| ||||||||||||
Speech in Scottish Parliament John Home Robertson |
||
| May 2006 | ||
|
John Home Robertson (East Lothian) (Lab): Rob Gibson and his colleagues in the SNP have been expressing their undying opposition to nuclear weapons. I seem to recall that, not long ago, nationalists joined some of the rest of us in protesting vehemently against Malcolm Rifkind when he took the Trident refitting contract away from Rosyth to Devonport. If members are opposed to having the submarines, there is a whiff of hypocrisy about their wanting the jobs that are associated with refitting them. There is a colossal distinction between civil nuclear power, which generates electricity to sustain life and civilisation, and nuclear weapons, which are designed to obliterate entire cities. Nuclear missiles supposedly are retained to ensure that they are never used. We heard that argument from James Douglas-Hamilton. I confess that I have never been entirely comfortable with the logic of nuclear deterrence. As I will not be able to take part in the next debate, which is on the storage of nuclear waste, I will refer to an obvious link between the two debates. I will be happy when the time comes to decommission Britain's four Vanguard-class ballistic missile submarines. However, I do not want to add to the fleet of nuclear hulks that are already tied up at Rosyth and Devonport. Redundant submarine reactors should not be corroding in the water of the Firth of Forth; they should be in safe, permanent storage on dry land. I must challenge the Greens and their nationalist fellow travellers on their absurd position on the storage of nuclear waste. We have inherited a legacy of difficult and dangerous material, whether we like it or not. The independent Committee on Radioactive Waste Management has just concluded that it can and should be put into safe, permanent geological storage, but the political zealots in the Green and nationalist parties do not want that solution to be achieved. Patrick Harvie: I look forward to John Home Robertson's interventions in the next debate, even if he is unable to make a speech, but does he intend to address the motion for this debate? John Home Robertson: I was just moving on to that. The Greens' top priority is to obstruct civil nuclear power stations, regardless of the need to cut carbon dioxide emissions. Their logic would leave the nuclear hulks that I mentioned to rust in the water at Rosyth docks indefinitely. That is an abdication of responsibility to future generations. I am a veteran of House of Commons Defence Select Committee annual reviews of the Trident programme back in the 1990s. We reported on how the programme suffered delays and cost increases that make the Holyrood building seem like a bargain—although our wonderful British media did not seem to care about military overspending. Such is life—it's aye been like that. I was opposed to Margaret Thatcher's Trident programme because I was not convinced by the logic of mutually assured destruction when the Soviet Union was collapsing. I came to that issue from the left, but I recommend the devastating critique of the theory of nuclear deterrence that was made by none other than Enoch Powell on 7 June 1987. I did not think that Trident made sense at the end of the cold war, and I cannot for the life of me see how al-Qa'ida can be deterred by ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads now. As Jackie Baillie and others have said, these issues will be addressed by our colleagues at Westminster when the four Vanguard SSBNs—ship submersible ballistic nuclear submarines—reach the end of their lifespan. The decision will not be made here, and it will not be made anytime soon. We will all have our say in the public debate in due course. Today, I suggest that the Green motion should be amended so that we can make sense of what is really just an opportunistic stunt. If we in this Parliament want to be taken seriously, we should not pass silly motions. We might begin to take the Scottish Green Party seriously on these issues when its members agree about the need for safe, permanent storage of nuclear waste. Of course, protest groups do not really want solutions; they thrive on frustration. I am not interested in frustration. I want to help achieve real solutions to these big problems for our nation and for the wider world. That is the big difference between the Labour Party and some of the other groups that are represented in the Parliament. I strongly urge the Parliament to support Jackie Baillie's amendment. Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green): I thank members for their contributions to the debate, which I have found stimulating. I admit that my mood shifted markedly when I listened to John Home Robertson, who decided to attack the Greens for even bringing the debate to the chamber, despite many members saying that they welcome an open, full debate on replacing Trident. I recognise that there are people in all parties, not just mine, who agree with us about the replacement and retention of Trident, and who have worked on the issues for many years. I refer not only to members of those parties that will support the motion or the amendment against replacement, but to people in the Tory party who reject replacement. This matter is not cut and dried down party lines; there is debate in all parties. The previous time the Parliament debated the matter, in January 2002, the focus was on the retention of Trident. This time, we have lodged a motion specifically on the legal issues around replacement. I say to Mr Rumbles that that is not a rejection of the moral or political case; it is simply a different take on the issue |