| ||||||||||||
Speech in Scottish Parliament John Home Robertson |
||
| 21 December 2006 | ||
|
John Home Robertson (East Lothian) (Lab): 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. Jeremy Purvis (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale) (LD): Will the member give way? John Home Robertson: 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. |