| ||||||||||||
Speech in Scottish Parliament Patrick Harvie |
||
| May 2006 | ||
|
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. Mike Rumbles: Will the member take an intervention on that point? Patrick Harvie: No, thank you. I want to talk about Jackie Baillie's amendment, which seems to provide the only serious criticism of our motion. It raises serious issues, which is why we are having an open and full debate. Having such a debate does not mean having no position and simply asking everybody else what they think; it means saying what we think. That is why Mark Ballard's and Chris Ballance's recent motions are entirely compatible. On jobs, I do not pretend that there are simple answers, any more than I would pretend to farmers in Afghanistan that there were simple answers about how they might make a living if, as we want, poppy production for heroin ceased. The principle is the same. I am not prepared to accept that jobs alone justify an immoral act—in this case, the retention of nuclear weapons. I support the Enterprise and Culture Committee's holding an inquiry into how areas such as Jackie Baillie's constituency can diversify their economies. I ask her whether any Labour members on that committee have proposed such an inquiry to consider the issues in the detail that they merit. Jackie Baillie said that the Labour Party is unequivocally committed to the non-proliferation treaty. In the previous debate, in January 2002, she spoke about "action, not rhetoric". Today, we have an opportunity to say no to replacement and yes to the non-proliferation protocol. When we come to decision time, we will have the option to make action, not rhetoric, the priority. Bruce Crawford: Will the member comment on the part of the Labour amendment that "notes the significant reductions in the United Kingdom's nuclear weapons arsenal"? Does he accept that there was a reduction but that, although particular weapons were removed, Trident ended up being a lot stronger, more powerful and much more penetrative than previous nuclear systems? Patrick Harvie: Certainly, and any attempt to replace it would, by definition, given technological progress, also upgrade at least some systems. Bruce Crawford has been attacked over what some members have called a facile amendment. Not only did he focus on the legal issues that we have raised, but he defended his amendment. Scottish independence is not the only conceivable way to achieve disarmament, but independence would make it far more likely. The UK could choose to get rid of or not replace Trident but, given the climate in UK politics, I do not think it will. If Scotland as an independent country were to get rid of Trident, I would have a double celebration. Jackie Baillie: Will the member take an intervention on that point? Patrick Harvie: No, thank you. I wish to turn to Phil Gallie's points. He said that nuclear weapons have worked and have been successful in keeping the peace. There may not have been the massive conflagration that many people feared, but there has not been a day of world peace in the entire history of nuclear weapons. A fictional Labour Prime Minister said that he wanted to dismantle the absurd and obscene idea that our freedom must depend on the fear of annihilation. It would be blissful if we had a real Prime Minister who spoke with such passion. Phil Gallie argued that this country should lead the way in working towards disarmament, but do our current defence and foreign policies mean that we do so? Of course they do not. Members should consider the proliferation incentives that have been created for India, Israel, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea and compare the number of proposals for sanctions against or invasion of Iran with those that have been made with respect to North Korea. We know that North Korea already has nuclear weapons, which is why no one proposes to invade it to dismantle its capabilities. Euan Robson said that members should support the Liberal Democrats' amendment. I would welcome a white paper from the United Kingdom Government, which would be a useful contribution to the debate, but while white papers often precede new legislation on which members of Parliament are permitted to vote—sometimes even according to their consciences—that would not happen in this case. The UK Government has said that MPs will not yet be allowed to vote on the matter. That is why I cannot support the Liberal Democrats' amendment. Mike Rumbles spoke in support of it and talked about how much he disagrees with replacing Trident, but the amendment calls for retention of our nuclear capability for the foreseeable future, which I cannot support. Rosie Kane mentioned the Executive's non-attendance at the debate. I am happy to give ministers their lie-in, which I hope they enjoy. However, I will ensure that they are represented in at least one way by quoting what Cathy Jamieson said as a candidate for election to the Parliament in 1999 rather than as a member or a minister: "For me, and many others in the Parliament, the continued production of nuclear weapons and the potential dangers, is a moral issue. A challenge for the Parliament, and the political Parties would be to have a genuinely open consultation with the people of Scotland on the question of Trident, and allow MSPs to vote according to their conscience." I agree with one thing that Mike Rumbles said: this is a moral issue. I get bored and sick and tired of people who say that moral issues in politics are about finger wagging and who people go to bed with. That is narrow-minded nonsense. There are great moral issues of our age, for example the degradation of our environment, the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers in our communities and the treatment of prisoners. Retaining or replacing Trident is one of the great moral issues. It is disappointing that all three parties that dominate Westminster politics are committed to retaining nuclear arsenals. As a result, none of the many voters in Scotland who reject nuclear weapons has a real choice. Westminster, as Martin Luther King once said of the western world, has guided missiles and misguided men. |