Contact Scotland's for Peace

 

Home

Bin the Bomb Campaign

Speeches

 

Speech in Scottish Parliament by Roseanna Cunningham MSP

Roseanna Cunningham (Perth) (SNP): It is just a little more than 50 years since we entered the nuclear age and, in those 50 years, the world has become more rather than less committed to nuclear weapons. Two such weapons were exploded in anger half a century ago but, luckily, although vast amounts of money have been spent buying and stockpiling nuclear weapons, we have held back from using them again—so far.

If we are not using nuclear weapons, why do we continue to buy them? If we continue to buy and stockpile them, why do we believe that we can continue to tell others that they should not do the same? Fifty years ago, only one country had them, but how many have them now? In truth, who knows? Currently, the United States of America, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China are the official nuclear weapon states because they have all signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, while India, Pakistan and Israel are unofficial nuclear weapon states because they have not signed the treaty—and that list should now probably include North Korea.

To put it crudely, the previous justification for spending money on nuclear weapons was: if we did not, they would and they might use them, so we better have them too because that might put them off. It was a small club that only a few could afford to join. The bombs got bigger, better and more expensive. They could kill more or, better still, kill lots and perhaps leave buildings standing.

If deterrence was the justification, it was a dangerous one. After all, any state could make the same argument and, if one concedes the logic, one can hardly say that it should apply only to those and such as those. However, that is, in effect, exactly what we have been saying.

That was then; where are we now? The UK Government invested heavily in Trident as a replacement for the old Polaris and what changed? The protest songs and banners had to,

but little else did. Trident has already cost the UK dear. The strategic defence review of 2004 estimated that the total cost of acquiring the Trident system was about £12.5 billion, almost all of which had already been spent by 2004. It also stated that the running cost of the Trident submarine force would average some £280 million a year over its lifetime and the then annual cost of the warhead and fissile material programme was some £400 million. About one third of that programme was directly related to Trident, while almost a third was related to costs that arose from previous nuclear weapons.

Until recently, the estimated cost of Trident's replacement was £15 billion to £25 billion. Apparently, the annual maintenance costs over the weapons system's expected 30-year lifespan were left out of the calculation of that figure. If we factor those in, it seems that the son of Trident will cost the UK something in the region of £76 billion. We never used Polaris, we never used Trident and we will never use the son of Trident, but it looks like we will buy it, despite being signed up to the non-proliferation treaty.

Phil Gallie (South of Scotland) (Con): Roseanna Cunningham says that we never used Trident, but we used it as a deterrent and it worked. There were no major wars between the major countries, and Russia collapsed because of the arms race. Surely it was a success.

Roseanna Cunningham: I apply that logic to buying shoes that then sit in the wardrobe and never get worn. I consider it a waste of money.

I want to know why we are contemplating spending such vast amounts of money on the son of Trident when we will not use it. Other members will talk about the better uses to which that money could be put, and they will be right to do so. If the Government can afford £76 billion for missiles, it can afford a few bob for job creation and diversification.

Opposition to nuclear weapons in general, and to Trident and its replacement in particular, goes far beyond any financial considerations. At its heart, the argument is a moral and ethical one. That is why the Scottish National Party motion is shorn of any sub-clauses that might cloud the issue. If members believe nuclear weapons to be wrong, they must vote for the motion, but I see from the amendments that Labour and the Liberal Democrats appear to be in favour of nuclear weapons. I say to Jackie Baillie in particular that it seems craven and cowardly to state the obvious point that nuclear weapons are a reserved matter, with the implied criticism that we should not be debating the issue despite her call for "the widest possible debate" in the country. If Jack McConnell really wants to end the cringe factor in Scottish

life, he would do well to start with his own back benchers.

With respect to those who try to have it every which way, there is no place to hide on the matter. Either the Parliament is part of the national debate or it is not, and that national debate is profoundly moral. Whom do we contemplate using the weapons against? It is surely not enough to say that we must have them as a deterrent. During the cold war, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was the target of choice. Which nation or nations now fulfil that role for the UK, or is an independent UK nuclear capability simply to be seen as part and parcel of the USA's nuclear capability at one remove? Recent international events might lead us to that conclusion, so is our target really whoever the USA decides is its target? Are we to spend £76 billion on weapons that really only exist to fit into the USA's strategic interests? Alternatively, are we really going to spend that much money to obtain a bargaining chip to use against Iran's future disarmament—assuming that Iran goes on to become another of the unofficial nuclear states—all the time arguing that Iran has no right to nuclear weapons but we do?