| ||||||||||||
Speech in Scottish Parliament Kenny McAskill |
||
| 21 December 2006 | ||
|
Mr Kenny MacAskill (Lothians) (SNP): 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 21 st century. We must jettison it and move towards unilateral nuclear disarmament. Phil Gallie: Will the member take an intervention? Mr MacAskill: 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. Christine May: Will the member give way? Mr MacAskill: 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. |