| ||||||||||||
Speech in Scottish Parliament Phil Gallie |
||
| 21 December 2006 | ||
|
Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con): Nicola Sturgeon referred to an opinion poll. The opinion polls at the last general election were clear: they backed Labour, which in its manifesto promised the retention of nuclear weaponry. Those are the elections that count and, as we already know, opinion polls mean little. Given that Nicola Sturgeon has concentrated on Trident in recent First Minister's question times and the fact that there was a recent debate in the chamber, will she tell me why we are debating it again? I recognise the importance of the Government's document and its wish to have a wider debate. I welcome that, as the amendment in my name suggests. Nicola Sturgeon: Will the member give way? Sarah Boyack (Edinburgh Central) (Lab): Will the member give way? Phil Gallie: I give way to Nicola Sturgeon. Nicola Sturgeon: We are having the debate because it deals with a vital issue for people in Scotland—let us remember that Trident is based in Scotland. Furthermore, I remind Phil Gallie that the First Minister has called for everyone to take part in the debate. If this is a genuine debate, can the member cast light on the fact that, on 7 December, Tony Blair wrote to George Bush that the Government had already decided to take part in the planned life extension of the Trident missile system? Does that not give lie to Tony Blair's position? Phil Gallie: Tony Blair's position is his. I have defended his position in the past, and I have done so wrongly. I believe that he lied to the country on a particular issue, so I am not here to defend Tony Blair. I remember Nicola Sturgeon's SNP colleagues turning out in force at Westminster to campaign to retain the nuclear submarines at Rosyth dockyard. I believe that the Conservative Government at the time took a flawed decision, but the SNP was out in force to retain those nuclear submarines. At one end of the argument or the other, there is a degree of hypocrisy. Nicola Sturgeon spoke of issues that are important to Scotland. I agree, but health, education and justice are important too, and in recent times the SNP has not seemed prepared to debate them in the chamber when it has had the opportunity to do so. Nicola Sturgeon should consider that when she is thinking about the interests of Scotland. Our amendment takes up two thirds—in volume at least—of the SNP's position. We welcome the debate and we probably have our own fixed views, but it is right in a democratic society that those fixed views should be challenged. That is what the debate is all about, and that is no doubt what Tony Blair envisages. I turn to the Liberal amendment. The debate is another opportunity for the Liberals to sit on the fence. The white paper comments on the lifetime of the Vanguard submarines—do they challenge that? Mr Jim Wallace (Orkney) (LD): Yes. Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD): Will the member give way? Phil Gallie: Are they saying that the submarines will be okay after 20 years? Are they prepared— Mike Rumbles: Will the member give way? Phil Gallie: No; the Liberals will have their say in a minute. They can answer then. Are the Liberals prepared to put the lives of submariners at risk in 20 years or so by sending them to sea in out-of-date submarines that are not capable of doing the job? Do they have a wonderful vision of what the world will be like in 20 to 50 years' time? Are they prepared to put at risk the lives of people in this country by abandoning what I believe to be a successful nuclear deterrent? I do not have time to go into all my reasoning, so I point members to the debate that we had just a couple of months ago when I explained in some detail my support for the retention of nuclear deterrents. There is much that I can agree with in the Labour amendment. However, when Labour members talk about our armed services, they ignore the fact that the Labour Government has caused massive damage to our conventional armed services. It has done that in Scotland with its abandonment of the Scottish regiments, and it has done it overseas with its overcommittment of our forces and underprovision of weapons, personal armoury and rest and training for our troops. The Labour amendment falls short when it refers to our conventional forces. However, I go along with Labour in welcoming the debate again and on the overall objective of reducing nuclear weaponry worldwide. Sadly, I do not believe that nuclear weapons can be disinvented, although I wish that they could be. As long as they exist, we cannot turn our backs on them. I move amendment S2M-5355.2, to leave out from "and believes" to end.
|