 The next item of business is the member's business debate on motion 2639, in the name of Bill Kidd, on the NPT review conference and anniversary of TPNW entry into force. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put, and I ask those members who wish to speak in the debate to please press the request to speak buttons now and I call on Bill Kidd to open the debate up to seven minutes please Mr Kidd. Thank you very much Presiding Officer and thank you to my fellow MSPs joining me here in this debate to bring to attention a serious concern and continued importance surrounding the implementation of nuclear disarmament internationally. This Saturday coming marks the one year anniversary of the entry into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. As the motion for this debate highlights, the NPT review conference was scheduled to take place this month. However, as you may be aware, this was postponed due to the pandemic and it is now likely that the NPT review conference will take place in August where I am determined to be able to attend in person as the head of delegation for PNND or Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament. As co-president of PNND, I will be representing parliamentarians from across the globe who are committed to seeing the implementation of total nuclear disarmament. Today we are debating two international treaties, the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, otherwise known as the BAN Treaty. Both of those are of critical importance to nuclear disarmament. Firstly, the NPT has been in force since 1970 as a landmark international treaty through which nuclear states committed to stop the proliferation of nuclear arms. The UK, the US, Russia, China and France, all of whom are permanent members of the Security Council at the UN are nuclear state members of this treaty. It is therefore a highly important international treaty that needs to be respected by all its members as it underpins critical international security structures. The treaty commits its members to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons technology to other countries and to stop an increase in their own nuclear weapons stockpiles. Moreover, in signing the treaty, the P5 members all committed to international law to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and actively work towards complete nuclear disarmament. The treaty is hugely important and yet the NPT entered into force over 50 years ago and total nuclear disarmament very obviously has not been achieved. Moreover, there are worrying instances of non-compliance from nuclear states in recent years, including from the current UK Government. As international security concerns heighten and the world changes, we need fresh impetus to encourage nuclear states to renew their investment into the nuclear disarmament process. That is where the new international treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons or the ban treaty comes in. The threat of nuclear arms has not diminished and the commitment of nuclear states to no first use of those weapons is welcome, but it is not enough. The nuclear disarmament debate needs to be reframed and diplomatic thinking needs to be renewed. Nuclear arms states need to reconcile their security strategies with the moral question of whether nuclear weapons would ever be right to use. Nuclear weapons are indiscriminate, they do not target only a military base and they actually devastate entire nations, including hundreds of thousands of civilians who in any country cannot afford to have to bear the weight of the actions of their leaders. The ban treaty is, like the NPT, a landmark treaty. For the first time ever, non-nuclear states and civil society led an international treaty on nuclear disarmament. That perhaps ironically helped the NPT in its 50-year-old commitment to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear states. The SNP has stood firm in its opposition to nuclear weapons, along with the many invaluable civil society organisations here in Scotland, as MSPs from across the parties continue to do in our CPG on nuclear disarmament. I must mention, as convener of our cross-party group on nuclear disarmament, that here in the Scottish Parliament we stand for the majority wish of the Scottish people across parties in their commitment to ridding Scotland of the nuclear weapons that are currently stored here against our will. As many here will be aware, the international NGO called ICANN was the driver of getting the ban treaty into the United Nations, accepted and ratified in international law. They won the Nobel Peace Prize for this work and an atomic bomb survivor, whom many of us have met, an incredible woman called Setsuko Thurlow, accepted this award on their behalf. After the atomic bomb was first made, her fellow Nobel Peace Prize winner, Albert Einstein, commented, that I do not fear the explosive power of the atomic bomb, what I fear is the explosive power of evil in the human heart. As much as deterrence argument can persuade some, I believe that it can never rule out or compensate for this aspect of the reality that evil actions do take place and can sometimes override the good governance of nations. The only way out of this is through total nuclear disarmament and continued oversight of international agencies on compliance. Although, until recently, the Cold War had felt long gone even, and it could easily be pushed to the back of our minds, the threat of those weapons has not diminished. We have a responsibility whether Scotland is devolved or independent to look at this reality head on. I am pleased that the majority of MSPs have signed the ICANN pledge to support the ban treaty, and that means that there is enough political will and commitment within this Parliament to stand together in working for an end to the danger to the world's long-term future that nuclear weapons stand for. Going back to our cross-party group on nuclear disarmament, I want to take this opportunity to mention the work of all the organisations involved in the cross-party group on nuclear disarmament who have continued in their efforts over the years to promote the nuclear disarmament agenda among Scottish Parliamentarians and the general public of our country. I must particularly mention Janet Fenton, the ICANN Scottish Liaison and the chair of Scottish CND, who has worked tirelessly in this regard and has been a tremendous help in the cause. Alongside those partners, I will be attending in the first meeting of state parties in Vienna this March on Covid rules allowing to develop the ban treaty rules further, and I encourage my fellow MSPs from across the chamber to do likewise, if at all possible. I thank Bill Kidd for securing this important debate on the UN treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, which came into force on 22 January. I would also like to acknowledge Bill's long-standing commitment to nuclear disarmament, peace and justice. I will not call him a veteran campaigner, because the last time I did that, he did not like it very much, and I will just say that his perseverance is inspiring. The treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons entered into force on 22 January, and so far 59 states have fully ratified it and are now bound by its provisions. Countries that have joined the treaty must never develop, test, produce, acquire, stockpile, transfer, use or threaten to use nuclear weapons. They are also forbidden from hosting in other countries nuclear weapons on their territory or assisting or encouraging anyone else to engage in any of those prohibited activities. I have to ask why anyone, why any state would wish to use or threaten to use these abhorrent weapons, the most inhumane instruments of destruction ever created. Weapons that, when deployed, incinerate human life. Close to a quarter of a million civilians met this unimaginable end in the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, and many thousands more have since died from radiation-related illnesses. To date, the UK has continued to insist that it will not sign the treaty, nor be an observer at the first meeting of states parties to the treaty in March. The UK has also shockingly decided to increase its stockpile of nuclear weapons in clear breach of its obligations under the NPT. The treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, with its emphasis on prohibition and elimination, could rectify that deficit. Safety and security is about more than the absence or violence or war. It is about creating a just and equal society in which everyone can achieve their full potential and where no-one is left behind, and we help to nurture and support those who need it. The challenges and sacrifices that we have endured over the past couple of years highlight that more than ever, they highlight what is important. As we build back from Covid, recovery must include the end of nuclear weapons. Of course, nuclear weapons are immoral, but it is not just immoral. It is also economically illiterate to spend hundreds of billions of pounds on weapons of mass destruction when that money could be invested on a recovery that actually benefits our citizens. Article 4 of the treaty has a clear relevance for Scotland. It states that each state party that has any nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices in its territory or in any place under its jurisdiction are controlled, and that are owned, possessed or controlled by another state shall ensure the prompt removal of such weapons as soon as possible. When the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, endorsed the Scottish Women's International League for Peace and Freedoms Covenant to support the TPNW entering into force, she said, while the Scottish Government is unable to become a party to the treaty, as First Minister, I strongly support the principles of the treaty and the work of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. An independent Scotland would be a keen signatory, and I hope that that day that we can do it is not far off. As Bill pointed out in opening in Scotland, we have a majority of our parliamentarians signing the ICAN parliamentary pledge and a First Minister who has spoken out in support of nuclear disarmament. I believe that the only way to guarantee an end to nuclear weapons here in Scotland is for us to regain our independence as a nation, and I look forward to very much the day that we can do that. I now call Jamie Greene to be followed by Paul MacLennan up to four minutes, please, Mr Greene. I am a lone voice on the side of the chamber, but I'll do my best to contribute to the debate. I'm very pleased that we've taken part. I commend Bill Kidd for not just this debate, but his endless campaigning for nuclear disarmament. The name Bill Kidd is synonymous with that campaign, not just in Scotland or the UK, but right across the world, as his testament to his letter to the new US president, Joe Biden. That Nobel gong is yet within reach, Mr Kidd, and in my view, it probably would be quite well deserved. I suspect that some of my contribution may not always necessarily be in agreement with the premise of the motion, but I have a huge amount of respect for anyone who has a lifelong passion like the one that we've just heard today, politics with principles, if you're new, Presiding Officer. In fact, I'm more inclined to agree than not disagree with the member's motion, because I don't want to live in a world where nuclear weapons are a live and very active threat to humanity, but the sad reality is that we do, and the end of that scenario is very difficult to see any time soon. The black and white images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in which hundreds of thousands of civilians died, are the sort of images that stick in spongy minds, certainly one of a modern studies student, as I was. The thrice postponed NPT summit, which we will hopefully get round to, will be as tough and probably monumentally important as COP26 was last year. There is a problem, though. The NPT is plagued by a disarmament deficit, is the sad reality. Five nuclear states who are party to the treaty are currently not meeting their commitments, and tensions between the US, China and Russia are just rising the likelihood of reducing the deficit by the day. The theory and the practice of disarmament, I'm afraid, are awkward friends. Bill Kidd is right, all nuclear weapons should be dismantled for a safer world. That's the theory, the practice, though, is different. The NPT must be worth more than the paper, it is written on, I agree with that. A treaty that was fit for purpose in 1968 is not necessarily fit for purpose in 2022. The notable absence of Israel or North Korea, India or Pakistan, although I think the latter two are more likely to have an ability to have a change of heart on that. Reforms to legacy treaties such as those are very difficult, they will not come easy, and negotiations will take a long time to conclude. The practice is different from the theory. Right now, there are serious geopolitical threats, not just to Scotland and the UK but also to all our NATO allies, and they are our allies. Mr Kidd recently was on the record saying that the three big issues facing the next generation are… I haven't got a huge amount of time, but I'm happy to if I get the time back. Yes, you will. Ruth Maguire? I thank Jamie Greene for taking the intervention. I know that we are short of time. I would be interested to hear his reflections on whether he thinks that rising global tensions increase the case that we need to get rid of nuclear weapons. They don't decrease it, they perhaps make it more urgent. Jamie Greene? Yes, they do, but the problem is that there are some very live active threats at the moment where the people opposing the threat are increasing their capabilities. Therefore, that acceleration is inevitable, and it's hard to stop. It's hard to see an end of that in sight. Since 2007, Russia has been completely overhauling its nuclear capabilities with underwater nuclear drones, hypersonic missiles, and it doesn't take much more than a cursory look at evening channel 5 television to watch some very real-life examples of what our armed forces are currently doing out in the seas to stave off real threats. The fact that Russian troops right this very second are lining up on the Belarus-Ukraine border shows that these are not just merely to exercise, they are very real threats. If you look at what's happening in China, the current hostility towards, for example, Taiwan, and I refer members to my register of interests, I think our testament that these are not just academic or theoretical questions, these are real live ones. How we react to those, of course, is a very valid point. Back in 2020, in the space of just six days, RAF Lossymouth took to the skies on three separate occasions to ward off aircraft to be able to identify themselves. These aircraft weren't lost. Are they testing our response times and our capabilities? I'm pretty sure they are. Those are only the ones that officials are willing to talk about. In the short time that I have, the issue of the continuous at sea deterrent is a complex one. The capability sits in my region. I've been to Faslan and met personnel there. I do have some pride and faith that they take that monumental responsibility extremely seriously. There are very mixed views in my part of the world about the presence of those, but I genuinely don't think—and this is where I do disagree with the member—that simply moving them across the border to Liverpool or northeast England will move the problem away, nor make Scotland any particularly safer. It is worth noting that the number of nuclear warheads globally is down from 70,000 around 70,000 in 1986 to just over 13,000. There are still 13,000 too many. It only takes one. Clearly, more has to be done. The UK has a role to play in that. It must do better. Notwithstanding our differences of views, or even opinions, I still commend Bill Kidd on his efforts. His zeitgeist in that is something that perhaps we could all learn from in politics. Deputy Presiding Officer, I thank Bill Kidd for bringing this debate forward today on his long-term commitment to the cause. Back in 1982, I was in fourth year at Dunbar grammar school, sitting in my favourite subject, modern studies. We were all asked to choose a topic to study as part of our studies that year. In 1982, we were in the middle of the Cold War, President Reagan and Margaret Thatcher on one side, President Brezhnef and then Yureann Drop-off on the other. It was then that I decided I wanted to do my study subject on the CND. I joined the CND that year and I have been a member ever since. It is a redline in my political beliefs and always will be. The phrase that stuck in my head when we were researching the subject was mutually assured destruction. Mad, let that sink in, mutually assured destruction. Here in Scotland right now, we are the home of the UK submarine service, including the UK nuclear deterrent and the new generation of hunter-killer submarines, Hunter-killer, says it all. Those four submarines are permanently based at Faslain, or at least until Scotland becomes independent and we remove nuclear weapons from Scotland. We are told that Faslain itself was chosen to host these vessels at the height of the Cold War because of its geographic position, and I quote, which forms a bastion on the relative place that the cold is a bit deep and easily navigable, gearlock and furth of Clyde. The fact that it is less than 30 miles from Glasgow was of no significance to the UK Government then and it is certainly not now. The treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, also known as the TPNW or the Nuclear Man Treaty, is an international agreement between countries. All countries that have signed or ratified the treaty have committed to a complete global ban on nuclear weapons, and all activities related to the creation or use of nuclear weapons. Today, we are celebrating the first year of the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, or to be precise, as we have heard on Saturday 22 January. This marks one year since this entered into force as international law. Nuclear ban has already began to change the world. Billions of pounds have been taken out of investments in nuclear weapons, with over 100 financial institutions completely disvesting from nuclear weapons. Countries continue to join the treaty, while a growing number of non-member states have committed to observe the first meeting of state parties. Cities and local authorities around the world are showing their support in growing numbers through the ICANN cities appeal, where parliamentarians here in Scotland and worldwide stand firm in support of nuclear disarmament. Scotland cannot sign the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons unless we become an independent country. However, we can be guided by the principles of the treaty and can take steps to embed as much of it as possible into domestic law. We can prepare for a day when Scotland is able to achieve full nuclear disarmament and sign up to the global nuclear ban. ICANN that Bill was mentioned before the international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons asked parliamentarians to sign the following pledge. I quote, We have undersigned parliamentarians. We are only welcoming the entry into force of the UN treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons as a significant step towards a realisation of a nuclear-free world. We share a deep concern expressed about the catastrophic human and humanitarian consequences that would result from any use of nuclear weapons and we recognise the consequent need to eliminate these inhumane and important weapons. As parliamentarians, we pledge to work for the signature and notification of the landmark treaty by our respective countries, as we consider the abolition of nuclear weapons to be a global public good for the highest order and an essential step to promote the security of wellbeing of all parties. I was proud to sign that pledge and look forward to the day. Scotland becomes independent and nuclear weapons are finally removed from the Clyde. I thank Bill Kidd for bringing this important debate to parliament. As the motion points out, article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty is clear. It calls for the cessation of the nuclear arms race, but it also calls for the complete disarmament under strict and effective international control. In addition, 120 countries have now signed up to the UN treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, which proposes a total global ban on these weapons of mass destruction. For the avoidance of doubt, these are treaties which carry with them binding obligations. We hear a lot about the rule of law, the rule of international law. What about the observance of this international law? I have a long held view that nuclear weapons themselves are illegal. Nearly 40 years ago, along with others, I tried to take Margaret Thatcher to court on the grounds that their possession is in direct contravention of international law because they destroy lives indiscriminately. They kill completely innocent women, children and men. Today, we continue to witness the flouting of international law with no evidence whatsoever of meaningful negotiation of material progress or anything resembling even a strategy for disarmament. We are told that these weapons are a deterrence. The nuclear deterrent is part of the language, the doublespeak, the propaganda of the debate on disarmament, but does anybody really believe that the threat of first strike nuclear weapons or their location 80 miles from this parliament makes us any safer? Incidentally, their relocation 180 miles away in Barrow Infernis would not make us any safer either. In wilful or ignorant defiance of the non-proliferation treaty and who knows which, Boris Johnson announced last year that he was escalating the number of 100 kiloton nuclear warheads from 180 to 260. By any definition, this is not multilateral disarmament, this is unilateral rearmament. This represents a proliferation of ballistic missiles, but it also represents a proliferation of risk, of lies and disinformation, a proliferation of nuclear waste, of missile convoys and terror threats, a proliferation of instability, of curbs on civil liberties and of austerity in every other public service. The honest division in this debate is not between those of us who support unilateral nuclear disarmament and those who support multilateral nuclear disarmament. The honest division is between those of us who believe in nuclear disarmament and those who frankly do not. That is what the Trident debate is about. Of course it is also about jobs and we need to understand that the £200 billion that is to be spent on Trident's replacement would create jobs. Of course it would, but how many more jobs could we create with that kind of money to rebuild our manufacturing base, to invest in our national health service and to provide the education, health and environmental protection the world is crying out for? Finally, I am in no doubt that what we need at this time is political leadership, but I am equally certain that it will not come from the political elite whose heads are turned by the twin temptations of militarism and nationalism. It will come from the people who will once again lead the leaders. That is what this debate is about. That is what this motion is about. It is about summoning up a renewed spirit of popular resistance. It is about taking action in support of our moral objection to genocide to secure our common survival and it is about grasping the historic opportunity of building a just, a civilised and a peaceful society in a just, a civilised and a peaceful world. I now call Bob Doris to be followed by Maggie Chapman and Maggie Chapman will be the last speaker before I ask the minister to respond. Mr Doris, up to four minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I want to congratulate Bill Kidd on securing this important debate and pay tribute to Bill's work over many years of nuclear disarmament and acknowledges current role as co-president of parliamentaries for non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. This debate and, of course, the UN treaty on prohibition of nuclear weapons, which in the subject of the debate, are powerful reminders that there is nothing moral, normal, acceptable, palatable or humane about nuclear weapons and their use for human destruction and destruction of the planet. Nations must raise their voice against them and, of course, meet their international legal obligations. The nation's treaty on prohibition of nuclear weapons came into force almost one year ago as sweeping treaty designed to outlaw and rigged the world of weapons from a bygone Cold War era. Despite that, it is with great sadness to note that the British Government has failed to ratify this treaty, an action that demonstrates the failure of the United Kingdom to be world leaders in the fight for nuclear disarmament. Westminster continues to fund a nuclear defence system that goes against the United Kingdom's long-established commitment to the United Nations. Unfortunately, that Westminster nuclear obsession includes the UK party defence spokesperson who describes UK nuclear weapons as non-negotiable. I would, however, acknowledge those in all parties, including the Labour Party and the Labour movement and, of course, wider civic society over many years who have campaigned to their shores and the world of nuclear weapons. I clearly wish to see an independent, nuclear-free Scotland, and we must, of course, make common cause with all those who seek the elimination of nuclear weapons and recommend the work of the cross-party in this Parliament for their work in that also. The UK positions Holy Count are productive. How can Westminster condemn the action of foreign states and their development of nuclear weapons whilst demonstrating its complicit failure to act on eliminating its own nuclear arsenal? £200 billion more to replenish it is heard from Richard Leonard. If the British Government's moral compass is broken on nuclear weapons, perhaps they ought to ratify the UN treaty on economic grounds. The cost of annually maintaining and running such a system for the UK equates to £18 billion every year. That fee equates to the state spending of over £30,000 per minute over the course of any year to continue the programme. This financial burden itself is a moral outrage. Such eye-watering sums can be better spent helping those who most need at home and can contribute to our overseas aid obligations rather than cutting the source as the UK currently does. However, at the heart of encouraging all nations to sign and ratify the UN treaty and play their part in ridding the world of nuclear weapons is the moral case. I welcome the first meeting of state parties that will take place in March this year. I am delighted that Bill Kidd will attend to discuss the continued strength of the UN's commitment to nuclear prohibition. I wish everyone well who is participating in that conference that will take place in Vienna. I absolutely heartily thank Bill Kidd MSP for its on-going leadership in seeking to advance the cause of a nuclear-free Scotland and the nuclear-free world. I now call on Minister Ashrykin to respond to the debate up to seven minutes please minister. No, I am really apologising. The minister was looking at me with a confused look in her face and quite rightly so. Many apologies to Mackie Chapman. I was ahead of myself there. I now call Mackie Chapman up to four minutes please, Ms Chapman. Thank you very much, no problem at all. I would like to begin by thanking Bill Kidd for his motion and for securing this debate today. I share his enthusiasm for the UN treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons and was delighted when it came into force a year ago. I also appreciate the detail Bill and others have given about both the prohibition and non-proliferation treaties. It is absolutely right that we devote parliamentary time to this important issue. We have a role to play in educating ourselves and others, and I thank Bill for his leadership in this. I thank him too for acknowledging the work of Janet Fenton. She too has been inspirational for so many in Scotland and further afield. I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate, although I wish it were not necessary. Nuclear weapons are a stain on us all. They are the most destructive, inhumane and indiscriminate weapons ever created. They are unlike any other military force in the devastation that they cause in the moment and for generations. They are uniquely persistent. They spread genetically damaging radioactive fallout. They are weapons of indiscriminate intergenerational mass murder. As if all of that is not bad enough, the development and potential use of these weapons destroys all forms of life and disrupts life support systems, including our climate. Less than 1 per cent of the nuclear weapons that currently exist could disrupt the global climate and threaten as many as 2 billion people with starvation in a nuclear famine. The thousands of nuclear weapons possessed by just the United States and Russia would destroy the world. Nuclear winter does not even come close to describing what would be experienced. That exists so that Governments play politics with them should shame us all. Nuclear weapons are the epitome of the worst of politics to have to use the threat of world obliterating forces means that politics has failed. It teaches us that violence is a legitimate answer to difficult questions. It indicates that Governments care more about their egos and shows of strength and power than about life. As a South African citizen, I am very pleased that South Africa made the conscious decision to disarm. The South African Government dismantled all of its nuclear weapons, the first state in the world that voluntarily gave up all nuclear arms that it had developed itself. The country has been a secondary other treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons since 1991 and ratified the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons three years ago, becoming the first country to have had nuclear weapons disarmed them and go on to sign those treaties. For the many reasons outlined already by others this afternoon, the economic, humanitarian and moral reasons, I do wish that the country I have chosen as home could sign the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons today, but unfortunately it looks like we are going to have to wait until Scotland is an independent country before we can do that, and we must make sure that we do that when we can. I agree with Jamie Greene and others, I don't just want nuclear weapons out of Scotland, I want them out of every country. We can and should be using all of our resources for good. We must also use the powers that we have now and powers that I hope we will have to restrict and stop the proliferation not only of nuclear machinery but of the broader military-industrial complex, the two are related. As a priority, I think that we should stop the preferential government support for Raytheon, BAE systems and other dealers in death. We can see in Yemen the damage Britain, including Scotland, continues to do in the world through support for arms manufacture, and we need to use all peaceful avenues open to us to prevent the UK Government from renewing its huge financial support for Trident and other nuclear weapons. We can and must be a force for good in the world. We can be peacebuilders, we can be peacemakers and we can say that we will never again use indiscriminate weapons of mass murder. I now call on Minister Ashrygan to respond to the debate up to seven minutes. I thank Bill Kidd for raising the debate in Parliament today and to express my appreciation to him and to the work of the wider cross-party working group on nuclear assignment for their commitment and for their work on this important issue. Also for his powerful speech that he gave to the chamber this afternoon, there were thoughtful contributions from right across the chamber from Ruth Maguire, Jamie Greene, Bob Doris among others. I would like to say that it is very good to see Ruth Maguire back here in the chamber this week. The Scottish Government is firmly opposed to the possession, the threat and use of nuclear weapons. We are committed to pursuing the safe and complete withdrawal of all nuclear weapons from Scotland and have called repeatedly on the UK Government to cancel its plans for the Dreadnaught programme. Nuclear weapons are morally wrong—that was a point made by a number of contributions this afternoon—strategically wrong and economically wrong, a point that was raised by Bob Doris and his contribution. They are indiscriminate and devastating in their impacts and their use would bring unspeakable humanitarian suffering and widespread environmental damage. Nuclear weapons are obsolete, dangerous and impractical weapons, and yet, last year, the UK Government broke its commitment to the international community by increasing the nuclear weapon stockpile to no more than 260 warheads. That is a 40 per cent increase from its 2010 commitment of no more than 180 warheads. That move is completely at odds with article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty, which the UK Government is, of course, a signatory. Two independent defence experts from the London School of Economics also concluded that the UK's increase of warheads constitutes a breach of article 6. Nuclear weapons do not provide a meaningful deterrent to many of the modern-day threats, such as terrorist attacks, nor have they proved to be a deterrent to other nuclear armed states carrying out atrocious acts on British soil. Rather than making repeated and damaging cuts to conventional military forces and capabilities, the UK Government would do better to use the £41 billion at its spending on replacing trident to invest in modern warfare capabilities that are relevant to today's threats. The Scottish Government supports the objectives of the international treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons and the non-proliferation treaty. We recognise the important role that the international community has in collectively creating the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons. The three pillars of the non-proliferation treaty, non-proliferation disarmament and the peaceful use of nuclear energy provide the international community with a balanced and a step-by-step framework for disarmament, and we will follow the outcomes from both the treaty conferences carefully to help further our own thinking on the nuclear debate. Of course. Jamie Greene Can I ask a good book going back to my concept of theory and practice? If theoretically every signatory to the treaty got rid of all the nuclear weapons, the countries that are not party to the treaty, who have not signed up to disarmament, but still hold weapons or have ambitions to, how would the world deal with them? The member raises a very important point. As I said, that is the way that we need to look at those things and that is why the Scottish Government is going to watch very carefully the outcomes from these treaty conferences to develop our own thinking on this further. Turning to transportation of defence nuclear material, the responsibility for the transportation of nuclear warheads lies with the Ministry of Defence. The Scottish Government, however, expects that transportation to be carried out safely and securely and has made this expectation clear to the UK Government. As the lead Government department for the response to a defence nuclear emergency, the Ministry of Defence organises regular training and exercises in respect of its emergency response planning and arrangements. Scotland's emergency responders participate in that as appropriate. Although there has never been a defence nuclear transport incident posing a radiation hazard, I can well understand public concern about these convoys. I would like to take the opportunity today to stress that the Scottish Government takes this matter very seriously indeed. There is significant resilience planning in place. Members may wish to note that Scotland's three regional resilience partnerships, including the local authorities, led by Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Services, and supported by Scottish Government resilience co-ordinator teams, undertake a risk and preparedness assessment process on a regular basis. The resilience register is maintained on an on-going basis. That enables the resilience partnerships to identify and to assess the main risks that are relevant to their region and to determine how prepared they are to deal with the consequences of those risks. To support that, the Scottish Government has published a range of guidance for the resilience partnerships to assess the risks relevant to their region and to determine how prepared they are to deal with those and the consequences of those risks. The MOD has provided assurance that the routes adopted are carefully selected and part of a rigorous risk assessment process and are regularly reassessed for their continued suitability. The MOD has also provided assurance that operational planning takes into account other factors such as road and weather conditions. There are well-established resilience structures in place to manage consequences of any emergency. Those structures have been and continue to be tested and proven both by exercises and by real events. I thank the minister for taking a brief intervention. Having seen the details of those risk assessments, I wonder if she personally feels that it is ever an acceptable level of risk to have those weapons travelling through our major cities and roads at any time, but perhaps particularly when we are in a pandemic and our emergency services are already stretched. The member raises a very understandable point, and I completely understand the public concern about the level of risk that this poses to communities in Scotland. The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service has put plans in place and made pragmatic preparations to deal with incidents involving nuclear defence material, including convoys of such material. Similarly, Police Scotland can give assurance that up-to-date plans are in place to deal with all major incidents, including nuclear incidents, and its procedures relating to defence nuclear material are current. Its resilience staff liaise regularly with the Minister of Defence Police on a range of matters, including the above. As I said at the outset, the Scottish Government believes that nuclear weapons are immoral, illegal and a huge waste of money. We wish to see the Trident replacement programme scrapped and the billions of pounds of taxpayers' money put to better use. We have called on the UK Government to do that. The Scottish Government supports the objectives of the international treaties on nuclear weapons and will work with partners to make an independent Scotland a nation that is free of nuclear weapons.