 y gweithio, mae y cyddwyr yn eu hwyl cyllidol i'r gweithio yn стilidol. Tofod dweud yn ddechylio. Dw i'n ddim yn yr iawn y dyma wedi credu, paeth oes wedi bod yn gyfer cyhoeddwyr i'ch llawg yw cyfriforol, ond y dweud i'r wych i'r Omor sydd yn ddechrau, ond y dweud yn gyfer cyhoeddwyr i'r gweithio i'r wych i'r wych i'r wych i'r cyfriforol ac ond rychwm gwlad hynny i'r gyfer effort o'r cyfriforol iddod. The Scottish Parliament, as you will know, has debated the matter of nuclear weapons on a number of occasions over recent years. In light of the importance of this issue to the people of Scotland, both morally and economically, it is both right and proper that we do so. We start by refuting the claims of others that we should not be discussing this issue. Some people say that it is a reserved issue. Unfortunately, we have the dubious honour of having the dubious honour reserved to us if we have to host those nuclear weapons in our waters. It is also vitally important to our economy of public finances and many other aspects of public policy in Scotland. The Scottish Government has sought a further debate at this time for a number of important reasons. First, further analysis on the renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons system suggests a dramatic increase in estimates on the total potential cost to the UK Government's proposed successor programme. Secondly, there is speculation and the potential that the UK Government may be considering bringing forward the main gate investment decision to take place 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 the replacement of Trident, while it is implementing welfare cuts that are impacting on the most vulnerable people in our society. The first argument in our view against nuclear weapons is the moral one, the idea that those are weapons of not just mass destruction but indiscriminate destruction. However, I want to turn first of all on the arguments against renew Trident to the cost of Trident. Many members will have seen the recent report of analysis by the office of Crispin Blunt MP, the chair of the House of Commons foreign affairs select committee, which estimates the total cost of the Trident union programme at £167 billion over its lifetime. That is a massive increase on previous estimates of around £100 billion. It is telling that, in announcing this figure, Mr Blunt has also said that the successor Trident programme is going to consume more than double the proportion of the defence budget of its predecessor, and that the price required both from the UK taxpayer and our conventional forces is now too high to be rational or sensible. The price—this is a Conservative MP—is too high to be rational or sensible. It is not often that I find myself quoting a Conservative MP on the issue of nuclear weapons, although, for the record, I should perhaps be 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 £167 billion. I suppose that the question for those who still support buying nuclear weapons at this cost is, at what price do they say that it is too expensive? Is there any price that those who support buying a new Trident nuclear system say that it is actually too much money? Obviously, that is true for a number of Conservatives, a number of previous former secretaries of the state for defence, a number of retired senior military personnel, but at what point does some of those in this chamber who contains his support say that the price is too high? We would, of course, aid the public and our understanding of the impact of Trident nuclear weapons on conventional defence and on wider public spending if the UK Government publishes its own figures on both the total and the annual cost of its nuclear weapons system. Unfortunately, it does not do that. Indeed, in giving evidence to the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee on 14 October 2015, John Thomson, the permanent undersecretary at the MOD, is reported to have described the project to replace Trident as a monster, and added that it would be extremely difficult to estimate what the future costs of that programme would be. Yet the UK Government remains enthralled to nuclear weapons and it appears fixed on writing a blank cheque for their renewal. It seems to do so without clarity or debate on the implications of that decision, whether for conventional defence forces and equipment to offer wider public spending. To inform our debate today, I would like to set out the latest estimate on 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, or to put this another way at current prices, the equivalent of around 10 force replacement crossing projects. Whatever the final bill for the next generation of Trident might be, Scotland's population share of the current annual running costs alone is estimated to be at least £125 million and potentially much more. 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 the renewal of Trident would have consequences for other areas of defence and security. In 2013, Professor Malcolm Chalmers of Rousseau wrote that sharp increases in spending on Trident renewal in the early 2020s seemed set to mean further years of austerity for conventional equipment plans. In 2014, the Trident commission said that 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 its continued presence maintains the threat that other countries may seek to acquire them. At no point have I seen, nor would I expect ever to see, a conceivable scenario under which it would be acceptable for the UK to use its nuclear weapons. Its strategic purpose was designed for the Cold War, and it has no relevance to deter the threats that we face today. Indeed, we note that many others who have voiced similar views on the relevance of Trident to our national security, such as Hans Blix, who said that, I do not think that Britain will be more protected by Trident, and Germany and Japan seem to be managing without them. In 2012, former Secretary of State for Defence Michael Portillo called Trident completely passed its sell-by-date, a waste of money and no deterrent for the Taliban. And in 2012, the Centre Forum said that 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 SNP and the Scottish Parliament. Those are ex-Securys of State for Defence, and I could add others, such as Des Brown. Those are sometimes Conservatives who 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 whilst at the same time introducing massive cuts to welfare. The UK Government has announced welfare cuts of £12 billion per annum by 2019-20. Around £1 billion of that impacts directly in Scotland. I agree with him on that point, but can he confirm that it is his party's policy that the money that would be saved would be spent on defence and defence only? We have previously mentioned, for example, the relation to the impact of the Trident programme on conventional defence spending. I think that that would help if we were not spending his money on Trident. We do not spend any money on defence just now, as the member will know. That previous statement was about defence equipment spending for conventional defence in the case of an independent Scotland. There are many other purposes to which this money could be used. Of course, that depends on decisions of future governments. That is how those things tend to be agreed. However, as we say, around £1 billion of the £12 billion per annum that is cut by the UK Government impacts directly on Scotland. It seems to me to put the priorities of the UK Government into quite a sharp focus. On the one hand, they seem to tend to commit future billions of taxpayers' money into a nuclear weapons system that can never be used. On the other hand, they remove and reduce by billions many of the benefits on which those who are most in need currently rely. Let us be absolutely clear about Trident. Those are weapons of mass destruction. They are indiscriminate. They kill and destroy everything in their path. Their use would bring untold humanitarian suffering and environmental damage with the effects being felt across the world. It is not the case that you can have a surgical strike with a nuclear weapon. It would be the case that you would take out entire civilisations if you were to use some of the weapons that are currently available. I have noted in a previous debate and feel that it is worth repeating here that the comments of the former Secretary of State for Defence, Des Brown, illustrative in this regard, he said that even a small-scale nuclear exchange would affect at least a billion people and usher in colder temperatures than at any time in the past millennium. I could mention some of the amendments that have been proposed in relation to the debate. I do not propose to accept either the Conservative amendment, which of course seeks to continue spending even up to £167 billion on nuclear weapons nor, indeed, the Green independent amendment. I do propose to accept the Labour amendment, and I do so because it is very important that this chamber speaks as strongly as possible on this issue. In the last few days, we have heard a number of people saying that Scotland's voice in this does not matter. It is irrelevant that we should not even be discussing these things in the first place. There is the possibility of a very early decision in relation to this and there is no question as to who will take the decision in the end, and that will be the UK Government, currently a Conservative Government. In that context, it is very important that this chamber speaks as loudly as possible in relation to the way that it feels about this expenditure on nuclear weapons. For that reason, despite some misgivings about the Labour amendment that I do propose to accept the amendment, chief among my misgivings is the fact that, for whatever reason, it seeks to knock out the reference to the implications for welfare spending in Scotland. However, it does quite rightly highlight the issue of those who are currently employed in the industry. It raises the issue of diversification. I have spoken about diversification in each of the debates that I have spoken in in relation to Trident over now a number of years. I have spoken with those in the trade union movement and in the Labour Party, indeed, about the need for diversification of those currently employed. It is my view that we have missed huge opportunities in the past. If people think about 1990, the fall of the iron curtain, when everyone talked about the peace dividend—we never saw that peace dividend—we should have done that. That was the time to downscale it in terms of defence spending and upscale it in terms of the amount that we spent on people to make sure that they were gamefully employed if they had lost their jobs in that industry. I hope that the Labour Party will recognise that. I have some reservations about their amendments, but I propose to accept them. I do so because, as I say, it is really important that we speak with one voice in this. I would also hope that, if we are able to pass this motion with their amendment at the end of the day, that this will not be the end, but the start of a process of campaigning to make sure that this abomination, in terms of £167 billion being spent on ever more powerful nuclear weapons, is something that we can jointly campaign to try to change the mind by whatever means of the UK Government. Finally, others in the chamber may have noted, like me, a report last month in the telegraph that suggested that a vote on the future of the trident could be held in the UK Parliament before the end of the year. That is something that could happen very shortly in the next few weeks, but the Scottish Government believes that that decision provides an opportunity as well for the UK Government and for the UK Parliament to rethink their posture on nuclear weapons, a stance that has not changed for almost 50 years. I think that it is interesting to look at the Conservative amendment, how much there seems to be some free thinking going on within certain sectors of the Conservative Party south of the border, but how slavishly adherent the Conservative Party in this chamber is to the idea of more and more and more expensive nuclear weapons, and I hope that that will change as a result of this debate. In order to change that mind, we believe that the UK Government must be more transparent on the costs and consequences of spending on trident. Perhaps if more Tory-backed benches were aware of the costs, if the Government was more open in terms of the costs and the consequences of spending on trident, even before this latest increase, one-third of the RAF, the navy and the army's capital budget was to be spent on nuclear weapons. That is before it went up to £167 million. There is a quote that I could tell you from the Pentagon saying that Britain cannot be both a nuclear power and an effective defence partner. It cannot be both at the same time. It has to be one or the other. They say that because they have run the numbers. They know probably better than we do what trident is going to cross, given the control that it will continue to exert over trident. I would ask the Conservatives—it may be a forlorn hope—to think about the consequences of spending that amount of the defence budget on nuclear weapons. Finally, we would therefore call on the UK Government to explore and debate the opportunities that a change in their nuclear weapons stands could provide to other areas of defence and public spending and for taking forward their commitment to nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. I look forward to today's debate and move the motion in my name. Thank you, minister. Before I call Claire Baker to open for the Labour Party, can I say this? We are four and a half years into this term. For three and a half years of this term, we have had follow-on debates, which means that, when business finishes, we start on the next item of business. Everybody should be aware of that. There are three backbench members who came in late after the minister spoke. The prominent place that you had in that debate you no longer have is at the end of the speaker's list. I also say that there are two frontbenchers who are summing up in the debate, who also came in late. It is not acceptable behaviour in future. I will take stronger action by precluding you from speaking at all, Claire Baker. I suspect that today's debate was scheduled with other events of the weekend in mind, but I am happy to open this debate for Scottish Labour today. Labour has debated many issues at our conference at the weekend. We spoke about college places, the restoration of the 50p tax rate, restoring the unacceptable cuts to the working family's tax credit, but this is the Scottish Government's choice of debate today. Given its record on some of the issues, it is not surprised that it has chosen the policy that we now seem to be in agreement over. Renewal of Trident is an important issue. I accept that there are a range of views within the chamber, but ultimately I believe that there is more that can unite us than can divide us. The Labour Party has always been a broad church, and I believe that that is something to be proud of. A healthy political party sustains debate, and a democratic party accepts the outcome of it. The issue of Trident renewal has been an active debate within the party for a number of years, and many members of CND over the years have found within the Labour Party a home, and they have argued their cause. The debate on Sunday at the Scottish Labour Conference was the Labour Party at its best. Kezia Dugdale's decision to introduce a member's day, where members and affiliates decided the debates that would take place, and then take a vote on those motions was a positive move for the conference, one that showed a mature party and a party that supports the discussion of a wide policy agenda. Party members delivered thoughtful, incisive and constructive speeches, and we listened respectively to one-other's views. It was fantastic to see lots of new members address the conference, not just on Sunday, but across the whole weekend. Healthy political parties enable discussion on their positions, allow the debate, and are prepared to reflect that position. I have always said that the debate on Trident is complex, and I outlined the arguments for and against a few weeks back in a member's debate, which the cabinet secretary also spoke in. Although there are a number of amendments for today's debate, I respect the views and arguments of other MSPs and their parties. For Scottish Labour on Sunday, the arguments opposing the renewal of Trident won the day because it presented a strong case for Trident renewal being the wrong choice at the wrong time. Beyond that, there was also a strong, fundamental argument against nuclear weapons. Those are weapons that, if used, would cause unimaginable destruction and death. There can be no justification for deploying them. The risk to humanity that those weapons pose and the belief that no democratic country would actually use them within the modern world calls into question the necessity of nuclear weapons and nuclear capability. There is also ongoing uncertainty over the costs of Trident. At a time of severe financial constraints, the project would cost billions of pounds over its lifetime. However, although the SNP has spent this money multiple times over on different promises, we have to recognise that cancelling renewal of Trident will have direct consequences on a British workforce, an issue that I will go on to discuss in more detail. In arguing for halting Trident renewal, we also need to consider the political and global reality of the world that we now live in. We are living in very different times from the days of the Cold War. We are arguably living in much more complex times. No one would deny that Britain and Scotland need strong defence forces, but the question so often asked is Trident part of the future. The immediate threat no longer comes from big nation states having a very public and clearly defined stand-off but is increasingly from terrorism, which is targeted and hidden. What does our country's nuclear capacity mean to a group that is attacking with no government, no country, no 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 that we live in uncertain times, but can the future threat for the UK really come, really be addressed by nuclear weapons? International diplomacy is about reducing nuclear weapons and discouraging other countries not to develop their capability. We have made progress and when in government the UK Labour Party reduced nuclear weapons whilst playing a significant role internationally, the United Kingdom has signed up to gradual disarmament and negotiated it in line with other nuclear nations. We should recognise that the steps that have been taken and the position that we are in now compared to 10 or 20 years ago, since, if it is brief, please? Just to ask. As clear makers covering where we are now, if the UK Labour Party was elected to office in the UK, would Labour now renew nuclear weapons? Yes or no? The member will know that Jeremy Corbyn, as the leader, has said that we were having a review of defence. As I said at the beginning, the Labour Party is a broad church and I am not going to hide from that, but the weekend, Kezia Dugdale made the decision that we would have the debate in Scotland and we have a clear position going into today's debate. Since 1998, the UK has seen all of our air-delivered nuclear weapons withdrawn and dismantled and from our cold war peak we have seen a reduction of our nuclear forces by well over 50 per cent. That is to be welcomed. However, a decision to not proceed with renewal trident gives impetus to our commitment to the non-nuclear proliferation treaty and grasps the opportunity to go further. However, a decision to cancel renewal of trident is not without significant consequences for the workforce and the communities that rely on those jobs. It would be unfair to that workforce and those families to deny the reality of the challenges they would face. I grew up in Fife and I know the impact of a key industry disappearing from the economic landscape of a region. We cannot underestimate what cancellation would mean for the communities of Fas Lane and Colport. What was also clear during the debate at Labour Party conference was the importance of committing to a strong defence diversification strategy. There are thousands of trident-related jobs in our defence sector in Scotland with more jobs at stake throughout the rest of the UK. Those are workers who are highly skilled in mechanical, engineering and scientific disciplines. It is vital that those skills are not lost as they are important to those individuals and to our economy. I looked back at the most recent debate that we had on trident. I thought that Jean Urquhart made important points then about jobs and was right to press the cabinet secretary on that issue. She said that the debate over jobs at Fas Lane is a serious one and it inhibits the argument for getting rid of trident. Could we start planning now rather than making the mistake of arguing about whether we are going to spend the money on nursing and public services or improving traditional forces? Our legitimacy in the concerns that the defence diversification is difficult and has not always delivered as much as has been aimed for in the past. That is why we are proposing establishing diverse diversification agencies at UK and Scottish levels. I believe that the challenges for the area and the industries that are affected will be significant and a task force or a regional response would not be sufficient. We must ensure that that skilled and experienced workforce continues to make a significant contribution to our economy whether inside or outside the defence sector. We root of our responsibility to these workers and we should support the trade unions in seeking assurances around employment. Our amendment today is aiming to be helpful and expanding the debate to the reality of what the decision would mean for these communities. I welcome the cabinet secretary's indication that the SNP will support an amendment at the voting today. As always in such a debate, it is important to realise that the vast majority of people are hoping for the same outcome. All we are disagreeing with is the means to getting there. There is a deep-seated desire to see the end of nuclear weapons both inside and outside of the Labour Party. While disagreements may arise regarding the pace and the scale of disornment, it is wise to remember that we are all reaching for the same goal. That is one reason why the Conservative motion today is disappointing. I feel that it is unfair to claim that those who support the union of tried and are the only ones who are willing to stand up and defend our country. That argument does a disservice to all who are involved. It is an accusation that we would not level at countries such as Australia, Canada or other European nations who have a defence system but do not have nuclear weapons. That should not then be levelled at those who are against the renewal of Trident in Britain. Opposing the renewal of Trident is not an immediate threat to our national security. Indeed, if we want to defend our country, there is a strong argument that it would be wiser to invest in equipment that fits us out for the threats that we face in the future. Equipment more suited to emerging technologies rather than spending billions on missiles we all hope will never be fired. That is why, in our amendment, we call for defence diversification and we highlight the need to continue to deliver a UK defence sector that is equipped to deal with the world and the potential threats of the future. I grew up during the 1970s and the 1980s. I can remember my first visit to London was to take part in a CND rally, attended by more than 300,000 people and ending in Hyde Park. That was my first real political act and decision and it was a cause that I was very passionate about. I was the youngest on an overnight bus travelling down from Fife and it was full of Labour party members, including Alec Faultner, our previous MEP, Communist party members, political activists and my family. That year in London, there was a huge show of support for the public's rejection of the nuclear arms race. That movement of ordinary men and women was important then in changing the terms of the public debate. The subsequent global reduction in nuclear capacity and the focus on diplomacy and international negotiation did make progress. Scottish Labour has a clear position opposing the rule of trident and will work with others to achieve that. I move the amendment in my name. I now call on John Lamont to speak to and move amendment 146, 8.1. Mr Lamont, six minutes please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I stand up today to defend what the SNP benches would have you believe is the indefensible. Anyone who advocates the retention or replacement of nuclear weapons at Fas Lane, according to the Scottish Government, is immoral, war-crazed or trigger happy. Even worse, anyone who supports the retention of trident is opposed to welfare, opposed to ending poverty, opposed to giving our children the best start in life. The motion that we are debating today suggests that we have to choose between trident and welfare between nuclear bombs and supporting vulnerable people. This is a false choice. My party supports the retention of trident, because we are the party of responsibility. The first responsibility of any Government is the defence and security of its people. That is why the UK Government and all previous UK Governments of all political colours over the past six decades have retained an operational, independent nuclear deterrent, but that does not mean that I do not also support welfare. To present this debate as a straight choice between protecting our country, the United Kingdom and providing support for vulnerable people as the SNP is trying to do is simplistic, cynical and an insult to the majority of Scots. I will give way to the minister. Can I ask John Lamont, as a good Conservative, at what point would nuclear weapons, a model as they are, become too expensive for even him? The effect and benefit of having nuclear deterrent cannot be quantified in terms of cost. It is something that our country needs to have to provide the deterrent and to provide the protection to our people that we have provided in the past and what we should continue in the future. Despite constantly claiming to stand up for Scotland, voters do not agree with the SNP on that issue. Poll after poll shows that more people favour the retention of the nuclear deterrent. The latest found that 53 per cent support the retention of nuclear weapons and only 37 per cent saying that the UK should give it up completely. Is it now the SNP's position that those Scots who support the retention of nuclear weapons do not care for vulnerable people? The motion makes reference to the cost of replacing the nuclear deterrent. Even if the lifetime cost of replacing the nuclear deterrent is £167 billion over 32 years, that is still only 6 per cent of the annual defence budget, and the defence budget accounts for only 5 per cent of UK public spending. Over the same period, spending on welfare is likely to be around £7,000 billion, with welfare accounting for 29 per cent of UK public spending. With the SNP's own benchmark of how much money is spent on something, the UK Government is certainly choosing welfare over welfare. That is only the start of the SNP's misdirection over the issue. The SNP has a fantasy shopping list to spend all the savings from scrapping trident, and here are just a few of the examples. The First Minister wants to spend it all on extra nurses, teachers, schools and hospitals, then spend it again, this time tackling child poverty and increasing the welfare budget. Alex Salmond wants to spend it on our colleges, presumably to reinstate some of the 150,000 part-time places that SNP has slashed. In this Parliament, the money has been earmarked by Christine Grahame and Joe McAlpine for job creation, by Alex Neil for health and education, by Christina McKelvie for nurses and teachers, by Bill Kidd for welfare, by George Adam for school building and by Kenny Gibson for further defence spending. The truth is, Scrapping Trident will not save anywhere near as much as what the SNP claims. For a start, a £167 billion figure stated in the Scottish Government's motion is not based on any consideration of the actual cost of replacing trident. It is calculated by presuming that spending on defence will be maintained at 2 per cent of GDP, and presuming that spending on trident will be 6 per cent of that, which is the current figure. It is not dependent not so much on the cost of replacing the nuclear deterrent, but on economic growth and defence spending elsewhere. It is wrong to think that the cost of trident will rise simply because the UK's economy grows or defence spending continues to increase. The reality is that we do not currently know the cost of replacement because the research and development work into the new system has yet to be completed. We all want a world without nuclear weapons, but the SNP has failed to explain how unilateral disarmament, much less just kicking trident down the road to England, would achieve that. What evidence is there that if we get rid of our nuclear weapons, others will get rid of theirs? Would the French give up their nuclear weapons? Would the Russians, with a rogue state, halt their efforts to obtain nuclear warheads simply because the SNP got their way? The truth is that by unilaterally getting rid of our nuclear deterrent, the UK's national security would be severely damaged, and other states may even be encouraged to acquire their own nuclear weapons as a consequence. With the SNP using trident as a cynical political football, the Labour Party cannot decide what its position on trident is. The pro-trident Scottish leader is not backed by her party, and the anti-trident UK leader was not allowed to debate the issue at the UK Labour Party conference. The SNP's position on trident is cynical. The Labour Party's motion is simply muddled. I move the amendments in my name. I now call on John Wilson to speak to and move amendment 14681.2. Mr Wilson, six minutes please. First, I would like to thank the cabinet secretary for bringing this debate to the chamber today. Trident and the future of nuclear weapons in this country is an important and controversial topic. Five weeks ago, we discussed the UK Government plan to refurbish Fazlain naval base, and three refurbishments costs were an estimated £500 million. I also welcome the decision by the membership of the Scottish Labour Party, who at the weekend voted to oppose renewing trident, although whether the top brass of the Scottish Labour Party have the ability or guile to go against their national party is yet to be seen. The UK Government plan to cut tax credits for some of Scotland and the UK's hardest-working and lowest-paid families. Those cuts will cost an estimated £3 million over £1,200 a year. In the same breath, that UK Government claims that it cannot continue to support those families on low incomes, that the budget must be balanced and that public spending must be reined in. It commit to spending billions of pounds of public money on a nuclear weapons system that simply serves to make the UK less equal, secure and safe. Those who support the renewal of trident consistently claim that trident and the refurbishment of Fazlain is necessary to secure jobs in the area and to protect our society. My amendment today calls on the Scottish Government to support a funded jobs transition programme that would assist workers at Fazlain in finding new work, utilising their engineering and other key skills to create a better, fairer, greener Scotland. However, unless the UK Government or an independent Scottish Government agrees to declare their waters a nuclear-free zone, that is all academic. Any decision by the UK Government or an independent Scottish Government to remove trident and nuclear weapons from Fazlain and Scottish waters is toothless. As long as we continue to allow NATO and its associated countries to house their nuclear weapons on our shores, we will continue to be in danger of those means of mass destruction. On 19 September, the Daily Record reported that an American nuclear submarine capable of launching 24 ballistic missiles docked in Fazlain. Of the week of 8 October, a NATO military exercise—the largest military exercise in over a decade—took place off the shores of Scotland. Those exercises include jamming GPS signals used by fishermen and sea trawlers. The fact of the matter is that, as long as the UK or an independent Scottish Government remains part of NATO, it will continue to be required to support directly and indirectly nuclear weapons systems being used and docked in and around Scotland. The reality of the matter is that NATO alliance is a cold war relic and is not suited to the realities of modern day security threats. Nuclear missiles are indiscriminate weapons of mass murder. They have the potential to level cities, create destruction and destroy humanity on a scale that we cannot even imagine. It is time that Scotland stops supporting nuclear weapons both at home and abroad. We must spend our public money helping people not harming them. The Edinburgh conversations during the cold war helped to thaw tensions and reduce the military threat from both sides of the conflict. Scotland can build on this legacy and become a diplomatic, non-violent and anti-nuclear weapons country. Scotland can and should work with other nations in the EU and North Africa to establish mutually beneficial defence agreements based on mutual co-operation and human security. The security of all humanity is of the utmost importance. Nuclear weapons are one of the most controversial moral and ethical questions of our time. We must be serious about the need for disarmament. We must be mindful of what we as a nation are trying to achieve and how we want to present ourselves to the world. We must move away from indiscriminate weapons of mass slaughter and destruction. We must remove them from our shores and from public spending. If we are serious about creating not just a fairer Scotland but a fairer world, one that can lead individuals out of poverty and create a higher standard of living for all, then we must lead the way. We can set an example as a nation that rejects the idea that nation-states must spend vast amounts of money on weapons of mass destruction to secure the safety and future of any given nation. Scotland, through diplomacy and disarmament, can protect itself and contribute to global peace. I urge all those who are opposed to tried nuclear weapons and the continued aggressive nuclear proliferation to support this amendment, only by removing nuclear weapons and removing ourselves from membership of NATO, can we truly disengage from the nuclear arms industry and show an alternative future, an alternative non-nuclear future, for Scotland and the rest of the world. I take great pleasure in moving this amendment in my name on behalf of the green and independent group in the Scottish Parliament. Thank you. Many thanks. We now move to open debate speakers and at six-minute speeches tight for time today, so up to six minutes call on Christina McKelvie to be followed by Neil Findlay. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Burns not bombs, welfare not warfare, they're handy catch phrases that can help focus people's minds behind a concept. Like headlines in a newspaper, they can almost become part of the language so that we have an instant recognition factor. It's also a useful shorthand for an enormous issue of our time. At Fass Lane, we have the lethal capacity to wipe out half the world. Each Trident Missile has a range of 7,500 miles. The UK deploys 16 Trident Missiles on each of its four Vanguard-class submarines, of which one is on patrol at all times. The destructive power of one Trident Missile is estimated as the equivalent of eight Hiroshima bombs. Presiding Officer, I first joined CND at the age of 15. It was so obvious to me that the world neither needed nor wanted this level of destructive power. We have created a monster that stalks our world, growing ever more powerful and more threatening. Apparently, the cost of this huge enterprise is of no consequence to some consequences. The member is going through some statistics, which he cared to tell us what the only country ever to give up its nuclear deterrent unilaterally was and what happened to that country within a few years. I would rather talk about what we would spend £160 billion on in this place, in this country. Apparently, the cost, as I said, is a huge enterprise of no consequence to some, and that's just been proved. We now understand that the son of Trident could come in at not £100 billion, not £120 billion, but an eye watering £167 billion. Unlike the cost of meeting social need in our communities, the cost and the destruction of human quality of life, where a mere £30 billion—it's a problem that I've got, I've always mixed up my billions and my millions—could at least restore some kind of justice, it is just fine to spend a total of £167 billion to achieve what? The destruction of half the world? Presiding Officer, the skills behind the fantastic technology, the precision engineering, the complexities of a Trident missile would, in my view, be better applied in other places. What would an MOD official or a Tory Lord or even some MPs understand about the struggles of a disabled father-of-two who takes his own life after a work capability assessment? The MOD paid out nearly £41,000 in data roman charges for one single mobile phone last year. That equates roughly to the cost of maintaining benefits for perhaps four or five people who are unable to work because they are chronically sick, disabled or have been made redundant. I would suggest that the MOD cuts its phone bills and not this country's social security bills. It's heartening that Labour members have voted so emphatically against renewing Trident. The action has no doubt also raised members' awareness of how frustrating it is to take a view that could be overturned elsewhere. As we in the SNP-led Government in Scotland are reminded, pretty much daily, our actions are very constrained. We want to develop a safer, fairer, better social security system that protects the most vulnerable, but we aren't allowed to, at least for the moment. Labour's Scottish members may have experienced a parallel feeling when they were informed pretty sharply by the shadow defence secretary that, since defence isn't devolved, the Labour policy wouldn't be changing from supporting the renewal of Trident. I would urge my colleagues on the Labour benches to stick to their principles. We would be foolish and irresponsible if we ignored the reality that the financial resources available to the Scottish Government are under the control of Westminster. As the cuts continue to bite even more viciously, our budgets will be cut as well. The Scotland bill may allow us some control over how we spend our revenue, but it is not going to fundamentally change the fact that we can only make changes around the periphery. We cannot redesign a social security system so that it better meets the needs of our system any more than we can decide to renew Trident. We do not have the power to do neither, and the Scotland bill today has just confirmed that. The Chancellor of Exchequer announced in August an additional £500 million to be spent on ensuring the continuation of nuclear base at Faslane for the next generation of nuclear weapons. Alongside the projected £167 billion of running costs, we are watching the destruction of so many lives here and now in our communities. John Lamont cannot sit on the welfare reform committee with me every Tuesday morning and not to see that. This is money that could run our struggling NHS in Scotland for the next 10 or more years. £100 billion could pay the wages of 70,000 nurses or 60,000 primary schools. Yes, Mr Lamont, I am still rooting for nurses and teachers. It strikes me as a very distorted view of what that UK Government sees as appropriate to spend these billions, while those who are sick, disabled, the young and pensioners in constituencies such as mine and Hamilton Larkon Stonehouse are literally having the food snatched from their tables. Trident renewal is not only about the huge cost. Just as important as a moral price or rather the price of immorality, because the very presence of weapons of mass destruction on our shores, on any shores in the UK, is an affront to any notion of behaving in a moral and ethical way. Aggression is a fact of life, Presiding Officer. We are seeing hundreds of thousands of people trying to escape. We see the consequences of extremist religious groups like Desh. What are we going to do? Are we going to send a nuclear bomb to blow them up? No, we should be using diplomacy and we should be using the £160 billion to support our people not buy bombs. At the weekend, the Scottish Labour conference voted overwhelmingly to oppose the renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons system. I am very proud of my party and my leader in Scotland for opening up our party and our conference to a member-led, open and democratic debate. I would recommend that to other parties in the Parliament. It is a very good thing, not news, says Mr Mackay. I will crack the jokes if you do not mind. Mr Finlay has got the floor. It showed us at our best. Just like the SNP, we will use our position and seek to influence the UK Government, but we will also seek to influence the UK Labour Party's policy review of Trident renewal. Of course that is what politics is all about. It is about debating the big issues of the day. It is about hearing counterarguments. It is about trying to influence people and winning them over to your position by the strength of that position. I am grateful to the member for giving way. I warmly congratulate Mr Finlay and his colleagues for the strong decision that was taken at their conference at the weekend. Over the past couple of years, I have heard some Labour members criticise the SNP on grounds that getting rid of Trident while remaining inside the NATO nuclear umbrella is not a consistent position. That seems to me a fair criticism. What is the member's view of it? We know Mr Harvie's position on that, and the Labour Party does not take that position at the moment. That is me answering you straight, Mr Harvie. That is where we are at this stage. However, for the growing number of us who are opposed to Trident renewal, it is our task to influence others. We now have the two biggest parties in Scotland who are opposed to Trident renewal, the Green Party who are opposed, as are the three independent members of this Parliament. That is real progress, and it is a huge boost to the campaign to get rid of Trident. The political task now for us all on this side of the argument is to convince others. I want the Liberals in general to join us in the campaign. As a socialist, I am always an optimist. I even want the Tories to join us in opposition to renewal, but maybe that stretches my optimism a bit far. However, I will try, because some are coming to that position. However, we do not do that through moral indignation or superiority. The argument will be won when we are able to address concerns of people head-on and when we are able to reassure the worried whether they will be workers on the Clyde business owners around fast-laner people, worried about the country's defences, that we have all the answers to their fears. I thank the member to take an intervention. I like to congratulate all the members, the Labour Party members in Scotland, for taking the decision that we took over the weekend. Could you address the fear that some might have that the debate might be won, but might be won too late, because, as a decision, we will have been taken already at Westminster? Absolutely, but we have to continue our campaign. I will stretch my hand of friendship to Mr Al Ardern. We have been in the same campaign for some time. We will continue with that. However, the arguments and the fears that those people have are there to be taken on in one. The military argument grows weaker. By the day, we see ex-generals such as Lord Bramill, General Ramsbottom and others saying that changes in international politics make trident and irrelevance not the debate over its future and irrelevance. They identify cybercrime, climate change and terrorism as the major threats to our security. There is no longer a superpower to horse race. The Cold War, thankfully, is over. As one of my colleagues on Sunday in the debate mentioned, Russian investment in the UK is at a record high. Similarly, business and financial links between the UK, China, India, Pakistan and France are all at record or near record levels. That hardly makes us one of their top military targets. The military argument is not a strong one. That is why we see people like Portillo, Nick Harvey, Nick Brown and Crispin Blunt all agree with that position militarily. The jobs argument is very important for me because in the debate, the workforce and the communities affected by trident are the key consideration. We have to give assurances to those people and the supply chain, small businesses, engineers and the fabricators that we have a real and genuine plan to create jobs, not just imaginary jobs but a guaranteed future. Surely, with £167 billion, we can do that. It is not beyond the wit of man to use that eye-watering sum of money for things that will benefit humanity, not if it were ever used to destroy it. If we think in terms of the money involved—the minister mentioned it—I think he said that £13.9 billion would be our share. Mr Lamont questioned the £167 billion figure. He might be right to question that £167 billion because it was a Tory MP who provided that figure. Let us take him at face value. If it is £13.9 billion, we can create plenty of jobs with that. If we look at how they did it in America when the bases were closing and the plan's strategic way in which they created new jobs and new infrastructure, then surely we can replicate that with the eye-watering sums of money that are on the table. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. For the last 30 years, my party has been in favour of maintaining a minimum nuclear deterrent. I should also be clear right at the start that the only reason we have not seen the main gate decision to replace Trident on a like-for-life basis already is because of the Liberal Democrats blocking it in government. That is the only reason a debate like this is possible. Both the Labour and Tories were in favour of like-for-like replacement of Trident in the 2010 manifestos. They have a majority of seats and a majority of votes between them across the UK and across Scotland, but I am proud that Liberal Democrats were able to stop the main decision being taken in government and insisted on a review that looked at other options. That is our preferred solution. Back in the 1980s, we were also against Trident replacing the Polaris system. That replacement escalated the turret above the minimum. We were told that that was to allow the missiles to penetrate Moscow's anti-ballistic missile defences. We did not believe that it was needed back then. Nobody seriously thinks that that is what is needed now. It has always astonished me that Labour and Tories thought that the Moscow destroying option was what was needed to be replaced in 2010. We support the position of a minimum deterrent. Britain needs to step down the nuclear ladder in conjunction with other NATO allies, pursue multilateral disarmament and achieve multilateral disarmament. I am sure that Colin Kear would agree that we should see disarmament across the world. Thank you for giving way. Can I ask exactly what is a minimum nuclear deterrent? What is the definition of a minimum nuclear deterrent? Why would you need a minimum nuclear deterrent? I would say that we need to minimise our deterrent across the world and minimise it into a position where we do not need nuclear deterrent whatsoever. Work to zero would be fantastic in the future. Unfortunately, that is not on the order of business today. Today's debates are about using precious Scottish Parliament time to position parties on the left before next year's elections. I do not think that this Parliament should be used as a debating society for that. Today, the Tories are again rather too enthusiastic about Trident. They need to remember that the UK is under an obligation through the non-proliferation treaty to disarm over time, and Labour, as highlighted by others, is all over the place on Trident. All parties have people of different viewpoints on nuclear weapons within them. Of course, the SNP lost three of its members to becoming independence as a result of their vote to sign up to nuclear NATO. Others such as, of course, Sandra White decided to stay. Regarding the welfare or warfare, Angus Robertson, SNP's minister-leader, last week repeated his call for Trident money to be reinvested in conventional forces. It is actually warfare or warfare, not as clear and as simplistic as SNP motion suggests today. That is disingenuous to say the best. People could be more respectful of the serious manner in which people do weigh up the matters before them. We are discussing how best to prevent both nuclear war and conventional war. Wars systems have possibly helped to prevent we are all disarmers, but unilateral action leaves Russia, US, France and more with significant nuclear capabilities and Britain outside crucial nuclear talks with no influence. It is pure tokenism for this not to be recognised and to think of Scotland in isolation and not part of the world community. Britain needs to step down the nuclear ladder in conjunction with our NATO allies. That is not an option on the table for this afternoon's debate, but in reality it is what is needed in the future, of course, multilateral disarmament. I now call on Kevin Stewart to be followed by Sarah Boyle. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I start by welcoming the stance that Scottish Labour Party delegates took at the weekend? I hope that they will be able to persuade their MPs in the House of Commons and the Shadow Defence Secretary, Maria Eagle, that Trident should not be renewed. I wish you well in that. I hope that you are successful in that, but at this moment in time it still seems to me that the vast bulk of Westminster politicians are in favour of renewal of the Trident system. Philosopher and anti-nuclear campaigner Daisaku Ahida has said that Japan learned from the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that the tragedy wrought by nuclear weapons must never be repeated and that humanity and nuclear weapons cannot coexist. I would ask if it is humane for the UK Government to contemplate spending £167 billion on new nuclear weapons when vicious cuts are being made to our social security system. Is it morally right for politicians to slash tax credits for the working poor and spend billions on new weapons of mass destruction? Where is the humanity in adhering to the wrong-headed policies of austerity while being profligate on spending £167 billion on the weaponry of Armageddon that can never be used? I will give way to Mr Finlay. John Finlay. I am grateful to Mr Stewart for giving way. Some people would consider it immoral to get rid of your own nuclear weapons but still be very happy to host other countries in every port in the land. Mr Finlay, I have to say that this is the NATO argument and I have to say that there are other NATO countries that have banned nuclear weapons from their land, their airspace and their national waters. Norway is the best example. I think that we should follow suit and do likewise. I move on to Mr Lamont's speech, which I found to be rather bizarre to say the least, because what we had there was basically a speech on nuclear weapons at any price, no matter what the cost is, to people. Indeed, it seems to me really strange that any political party would put forward proposals that would put the buying of weaponry ahead of its people, but then again the Conservatives are a very strange political party. £167,000 million would pay for almost five years of the Scottish Government budget. It would pay for 41 and three-quarter years of the additional tax credits if the Chancellor was to drop his planned £4 billion cut, or it would allow for 14 years of maintaining social security at previous levels, rather than our most vulnerable people having to deal with Osborne's £12 billion cut. I will take Mr Hume. Thank you very much. Just a point that I made earlier, I wonder if Kevin Stewart would agree with the SNP leader at Westminster, Angus Robertson, on his call that tried and money should be reinvested in conventional forces. There should be a debate about how that money is spent. Personally, I would not be spending it on conventional defences, and I would be having the debate of where it should be spent. Unfortunately, at this moment in time, we do not have the power to deal with that situation, but let me move on to our share of that £167 billion in Scotland. That would be £13,861,000 million, £13.861 billion. Scotland's share of Trident replacement costs are equivalent to more than the entire Scottish primary school estate, and one and a half times the entire Scottish secondary school estate. The cost of Trident to Scotland is more than the amount of money that we have spent to train every nurse, consultant, GP, teacher and police officer that currently works in Scotland, with £2.651 billion to spare. What could be done with this money is absolutely mind-boggling, but instead of putting teachers before Trident, nurses before nukes or bairns before bombs, we have a UK political parties that are adamant that £167 billion should be spent on weapons of mass destruction rather than on people. I return to Dhausaku Ahida and I quote, Our world continues to be threatened by more than 20,000 nuclear warheads. The capacity to kill or grievously injure all people living on earth and to destroy the global ecosystem many times is impelled to ask what it is exactly that is being protected by this unimaginable destructive capacity. I think that we should take the lead to start the process of eradication of nuclear weapons by saying no to new nuclear weapons here, by scrapping Trident and by investing in our people rather than on weapons that can never ever be used. Let's choose humanity and rid these islands of nuclear weapons. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I very much welcome the chance to speak in today's debate, especially in the light of my own party's historic debate this weekend. The issue of whether the UK should invest in a new generation of Trident submarines is both a moral and a strategic decision. Today is a chance for MSPs to highlight where we agree with each other rather than on where we disagree. It's a chance for us to work together, and the labour motion is not a delete all and insert motion. It rightly keeps the first line of the SNP Government motion about the cost of Trident, which is absolutely breathtaking. Given the choices that are facing the UK, the huge cost of a weaponry system designed that can never be used because of its immense destructive power should cause us to reflect and take a different path. My party worked hard through the last Labour Government to support moves towards nuclear disarmament and significant progress was made. For me, the debate around Trident has to focus on the strategic choices that we need to make not just to defend our own country but also to deliver peace in an increasingly uncertain and dangerous world. We need to think about global security for the 21st century, not the post-war era. I welcome the fact that the SNP will accept our amendment today, because our amendment highlights the fact that we need to plan for the future of the thousands of workers across Scotland and the UK whose jobs are linked to the Trident programme. The last few weeks, we have seen Scottish jobs falling like nine pins, with the loss of jobs in our energy industries in oil and gas, in logannate and now, potentially, our steel industry too. Social and economic justice demand that we support action to support the welfare of those workers and their communities too, and that is why our amendment calls for the creation of diverse diversification agencies in both Scotland and the rest of the UK. We need the Scottish Government to act and plan for our future now. As Clare Baker said, we cannot afford to lose those skills and knowledge, so our amendment specifically calls on the UK Government not to renew Trident. Building consensus working across parties is more important not just within our country but across other nation states as well. That is what is important about our debate today. That is how we will make progress, thinking about how we build those bridges and persuade other countries that they need to be looking towards nuclear disarmament as well, getting rid of their weaponry and choosing not to invest in it. The non-replacement of Trident is hugely important. It is the right thing to do morally and strategically, but it needs to rethink what we do. That is what was highlighted in our motion on Sunday. The world of the 21st century is in an increasingly dangerous and uncertain place. It demands we invest in peacekeeping, in solidarity and in human rights, because political instability can come from a variety of sources. As Neil Findlay mentioned, the challenge of climate change, where crops fail and food prices rocket, that can lead to changes of government. When the lack of access to water will increasingly lead to create flashpoints across the world, particularly in some of the poorest and most unstable countries. There are challenges that are posed by countries that do not respect international laws, democracy or human rights, so we need to use the power of economic power. We need to use economic sanctions where states do not respect international laws and the United Nations. Clare Baker also rightly said that we need to address the threats that are now posed through terrorism. That means that we need to invest in peacekeeping. It means that we need to play our part in global humanitarian events and it also means that we need to invest in the defence of our country, but that should not mean trident replacement. The UK is and has been an important player in the world. We have been a key nation in post-war Europe, we have been a bridge between the north and the south through the Commonwealth. The price of renewing trident is that we do not get to play our part, our full part, our potential part in leading the drive to nuclear disarmament. It means that we do not get to spend those resources on peacekeeping and defence that are so crucial to the welfare of millions of citizens across the world whose lives are damaged by conflict and we need the hardware to do that as well. Crucially, that is about planning ahead. It is about setting a new path, a path for nuclear disarmament, but it has got to be also supporting the workers in our defence industries and the wider communities that they serve. We need to consider their livelihoods too and retain their skills and knowledge. We need to invest in their welfare and in their future because it is part of our country's future too. We need to just transition and I am keen to hear from the minister on his winding-up speech about how he will now take forward our proposals for a defence diversification and agency in Scotland. That will be our path, that should be our way of playing our part in defence diversification and setting a new path. This is a really important moment for us and we need to work together. I welcome the Labour amendment today and I hope that it will be passed across the chamber this afternoon. I now call on Christine Grahame to be followed by Gina. I welcome the recent decision at Labour Party conference, the louder Scotland speaks for nuclear disarmament by a range of voices, the better. There are a few advantages to growing older, but sometimes individuals get wiser even if Governments don't. I can recall not the actual horrific bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which followed three days later, but certainly in the years thereafter, with a death toll of 140,000 in Hiroshima and some 74,000 in Nagasaki, many dying later from the effects of the fallout through the horrors of radiation. However, instead of world powers learning from this, we instead watched a steady progression of weapons of mass destruction till the present day and beyond. In 1943, an agreement was reached between Churchill and Roosevelt for a larger nuclear programme on the Manhattan Project. In 1946, collaboration ended but the UK resumed an independent UK programme to develop an atomic weapon and tested it in 1952. In the same year, the USA tested the H-Bomb. In 1958, a mutual defence agreement was signed between the USA and the UK, and that's really the foundation of where we are now in our relationship with regard to Faslain and the Trident weapons system. In 1980, the UK announced its decision to procure the Trident C4 missile system ending the Polaris era in 1996. Now, billions is to be wasted on that programme and replacement, as millions, in fact, were wasted before on previous weapons systems such as Blue Streak. In principle, I oppose nuclear weapons as I did the atomic weapons in my youth, but if I put that to one side and consider the deterrent's argument, the issue about a so-called deterrent is that you must be prepared to use it. If you bluff, you must be prepared for your bluff to be called. So I wholly support Jeremy Corbyn and admire his tenacity, which is unequivocal in saying that he would not press the button. The argument that it's only a deterrent and we would never use it is specious. Why have it if you're never going to use it? The deterrent's argument has not been made and even worse it's not made the word safer but more dangerous. But lessons must be learned not just from Hiroshima and Nagasaki but from the Cuban crisis in 1962. I was a teenager then and recall the horror that we were on the brink of a nuclear war and it was a real fear that it was to happen. The standoff between Kennedy and Khrushcheff was real and at one point it was too close to call. Headlines read, the world held its breath. Now sometimes headlines over egg, the pudding, but that was true on that day and it was a close call, I never want revisited. The argument for multilateral disarmament is lost even if it were ever valid. You cannot ask other nations to abandon their nuclear armaments while we cling to ours. It is not an argument that has any faith in it. Those horrendous weapons too are given of course deceiving names. The ballman Hiroshima was called Little Boy after Roosevelt, the one on Nagasaki Fat Boy after Churchill. But they got smarter at selling those weapons. Decades later they are given sexy glamorous names which conceal the reality. Blue steel, yellow sun, blue streak, Polaris, Trident, it sells them so much better than calling them weapons of mass destruction. Tony Blair did not need to look abroad for weapons of mass destruction. He was here all the time on Scottish soil, just close to the biggest city in Scotland at Fas Lane on the Clyde. For me, weapons of mass destruction is not just an obscene waste of billions, not just outmoded in a world where the terrorist with a bomb in his back is much more of a threat than anything else sitting next to you perhaps on the bus. But it is fundamentally immoral. They were immoral when dropped in Hiroshima and my God, they are immoral to this day. Thank you so much. I now call on Jeane Perkart to be followed by Christian Allan, six minutes or thereby. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. First of all, can I congratulate the Scottish Government? I'm delighted that they brought this debate to the chamber today. I'd like to go back to 2007 when there was unusually an open debate in the House of Commons when the less surprising decision was taken to go ahead with Trident replacement, or at least it was taken that the initial design and preparations called initial gate should go ahead. The Labour Government committed to a further debate when the time came for main gate and the commissioning of the production of the new system, and I hope that the present Government will honour that commitment and that that debate around Trident will happen in Westminster. But Presiding Officer, so much has changed since 2007. In 2008 we suffered a financial crisis. In 2010 the new coalition Government was not agreed on the Trident programme of renewables, and I think that the Liberals have voted against it in 2007, and we have the Liberals to thank, I suspect. I would agree with what we have today that we might have seen a majority, a Tory Government, approve main gate before now, and we must be glad of that delay. But now we are in a different place. The Tory Government seems keen to ignore that it has no mandate to govern in Scotland, and reserved matter or no assure 57 and possible 58 out of 59 MPs representing the people of Scotland are opposed to the Government's plans for Trident replacement, and that cannot be ignored. The United Kingdom is on a shugly peg. Everybody recognises austerity budgets for the poorest but not for the arms trade. An in-out referendum on European membership, Scotland's new political landscape, English votes for English laws within a UK Parliament, the world has turned a few times since 2007, and the Tory Government should take cognisance of that fact. Politically there is an issue that is not being recognised, never mind resolved. The financial situation in the UK makes continuing with main gate an outrage for many, £150 billion in rising, and yes, we need welfare, not warfare. Saying no to Trident brings its own workload, and maybe there's another welfare that needs a great deal of consideration, and I appreciate that it's been mentioned by others in this debate, and that is the welfare of the workforce at Co-Port and Faslain. It's imperative that we start now to plan for the non-nuclear defence of our nation. Plan now for the alternative employment for those working on nuclear submarines. This was an issue that came up often in the referendum over independence of our country, and it's absolutely imperative that those of us who want to see Scotland independent must reassure and take away the question marks hanging over those people who are uncertain because of the defence of the nation. The constitutional question of an independent Scotland is not settled. The Westminster Government must address the issue of signing off main gate, not knowing whether Scotland may be an independent country and raising many problems with regard to putting continuing to have Trident in the Clyde. Presiding Officer, people in Scotland need to have to hear the debate. We need a defence plan, including membership of NATO or not. Clear proposals. Which party will be the first to bring the debate on NATO to this chamber? Membership of NATO is disregarded, often as though it's a membership of some club or another. It's not joining the brownies. It really is a situation that we need to be clear about. People must understand the implications of being a member of NATO. They are linked. Trident and NATO are linked like fish and chips. They go together. Let's have that debate. Labour has been rightly praised for debating Trident in their conference. I commend them for that. I look forward to their next conference where they are brave enough to debate NATO. We need more and more debate around these issues. When I said at the opening of the speech that it was surprising that the then Labour Government had the debate on Trident in Westminster, it was a fact. We do not debate these issues enough. The deals are done behind closed doors. Arms manufacturers thrive in the dark with the doors locked. We have no information, not enough information. We cannot get information in this country as to the number of people involved in the arms trade. I welcome this as a start. I'm delighted that we're having the debate today on Trident, but let's take it further and really look at how we defend our nation, which will include knowing who our enemies and potential enemies really are. To conclude, I would say welfare over warfare, of course, but there's a lot more information needed in order for us to feel truly confident and to spread that confidence in our country in order that Scotland can become truly independent. Without that independence, there is no reason to debate Trident for it will be there for our children and our grandchildren without that constitutional change. Thank you very much. I now call on Cristian Alart to be followed by Malcolm Chisholm. A little time has emerged, so the time for interventions now. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I would like to welcome this debate today, another debate on Trident. Gino talked about we can't have enough debate about Trident. To a certain extent, I wish we wouldn't have so many debates about Trident. I wish that in the near future we won't have debate about Trident at all and we will close the book on the various weapons of mass destruction here in Scotland. There are three points I would like to talk about before I make my contribution. One first point is the labour amendment. I was a bit surprised when I see the amendment but I'm happy to support it, but I would love Claire Baker and she's not here just now, but I would love Claire Baker whoever is closing for labour to tell us why did we think it was good to take the end of our motion, the motion of Keith Brown. I don't really understand what is not to agree on the second part of the motion from Keith Brown, so I would love to have an explanation of why that was taking away. My second point will be about the time. Yes, this amendment is very, very good, but there's nothing new. You know, what happened regarding debate on Trident? We had some this year. What happened with the labour position because in April 2015 there were a report, a report from STUC and Scottish CND Trident and Jobs, the case for Scottish Defence diversification agency. This report gives all the answers that we need to have, so I'm quite surprised at the timing. I thought if it was a good idea to have such an amendment I would have loved to hear that from there, but I can understand that things have changed. Things have changed this weekend and I congratulate already all the members of the Labour Party here in Scotland. I wish that the member of the rest of the UK would agree on that. We have reflected the motion that we passed at conference in our amendment and, if you will note, we have added in the last clause from the Scottish Government's motion, so we have tried to work cooperatively here. I am very much welcome the fact that the minister accepted that in his opening remarks. It's timely that this introduction, because it's a question of time. It's exactly that. I told that early on, but I'll keep on on that then on my third point. When I interrupted Ninfield I made it clear that it's good that the debate takes place, but it needs to conclude before Westminster signs a check for the renewal of Trident, because if it doesn't, the Labour members in Scotland will not understand why did we had a debate, but there were no consequences. We really need to make sure that the change, the big change that we saw on the back of Kezia Dogdale in the confidence really, really happens, because you don't want me coming back to this chamber and saying plus a change, plus the same shows. Words are okay, but what we need is action. It's what's the most important. But, Presiding Officer, I would like to talk about the support across Scotland that we have for getting rid of those weapons of mass destruction. This view is shared amongst many numerous public opinion polls and civic Scotland, STUC, which I talked about early on, Scotland Churches, the Scottish Parliament, and more recently, as ministry did, are both conferences, you know, SNP conference. We always talked about Trident in the SNP conference and the Labour Scottish. The Scottish branch of the Labour party, I would have to say, because nothing is showing yet that the Labour party has very much a party in Scotland. I know that it's kind of independence that the members have decided to take. I would, before I change my wordings, I would love as the members to take as the politicians, the elected members to take that independence. And I'm afraid that there are only six attending to this debate. I would love, for example, Katherdogdale to be there, because she did say in birth that she wanted a party to stop being a party of protest. I was surprised about that. She said the Scottish branch of the Labour party, and I use this wording again, should not be about bonpa stickers and t-shirt slogans. I can't understand at all that kind of phrasing. I know a lot of Labour members and meet a lot of Labour members, because I'm a member of Scottish CND. And I say to Katherdogdale, she's wrong about the members of her own party. They have bonpa stickers and they wear t-shirt. They are saying bands before bombs. So really, we really need to address that issue or where we're going from now. We have to make sure that that debate takes place and everybody is allowed to take that debate. Claire Baker talked about protest in the street and she said that she was wearing a t-shirt and that she was maybe looking for a bonpa sticker. And I could tell the members, and Neil Finlay, for example, to come to Scottish CND AGM, which is next week. And that will maybe be a very good idea to reaffirm. Yes, of course I will. Neil Finlay? Mr Marr constantly goes on about people turning up at meetings. Presiding Officer, I do probably more meetings than many people in this chamber of a whole range of organisations over the year. It's not about turning up at a meeting, Mr Lard. It's about what you're believing and what you're going to do. Give away your fascination with people turning up all the time at meetings, for God's sake. I'll tell Mr Finlay what happened at the AGM last time at Scottish CND. We talked with the STUC about this report, which was launched on April this year. If we wanted to make any kind of contribution on this report, it should have been there, it should have been there, and it should have wore the t-shirt and getting the bonpa sticker. Anyway, to conclude, I would like to really to take this opportunity to thank all Albanian District CND for the fantastic work that they do and all the support they got from SNP members, from Labour members and from Civic Scotland. The North East Scotland is very much on the side of everybody in Scotland. We want to get rid of nuclear weapons, and we'd wear the t-shirt and we'll have the bonpa stickers before bombs. I believe the arguments are for me anyway against Trident, our moral, legal, financial and strategic, but I also take very seriously the concerns of those who are in Trident-related employment. I believe that we must take action to secure their future. For those of us who have been opposed to nuclear weapons for decades, the moral arguments have, of course, been of supreme importance, but that should not be an attitude of moral superiority. I certainly respect those who follow traditional deterrents theory, although I do believe that it is now out of date. In the legal issues, we had a debate about that on the 22 of September, so I won't repeat them at length, but it is interesting that a predecessor, Litha MP, who was also a former Lord Advocate, Lord Murray, is quite clear that it is against international law to renew Titan, in particular against the non-proliferation treaty, which was a bargain between the nuclear weapons states and those without nuclear weapons. Indeed, Lord Bramill, a former chief of the defence staff, said that it is difficult to see how the UK can exert any leadership and influence on the implementation of the non-proliferation treaty if we insist on a successor to Trident. From the point of view of multilateral disarmament via the non-proliferation treaty, we should not be renewing Trident. The next issue is, of course, the cost, or should I say the opportunity cost, and Crispin Blunt has bluntly reminded us of that in the last few days. He said that it is too high to be rational or sensible, and I do not need to remind members that he is the Conservative chair of the foreign affairs select committee. The Government motion understandably wants to spend some of the money released on welfare, but we really should not overstate that, because there is also the whole issue of conventional defence, which the SNP has highlighted most recently, Angus Robertson. Crucially, there are the jobs of those affected. I believe that following up what I said right at the beginning, it is dealing with the employment of those in Trident-related work that should be the first call on money that is released from Trident. I was pleased that Jeremy Corbyn made that point in his speech to the Labour Party conference on Friday, but I thank the Government for accepting the Labour amendment. I will say more about that in a moment. I think that it is the strategic arguments that are most important of all in that, because I accept that many people who take a different view are not going to be persuaded by the moral arguments or, indeed, the legal arguments or, ultimately, the cost arguments, because if you seriously believe that Trident is necessary and nuclear deterrence more generally, then you are probably not going to be influenced at the end of the day by those arguments. The strategic arguments are absolutely crucial. It is not just one Tory MP and one chief of defence staff that I have already quoted who are absolutely central, I believe, to that argument, because I think that we should be building a big tent that includes Tories, that includes generals, that includes everyone who has actually looked at this again, seen that the world has moved on, seen that deterrence theory is rooted in the 1960s, and realised that we have to look at this afresh. I would pray and aid Michael Portillo. I don't usually former Conservative defence secretary who has made many pronouncements about Trident, the briefest of which was that it has passed its sell by date, so we will settle for that today. There are the generals that I will quote in a minute, and I would also like to refer to certain Labour politicians and, preeminently, the late, great Dennis Healy with his vast knowledge and personal experience of military matters, formally of course a supporter of nuclear weapons, who said laterally, the only case is really a political one. I think that the military case for nuclear weapons has gone. In the generals, three senior ones, in a letter to the times others could be quoted, nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be completely useless as a deterrent to the threat and scale of violence that we currently face or are likely to face. Our independent deterrent has become virtually irrelevant except in the context of domestic politics. Interestingly, even Tony Blair in his memoirs, who supported nuclear weapons, said that it was all to do with the status of the United Kingdom. If you are not persuaded by any of those arguments from that vast range of people, reflect on this. There are 147 nations in the world that do not possess nuclear weapons. The logic of those who say that we cannot be safe without nuclear weapons is that all of those 147 countries should possess nuclear weapons in order to be safe. That perhaps, when you are talking to ordinary members of the public, is the most persuasive argument of all. Of course, the jobs argument is crucial, as I have already argued. We should first reflect on the fact that there will be job consequences if we keep trying. That is why, to some extent, the generals and other military people are so against trying, because they realise that it absolutely decimates, in particular, the capital budget in the coming decade or so. I think that the capital budget is projected under Osborne's plans to go to about £5 billion a year, and Trident will cost the capital side of it £4 billion a year in the relevant period. For example, type 26 frigates that would be built in Scotland are unlikely to be built if Trident goes ahead, and there will be other consequences for the conventional defence programme. The SNP is right to say that, when they say that, they did not today, Angus Robertson was right to point to the consequences on conventional defence, but I think that the SNP should remember that it cannot really spend the money over and over again. For me, jobs are the first call on it. Conventional defence is relevant, so let's not over-egg the welfare consequences. As our amendment says, we must have a defence diversification agency. Working alongside a national investment bank, the diversification agency could help those with transferable skills, and many defence workers have transferable squirrels. We should move into other high school roles, for example the growing energy and digital industries. We must address the concerns of the people working in Trident-related work at the unions that represent them. I am really glad that Labour in its amendment today, Labour in its motion at the weekend and Jeremy Corbyn in his speech on Friday, all to that front and centre of our position. I am glad that the SNP is accepting that amendment. Many thanks. I'm now calling Stuart Stevenson to be followed by Patricia Ferguson. Presiding Officer, on the side of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt memorial, the founder of the US social security system is quoted as saying, the test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have too much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. We simply can't discount that when we choose to spend vast amounts of money on a particular item of defence, we choose to take money away from those in our society of the greatest need. It is not simply radical social reformers like FDR. Winston Churchill himself spoke of the tragedy of poverty and the tyranny of war. In Liverpool, in 1951, he said that evils can be created much quicker than they can be cured. That absolutely touches on today's issue. I, like others, very much welcome Labour members who supported an anti-trident motion 48 hours ago—not the first time that Scottish members have done so, of course—and I wish them well every encouragement in capturing their whole party for their position. The portents are not particularly encouraging, but I wish them well. Too many parliamentarians, perhaps south of the border, are taking up entrenched positions before they have hired the arguments from the Scottish Conference of the Labour Party, so I wish them well. I think that Neil Findlay perhaps overreags the pudding a little bit by talking about the freedom of members to choose the debate at their conference. He is quoted as saying in something that I read today, that there is no debate within the SNP. I can tell him that members who choose the contents of our debates in the SNP have debated the issue of weapons and mass destruction on nine occasions. It has been decayed since 2000 and we have condemned it on every occasion, but it is not a competition. Every debate that takes this forward is worth having anywhere. Scotland's share of the expenditure on trident is £13.8 billion. The overall cost that we are hearing now is £167 billion over the life of the system. Jackie Baillie and her contribution of the debate on Sunday suggested that there are 13,000 jobs dependent on this. The MOD disagrees, they say that it is 570, but I am prepared solely for the purposes of the numbers that I am going to use to accept Jackie Baillie's number. If we accept Jackie Baillie's number, and I dispute it, but if we accept Jackie Baillie's number, the cost of providing a job in the trident industry is in excess of 10 times as expensive as providing a job in a similarly capable, similarly high-skilled activity in other areas of our economy. So, we can spend. I will, if she insists. Stewart Stevenson for taking an intervention. We keep saying Jackie Baillie's numbers. Those are the MOD numbers obtained through freedom of information requests. Those are numbers conducted by established economists as to the local supply chain and the local economic multiplier effect. Not my numbers, but the numbers of credible organisations. I am sure that he would agree. Stewart Stevenson. On the same basis of generosity, I hope that she will agree that when you divide one to the other, you end up with jobs 10 times as expensive as the highly qualified and gifted engineers working in the nuclear industry could be spending on other things. The Conservative motion says, in an increasingly dangerous world, having a nuclear deterrent against both foreseen and unforeseen threats. That is a direct quote from the motion. Now, as I see, any questions come out of that. Have our missiles, or perhaps I should say more properly, the United States missiles carried in our submarines been re-targeted away from the former Soviet Union to new targets? Have they prevented the Taliban in their Afghan mountain fastnesses from taking actions? Have they been a deterrent to them? Were they a deterrent to Saddam Hussein and his bunkers in Iraq? Are they today a deterrent for Daesh in Syria and Iraq? Of course, the question answers itself. They are not deterrent of any kind whatsoever to the threats that there are in today's world. They are merely a potentkin village of a defence provision that has nothing behind them that contributes to real defence. The difference between the Conservatives and the SNP is, of course, that they, John Lamont tells us, would spend any summer money. I would not spend my last penny on something that delivers nothing and is in any event, as others have argued, a moral. Of course, our nuclear weapons are not targeted out of our enemies and they never will be. They do not attack the military capabilities of those who would attack us. They are, by design, focused on civilian populations over the horizon, beyond our view, beyond our care and beyond our care. Often, people in totalitarian regimes who have had no contribution whatsoever to the decision-making that is about peace or war. Let me close by returning to Churchill's dichotomy. When we choose to spend our money on weapons of mass destruction, we neither address the tyranny of war nor do we remove the tragedy of poverty. Many thanks. I now call Patricia Ferguson to be followed by Clare Adamson. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate on a subject of such significance to the future security of the UK and, indeed, the world. I would like to thank the minister for bringing this matter to the chamber today. It is essential that, as a Parliament, we attempt to arrive at a position that is balanced, credible and will positively inform any decision that our UK counterparts may take. The Scottish Labour Party has adopted a policy position with which I wholeheartedly agree. We believe that there is no moral, social, economic or military justification for trident renewal. It is Scottish Labour's view that a decision to reject trident renewal would be the first and decisive step taken in the journey towards a world free of the dreadful threat of nuclear weapons. No one in this chamber would seek to deny the threat to humanity's future posed by these weapons of mass destruction. It is estimated that each trident warhead of which there are 40 per submarine would kill 1 million people outright if deployed. The vast majority of those killed would be civilians, and countless more would subsequently die from secondary radiation exposure. The argument deployed by some proponents of retention of nuclear weapons is that their possession is essential to national and international security. On the contrary, they make the world more insecure. When I hear that argument, I am immediately reminded of the words of Robert McNamara, the former US Secretary of State, who oversaw the build-up of US nuclear capability at the height of the Cold War, yet who in 2004 declared that the indefinite combination of human fallibility with nuclear weapons leads to human destruction. The only way to eliminate the risk is to eliminate nuclear weapons. To renew trident would be to reject such wise counsel and instead continue down the road of nuclear weapons proliferation. McNamara's view chimes with that of significant figures who have served in our armed forces at a senior level. Former Field Marshal Lord Bramill, General Lord Ramsbottom, General Sir Hugh Beech, Major General Patrick Cordingley, Sir Richard Dannott all expressed a deep concern that trident was excluded from the 2010 strategic defence review and concluded that there was, and I quote, growing consensus that rapid cuts in nuclear forces is the way to achieve international security. We know that strategically senior military figures are increasingly challenging the logic of decimating the defence budget in order to maintain weapons that serve no possible purpose and only exacerbate nuclear proliferation around the world. I believe that Major General Cordingley was correct when he said that trident should not be ring-fenced and the cost should be weighed up against new ships, planes, tanks and infantry. To support the need for proper investment in our conventional defence capability is necessary to ensure our national security. We, of course, need to properly equip modern armed forces, and such a course would improve our national security, providing budgetary flexibility in the Ministry of Defence and a more effective response to emerging security challenges in the 21st century. The soaring cost of trident renewal would hinder such a rational approach if not make it highly impossible. The latest estimate of the cost of trident renewal is, as we have heard, a staggering £167 billion over a 30-year lifespan. That figure is almost obscene as the weapon system itself. The non-replacement of trident alongside the establishment of defence diversification agencies at Scottish and UK levels is the only rational and balanced option. The development of a strong defence diversification programme, agreed with the trade unions, will provide workers with high-quality employment through the retention of skills developed in the sector. The importance of that work cannot be overstated. The vast economic savings of £167 billion over the lifetime of the system make that eminently possible and will allow much-needed investment in conventional security spending, as well as a whole range of public spending priorities in health and education in housing in the development of our manufacturing sector. Such a course of action has moral, social, economic and military credibility. It is a course that we must persuade Mr Cameron and his Government to take. Today and in the coming vital months, we must resist the temptation to indulge in petty political point-scoring, because that grave matter is much too important for that. On that note, I am very pleased that the Scottish Government will accept the Scottish Labour Party's amendment and help to unite the overwhelming majority in this chamber on this most serious of all issues. Nuclear weapons make us less, not more secure. They divert much-needed resources away from the real priorities of our citizens and their welfare, and they represent a real and present danger to humanity's survival. Let us vote today to support a course of action that will improve global security, not endanger it. Many thanks. I now call Clare Adamson to be followed by Stuart McMillan. Thank you, Presiding Officer. As a rugby fan, I was delighted to watch the World Cup final at the weekend, albeit with the thought of what might have been for Scotland. But the obliques were with the winners, and I do not think that anyone could feel to have been moved by the generous actions of Sonny Bill Williams following the final. So I take this opportunity to congratulate New Zealand today, not only for the rugby success, but also for the fact that New Zealand has, of course, been a nuclear-free country since its groundbreaking nuclear-free zone disarmament and arms control act in 1987. The campaign for nuclear disarmament began in New Zealand in the 1950s, and in 1959, responding to rising public concern following the British hydrogen bomb tests in Australia and the Pacific, New Zealand voted in the United Nations to condemn nuclear testing, while the UK, the United States and France voted against it and Australia abstained. I do think that it is interesting that we were prepared to export this danger of nuclear testing to the other side of the world. The Murorora atoll and its sister atoll in French Polynesia in the Southern Pacific Ocean were established as nuclear test sites by France in September in 1962, and 41 atmospheric nuclear tests were conducted at the atoll between 1966 and 1974. In New Zealand, in 1976, over 20 anti-nuclear and environmental groups, including Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, met in Wellington and formed a loose coalition called The Campaign for Non-Nuclear Futures. It was against, opposed to the introduction of nuclear power and promoted renewable energy. Following continued public process and some of the most iconic efforts of Greenpeace in the anti-nuclear protests, the National Party leader and Prime Minister, Rob Muldoon, faced rebellion from his party. One particular maverick who was absolutely key to the successful non-nuclear policy being established was, of course, the feminist economic member of the Parliament, Marlon Waring. Nuclear free zone was passed in 1987 and it states that the territorial sea and land of New Zealand become nuclear free zones and quotes that the entry into internal waters of New Zealand by 12 nautical miles, a radius by any ship whose propulsion is wholly or partly dependent on nuclear power, bans the dumping of radioactive waste within nuclear free zones, as well as prohibiting any New Zealand citizens or residents to manufacture, acquire, possess or have any control over nuclear explosive devices. I do not think that it is any coincidence that Marlon Waring was absolutely key to that policy being passed. She has also challenged our understanding and forced New Zealanders to take cognisance and indeed the OECD to take cognisance of women and the effect and their contribution to the economy. She once said that the patriarchal economic paradigms is a theory and practice of economics that says that women's unpaid work is not worth anything at all. It is not that I want to estimate its monetary value. I want it to make it visible for policy making purposes, for fairness and equality. I think that this quote really sums up how I feel about this debate today, because I do not think that the plight of women, of children, of young people are taking any cognisance of by the current Government in terms of what they are doing currently in welfare reform. Our own committee has conducted an investigation into this and published the Women in Social Security report. It states that the cumulative impact of reforms to the social security system has had a damaging and disproportionate impact on women, in particular disabled women, lone parents, carers, refugee women and those experienced in domestic abuse. £26 billion of worth of cuts have been made to the benefits, tax credits, pay and pension since 2010. According to the House of Commons library, 85 per cent of this £26 billion has been taken from women's incomes. That means that it has been taken from families, it has been taken from households where women are carers, to children, to disabled people, to elderly parents. It is this failure to recognise what is happening that really shows the balance of today's debate, that it should be about bairns and not bombs. We know that 74 per cent of those in receipt of carers allowance are women, and those women make an essential contribution to society. The committee heard of significant challenges many carers face when they take on a caring role. What does a country of just 5 million people that has exerted its right to be a nuclear freeze zone look like in comparison to the United Kingdom? On any measure of the OECD, whether that is a genicoefficient of inequality or, indeed, the further research that has been done by the OECD and its better-lice initiatives, New Zealand is a fairer country than the UK, and we need to take a lot to learn not just in line-outs and scrums from what they have been doing. I now call Stuart McMillan to be followed by Jackie Baillie. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Like many members here, I have spoken out against the renewal of the Trident programme before. In my last speech in the chamber on the renewal plan, that was last year, and at the time we believed that the costs were a mere £100 billion. However, now that the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee is highlighting that the cost is spiralled to an eye-watering £167 billion, it really should come as no surprise that I still advocate dumping the Trident renewal programme. I did find it interesting on this debate with the comments from John Lamont when he raised the issue of the £167 billion. First of all, he tried to disregard the £167 billion figure, and he also wanted to state that we do not know the cost of the renewal programme, and he certainly did indicate that money would be no object to the Trident programme, which I find rather disturbing to say the least. However, certainly surely there are many and other better things that we can spend £167 billion on. However, are we even confident that the figure of £167 billion is the final figure? If you look back in terms of recent political history, the report from the Guardian in 2006 saw Gordon Brown backing the renewal of Trident with an alleged cost of between £13 billion to £25 billion. That was later revised to around £20 billion, which is certainly going back to 2006. Now that we are finding out what appears to be—it is an even larger sum of money, £167 billion—we can all agree that that is an obscene amount of money to be spent purely to indiscriminately kill our fellow human beings. The financial cost of the Trident renewal programme is staggering, and no doubt it will continue to rise. However, what are the opportunity costs? What are we missing out on when we pour money down the financial black hole of Trident? Can we not use that money more wisely, creating some public good rather than funding destruction and death? What about the opportunity costs to our economy? In a previous debate, I spoke of the possibility of a second oil boom at this time on the west coast of Scotland. We know that there is oil on the west coast of Scotland, and we know that Westminster Governments have refused drilling licences to extract that oil because of nuclear subs and weapons on the Clyde. We also know that to extract oil requires huge investment in equipment and rigs and service vessels, not to mention workers and training. What kind of oil boom could we have generated in the past, certainly for Ayrshire, Inverclyde, Argyllin bute and also for West Dunbartonshire? A joint report by the Scottish National Party and the Scottish National Party highlighted that there was a viable future for Fasley. It demonstrated that the replacement of Trident will cost Scotland more jobs than it will provide, and that, by contrast, the funds released by Trident cancellation would create a major opportunity for productive investment in Scotland's economy. Many of those employed in roles directly related to Trident have skills in mechanical, electrical and electronic engineering, for which there is a demand in the wider economy. The report demonstrated the inaccuracy of claims that upwards of 11,000 jobs would be lost to Scotland if Trident was not replaced, and we know from an FOI request that 520 jobs are directly involved with Trident. Scrapping Trident would allow other job opportunities to be created and it would allow us to invest in the future, creating more jobs and better public services. The economic case for nuclear weapons does not stack up and indeed hampers job creation and investment. More job creation and investment would certainly have a beneficial effect upon social and welfare policies. What about the social cost? Instead of wasting billions on bombs that the UK Government cannot use, it should be abolishing the austerity agenda and investing for the future. That means ditching the tax credit cuts that will see an average families losing out on at least £1,300 per year. In Scotland, the tax credits are overwhelmingly paid to working people. 95 per cent are paid to families with children. Neil Findlay, since we are in a conciliatory mood, I am sure he would like to give great credit to Kezia Dugdale for her announcement of the weekend on tax credits. I think that the devil is in the detail, Mr Findlay. I have heard arguments in this chamber and in committee on the situation regarding the APD, because the scrapping of the APD will threaten airports in the northern part of England. We will look at the detail when it comes forward. Approximately half a million children in Scotland currently benefit from tax credits, but that will not be the case once the Conservative cuts come through. Children will lose out under those cuts, yet funding is being reserved for nuclear weapons. The UK Government should not spend billions of pounds on nuclear weapons, while hundreds of thousands of people are relying on food banks. I am sure that many members from across the chamber have, sadly, helped out at local food bank collections, providing assistance to volunteers who have established food banks to help those who have fallen on difficult times. Are we saying that we are willing to pay for nuclear weapons, but not to ensure that people have enough money to eat food? Certainly last year, on one of my visits around the west of Scotland region, I went to a food bank in Helensburgh, just very much in the shadow of Faslain. My take on that was that Faslain was not helping all the communities in the west of Scotland area. Figures from the Trussell Trust reveal that almost 120,000 people have used food banks in Scotland in 2014-15. That is eight times a number from two years ago, including 36,000 children. That is 36,000 children relying on charity to feed them, as the UK Government slashes tax credits and continues to enforce sanctions on benefit climates versus having an open purse for nuclear weapons. I am conscious of time, so I highlight one final point. Every survey highlights that people of Scotland do not want nuclear weapons on our doorstep. I am sure that the latest cost of trying a new programme will bring even more people on board this campaign to ditch those weapons of mass destruction. Thank you. Could members please ensure that electronic devices are set to silent? Jackie Baillie to be followed by Bill Kidd. Let me start by thanking my colleagues for the opportunity to participate in this debate. It stands in stark contrast to the SNP and its control freakery, where debate is not allowed and dissent is absolutely forbidden. Come as no surprise, I believe that in multilateral nuclear disarmament, I want all nations to give up their nuclear weapons because my ambition is nothing short of global zero. I believe that that is an ambition that is shared by the majority of people in this chamber. Where we disagree is in the mechanism that we actually achieve that. I know that some opposed to Trident argue that we are unilaterally re-arming and cite the non-proliferation treaty. I respect that, but it does not reflect what is happening outside the UK, the United States, Russia, China, Pakistan, India and all renewing nuclear weapons systems. Those decisions are, as we speak, being taken around the world. People expect, rightly so, maturity and responsibility from politicians and the choices that we make. They expect us to consider the consequences of our actions. That is what I want to focus my remarks on today, because Faslane is in my constituency and the single biggest employer in the area. I do not think that any of you will be surprised by what I have to say. I have in fact been saying it for more than 16 years. I used to think that consistency is sometimes considered to be a virtue. There has always been much contention about job numbers. We have heard it again today from Stuart Stevenson and I would have a lot more respect if people actually grasped hold of the numbers that are truly there. I note the Scottish CNDS to use report that identified between 500 to 1,000 jobs. That is not a reflection of what the impact would be. Let me share those facts with the chamber. There are 6,800 people directly employed at Faslane by the MOD and its contractors. My source for that figure is an FOI request made to the MOD in September last year. A study commissioned from ECOS identified an extra 4,500 jobs in the supply chain and the local economy. That is 11,300 people. Because Gordon Brown decided that Faslane would be the base for all of the UK's submarine fleet, we expect about 2,000 more jobs as a result, and that is by 2020. We are approaching 13,000 jobs. Faslane is the biggest single-site employer in Scotland. More than a quarter of Western Bartonshire's full-time workforce are employed there in good-quality, well-paid jobs. If that is not enough, we also need to consider the effect on shipbuilding, because recite benefits, the Clyde benefits and, as far away as Barrow and Furness, benefits. What happens to the thousands of jobs associated with the astute submarines being built by BA's systems in a minute? That will have a knock-on effect on shipbuilding, an industry that I think we all hold dear in this chamber. We have already seen a substantial demise in shipbuilding on the upper and lower Clyde. That will make matters worse and we need to have answers for that. I would be pleased to hear answers from the minister. To Jackie Baillie, first of all, she is not the only voice from that constituency. The SNP has got an anti-trident message and won the last Westminster election in that constituency, if memory serves me well. On nuclear weapons, the Government has just awarded a contract to return commercial shipbuilding in the Clyde, and it does not require nuclear weapons. Does Jackie Baillie not agree that we can have huge employment at Faslane, but it does not need to be dependent on the moral weapons of mass destruction? Jackie Baillie, Presiding Officer, that resembled more of a peroration than it did a question. Can I say with the SNP that it always boils down to votes? There are no issues here about how they intend to protect the workforce. Let me tell you what the workers on the ground at Faslane and Cullport say, because they know what the consequences are for their jobs. The convener of shop stewards told the Scottish Affairs Committee that if the submarines are not there, there is no work for us. In effect, there is no strategic reason for having a naval base at Faslane. I know that there are people who genuinely believe that defence diversification is the answer, but the workers at the base do not think so. The director of the industrial trade union convener at the base had that to say. My own work-life experience is that defence diversification was discussed for much of the 80s and 90s and produced nothing of note that would in any way replace the quantity and quality of jobs that are required to replace those that we currently have. Adam Ingram, a former armed forces minister from 2001 to 2007, has told us that diversification has been tried before and it has not worked. We had a defence diversification agency. I do not think that we have one any more. As for the SNP, this is the party that simply believes that moving trident from the Clyde a few hundred miles south of the border to England is somehow acceptable. That is nimbyism on a national scale and the worst kind of gesture politics. I am not giving way to somebody who practices the worst kind of gesture politics, but we also heard from Stuart McMillan about these mythical oil fields. All talk, no evidence, let's see them, Mr McMillan, because they don't exist. Of course, we shouldn't worry. The SNP has plans to base the Scottish Navy at Faslane together with the armed forces and the air force. Remember that this was the same Scottish Navy that was promised to recite by Alex Salmond. He thought that we wouldn't notice that he had promised it to two different places at exactly the same time, to know that the SNP really did not have a clue. The truth is that the SNP do not want to talk about jobs, not one mention of jobs in their motion today. Instead, they make false promises on the one hand, they have Angus Robertson promising that all the money would be spent on conventional defence, and on the other, they have a whole array of backbenchers that Stuart McMillan included promising to spend it on their pet projects. The reality, Presiding Officer, is that the SNP has spent the money at least 10 times over. In closing, the SNP are all about gesture politics, and there is no concern for the workers only for their position in the polls. Let me share with you, in conclusion, a panel base poll commissioned by none other than Wingsover Scotland, the SNP's cybernat general. When you strip out the don't knows, 55 per cent agree that the UK should continue to have nuclear weapons. I didn't see that being trumpeted by the SNP, it's perhaps what they might call an inconvenient truth. I am pleased to be allowed to stand up here today. I didn't realise we were having a sum up from the Tory party coming up before me, but I have been arguing the case for nuclear disarmament for more years than an outwardly apparent. I believe that, in a dangerous world, nuclear weapons make it more dangerous and not less. Let's not forget that, 70 years ago, we had one nuclear weapons state and now we have nine of them. That is a direct result of nuclear proliferation on the watch of those nuclear weapons states such as the UK, who signed up to the non-proliferation treaty in 1968, 47 years ago. Recognising, as they said at the time, the dangers of this deadly weapon to the future of humanity. Not only do we still have nuclear weapons but, in violation of article 6, as was mentioned by Malcolm Chisholm, Britain, along with others, is yet again intent on upgrading and replacing its nuclear arsenal. That will make the place a safer planet for the next 60 years. I believe that that will be 60 years, because that is the extension time for the life of Trident. Another 60 years. 60 more years are being told that we cannot live safely without nuclear weapons. All the time, being told that, yes, we all want to get rid of nuclear weapons, we'll just do it slowly and we'll do it a wee bit at a time. So when is the world ever going to be considered safe enough to eradicate nuclear weapons? Remember, we, the world, banned chemical weapons in 1925, biological weapons in 1972. We rightly praised Princess Diana, who was to the forefront of the landmines banned campaign in 1997. Then the clustering of those immunisations in 2008, though America to its shame, has been trying to overturn this. However, nuclear weapons, while, in the same way as we haven't yet banned poverty and a world of plenty, we seem thrilled to the idea of big boys' toys being an acceptable risk to human life and a ruinous waste of scarce resources. Last December, I attended the Vienna conference on the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapons. There were 158 national governments represented out of which 156 voted to support the Austrian pledge, which called on all states parties to the NPT to renew their commitment to the urgent and full implementation of existing obligations under article 6, and to this end to identify and pursue effective measures to fill the legal gap for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons. Yes, 156 nations signed up to the Austrian pledge, but the UK and the USA refused to do so. They said that the conference of 158 national governments and their decision taken was simply a distraction from the discussions that the nuclear weapons states and their nuclear weapons partners were having, which would make the world a safer place. Yet again, they state that nuclear weapons keep us safe. What they meant was the political choice of 60 more years of Trident, and with that a greater chance that other nations will be free to develop a technology that has no other use than to blow us all back to the stone age. Scotland's share of Trident's costs is billions of pounds. It's an awful lot of money to spend on a weapons system that is never supposed to be used. Is that what we really choose to do? It's an awful lot of money that, if we choose, would ensure the maintenance of conventional armed forces and real national security. It's an awful lot of money that would, if we choose, provide food and heating for vulnerable people and real human security. We must stand together across this chamber and send the message to the world that Scotland's representatives are proud to stand alongside the 156 nations who voted for the Austrian pledge and vote against the idea that another 60 years of human catastrophe hang above us like a damacly sword. Thank you very much, and I now call Chick Brody, after which we will move to closing speeches. We've all been party to youthful exuberance and indiscretions. It makes us who we are, yet one very youthful and positive discretion I remember vividly. I remember quite clearly being lifted by one of Dundee's finest for being involved in a sit-in demonstration in its city square. I along with others and as chair of the local YCND were exercising our right to demonstrate to ban the bomb. The motivation was this. I was already committed to the nuclear disarmament, but I just finished reading yet again John Hersey's book on Hiroshima. That created in me an anger, which was vented against a backdrop by the raid of misery and death in Japan and the possibility of it happening in Scotland. As John Hersey wrote, I quote, at 15 minutes past eight, on 6 August 1945, in Hiroshima, 100,000 people died. Read the story of Mrs Nakamoto, who, again I quote, puts her three children in their bed rolls on the floor, lay down at three o'clock, they fell asleep at once and, of course, the rest of the story we know was harrowing her. It does not matter how a package of abject misery is delivered, be it by air or by some marine. They have the potential to create mass deaths as witnesses and certainly misery, harbingers of multiple deaths or misery for many. In the latter case, so it is for the many with the proposed renewal of trident against the backdrop of wicked, wicked welfare cuts. Firstly, it is an economic nonsense that the UK, with a debt of £1.6 trillion and growing, with an interest at base rate of £43 billion per year, should even consider spending £167 billion with an interest of £2.3 million per day on replacing the weapon of mass destruction in the face of, while they cut the welfare budget by £12 billion. Let me ask this juncture, Presiding Officer, to make two clear points. Firstly, trident is not the UK's independent nuclear deterrent. The command and control codes to exercise the completion of the firing of a trident missile are fuelled by the USA. Cameron may be a bully on welfare cuts because of the nuclear unit when it comes to trident. Secondly, Presiding Officer, I make this point as Bill just did across the chamber. This is not a winner takes all, some kind of championship where we on this site win because we have believed and believed that in full control of policy trident would be dissembled. Rather, we appeal that the real match is death and misery versus care and compassion, a match between potential and widespread desolation versus the removal of the worry and concern of the sick, the children and poverty and the disabled. That requires as many of us to be on the winning side against trident. It is not an effective deterrent in the face, for example, of an alleged attack from North Korea, for goodness sake. Tony Blair Nassle Campbell may argue that it is the case, but Malcolm Chisholm was absolutely right when he mentioned that it was seen more as a status symbol than anything else. Let me come to Jackie Billie. Trident on the Clyde is not a deterrent either. Neither was its predecessor Pilaris. They were and are a deterrent to fair social justice and strong focused welfare as through success, when we could have had success on development on the west coast of Scotland. I bore the pants of anyone who will listen that, after four years' research that the Thatcher government and its ministers, one of whom regrettably was the Tory MP for air and Secretary of State for Scotland, who confirmed in September 1983 that he had been told by the oil companies that oil was there in the Clyde and the Atlantic margins in exploitable quantities. The building of Port of Addie village for oil workers, special houses bought for special workers in Allaway in Ayr, capital investment in the Ardrossan harbour, in the purchase thereof, and, Ms Bellie, a production licence. The L262 would have created the potential for huge jobs, wealth and secure welfare, but it did not happen. Why did it not happen? Because another of Thatcher's ministers, Michael Hesartine, who confirmed last year, after 30 years, confirmed in an interview with a national newspaper that is defence secretary that he had stopped drilling because of the need for a clear passage for what? Nuclear submarines. That Thatcher government and its successor were guilty of denying jobs, social justice and meaningful welfare for all—jobs, a ffaseline dedicated to at least conventional weaponry and socially useful employment. Finally, jobs in the Clyde and shipbuilding, as Stuart McMillan mentioned, and in national infrastructure, hopefully using steel made in Scotland. By diverting the money plan for trade into other areas of public spending, we would create jobs, consequent wealth, fairer distribution of that wealth, reducing inequalities in poverty and allow us to look after and care for those who need to be looked after and cared for. Many thanks. We now turn to closing speeches and I call on Alison Johnston. Six minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Welfare, overwall, warfare, of course, and the Green and Independent Group will be voting for the Government motion and Labour amendment, but we will be opposing the Conservative amendment because even if Trident was without cost, even if it were entirely free, we should continue to demand its end-and-removal because it is an abomination. On Saturday just past, I was delighted to be part of a campaign against the arms trade conference held to celebrate 20 years of campaigning, and their work is crucial if so many other campaigns are to succeed because aggression is less likely if you cannot get your hands on the means to deliver it. I am pleased to join the majority of cog leagues across the chamber who are calling for a shift of UK Government priorities away from funding weapons of indiscriminate mass civilian slaughter to people, to investing in people. I am pleased to have the privilege on behalf of the Green and Independent Group of supporting my colleague John Wilson's motion calling for an end to the UK's membership of NATO, First Strike Nuclear Alliance, and declaring the UK and its waters and nuclear weapons free zone. We can, by putting in place a properly funded jobs transition and by moving to a clean low-carbon energy system and investing in new energies, provide more jobs than the entire arms industry. If we are serious about the security that we all want, then it is imperative that we do so. We have to remember that security is not just about military matters. Real security will come from global action on a scale not yet witnessed to address climate change and to cut our emissions urgently. We need to redesign our approach to defence from scratch. We need to develop our ability to promote diplomacy and peace, to lead in conflict resolution and to address the real threats to security, such as pressures on food, water, land and energy. It really is time for the UK to get its priorities right and for us here in Scotland to set a good example. We are focusing on the question of Trident today, but the debate provides an opportunity to analyse our spending priorities more broadly. UK-made weapons have been used in Israel's attacks on Gaza. The UK has supplied all sides in Libya's civil wars. We have armed both Russia and the Ukraine. Our weapons have caused tens of thousands of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sometimes it feels as if increasing GDP is valued more than life itself. Trident is all about the UK's obsession with punching above its weight. It is absolutely useless in helping us to tackle cybercrime, climate change and terrorism, as Neil Findlay pointed out. However, how secure do our citizens feel when they are juggling two or three zero hours contracts, when the insecure roof over their head is eating up almost all their income? They have had to visit yet another new local food bank because of an inhuman benefits section. Tell the parents of the one in four children living in poverty in the UK that investing in nuclear weapons is increasing their security. As we debate further powers for Scotland, it is time to challenge the way we do business and to challenge the business that we do. Why are Government agencies and public funds being used to support firms that make weapons for war? I think that most people in the UK would be appalled if they learned that we have the sixth highest military spend in the world. The sixth highest military spend, yet one in four children in the UK is growing up in poverty. Priorities? Lockheed Martin has benefited from assistance from the Scottish Government's regional selective assistance programme to the tune of some £2.5 million, not because it was required to protect jobs or because the firm was struggling. This is the largest arms company in the world. 80 per cent of its work is for the US defence department. It is moving to Glasgow to allow it to work more closely with the city's university. We have learned through a freedom of information request from NUS Scotland that Scottish universities, including Edinburgh, Glasgow and Strathclyde, have invested millions in arms companies. I congratulate and thank those students and others campaigning for divestment of public pension funds from this trade. Here in this very city, we have CELX producing radar drones, surveillance, targeting and weapon control systems. It took part in the defence and security equipment international fair in London recently, attracting buyers from a range of countries with poor human rights records. Not much of a fair is it. The use of the language normalises such activity, but those working in those industries can have a very productive, positive future in other industries. It is up to us to make that happen. Our talented engineers have skills that are needed in the industries of the future. The oil industry has told us that some 5,500 wells, 10,000 kilometres of pipeline needs to be decommissioned over the next 35 years. All politicians, whether in government or opposition, should be promoting a positive manufacturing strategy for Scotland that is based on promoting industries such as renewable energy, not companies that sell equipment to human rights abusers. Engineering UK estimates that the UK will need 87,000 engineers per year. Last year, only just over 50,000 were trained. Scotland desperately needs more engineers. We need to invest in the industries of the future. Let's put their skills to a positive and productive use. Let's reject bloated military budgets and prioritise skill jobs and apprenticeships in a sustainable, ethical economy. Jane's online tells us that the defence market worldwide is worth $1 trillion annually. The energy and environmental market is worth at least eight times this amount. In closing, I would like to remind the chamber of the words of President Eisenhower, whose words were recently brought to my attention by my colleague, Patrick Harvie. In his famous chance for peace speech, he said, Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed. Many thanks. I am aware that the minister had to remind the chamber of the need to be here for the start of the debate and I remind the chamber of the need to be here for the closing speeches when you have participated in the debate as well. I call on Annabelle Goldie, who has been in some sense predictably partisan, but there have also been some very reflective observations. An issue like that will always raise strong passions. At the extremes of people who identify themselves as absolutely against nuclear weapons, others are absolutely in favour of nuclear weapons. The really intelligent discussion is somewhere in between the two, and we have actually had a flavour of that this afternoon. Although I disagreed with Malcolm Chisholm, I thought that he made a very powerful and a very well-informed contribution. Let me deal with an unlikely area of common ground. I suspect that we all want to see a world where such weapons are redundant, no longer needed so no longer relevant, but the real debate is how do we get there from where we are? I would welcome constructive discussion on that, but unfortunately the motion that is phrased offers little scope for such positive exploration. It polarises the options and in so doing it does present, I think, a false choice, which is unhelpful because the motion advances a proposition that you either have nuclear weapons or fully funded welfare and social provision. I actually think that Governments have a dual obligation. One is to protect the security of our people in our country, and the other is to provide affordable, sustainable welfare support. The choice is not either or, but both. I think that to pretend otherwise is either disingenuous or naive. It became clear from various SNP contributions that whatever monies were released over the forthcoming 40 to 50 years of tried and where cancelled, they would indeed be spent many times over. For my part, my party believes in relation to defence that paramount is to protect our country and the safety of our citizens in a turbulent world. Where the evil of terrorism, sadly, is unpredictable and the capacity of rogue dictators and rogue states to develop a nuclear capability is unquantifiable. That obligation to me is fundamental. I think that being in NATO is part of that defence capability and there is an interesting dichotomy here. The SNP appears to support being in NATO, which is a nuclear organisation. Mr Wilson, very frankly, had a different analysis. I disagree with him, but at least there was a candor about his analysis. I am listening with interest and the member has referred to rogue states. I wonder if she can give any example of any rogue individual or rogue state who has been deterred by any country on earth holding a nuclear weapon. I think that there is a very powerful argument, Mr Stevenson, that huge international influence from nuclear powers was brought on to Iran. We now see that Iran has agreed, thank goodness, to reign in its ambitions in that respect. However, that takes me to the very point of my argument, Deputy Presiding Officer, that the position of defence strength enables us to do something else that does make possible continuing and constructive discussions about multilateral nuclear disarmament. That is a process that has commenced. It is continuing, and it is one to which the major nuclear powers are contributing. In the present situation, with threats that we do not know about, I feel to embark on unilateral nuclear disarmament would be a breach of obligation by government, state and citizens. My colleague John Lamont spoke eloquently about the nature of deterrent, because that is what we are talking about here. It was surprising, because when Christina McKelvie was challenged on the concept of deterrent, she declined to even respond to that challenge and did not address the point. Apart from the Scottish Government motion presenting a false choice, it is glaringly incomplete in a manner that any observer would find disquieting. There are those who deplore nuclear weapons, want rid of them, but they are honest enough to accept that removal of trident from fast lane does not make Scotland a safer place, does not make the United Kingdom a safer place and does not make the world a safer place. Those people who hold that view are honest enough to argue that unilateral removal is not, in itself, the way to deal with it. Those people are honest enough to concede that simply getting rid of nuclear weapons from Scotland makes no meaningful contribution to the wider debate of multilateral nuclear disarmament. The motion is also very disappointing. Apart from not encouraging either constructive or reflective debate, it does not even pause, as some have observed, to reflect on the actual consequence for fast lane and the western Bartonshire economy of losing that base for our nuclear submarines. I want to make progress, Mr Mackay. No thought has been given to the thousands of skilled workers who lose their jobs with no comparable alternative. I represent that area. I live in the real world. I know that there is a real biting human and economic cost to losing that nuclear capability and those nuclear submarines. Clare Baker at least acknowledged that. Her solution to me is not credible, but at least she accepts that there is a problem, as did Neil Findlay and Sarah Boyack. One thing can be said of the Scottish Government's position, it is clear—I disagree with it—but it is clear. The same cannot be said of the Labour party. Now, in the astonishing position, it has a Labour leader who does believe in Trident, but her party in Scotland does not. Her UK leader does not believe in Trident, but his party does. However, the overall message from both the SNP and Labour is the same. They will hike up taxis and they will scupper out the country's defences. To any workers in the defence industry in Scotland, there is a clear message, only the Conservatives will keep your taxes low and your defence jobs safe. We will fight for you in the real world and keep your country secure. That has been, in many respects, an interesting debate. I support my colleague John Lamont of Enlunch. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I agree that this has been, by and large, a very good debate and, hopefully, reflects the type of politics, the kinder politics that we can have in Scotland where we can debate big issues in a way that is constructive. In terms of the amendments in the motion, I can say that, in terms of John Wilson's amendment, the position of the Labour party in Scotland is that we do support being a NATO and therefore we would not be able to support that amendment. In terms of the Conservative amendment, we would not support that, but, interestingly, the Conservative amendment asks the Scottish Labour Party to decide what is the position on the future of the UK's nuclear deterrent. I would say to them that the Scottish Labour Party, at its conference at the weekend, over 70 per cent of the delegates and the affiliates voted to support a position, which is that we would not renew Trident, so our position is quite clear. In terms of the motion to our amendment, I would want to thank and congratulate the Government for agreeing to support the Labour amendment. I do hope that, in this area, it is an area where we can work together to make the arguments and make the case as to why it is not in Scotland's interests, it is not in the United Kingdom's interests and it is not indeed in the world's interests for the UK to renew its Trident weapons. I have, certainly, most of my adult life supported multilateral disarmament and believe that it is important that we do negotiate and there have been successes there. However, when it comes to the point of the renewal of Trident, I think that it is legitimate that, at that point, you would pause and you would have a look and you would ask the question, is it right that some 30 years on for the last decision on this, is it right to renew it? As Claire Baker pointed out, the world now is a very different place and the threat in that world is very different. The threat to us is a country to Scotland but it is also part of the isles to the United Kingdom. The threat is much different and, therefore, it is legitimate that, at that point, you would ask yourself, should we spend between 100 and 160 odd billion pounds on replacing the Trident nuclear weapon? I thought the contribution by Malcolm Chisholm. He highlighted very clearly that that case has not been made and I will come back to that. Trident is an expensive status symbol that has no military value and drains resources from conventional defences and socially useful investment. Dick Brody reminded us that Malcolm Chisholm had quoted Tony Blair, who said that it was more about a status and that it was about having a seat at the top table. I would have to say, Presiding Officer, that it is a fairly expensive seat at the top table, if that is all that is. Does the member share our bewilderment at the Conservatives that are quite happy to cap families who have too many children but not cap the cost of a moral and totally useless weapons or mass destruction? I think that that is the point. If it was proven beyond doubt that having a nuclear deterrent was absolutely necessary, indeed, if it was proven that we needed a nuclear deterrent for the safeguard of this country and the peoples of this country, we would not be arguing over the cost. The fact is that all the evidence suggests that it is not in our best interest to have a nuclear deterrent. Nuclear weapons have no military rationale. They are neither a deterrent nor a defence to the very real security threats that faces our nation. To answer the Conservative question, if I could quote here from the former Secretary of State for Defence, Michael Portillo, who served in John Major's Government until 1995-97, so he knows a wee bit about those things, Mr Portillo said earlier this year that our independent nuclear deterrent is not independent and does not constitute a deterrent against anybody that we regard as an enemy. It is a waste of money and it is a diversion of funds that might otherwise be spent on perfectly useful and usable weapons and troops, but some people have not caught up with their reality. It would suggest that the Conservative Party has not caught up with that reality. Christine Grahame Can I press the member to go even further and say whether he considers in any event the use of such a weapon of mass destruction is immoral, that there is immoral argument against not holding them as well as the deterrence as well as the cost? Alex Rowley I certainly think that there is a strong moral argument against investment and tried and the use of tried and the leader of the UK Labour Party has said that if he was Prime Minister he would not press that button. The case in terms of the moral argument against tried and I think has been made but the striking thing for me in looking at this debate is the lack of debate that has taken place right across civic Scotland, right across civic UK and therefore hopefully the discussions on this issue that have been there over the weekend, hopefully the discussions and if this Parliament passes the amended motion today, then hopefully we will start to generate a wider discussion across the United Kingdom so that people will examine the arguments that are being made because at the end of the day if you examine the arguments I think you would think twice. We have had a number of speakers that have talked about polls but I would want and saying that these polls would support the renewal of tried and I think when people actually look at the arguments Malcolm Chisholm talked about a big tent where he quoted the late Dennis Healy but also generals, military people, the military leadership are at best neutral on this issue. I think once you start to present the facts and that's what we have to do in terms of that but it does leave us, it does leave us with a real issue and a real concern and that's what Labour is focused on here in Scotland because we accept that there are people who are working in jobs that are dependent on tried and that's why I would commend the report from the STUC the case for a Scottish defence diversification agency. Now there are those who simply dismiss this as pie in the sky but this report actually shows that where this has been done properly and done right and they do point out not to if you're looking for a bad example of defence diversification then look no further than the UK defence diversification agency so there are bad examples but there are examples right across the world that would be important for us to look at in terms of diversification of jobs. I think it's also important that Malcolm Chisholm talked about this where he said, the job consequences of keeping tried and the threat to conventional defence investment so I think it's important also that people don't raise scare stories for places like Recythe and Monkinstitue and we're actually I would say tried and is a bigger threat to jobs there and we should be investing in the conventional forces that are there. We were also keen, Presiding Officer, not to not to start trying to identify lots of areas that you could spend this money in. As our leader at a UK level has said, it's important firstly that we look at the defence sector, look at investment there, look at diversification, look at protecting jobs but I certainly welcome this debate today. I think we need to move forward, we now need to make the case across the rest of the United Kingdom because if you look at the evidence, the evidence points clearly to not renewing the tried and nuclear weapons system. Many thanks and I now call on Keith Brown to wind up the debate. Thank you Presiding Officer. I think it has been as both Alec Rowley and Annabelle Goldie have said an interesting debate and I think it's potentially a very significant debate. In fact, potentially an even more significant vote shortly. One or two Labour members with some justifications spoke of their pride in their party's debate and the decision that they took to oppose tried at their conference and I accept that statement of pride. I would hope that they in turn would accept my pride in my party's steadfast, long-term opposition to not just tried in replacement but tried in itself and also to polaris. We had a number of compelling arguments against nuclear weapons from various people, Christian Allard, Christina McKelvie, Kevin Stewart, Jean Urquhart, John Wilson and many others, Chick Brody and two that stood out from me. I think Malcolm Chisholm did make a very good speech in terms of trying to lead out how it's possible to build support for the position of not renewing tried and pointed to the fact that perhaps a strategic and military argument should be more likely to work in terms of some of those specific, specifically on the conservative side who would otherwise not want to oppose renewal. I think that that was a very important point. We can see how that tent is open to many other people, perhaps less so for some of the Conservatives, but when you look at some of the very compelling arguments against the strategic and military justification for tried and I think it is still possible to do that. I wish I could say that we had a compelling argument for tried and renewal but I just don't think that we did today. Jim Hume left me very confused. He said that he was for a minimum deterrent and then described that minimum deterrent is zero. If that means—and I'm genuinely not sure if it does mean this—that Jim Hume means that the Liberal Democrats' position is that they would not have nuclear weapons then welcome to the big tent. I wasn't sure exactly what he was saying if it was a smaller number of nuclear warheads but he did say zero so I would have assumed that he's now on board, which is good news. I would just mention Jackie Baillie's speech because it really was nothing much more than an anti-SNP rant. It didn't do her or our arguments any credit whatsoever. The only people she'll get any credit from were the Tories who applauded it wildly. I think it's also not possible to say that although I do agree with Malcolm Chisholm, you have to try and build support. I can't see us having more success at least with the Scottish Conservatives. There does not seem to be that diversity of opinion within the Scottish Conservatives that there was within the wider Conservatives across the UK. We've heard about Michael Portillo's statements. We've heard about Crispin Blunt. There are many other examples, including his human military personnel, but today we've got a new doctrine, a new defence doctrine from the Tories, which was that it doesn't really matter what the price of the nuclear weapons is. We'll buy them anyway. I'm not even asking for the price. That was the point that John Lamont made when I think that he was questioned by Derek Mackay. At what price would you say that it's too expensive to have nuclear weapons? There was no price. It does not matter what the price of nuclear weapons is to the Tories. They want them anyway. I'll give rate to Alex Johnson. I'm keen to understand the intricacies of the SNP position over this. I remember that 20 years ago, when the decision was made to give the Trident submarine maintenance contract to Davenport instead of Recife, the SNP described that as a betrayal. They described it as one of the reasons why Scotland should consider independence. How has your position managed to change radically in that sense? I think that Alex Johnson may be aware of one or two changes that have happened over the past 20 years. However, I think that our position is pretty clear if you look at the motion that we have put up. Perhaps if he had started off with that, he wouldn't have to ask questions about our position. We have also heard today about the billions that Trident nuclear weapons have cost to taxpayers and about the untold billions still to come. Should the UK Government continue with their plans to construct and put into service another generation of submarines carrying Trident ballistic missiles, we have heard how spending on the successor Trident system would put conventional defence equipment programmes under pressure, with no clear threat that justifies a possessive nuclear weapons. Patricia Ferguson, I thought, made a very good speech, but she mentioned a number of very senior military personnel who are against nuclear weapons for the very good reason that it squeezes out funding for other conventional defence, including shipbuilding, which was mentioned by one or two others. Although I am keen to take on board the views of senior military personnel, I am also quite interested in your average soldier, infantry soldier, sailor and air force personnel, not at a senior level, who absolutely are sick to the back teeth or have been cheated out of the proper defence equipment, whether it is boots or helicopters because of spending on something like this. It is not just the senior military personnel. I can tell you from my own experience that it is not just senior military personnel who have no time for nuclear weapons and the huge extravagance that they represent. Members have also spoken passionately about the UK Government's prioritisation of welfare cuts, which even the unelected House of Lords has questioned. If the Tories would go as far with George Osborne to try and squeeze through renewal of trident with a statutory motion to the House of Commons, there is no reason why they should not be opening us up to much wider debate. I will come on to this later on, but we have now seen huge support across this chamber to oppose the renewal of trident weapons. I hope that when there is a debate on this, it will be a proper reasonable debate carried out in the House of Commons. Most important, we have heard again about the devastating and indiscriminate effect of nuclear weapons. I think that we all have said that even a very small nuclear exchange, and I use that phrase advisedly, would have catastrophic humanitarian, environmental and economic consequences. For how much longer do we want to continue with the risk that one day, one of those weapons may once again be used, whether by accident or by design? As I said, we have had quite a substantial debate about the job implications of those issues. Recently, during a member's debate on spending at HMNB Clyde, the Scottish Government welcomes investment in fazlain as a conventional naval base, as we welcome investment in conventional equipment facilities and arrangements to support our defence personnel, families and veterans, wherever they are based. We also play our full part in the firm base arrangements in shooting at both military and civil society in Scotland that they are working together to care for and support our service community. Our disagreement is not with those that serve in the military, whether at home or elsewhere. We would again call on the UK Government to explore how HMNB Clyde could be reconfigured for wholly conventional naval use. I would also note with particular interest the findings of the STUC and Scottish CND, which found that a detailed breakdown of the skills involved in trident-related work showed that many of those skills could be transferred to other non-trident submarine surface warship work or alternative economic development. However, it is indefensible for the UK Government to consider spending, just to mention the price again, the latest price that is £167 billion, of whatever the final figure actually is, on the renewal of unwanted nuclear weapons. I thank the cabinet secretary very much for taking that intervention. On the topic of £167 billion, does the cabinet secretary agree with me that the UK Government should at last take responsibility for the nuclear veterans exposed to radiation on Christmas Island once and for all before they die? The member makes a very important point, which has been debated, I think, with some credit in this Parliament on a number of occasions. We are aware that it is a legal case on-going, but that is part of the legacy of the development of nuclear weapons of the UK and it should stand up to its responsibilities. To conclude, Presiding Officer, I think that today has been a very significant debate. You have three minutes. For the first time, we will see the awful— I am very grateful to the minister for taking an intervention. Will the minister consider setting out a timetable for Scottish Government work on the whole issue of defence diversification and the key suggestion in our amendment about defence diversification agency being set up in Scotland to focus not just on Trident, but on some of the other transferable skills that I know that he welcomes that he mentioned in his speech, which we are very much welcome. I would say that the Labour amendment mentions diversification in the event of cancellation of Trident, but if the member suggests that we should think about that beforehand, I am more than happy to do that. I would make the offer for, I am not sure if it is Claire Baker, but whoever it is within the Labour Party. In fact, any of the parties in the Parliament who are against Trident, I want to discuss both how we can campaign, because this should not be the end of the discussion on this, but also how we look at the issue of jobs in relation to an eventual cancellation of Trident. I am more than happy to involve the other parties in doing that. I would be happy to do that. That is the reason why it has been an important debate, because, if you look at the decision that it may be taken very quickly, that is going to be a huge decision that will last for perhaps 60 years. However, we have a situation now where, if the voting goes as we expect it might go, we are going to have something like two thirds of this chamber saying, do not renew Trident. We are going to have 57 perhaps out of 59 of Scotland's MPs saying, do not renew Trident. Where is Trident going to be if it is renewed? It is going to be in Scotland. It is an extremely powerful message that we send out today. If we all support, or most of us support, the request of the UK Government that does not renew Trident, it is a hugely important decision. It cannot be the last thing that we say. That could be taken very quickly. We have to move from this decision today, the agreed position that we have, certainly with the two largest parties in the Parliament and with some of the smaller parties as well. To take this further, we cannot let the UK Government take a decision on this without letting them know exactly what Scotland thinks about this decision. It is not just the parties, it is not just the MPs, it is the churches, the STUC and the majority of Scottish MPs, as I have mentioned, but many people throughout Scotland would be appalled by the decision to renew these nuclear weapons. I am delighted that we have managed to reach some kind of agreement on this after many years of being at odds. I hope that we go from this today to take this forward to the UK Government and make sure that we never again renew Trident weapons of mass destruction. Thank you. That concludes the debate on Trident welfare and warfrying. We now move to the next item of business, which is decision time. There are four questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is at amendment 14681.3, in the name of Clare Baker, which seeks to amend motion 14681. In the name of Keith Brown, on Trident welfare or warfare, be agreed to, are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 14681.3, in the name of Clare Baker, is as follows. Yes, 96, no, 17. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to. Can I remind members that in relation to today's debate, if the amendment in the name of John Lamont is agreed, the amendment in the name of John Wilson falls? The next question then is amendment 14681.1, in the name of John Lamont, which seeks to amend motion 14681. In the name of Keith Brown, on Trident welfare or warfare, be agreed to, are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 14681.1, in the name of John Lamont, is as follows. Yes, 12, no, 101. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is amendment 14681.2, in the name of John Wilson, which seeks to amend motion 14681. In the name of Keith Brown, on Trident welfare or warfare, be agreed to, are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast votes now. The result of the vote on amendment 14681.2, in the name of John Wilson, is as follows. Yes, five, no, 108. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question is motion 14681. In the name of Keith Brown, as amended, on Trident welfare or warfare, be agreed to, are we all agreed? Parliament is not agreed. We move to vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion 14681, in the name of Keith Brown, as amended, is as follows. Yes, 96, no, 17. There were no abstentions. The motion, as amended, is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time. We now move to members' business. Members should leave the chamber, should do so quickly and quietly.