|
Speech in Scottish Parliament by Rob Gibson MSP |
||
| May 2006 | ||
|
Rob Gibson (Highlands and Islands) (SNP): As usual, the debate hinges on the belief among the British parties that, somehow, the greater the debate, the more likely we are to have a decision at Westminster. In this case, we are talking about a decision that would lead to the reduction and removal of nuclear weapons. However, the evidence of the past 30 or 40 years shows that Britain has no intention of removing nuclear weapons with the current state of the world. However, the state of the world as analysed in London is different from the state of the world as seen by people in other places. Britain's role as a world power with vital interests increases the threat for those of us who live in this country, in England and Wales and in many other countries, because it increases the danger that nuclear weapons will be used at some point. The threat of the illegal use of nuclear weapons is against the UN charter. We cannot allow the rules of that most important of international bodies to be flouted. Someone must take the initiative and start to follow the rules. It would be much more honourable for members of the Parliament to support the view of the churches, particularly the Church of Scotland, which has stated frequently that nuclear weapons are immoral. Many members agree that they are immoral but then call on Her Majesty's Government to replace the Trident missile system with a new generation of weapons of mass destruction. Why cannot the members who represent the British parties grasp that initiative and accept the potential? Jackie Baillie talked about having the fullest possible debate. It is important that we ask the Labour Party why the Prime Minister and his Cabinet refuse to have that debate at Westminster. The reason is that they are not prepared to have a public discussion on an issue on which they know that they do not command the support of the majority of people in the British isles. As Mark Ballard said, that is typical of the way in which Labour makes decisions. We are told, "Leave it with me, son—we know best." That attitude is at the root of the decision at Westminster. I hope that the members of the Labour Party in Scotland will start to distance themselves from that approach to politics. Phil Gallie: Rob Gibson claims that the people of the British isles, including those in Scotland, are against replacing Trident. If so, why do the majority of them support the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats, which advocate the replacement of Trident? Rob Gibson: The reason is that we do not have an electoral system that allows a balance of views and which can, therefore, show exactly how people feel. The situation that Phil Gallie describes is what we get with the first-past-the-post system for Westminster. Malcolm Rifkind has said that Trident is used to support Britain's vital interests, which increases the need to upgrade the system. Geoff Hoon has said that Britain is prepared to use nuclear weapons to protect Britain's vital interests. However, the Scottish Parliament has an opportunity to act and to be a catalyst for change. The SNP amendment is about a simple matter: if we in Scotland decide to be independent, the difficulty of maintaining a nuclear deterrent here will act as a catalyst for the UK to rethink its position. The SNP amendment makes it clear that one of the ways to break the deadlock of all this debate that never gets anywhere is for Scotland to be independent and for the issue to be faced. There has been plenty of learned debate on the subject, but can any member tell me of any other catalyst that will make the British parties see sense and change their minds? The Green motion, with the SNP amendment, is the route to progress and to a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons forever. |