the symbol of peace and good luck—hung by schoolchildren, and the trees are full of black crows scavenging for food that visitors might drop. The ruins of the Catholic cathedral at the epicentre of the bomb site at Nagasaki are a stark warning to us. In the museums in both cities, there are photographs and melted artefacts associated with the bombs.
We all know that nuclear warfare is not like conventional bombing. The radioactive effects last for generations in people, animals and plants. That is why we must strive, as the amendment in my name says, for
"a world without nuclear weapons".
That will not be easy to achieve. New countries aspire to become nuclear powers.
Maureen Macmillan makes the point that we are supposed to be having a debate. What does she think the chances are that, at the end of that debate, Tony Blair and his Government will agree to get rid of nuclear weapons?
I will come to that in a minute, if Alex Neil does not mind. I want to talk first about our opportunities to influence the debate.
We must use the opportunity to engage internationally with other nuclear powers at every level to bring about a reduction in nuclear weapons. Like Joan Ruddock, I believe that we now have a large window of opportunity to do that. The first decision that the Government will make will be on the commissioning of new submarines, but the decision on the new warheads will not be made until after the next UK election. That gives us months, if not years, to engage with the European Union, the United Nations, the G8 and NATO with a view to reducing warheads worldwide and with our missiles thrown into the bargaining pool.
However, I am concerned that the Scottish National Party wishes to withdraw Scotland from NATO. SNP members say that they do not wish to be beholden to the American bomb for their defence. That, of course, would not save them from nuclear fallout if there was a nuclear war, because it is no respecter of boundaries. The SNP policy of leaving NATO would have serious repercussions for Scotland. Angus Robertson, the MP for Moray, has complained that there might be a delay in getting the promised new fighter plane for the Moray air bases, but if Scotland leaves NATO there will be no new planes. Perhaps Richard Lochhead will tell us how many civilian jobs would be left in Kinloss and Lossiemouth in his constituency if SNP policy were to be followed.
Over the next few months, Trident's future will be debated thoroughly. Nobody in the Parliament wants nuclear weapons to be used, but we do not all agree on the best way to prevent their use. The argument lies in how best to prevent nuclear war and how best to safeguard our country.
I move amendment S2M-5355.5, to leave out from "the publication" to end and insert:
"that the UK Government has initiated a debate on the future of the independent nuclear deterrent force and urges everyone in Scotland to take part in it; recognises that the decisions on national defence are rightly reserved to Westminster; considers that any government has a primary duty to protect the security of its people and that this includes a credible policy on national defence and international security; believes in a shared objective of a world without nuclear weapons and supports further reductions in the global nuclear arsenal; further believes that, in seeking a world free from nuclear weapons, we should utilise and develop our international engagement at every level including at the EU, the United Nations including the UK's seat on the Security Council, NATO and the G8; notes with concern the plans of the SNP to take Scotland out of the collective security arrangements of the UK and NATO and to establish separate armed forces for Scotland with greatly diminished capabilities either to contribute to international peacekeeping operations or even to defend Scottish interests, and rejects those policies on the grounds that they would threaten the security of Scotland, diminish our armed forces and destroy jobs."
Nicola Sturgeon referred to an opinion poll. The opinion polls at the last general election were clear: they backed Labour, which in its manifesto promised the retention of nuclear weaponry. Those are the elections that count and, as we already know, opinion polls mean little.
Given that Nicola Sturgeon has concentrated on Trident in recent First Minister's question times and the fact that there was a recent debate in the chamber, will she tell me why we are debating it again? I recognise the importance of the Government's document and its wish to have a wider debate. I welcome that, as the amendment in my name suggests.
Will the member give way?
Will the member give way?
I give way to Nicola Sturgeon.
We are having the debate because it deals with a vital issue for people in Scotland—let us remember that Trident is based in Scotland. Furthermore, I remind Phil Gallie that the First Minister has called for everyone to take part in the debate.
If this is a genuine debate, can the member cast light on the fact that, on 7 December, Tony Blair wrote to George Bush that the Government had already decided to take part in the planned life extension of the Trident missile system? Does that not give the lie to Tony Blair's position?
Tony Blair's position is his. I have defended his position in the past, and I have done so wrongly. I believe that he lied to the country on a particular issue, so I am not here to defend Tony Blair.
I remember Nicola Sturgeon's SNP colleagues turning out in force at Westminster to campaign to retain the nuclear submarines at Rosyth dockyard. I believe that the Conservative Government at the time took a flawed decision, but the SNP was out in force to retain those nuclear submarines. At one end of the argument or the other, there is a degree of hypocrisy.
Nicola Sturgeon spoke of issues that are important to Scotland. I agree, but health, education and justice are important too, and in recent times the SNP has not seemed prepared to debate them in the chamber when it has had the opportunity to do so. Nicola Sturgeon should consider that when she is thinking about the interests of Scotland.
Our amendment takes up two thirds—in volume at least—of the SNP's position. We welcome the debate and we probably have our own fixed views, but it is right in a democratic society that those fixed views should be challenged. That is what the debate is all about, and that is no doubt what Tony Blair envisages.
I turn to the Liberal amendment. The debate is another opportunity for the Liberals to sit on the fence. The white paper comments on the lifetime of the Vanguard submarines—do they challenge that?
Yes.
Will the member give way?
Are they saying that the submarines will be okay after 20 years? Are they prepared—
Will the member give way?
No; the Liberals will have their say in a minute. They can answer then.
Are the Liberals prepared to put the lives of submariners at risk in 20 years or so by sending them to sea in out-of-date submarines that are not capable of doing the job? Do they have a wonderful vision of what the world will be like in 20 to 50 years' time? Are they prepared to put at risk the lives of people in this country by abandoning what I believe to be a successful nuclear deterrent? I do not have time to go into all my reasoning, so I point members to the debate that we had just a couple of months ago when I explained in some detail my support for the retention of nuclear deterrents.
There is much that I can agree with in the Labour amendment. However, when Labour members talk about our armed services, they ignore the fact that the Labour Government has caused massive damage to our conventional armed services. It has done that in Scotland with its abandonment of the Scottish regiments, and it has done it overseas with its overcommittment of our forces and underprovision of weapons, personal armoury and rest and training for our troops.
The Labour amendment falls short when it refers to our conventional forces. However, I go along with Labour in welcoming the debate again and on the overall objective of reducing nuclear weaponry worldwide. Sadly, I do not believe that nuclear weapons can be disinvented, although I wish that they could be. As long as they exist, we cannot turn our backs on them.
I move amendment S2M-5355.2, to leave out from "and believes" to end.
It is useful for the Parliament to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate, although the decision is properly taken by the people whom we elect to Westminster. I have some reservations about calling it a debate when only the fifth paragraph of the Prime Minister's foreword to the white paper says:
"We have therefore decided to maintain our deterrent system beyond the life of the Vanguards with a new generation of ballistic missile-carrying submarines. We will also extend the life of the Trident D5 missile."
I do not call that a genuine consultation.
The Liberal Democrat position, as set out in our amendment, is that we reject the reasoning in the white paper that we must rush to a decision in spring next year. We have argued a cogent case that crucial decisions on whether and how to procure a successor system to Trident need not be taken before 2014, when a clearer picture could have emerged of the proliferation of states that possess nuclear weapons and their ability to threaten directly Britain's security.
We are not alone in making the case for deferral. In June, the House of Commons Defence Committee concluded that a programme to extend the lifetime of the four Vanguard-class submarines would make it unnecessary to take a binding decision on a replacement for Trident until some time between 2010 and 2014—in other words, beyond the next UK general election, when the issue can be debated before the electorate.
So why the rush? I believe that technical procurement arguments call into question the Government's haste. The most recent Vanguard submarine entered service less than six years ago. With a design life of 25 years, to which an extension of five years is possible, such submarines could operate until the late 2020s. Moreover, the House of Commons committee has said that the United States' decision to keep the Trident missile in service until 2042 means that that cannot be said to be a driver in the present debate.
There are substantial reasons why we should reconsider our reliance on the strategic ballistic nuclear missile system, which was ordered when the cold war was particularly chilly. The international strategic scene has changed out of recognition from the world of the 1980s. Successive UK Cabinet ministers alert us to the terrorist threat but, with barely an exception, those who gave evidence to the Commons Defence Committee's inquiry took the view that a strategic nuclear defence system would
"serve no useful or practical purpose in countering this kind of threat."
General Sir Michael Jackson voiced support for the Government's Trident announcement in his recent Dimbleby lecture, but he deplored the lack of resources for soldiers' accommodation and basic fighting equipment. Yet the procurement costs for retaining our independent deterrent are estimated at £15 billion to £20 billion—more than the cost of procuring Trident at today's prices.
I was a member of the Liberal-SDP Defence Commission in 1986, which said, in respect of the original Trident procurement:
"a compelling argument against continuing with the Trident project is that of defence priorities and resources. Trident will account for at least 6% of the equipment budget during the period of its acquisition … at a time when the defence budget as a whole is severely overstretched."
Those words have an echo of today. If that was true 20 years ago, the argument is possibly even more compelling today.
However, we need a reality check. Six Christmases ago, no one envisaged the dreadful events of 11 September 2001 and how they would change the international strategic environment. Few today would be so bold as to identify with any certainty what future threats the United Kingdom is likely to face. North Korea recently tested a nuclear weapon and Iran continues a programme of uranium enrichment, in contravention of a Security Council resolution. Their activities could trigger a course of nuclear proliferation that would change materially today's strategic equation. That is why my party has not advocated unilateral renunciation of our existing deterrent. I respect but disagree with those who argue the unilateralist position. However, with such uncertainty, I ask why we must decide to commit to replacement before we need to do so. We know that once things start rolling, they will continue.
Will the member give way?
I am in the last minute of my speech, so I will conclude.
The threat of proliferation should prompt us to make a renewed effort to breathe life into the non-proliferation treaty and non-proliferation in practice. Britain should make an active contribution to supporting non-proliferation and kick-starting multilateral disarmament talks. That is why the Liberal Democrats have proposed going much further than the Government's intended 20 per cent reduction in the number of warheads. Our proposals would cut in half Britain's stockpile of nuclear weapons now and send a strong signal to the international community that nuclear disarmament must be back on the agenda.
All members believe that a nuclear weapons-free world would be a precious prize. I fear that the headlong rush next spring to a new generation of British nuclear deterrence would make that goal ever more distant. The prize is surely worthy of a debate more serious and genuine than the fait accompli that has been presented to us and the rush to replacement that was announced in the white paper earlier this month. I urge members to support the Liberal Democrat amendment in my name.
I move amendment S2M-5355.3, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert:
"rejects the case made by the UK Government in its White Paper on the future of the Trident nuclear missile system published on 4 December 2006 that the decision on a replacement for Trident needs to be made in early 2007 and calls on the UK Government not to go ahead with the proposals in the White Paper at this time."
We move to open debate. As members are aware, time is tight, therefore speeches will be limited to four minutes.
It is less than three months since we last debated Trident in the Parliament. In September we were debating in anticipation of a Government decision on renewal. Today's debate is taking place in the context of a white paper that clearly signposts the Government's intentions and of the desperate need for a debate throughout the UK on the need for Trident to be replaced. None of the sentiments that I expressed in the debate on 28 September are inappropriate in this debate, so I hope that all members will take those comments as read.
I endorse everything that Nicola Sturgeon said in her opening remarks, but I might have been slightly more scathing about what I see as an international example of men with mid-life crises worrying about whether theirs is bigger than the others'. Today I want to look at a slightly different issue. I hope that all members have read the most recent publication by Greenpeace, which makes a very telling point. It highlights the narrow definition of national security that is always referred to in debates such as this. Perhaps the concept of national security should be subjected to rather more detailed scrutiny than it is usually given.
For various reasons, including the global stand-off between the west and the communist world and the various targeting strategies of the principal players, during the cold war it might have seemed obvious what national security meant for us, although I think that that was debatable even then. However, what does it mean now? No one can answer that question. In a much-publicised war on terror, it is not easy to see what the nuclear strategy is, other than to try to ensure that nuclear weapons do not fall into the hands of those who may misuse them. That involves value judgments about which are right and proper regimes to have their fingers on the buttons and which are not, and cannot address the issue of the weapons' possible use by individuals or terrorist cells.
Recently, debate has centred on what even some authorities in the United States argue is the major challenge to world security—the threat of climate change. How do either of the changed realities in which we live mesh with the intention to move to a new generation of nuclear weapons? How do either of them justify spending what on some estimates may amount to £76 billion, if they are not the basis of our definition of national security?
The dangerous perception is that the continued brandishing of nuclear weapons will really be about access to resources in the future, with the rich west and its client states relying on such weapons as the big stick by which to ensure that scarce resources remain available to the west. What is happening in the middle east could be well described as oil wars, with the USA's main interest being in a continued supply of oil, instead of in addressing the issue of scarcity of non-renewable resources. In that context, nuclear weapons become a way of ignoring the reality of climate change or, at least, of allowing the west to ignore that reality.
If we accept that climate change is a threat that we will all have to face, what are we doing to address it? We know that that will cost money. Why, at a time when we are facing a cost that we all recognise will need to be borne, do we appear to have up to £76 billion available for this dubious deterrent?
Maureen Macmillan told us that the Labour Government is calling for a national debate, but she went on to express the view that that debate should take place within the walls of the House of Commons. I can tell her from experience that that kind of national debate is no debate at all. It is only right and proper that the Parliament should make a contribution to the debate and, more to the point, should encourage a debate throughout Scotland. Ultimately, members either believe that it is okay to have weapons of mass destruction or they do not. If they do not, they should vote with the SNP at 5 pm.
Phil Gallie wonders why we are having this debate—I think we know why. We are having it for reasons of avoidance. We are avoiding a debate on any aspect of SNP policy on matters that are within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. Are we surprised? No, we are not.
Let us consider for a moment some recent SNP pronouncements on the economy and fiscal policy, which are needed to create a stable defence policy. The SNP assumes that we will have 95 per cent of oil revenues, which would leave Scotland in absolute surplus. I am sorry, but it would not. Alex Salmond said that there would be no tax rises. Oh, I am sorry—he meant no income tax rises.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is not the member supposed to address the motion?
She clearly linked energy and revenues to the defence budget. Her speech is in order.
Thank you.
On local government, the SNP proposes a freeze on council tax. I am sorry, but it is questionable whether that is even legally possible. When that problem was exposed, what did the SNP do? To its shame, it blamed the Scottish Parliament information centre.
Proposed student funds have been exposed as having a cost of £1.7 billion and nowhere—
That is getting a little wide.
Nowhere is any coherent case made for a stable long-term funding policy for all that, including for any defence policy. The SNP wants to talk about defence policy.
Will the member give way?
No.
Defence policy is properly the responsibility of SNP members at Westminster. My party uses its Westminster members to reflect our views on such matters and to lead the debate. It is illuminating that the debate is being held here because of how little impact the ineffectual and confused whingeing of the SNP's members in Westminster is having.
This is a serious debate and we all know the end that we want to achieve, which is a world that is free of nuclear weapons. That would be a perfect solution.
Will the member give way?
No.
As Martin Kettle pointed out in last Saturday's edition of The Guardian—I recommend that my SNP colleagues listen to this—
"It is smug and dishonest to expect politicians to inhabit a different moral universe to the imperfect one the rest of us live in".
He went on to say:
"As a society, we seem to be living through a collective suspension of seriousness about how politics and government should be carried out in modern Britain … We wish for the end, but persistently ignore the means … It is too easy to brush aside the complex web of practical issues as if they are of no account."
That is what is happening here. As Maureen Macmillan said, we are to have a consultation. We can argue over timing, but we have to welcome that opportunity.
Jim Wallace's elegant and loquacious exposition of Liberal Democrat policy was consistent. As somebody else said recently, that party is, as always, sitting on the fence—that is what it does.
I want to consider the 17 companies in Fife, many of which are in my constituency, that are involved in the defence industry and in aspects of the nuclear industry. I want to consider our place on the global stage and come up with a balanced defence policy that takes account of the various elements. I want to think about those staff in Glenrothes and Dunfermline and about the impact on the Scottish and UK economies of any defence policy. That is why I will support our amendment and will participate in the consultation.
I will return to the subject of the debate.
"There is today no direct military threat to the United Kingdom or to Western Europe. Nor do we foresee the re-emergence of such a threat ... The Strategic Defence Review has conducted a re-examination of our deterrence requirements. This does not depend on the size of other nations' arsenals but on the minimum necessary to deter any threat to our vital interests."
That was the UK strategic defence review reporting in 1998. What has changed since then? Nothing.
In August 2005 at Hiroshima, Kofi Annan said:
"We are witnessing continued efforts to strengthen and modernise nuclear arsenals. Without concerted action, we may face a cascade of nuclear proliferation."
On which side do we stand? Do we stand with those who are working hard to encourage multilateral or unilateral disarmament or with those who are rushing headlong into that "cascade"? On which side do we want Britain to be?
Dr Hans Blix, the United Nations weapons inspector, said in London in November that modernising Britain's arsenal would put the nuclear non-proliferation treaty under strain and would increase the feeling among non-nuclear states such as Iran that they are being cheated by the nuclear powers. He pointed out the "strong sense of frustration" at the way in which nuclear nations are in the process of developing new types of weapons rather than moving towards their treaty commitments.
The last time Hans Blix spoke, Tony Blair ignored him—there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and international weapons inspections and control had succeeded. Tony Blair was wrong then and he is wrong now. When Tony Blair called for Labour back benchers to follow him into Iraq, they believed him; they trusted that he had information that he could not disclose, but they discovered that he had nothing. That mistake has cost them hundreds, if not thousands, of members and thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of votes. Will they follow him into the desert again, or will they stand up this time for their consciences, for what they know is right, for what they know the people of Scotland want and for what the Church of Scotland and the Catholic church have called for? Will they support the anti-Trident motions and amendments tonight—even if it means voting for the Liberal Democrat lowest-common-denominator amendment?
This is a conscience issue. It is the supreme conscience issue and it transcends party politics. I am optimistic that we will get rid of weapons of mass destruction. We might not win the vote in Westminster in March, where an undemocratic voting system maintains the stranglehold of the old parties, but that vote will mark not the end but the beginning of the campaign against Trident's replacement.
The white paper makes it clear that very little expenditure will be incurred for at least five years from now and that the main expenditure will not be incurred until after 2020. The campaign against Trident and son of Trident will continue over the next 13 years—more if necessary—because the world has two possible futures: one in which we move to disarmament and to policing the world to ensure that nations do not have or achieve nuclear capability, and another in which more and more nations go nuclear until an accident or dictator starts a disastrous nuclear war.
Like other members, I welcome the debate, which should be raging throughout Britain. The full implications of developing yet more weapons of mass destruction should be engaging all civic and democratic institutions, because the matter affects us all. The issues that are involved are huge issues of our age. Our having more weapons of mass destruction would put all humanity at risk. The debate is one in which the illegality of nuclear weapons under international law is exposed; in which doubt is cast on Britain's commitment to the nuclear non-proliferation treaties that it has signed; and in which the fact is exposed that enormous sums of money that could be spent on health, education and social services are to go on nuclear bombs.
It is precisely in relation to issues of international legality and concern for humanity that Tony Blair does not shine—after all, his legacy of the catastrophic failure of policy in Iraq will hang around his neck for ever more. We are not surprised at his attempt to steamroller the debate because, as others have said, his Cabinet has already decided; his Chancellor of the Exchequer has already allocated the funds and his First Minister has already jumped into line. His appeal for a full and open debate is, unfortunately, another sham.
On 12 June this year, I visited Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Establishment as part of a Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament deputation. We were taken round the perimeter fence of the base by CND activists, because the weapons establishment management would not meet us. We were shown where nuclear warheads are manufactured and where the replacement Trident system is being developed—its development is already far advanced. In the afternoon, we travelled to Westminster, where we met the former United Nations weapons inspector, Dr Hans Blix, who was in London to present his latest report on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and on how the countries that had signed up to it were not honouring their commitments. That evening, Gordon Brown announced in his Mansion House speech that he had already allocated the £25 billion that is needed to replace Trident. That is the background to the debate.
The majority of Scots have already expressed their opinions on Trident—they are opposed to it and they believe that Scotland will be less safe as a consequence of what is proposed. I have no doubt that an independent Scotland would scrap Trident, just as it would not have sent Scottish troops to fight an illegal war in Iraq.
One can understand the feelings of the international community. The world wants to know who will protect the world from Kim Jong-Blair, who has weapons of mass destruction and form in attacking and invading countries such as Iraq.
As far as Britain is concerned, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty will, in effect, be shredded by Tony Blair's decision in a white paper. I am reminded of what the Greek philosopher Anacharsis said:
"Laws are like cobwebs—strong enough to detain only the weak, and too weak to hold the strong."
The nuclear non-proliferation treaty is apparently meant to hold back small nations—North Korea notwithstanding—but the reality is that big and powerful nuclear nations do not take a blind bit of notice of it.
Trust in politics has never been in shorter supply and Labour simply cannot be trusted on Trident. On 19 June 1984, Gordon Blair—that was a Freudian slip; I meant Gordon Brown—said that Trident was
"unacceptably expensive, economically wasteful and militarily unsound".
He is now all for such weapons. Brown and Blair have shown the same inconsistency. They are a pair of maverick warmongering leaders whose actions compare with any turnaround Kim Jong-il ever made.
Scottish CND has invited parliamentarians to join it on 8 January as part of a year-long protest outside Faslane naval base. I will be there. I hope that all members of the Scottish Parliament will, too.
There are two aspects to the debate. There is the substantive topic that we are debating—the principles and morality behind our having nuclear weapons—and the opportunity that the debate offers to portray a proper image of Parliament to the wider world.
The arguments in the substantive debate—that there is no military, economic or moral case for Trident or for replacing it—have been well made by my colleagues and other members. The eye-for-an-eye principle that has come down through the centuries would simply make the whole world blind. That principle has been continued in the nonsense of mutually assured destruction—or MAD, to use the acronym. The principle has not worked in years gone by and will not work in the 21st century. We must jettison it and move towards unilateral nuclear disarmament.
Will the member take an intervention?
Not at the moment.
The debate is an important opportunity for Parliament. We acknowledged that we had to raise our game when we moved into the new chamber. Members understood that Parliament had failed to deliver on the aspirations and hopes of the people of Scotland.
As Maureen Macmillan correctly said, when it comes to foreign policy, never mind military matters, Parliament's powers are limited. However, it is the only elected chamber in Scotland in which we can come together and give the people of Scotland a democratic voice. The opportunities that this debate provides seldom come to institutions such as Parliament. We have an opportunity not only to reaffirm our opposition to nuclear weapons and to say that there is no military, moral or economic case for them, but to rise to the occasion and ensure that Scotland speaks with one voice. Whether or not we can bring about legislative change, we have been elected to Parliament and we should make the moral case that there is no basis for nuclear weapons.
I was rather gobsmacked by what Christine May said. She quoted what was said in the Financial Times—or somewhere else—about living in an immoral world, the logic of which would appear to be that, if you live in an immoral world, you should simply abandon morality.
Will the member give way?
I am not prepared to give way because of the shortage of time.
We have fundamental values that we must adhere to—values that have in recent years been impinged upon by Blair. Over recent months, we have seen one of the values to which we adhere—that of not wishing to see destruction wreaked elsewhere—impinged upon through munitions flights to Israel that saw devastation taken to and levied on the Lebanon. We opposed that. In this debate, we have an opportunity to state our position on a bigger issue than the wrong that has been perpetrated by Israel in the Lebanon: we can speak as one on the whole concept of mutually assured destruction. The opportunity for Parliament is not just in the substance of the debate and what we say in opposing nuclear weapons, but in that we should rise to the occasion. To use the First Minister's words, we need to "raise our game."
We need to speak for the values and beliefs of the people of Scotland, the crux of which is that they do not want Trident. The people of Scotland have expressed that view in opinion polls, demonstrations and at the ballot box. The duty of all those who adhere to those values is to vote for the non-replacement of Trident at decision time. We need no warmongering or backsliding; members must stand up for their values and principles and for those of the people of Scotland. If we do not do that, we will have let an historic opportunity for the Scottish Parliament pass us by. We will have forsaken the opportunity for Scotland, through its elected representatives, to say in the debate that we oppose Trident and we will not see its replacement brought to Scotland. We are at an important juncture: there must be no backsliding. At 5 o'clock, Parliament must speak as one and say no to Trident.
We have had as many as four debates on the subject of Trident in as many months. As ever, the consequence is that more heat than light is generated. As I did in previous debates, I reflect that, if the SNP cared so much about the issue, it should allocate more than one hour and 15 minutes to the subject, as it has done today. I regret that the debate is more about a cheap political headline than it is about genuine debate.
At the start of her speech, Nicola Sturgeon quoted from a survey. I listened carefully to what she said, so I will share the results of another survey with her. In a survey by the Electoral Commission, almost two thirds of people said that they wished—passionately wished—that the Scottish Parliament would stick to talking about the areas for which it has responsibility.
Will the member take an intervention?
Will the member just hold on a minute?
The SNP needs to be a bit less disingenuous. MPs at Westminster will decide the issue—the 59 MPs who were elected to represent Scotland. Those MPs, six of whom are from the SNP, have responsibility for the decision. So what have the feeble six been up to?
In 1999, CND conducted a survey to which Jackie Baillie contributed. In a letter that she sent to the CND, she said that "no additional Trident missile bodies" should be bought. In the survey, she said that "Trident should be decommissioned". Should we not have a bit of honesty from Jackie Baillie?
Absolutely. When Nicola Sturgeon tried to tout that round the press last week, no one picked up on it. What I said is entirely consistent with a multilateral position. If Nicola Sturgeon had been honest enough to read further from my letter, Parliament would have heard that what I said was that the issue was about the need for a jobs diversification strategy. The SNP has not engaged with that issue.
I did not get an answer from Nicola Sturgeon, so I pose the question again: what have the feeble six been up to? When did they last focus properly on the issue? As Roseanna Cunningham suggested on a previous occasion, there has been no debate on the issue at Westminster. One would have to search quite far back to find the answer. Instead of debating the issue at Westminster, the SNP prefers to posture in the chamber of the Scottish Parliament, where it has no direct influence on the decision. Indeed, some less kind commentators have suggested that the debate is entirely diversionary, given that it comes in the week that an £11 billion black hole has been exposed in the SNP budget and leading experts shredded its plans for council tax reform. I would not be so unkind.
Nicola Sturgeon talked about the honourable thing to do in the debate. Everyone wants to see the decommissioning of nuclear weapons—I do, and I hope that she does, too. A world that is free of nuclear weapons is a genuine and shared aspiration, although we may disagree on whether disarmament should be done on a multilateral or unilateral basis. However, in an increasingly uncertain world, we have a responsibility to consider what is best for the nation's security.
Will the member give way?
No.
I challenge the SNP on whether it is being honourable in the debate. Since the last debate took place, what action has the SNP taken to consider the alternatives, including those for the people who are employed in the defence industry? I am referring to the 11,000 people whose jobs are dependent on Faslane and Coulport, 7,000 of whom are employed directly by the Faslane base, never mind the impact on the wider defence industry throughout Scotland.
Has the SNP moved on from its previous position? Let me remind its members what that was. Alex Salmond said that the Scottish navy would be at Rosyth. Great. However, someone in the west said that the Scottish navy would be at Faslane. My goodness, but the Scottish navy will be massive. We are not that stupid; the SNP's position is inherently dishonest.
There is also the sheer hypocrisy of SNP members who argue for Trident submarines to be refitted at Rosyth. The SNP has no answers and takes no responsibility for the consequences of its actions. God forbid it, but if the SNP ever ended up in charge, 11,000 P45s would be issued to hard-working people in my area and to thousands more throughout Scotland. If the SNP was serious, it would rise to the challenge of considering alternatives, but it is not.
It has been a short but interesting debate in which many points have been covered. I want to address those that were made in two or three speeches.
First, Maureen Macmillan said that she is against nuclear weapons. However, her amendment bears no relation to what her party leader in the Scottish Parliament wants to do or to what her party leader in London wants to do. Christine May had a go at the Liberal Democrats, following an excellent speech from my colleague Jim Wallace. The Liberal Democrats take a highly measured approach: we do not support a headlong rush into an unnecessary decision to spend up to £25 billion—a vast amount of money—on a replacement system, when Christine May's Labour colleagues on the House of Commons Defence Committee say that no decision needs to be taken for up to another seven years. Why is the Prime Minister in such a rush? We all know the answer to that question.
I am not surprised about the Tories' position, which Phil Gallie outlined in his speech. He said that he believed the Prime Minister over the Iraq war, but on several occasions he has told Parliament that he was wrong to do so. Now he says that the Prime Minister is right in what he says in the white paper, but could not Tony Blair be wrong again? On nuclear weapons, the Tory party is renowned for its deference and now its irrelevance.
Is the member aware that at one time Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and John Reid were unilateral disarmers? That means that at one stage of their lives they must have been on the right side.
That is an interesting observation. Lord James Douglas-Hamilton is absolutely right—they probably were on the right side at one stage of their lives.
I want to focus on our amendment, which we lodged because Liberal Democrats north and south of the border have a long-standing commitment to multilateral elimination of nuclear weapons, but also to retaining the UK's current nuclear deterrent until such progress has been made. Although the decision on the replacement of the Trident system is, as we all know, reserved to Westminster, the Liberal Democrats believe that it is vital that Scotland's voice, through the Scottish Parliament, be heard in the debate.
Successive UK Governments—Tory then Labour—have made little progress on nuclear disarmament. Indeed, the failure earlier this year to make any meaningful progress on disarmament of both the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference and the United Nations summit has been hugely disappointing.
I hope that at decision time at 5 o'clock all of us in the Scottish Parliament can speak with one voice and send a clear message to our colleagues in the House of Commons that we reject the UK Government's case, and that we urge MPs to vote against the proposals in the Government's white paper when they make their decision next March. I encourage MSPs from all parties to unite behind the Liberal Democrats' amendment and to send a clear message to the UK Government from the people of Scotland.
Debates on this subject always generate great passion, as a number of speeches have demonstrated. I cannot agree with Jackie Baillie that we should deprecate people who hold a sincere political view, although I am singularly unpersuaded by the arguments of the Scottish National Party.
In her opening speech, Nicola Sturgeon talked about the moral dimension to the argument. I think that we all agree on aspects of what she said. She must realise that SNP members do not have a monopoly of concern about the possible consequences of the launch of a Trident missile. However, to suggest that the country is not safer because we have had nuclear weapons during the past 60 years or so is to deny the lessons of history.
Does Bill Aitken think that the 180 countries throughout the world that do not have nuclear weapons are less safe because of that?
The 180 countries that do not have nuclear weapons have not been in a position to acquire them—that is the bottom line.
Should they acquire them? Will the member give way on that point?
I must move on.
The fact is that members are part of a cosseted generation in that none of us has had to go to war. My father had to go to war, as did his father, but that has not happened to us because of the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons. To suggest that there is a lack of candidates who might cause trouble in the world is to demonstrate a degree of naivety that I find astonishing. We need look no closer than the middle east, where one country has built up significant conventional and nuclear forces and is led by a president whom we might kindly describe as a megalomaniac—[Interruption.]
Order.
It is irresponsible to suggest that we should not retain our nuclear deterrent in such a climate.
The amendment in Jim Wallace's name represents a typical Liberal exercise in stalling and deferring decisions. The Liberals will have to come off the fence eventually: I remind Mike Rumbles that he who constantly sits on the fence ends up speaking in a high-pitched voice.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I do not have time.
The Liberal party will eventually have to decide where it stands.
Jim Wallace is right that the threat that we faced changed completely in the 1980s. Of course it did: the cold war ended as a result of the firm line that was taken by President Reagan and Mrs Thatcher. However, who can say that the threat will not change again? History shows that events are always fluid and we must acknowledge that.
I think that all members genuinely wish that nuclear weapons had not been invented, but the nuclear genie is firmly out of the bottle and we must deal with the situation as it is and not as we wish it was. To suggest that this country should not have a nuclear deterrent is not just to fail to learn the lessons of history but to demonstrate a naivety and irresponsibility that Parliament should reject.
The SNP motion notes that the Government has initiated a debate about the nuclear element of Britain's defence capability. The white paper on the future of the UK's nuclear deterrent has been published. The public debate continues and a decision will be taken by the House of Commons next year.
Some of us are genuinely sceptical about the credibility and value of nuclear deterrence. Others—including the Liberal Democrats, I think—believe that it is essential for the protection of our national and collective security. However, we should all be able to welcome the proposal in the white paper for a further 20 per cent cut in the number of nuclear warheads, which will add up to a 50 per cent reduction in warheads since 1997. That is a significant achievement by the Labour Government, but the bad news is that North Korea, Israel and India now have nuclear weapons. Such proliferation may be a justification for keeping Britain's capacity to deter.
The debate is serious, and we are all entitled to have our say as British citizens. If we were not British citizens, we would have no say, but we would still face a risk if Britain were to be attacked with nuclear weapons.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I have only four minutes.
As we approach the election next May, let us have a debate about the military, economic and political consequences of the nationalists' defence policies. The SNP is always keen to jump on bandwagons to support infantry regiments and Royal Air Force squadrons in Scotland, although it tends to criticise the deployment of those forces as "unpardonable folly". However, I have not heard the nationalists complaining about Royal Navy warships being built on the Clyde and, like Jackie Baillie and Phil Gallie, I remember them campaigning for Trident nuclear ballistic missile submarines to be refitted at Rosyth.
The fundamental nationalist objective—independence—would mean a Scottish ministry of defence, although I do not know where; the withdrawal of Scottish personnel from the British armed forces; and the establishment of a Scottish army, navy and air force. The SNP has suggested that its independent Scotland would have armed forces similar to those of the Scandinavian countries that are outside NATO. It would be expensive to maintain so many trained professional service personnel, so the SNP might have to resort to conscription. National service for neds could be one way of hiding the unemployment that would arise from the break-up of the United Kingdom, but it would not be the same as a professional army.
There is also the small matter of equipment for Scottish forces. An independent Scotland would end up with lightly armed territorial defence forces that were outside NATO and incapable of taking part in major peacekeeping operations. So much for the nationalists' stated commitment to the historic battalions of the Royal Regiment of Scotland. There would be no prospect of state-of-the-art Typhoon jets for Lossiemouth or Leuchars and I do not think that the SNP would buy new Clyde-built type 45 destroyers for the Scottish fisheries protection fleet. Those important issues must be understood as we approach the election in May. Independence for Scotland would be the end of a proud military tradition and would destroy thousands of defence-related jobs, not only in Dunbartonshire.
Our Labour Government is making real progress with multilateral nuclear disarmament. I welcome that and I trust the House of Commons to make the right decision on the issue next year. The economic case for the United Kingdom is well known, but I welcome the opportunity to begin a debate about Scotland's interests in British security and Britain's armed forces. The choice next May will be between a weak and inward-looking nationalist Scotland and a strong and confident British Scotland with all the advantages of the union dividend. The time has come to settle that argument once and for all. Think of Alex Salmond as the commander in chief of a Scottish army—I rest my case. I urge the Parliament to support Maureen Macmillan's amendment.
I say to John Home Robertson that £25 billion buys a lot of conventional weapons. I wonder whether his loyalist speech was his application to get into the House of Lords—he will no longer be able to buy a place there, because the SNP MPs have put a stop to that nonsense.
Nicola Sturgeon raised the moral case against the renewal of Trident, which she rightly described as being against the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. I want to expose the flaws in the incredibly dodgy dossier—the white paper—which is another dodgy dossier from a dodgy Government. Maureen Macmillan's amendment states:
"the UK Government has initiated a debate on the future of the independent nuclear deterrent force and urges everyone in Scotland to take part in it".
However, according to Labour members, that means everyone except members of the Scottish Parliament. How contradictory can people be?
This must also be the shortest debate in history.
The SNP timetabled it.
I am talking about the debate on the white paper, not the one that we are having today.
On 7 December, the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, wrote to George Bush and said:
"We have decided that we will replace the Vanguard submarines with another class of submarines in the 2020s, and would like these submarines to continue to carry Trident II D5 missiles.
Accordingly, we wish to participate in the planned life extension programme for the Trident II D5 missile, which we understand is intended to extend the life of the missiles into the 2040s."
"Please, George, can we be in your gang?" That is what that letter was all about. On the same day, George Bush replied:
"the United States fully supports and welcomes the intention of the United Kingdom to participate in the life-extension program"
of Trident.
The decision has already been made by Blair and Brown and Jack McConnell, and the rest of the Labour Party is following along nicely.
Phil Gallie accused the SNP of trying to stand up for Scottish jobs in Rosyth. I say that the SNP is right to argue that, if we are taking the risk, our people should be getting those jobs. As a consequence of Malcolm Rifkind's decision, we now have seven rusting hulks in Rosyth. That is our inheritance from a Tory Government. Further, the Labour Party can give us no lectures on jobs, given the thousands of jobs that have been lost in Rosyth since it came to power.
Will the member give way?
Jackie Baillie asked for honesty, but she should be more honest. She said that 11,000 jobs would be lost if we did not have Trident. However, in a written answer, Geoff Hoon, the then Secretary of State for Defence, said:
"The number of civilian jobs which directly rely upon the Trident programme is estimated to be 936 in Scotland, with an additional 6,640 in the rest of the United Kingdom. The number of civilian jobs which indirectly rely upon the Trident programme is estimated to be 300 in Scotland and 5,700 for the rest of the UK."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 21 February 2005; Vol 431, c 128W.]
Jackie Baillie says that her position is multilateralist. If that is the case, she also wants to negotiate away those weapons, which means that she also has to answer the question of what she would do with Trident on the Clyde.
I would be delighted to.
Sit down. The member has had her chance to speak.
Christine May said that we are having this debate because we want to avoid other issues. However, she then airbrushed out any Trident content from her speech. The purpose of this debate is to ensure that the members of the Labour Party are held to account and are forced to debate these issues in the Scottish Parliament.
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
I want to make some progress on the issue of Trident being a deterrent.
This is not a debate, it is a lecture.
Michael McMahon is right to say that a debate is not happening in the country. However, he is one of the people who signed up to the position that he does not approve of—our having the Trident weapons system in the future. We will see how he votes at 5 o'clock.
In the past, an intellectual argument was made for having Trident as a deterrent. People who held that view said that the Russian bear was a problem and that the Soviet bloc posed a threat. I never accepted that argument, but at least it had some intellectual rigour. Today, however, we should be asking ourselves who the Trident weapons are aimed at. The answer is no one. Who will they be aimed at in the future? No one really knows. Occasionally, when Blair, Brown or other Labour members get into a hole, they start trotting out the names of Korea or Iran or even suggest that the Russian bear might return. That is no way in which to properly formulate foreign and defence policy. Certainly, it is not a sound basis for spending £25 billion on a new weapons of mass destruction system—a deterrent with no clear enemy targets.
The white paper is a policy of hopelessness and despair. The truth is that Blair, Brown, the First Minister and probably many of the Labour back benchers have now abandoned multilateralism in favour of retaining nuclear weapons for all time.
What?
The white paper kills multilateralism stone dead. I suggest that Labour members go and read it and find out the truth of the matter. Paragraph 3.8, on page 19, says:
"Currently no state has both the intent to threaten our vital interests and the capability to do so with nuclear weapons"
and paragraph 3.10 says:
"Over the next 20 to 50 years, one or more states could also emerge that possess a more limited nuclear capability".
[Interruption.]
Read the white paper. It is all in there.
Order. Mr Crawford is speaking; nobody else should be.
If Labour's policy is built on not knowing what threats there will be in the future, it can only be a policy to retain weapons of mass destruction for all time. Yes, it is time for honesty, but let us be honest that multilateralism is dead in the Labour Party. There is no question about that.
As MSPs, we will have a clear choice tonight. We can decide to support the position of Blair, Brown and McConnell, whose vanity will throw away any moral authority that the UK still has and waste £25 billion, or we can be on the side of the Scottish people and say loudly and clearly that there is no moral, military or economic argument for a new era of weapons of mass destruction on the Clyde. The SNP stands four-square with their removal and with the people of Scotland. Where do Labour members stand?