| ||||||||||||
Speech in Scottish Parliament Mike Rumbles |
||
| May 2006 | ||
|
Mike Rumbles: Phil Gallie's argument seems to be that nuclear deterrence on a global scale has succeeded. Therefore, if every nation had nuclear weapons, the world would be a safer place. Is not such an argument complete bunkum? Phil Gallie: That is not my argument at all. I agree with the non-proliferation treaty, which accepted that five nations—China, France, Russia, the UK and the USA—could continue to possess nuclear weapons. Since then, India, Pakistan and perhaps Israel have gained nuclear weapons and others—North Korea and Iran—have made moves to do so. I do not want such an expansion to take place, but I recognise the reality that the world may sometimes be able to do little to prevent other nations from taking control of nuclear weapons. In such circumstances, only a balance in any nuclear stand-off will work. Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD): The Liberal Democrats have a long-standing commitment to work for the elimination of nuclear weapons on a multilateral basis. Although the replacement of the Trident missile system is a reserved issue, it is absolutely right that the Scottish Parliament should debate the matter. However, I wish that we could have had a real debate, because the few minutes that we have been given make a mockery of debate. Today's debate seems to have been designed to generate publicity for the Green party rather than as a genuine attempt properly to debate a hugely moral issue. Patrick Harvie (Glasgow) (Green): Will the member give way? Mike Rumbles: Let me get started. I could not agree more with the Catholic Bishops Conference of Scotland, which said in a statement on Trident on 11 April: "The Church teaches that it is immoral to use weapons of mass destruction in an act of war: 'Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities or extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation.'" A war that was engaged in such a way could never be described as a just war. I believe in the concept of a just war, or I would never have spent 15 years of my adult life in the Army. My war role was as a nuclear, biological and chemical warfare warning and reporting officer in the British Army of the Rhine. I trained to help to fight a conventional war on the north German plain, in which we always assumed a nuclear attack by the Soviet Union. Thank God, the nuclear threat from the old Soviet Union has gone, but Trident and other strategic nuclear weapons remain. I was particularly taken with the address that Cardinal Keith O'Brien gave on Easter Sunday, when he urged Scots: "Enter this debate and demand that these weapons of mass destruction be replaced, but not with more weapons. Rather, replace Trident ... with projects that bring life to the poor." Jackie Baillie: Like Mike Rumbles, I was moved by some of the comments from our faith communities. However, does the member agree with comments from his Liberal colleague Alan Reid, MP for Argyll and Bute, who says that a replacement for Trident is vital? Mike Rumbles: No, I do not. On moral grounds alone, we should not spend billions of pounds on a replacement for Trident. On military grounds, the money would be a complete waste. Can any sane person believe that there are any circumstances at all in which a UK Prime Minister would order the release of our strategic nuclear deterrent to rain mass destruction on innocent lives on a global scale? No; the theory of mutually assured destruction is indeed mad. However, I am not a CND supporter, because I draw a distinction between strategic nuclear weapons of mass destruction such as Trident, the use of which would be completely indefensible, and other tactical low-yield weapons that are designed for defensive use on battlefields. Given that we would never use the Trident missile system, why are we even contemplating replacing it? The reason can only be politics. It would be unfortunate if the UK Government felt that, to be a world player, we need to be in the strategic nuclear club, but I cannot think of any other reason—certainly not a military one—why the Government would even contemplate meeting the huge cost of replacing Trident. Of all the amendments before us, members should support the Liberal Democrat one. As Euan Robson said in moving it, nuclear weapons are an evil of our time. The Green motion, rather than point to the important political or moral case, argues that a legal case can be made against replacing Trident. The Liberal Democrats do not support the Greens on that. The use of Trident is not a practical, political or moral option in any circumstances and any Prime Minister who authorised its use would indeed be mad. I urge members to support the Liberal Democrat amendment. |