Meeting of the Parliament 03 November 2015
I thank the member, but I am trying to make progress. I might be able to let him in later.
There is on-going uncertainty over the cost of Trident. At a time of severe financial constraint, the project would cost billions of pounds over its lifetime—the SNP has spent that money many times over on different promises.
We must also acknowledge that cancelling the renewal of Trident will have direct consequences for our British workforce. I will come on to that later.
In arguing for a halt to the renewal of Trident, we need to consider the political and global reality of the world in which we live. We live in times that are very different from, and arguably much more complex than, those of the cold war. No one would deny that Britain and Scotland need strong defence forces, but the question is whether Trident is part of such a future.
The immediate threat no longer comes from big nation states having a public and clearly defined stand-off; the threat is increasingly from terrorism that is targeted and hidden. What does our country’s nuclear capacity mean to a group that attacks without having a Government, a country or an army behind it? That is the threat of the future, and it is only right that our defence and intelligence community is able to adapt to the ever-changing dangers of the world. I accept that the future is unpredictable and we live in uncertain times, but can the future threat to the UK be addressed with nuclear weapons?
International diplomacy is about reducing nuclear weapons and discouraging other countries from developing nuclear capability. We have made progress. When it was in government, the UK Labour Party reduced nuclear weapons while playing a significant international role. The United Kingdom has signed up to gradual, negotiated disarmament in line with other nations. We should recognise the steps that have been taken and the position that we are in now compared with the position 10 or 20 years ago.