Hansard

Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Scottish Parliament, as you know, has debated nuclear weapons on a number of occasions over recent years. In the light of the importance of the issue to the people of Scotland, both morally and economically, it is right and proper that we do so again.

I start by refuting claims by others that we should not be discussing the subject: some people say that it is a reserved issue: unfortunately, we have reserved to us the dubious honour of having to host nuclear weapons in our waters. In addition, the matter is vitally important to our economy and public finances, and to many aspects of public policy in Scotland.

The Scottish Government has at this time sought another debate on the matter for a number of important reasons. First, further analysis of renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons system suggests a dramatic increase in estimates of the total potential cost of the United Kingdom Government’s proposed successor programme. Secondly, there is speculation—and the potential—that the UK Government might be considering bringing forward the main-gate investment decision to before Christmas. Finally, in addition to our opposition to the possession of nuclear weapons, it remains our view that it is wrong for the UK Government to continue to work towards replacement of Trident while it is implementing welfare cuts that are impacting on the most vulnerable people in our society.

In our view, the first argument against nuclear weapons is, of course, the moral one: the idea that they are weapons of not just mass destruction but indiscriminate destruction. However, in argument against renewing Trident, I turn first to the cost of Trident. Many members will have seen the recent reports of the analysis by the office of Crispin Blunt MP, who is chair of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee. That analysis estimates the total cost of the Trident renewal programme to be £167 billion over its lifetime. That is a massive increase on the previous estimate of around £100 billion. It is telling that, in announcing the figure, Mr Blunt also said that

“The successor Trident programme is going to consume more than double the proportion of the defence budget of its predecessor ... The price required, both from the UK taxpayer and our conventional forces, is now too high to be rational or sensible.”

That is a Conservative MP saying that the price is

“too high to be rational or sensible.”

It is not often that I find myself quoting a Conservative MP on nuclear weapons, although, for the record, I should perhaps make it clear that my position—and that of the Scottish Government—is that the possession of nuclear weapons cannot be justified at any cost, whether at £1 or at £167 billion. The question for those who still support the purchase of nuclear weapons at that cost is this: At what price would it be too expensive? Is there any price at which those who support the buying of a new Trident system would say, “That is too much money”? A number of Conservatives, a number of former Secretaries of State for Defence and a number of retired senior military personnel already feel that way, but at what point would MSPs who continue to support the renewal of Trident say that the price is too high?

It would, of course, aid the public’s and our understanding of the impact of spending on Trident nuclear weapons, on conventional defence and on wider public spending if the UK Government would publish its own figures on the total cost and the annual cost of its nuclear weapons system. Unfortunately, it does not do that.

In evidence to the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee on 14 October 2015, Jon Thompson, who is a permanent under-secretary at the Ministry of Defence, is reported to have described the project to replace Trident as “a monster”, and he added that it would be extremely difficult to estimate what the future costs of that programme would be.

Despite that, the UK Government remains in thrall to nuclear weapons and appears to be fixed on writing a blank cheque for their renewal. It seems set to do so without clarity or debate on the implications of that decision, whether for conventional defence forces and equipment or for wider public spending.

To inform our debate, I would like to set out the latest estimate for the cost of Trident renewal within the context of public spending in Scotland. Scotland’s 8.3 per cent population share of £167 billion equates to around £13.9 billion. To put it another way, at current prices that is the equivalent of about 10 Forth replacement crossing projects. Whatever the final bill for the next generation of Trident may be, Scotland’s population share of the current annual running costs alone is estimated to be at least £125 million, and it could be much more than that.

It is the position of the Scottish Government that UK Government spending on nuclear weapons has significant implications for the UK’s conventional defence capabilities and for wider public spending, including for Scotland, and that the full costs of Trident renewal and the implications for other areas of public spending, including conventional defence forces and equipment, should be made clear before the UK Parliament debates the main-gate investment decision.

It is not only the Scottish Government that believes that renewal of Trident would have consequences for other areas of defence and security. In 2013, Professor Malcolm Chalmers of the Royal United Services Institute wrote that

“sharp increases in spending on Trident renewal in the early 2020s seem set to mean further years of austerity for conventional equipment plans.”

In 2014, the Trident commission said:

“Important defence projects currently in the pipeline will surely suffer delay or cancellation.”

Of course, there are those who, while promoting nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation for others, still say that the UK should retain and renew its nuclear weapons for as long as other nations have them. I do not accept that argument. The possession of nuclear weapons has not prevented conflicts between nuclear and non-nuclear states, and their continued presence maintains the threat that other countries may seek to acquire them. Moreover, at no point have I seen—nor do I expect ever to see—a conceivable scenario in which it would be acceptable for the UK to use its nuclear weapons. Their strategic purpose was designed for the cold war, and they have no relevance in deterring the threats that we face today.

We note that many others have voiced similar views on the irrelevance of Trident to our national security. Hans Blix has said that he does not think that Britain would be more protected by Trident, and that Germany and Japan seem to be managing without nuclear weapons. In 2012, former Secretary of State for Defence Michael Portillo described Trident as

“completely past its sell-by date”,

“a waste of money” and

“no deterrent for the Taliban”.

In the same year, CentreForum said:

“Replacing Trident is nonsensical. There is no current or medium-term threat to the UK which justifies the huge costs involved.”

Those are not people from the Scottish National Party; they include a former Secretary of State for Defence. I could mention others, such as Des Brown. Some Conservatives are saying the same thing.

As I indicated in my introduction, it is also the Scottish Government’s position that it is wrong for the UK Government to be contemplating building a new nuclear weapons launch system at the same time as it is introducing massive cuts to welfare. The UK Government has announced welfare cuts of £12 billion per annum by 2019-20, and about £1 billion of those cuts will impact directly on Scotland.