| ||||||||||||
Speech in Scottish Parliament Bruce Crawford |
||
| May 2006 | ||
|
Bruce Crawford (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP): I welcome the debate and the Green party's motion. First, I will deal with the issue of nuclear weapons being seen in today's world as some sort of deterrent. I never accepted the old arguments, which were made during the cold war, that somehow the UK's nuclear weapons capacity helped to keep the peace and avoid further wars. It did not stop General Galtieri invading the Falklands, even though the Argentines never possessed the nuclear bomb. I never accepted the arguments, but at least there was a considered rationale that could be used by those who supported the UK's possession of weapons of mass destruction. The collapse of the cold war has entirely removed any justification for the UK's possession of strategic nuclear weapons. Perhaps they will come in the debate that Jackie Baillie wants, but I have heard no convincing arguments about why the UK needs to spend £15 billion to £25 billion on creating the son of Trident. That money could be much better used for our public services and to help our economy. It would also produce a heck of a lot more jobs than Trident ever did. Should we replace Trident because two or three other nations now possess nuclear weapons? As far as I know, none of them has either the motivation or the capacity to attack the UK. Should we do it because of the threat of terrorism? Surely that cannot be the case. I would like to know how a suicide bomber who is intent on martyrdom would be stopped because we have Trident on the Clyde. I cannot believe that we would deploy a nuclear weapon against a Muslim city, creating a modern-day Hiroshima, because that truly would unleash an unimaginable conflagration. The truth is that the end of the cold war killed off any intellectual arguments that might have existed in favour of any UK requirement to retain weapons of mass destruction. Of course, the UK now has a changed position, which was adopted first by the Tories; later, Labour abandoned its principle of no first strike in favour of defending vital overseas interests. That means that Trident could be used pre-emptively and, as Chris Ballance said, the very threat of that could be seen as illegal under customary international law because "it would infringe the 'intransgressible' requirement that a distinction must be drawn between combatants and non-combatants." It is self-evident that such weapons of mass destruction cannot be used against combatants only. Replacing Trident would breach article VI of the 1996 nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which expects all signatories, in good faith, to cease the nuclear arms race at an early date and to work towards complete disarmament. Replacing Trident could not be seen as working towards disarmament There is little or no prospect of the UK abandoning its commitment to WMD. It was the Labour Wilson Government of the 1960s that first built, launched and named the Polaris fleet. It was the Jim Callaghan Government that struck the Trident deal in a beach hut in Guadeloupe. The Labour Party's 2005 general election manifesto stated clearly that the party is committed to retaining an independent nuclear deterrent, therefore it comes as no surprise that Labour is intent on deciding during the lifetime of the current Parliament to create the son of Trident. The Tories are wedded to the arguments of the past every bit as much as Labour is, and we can see from the Liberals' amendment that their position is not much different. It is quite clear—and no facile argument—to say that the only way and the best way to get rid of Trident on the Clyde and to rid Scotland of nuclear weapons is for Scotland to become independent. It is absolutely clear that all the unionist parties are wedded to the idea of continuing to have this weapon of mass destruction on the Clyde. I have heard others talk about Trident being some sort of independent deterrent for Scotland. Well, the US supplies the missile system because we lease it from there. A US satellite system guides and aims the weapons. Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD): It services them as well. Bruce Crawford: The US also services the weapons and produces all the goods that the system requires. No one should kid themselves that this weapons system is independent and that any future weapons system would be in any way independent. The decision to use the weapons will not be made by the UK; we will have to be the cover for the US if it ever decides to use battlefield nuclear weapons, which it says are more usable and smaller. I say to Bill Butler that the arguments for Trident are facile, not the argument that independence is the only way of stopping it. The unionists are wedded to the idea of new systems coming on; no one should kid themselves any other way. I support the Green party's motion, but I hope that Parliament will accept the SNP's amendment. I move amendment S2M-3866.1, to insert at end: "and believes that the best way to ensure that nuclear weapons are removed from Scotland is for Scotland to become an independent nation." ....... 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. |