| ||||||||||||
Speech in Scottish Parliament Maureen MacMillan |
||
| 21 December 2006 | ||
|
Maureen Macmillan (Highlands and Islands) (Lab): 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. Nicola Sturgeon: Will the member take an intervention? Maureen Macmillan: 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. Alex Neil (Central Scotland) (SNP): 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? Maureen Macmillan: 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."
|