 I ask those who are leaving the chamber and the public leaving the Public Gallery to do so as quickly and as quietly as possible as we move on to the next item of business. The next item of business is a member's debate on motion 1071.2 on nuclear weapon free Europe. Gwerth I please ask those leaving the Public Gallery to do so as quietly as possible please. the debate will be concluded without questions being put I invite members wishing to participate to press the request to speak buttons now or as soon as possible. I invite Bill Kidd to open the debate around seven minutes, Mr Kidd. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I know that the gallery are excited about seeing me speaking here, so that's about it. While we're here today, in the shadow of the on-going Israeli-Gaza conflict and the continuing war in Ukraine and our thoughts go out to all of those affected, we are reminded of man's ability for inhumanity to another and to where such inhumanity can lead. This August, we commemorated the 78th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This Parliament noted it in Nagasaki, which saw an even more powerful and even more deadly detonation than the previous one in Hiroshima three days earlier. Everything within a mile of ground zero was annihilated and over 40,000 human beings were killed by the initial detonation. It's said that we need to learn from history to avoid repeating past errors, but today, as much as ever, the risk of escalation under the dark shadow of nuclear confrontation is a never present. Yet, under this shadow, we need to look for the light, to fight for what is right and to hope for a better tomorrow. After the tragedies of 78 years ago, hopes for a nuclear weapons-free world were seen as naive. Few would have believed that today almost half the world's population, over half of its land area and almost two thirds of the world's countries would be included in nuclear weapons-free zones. That truly remarkable achievement has only been possible through the passion and perseverance of trailblazing individuals, civic organisations and light-minded nations. Pioneers such as Alva Myrdal, born in Sweden in 1902, who dedicated her life to the welfare of others, rising to become the chairman of UNESCO's social science section, the first woman to hold such prominent positions in the United Nations. From then, Myrdal was elected to the Reichstag, and in 1962 she was sent as the Swedish delegate to the UN Disarmament Conference in Geneva, a role she kept until 1973. In 1982 she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her work on disarmament and her passing in 1986. She continued until then advocating for global nuclear disarmament. Today the torch is carried on through the work of international organisations such as PNND, the Global Security Institute, the Akron Institute and, of course, ICAN, the international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons. Coincidentally, that August announced the appointment of Melissa Park, a former United Nations legal expert and Australian Government minister to the position of Executive Director. Melissa is here today and it is an honour to welcome her to the Scottish Parliament. There is more to say, though. As well as wishing Melissa every success in her position, where I am certain she will prove as much of a trailblazer as those who have come before her, we also have other trailblazers here today. I would like to honour Gary Don of UN House Scotland, the indomitable Rebecca Johnson and Janet Fenton from ScotCND, whose tireless work has served to further the cause of nuclear disarmament here in Scotland and beyond. Many said that encouraging the establishment of a Middle East treaty organisation, or METAL, to further the aim of a nuclear weapons-free zone in that region was naive. Impossible, even. I remember a meeting taking place here in Edinburgh only made possible through the work of Janet and others to aid the fledgling idea, an idea that is now firmly established and acknowledged in the region as one with real potential, potential to rid the Middle East of all weapons of mass destruction as a gateway toward regional security and peace. I say this. At a recent meeting, METAL founder and executive director Sharon Dilev alongside director Eamad Ki spoke of the incredible progress they were making and of their gratitude to those involved in their pivotal meeting here in Scotland. It reminded me of the respect and regard Scotland holds across the globe through its historical and contemporary contributions to international development and discourse. As such, I believe that Scotland is uniquely placed to play a central, crucial role in furthering the work that has already been done in ridding our planet of the threat of nuclear weapons and promoting global security. To that end, I believe that the time is right to begin serious discussion on the framework for establishing a nuclear weapons-free Europe, a discussion with Scotland at its centre. Remember this. Here in Europe, there are to this day wild boar in Germany which have cesium in their bodies as a result of nuclear weapons tests carried out in the atmosphere. We must all be aware of the damage that would have resulted here in Scotland if the Westminster Government had in the 1950s carried through their plans to use Caithness as their nuclear weapons test site. That did not happen because the very wet weather there was damaging the delicate electrical equipment to be used, not because of the damage to our people and environment that would have resulted from the radioactivity following the nuclear explosions. David Torrance. I thank Bill Kidd for taking the intervention. He mentioned about Caithness being the test zone, probably for nuclear tests, but I was not allowed. Will he acknowledge that many of our constituents were here at Christmas Island and have suffered and our families have suffered since and the UK Government has ignored them? Bill Kidd. I very much thank the member for that intervention. It's extremely important. The truth is that nuclear weapons, wherever they're used in the world, damage human beings, they damage the environment and those people who have actually suffered from this deserve our strongest support and they deserve to be recognised. Thank you very much indeed. This Saturday, Glasgow welcomed Scotland's first festival for survival, organised by Scotty's CND, to explore the link between nuclear weapons and climate change, and will include speakers from across the political spectrum and civic society. The festival will also look to examine the role we can play in an era of global crisis by showing how campaigns, a progressive foreign policy and the expertise based in Scotland can take the agenda for peace, disarmament and climate justice forward. Part of the agenda is starting the process to establishing a nuclear weapons free Europe. It's my wish that today's debate, the ideas of others and the response of the Government can come together to inform and shape where we go from here to make this wish into a reality. Thank you, Mr Kidd. Before we move to the open debate, just a gentle reminder to those in the public gallery that you should not be participating and that includes applauding, however tempting that may be. I now called Stephen Kerr to be followed by Rona Mackay around four minutes, Mr Kerr. I congratulate Bill Kidd on bringing his motion to the chamber. It will come as a surprise to no one that I am not a unilateral disarmament, I believe, in multilateral disarmament. If I may say this politely to Bill Kidd, I am afraid that my policy outlook is framed by what is the real world situation. We can't disinvent nuclear weapons and, while some states have nuclear weapons, it is right that Britain retains its own nuclear deterrent. The logic of your argument is that, if you think that a deterrent is necessary, you are not in favour of multilateral disarmament, never mind unilateral disarmament. I think that the recent history shows that it is possible for nuclear arsenals to be downscaled given the nature of the power of the nuclear weapon, so I don't accept the premise of what Richard Leonard has given us as intervention. I do believe very firmly that it is the first duty of any government to protect this country. At its core, that means protecting our country from attack from another country, and that is what the nuclear deterrent is all about. It is the ultimate defence insurance policy. Pro-nuclear deterrent does not, by any manner of means, make me in any way pro-war. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am pro-nuclear deterrent because I am anti-war, and war, as we have seen tragically, all too evidently in the last few months in Ukraine, causes enormous destruction and loss of life. I mean thinking a lot about Ukraine in relation to the motion. I will take an intervention. Stephen Kerr, for taking that intervention, is referring to nuclear weapons as deterrents, but would he not accept that it is equally the case that they could be targets if in the event of a war? Let me focus on the deterrent aspect, if I might, because I have been thinking a lot about Ukraine. You have to go all the way back to the December of 1994 to the Budapest memorandum when the United States, Russia and the United Kingdom committed themselves to a memorandum, as I said it stated, and I quote, that would respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine, and we all know what has happened since 2014 and more dramatically since last year. I ask the chamber this very simple question, an unpalatable question as it is, but would Ukraine have been exposed to the aggression, the invasion, the brutality of Vladimir Putin's Russia and Ukraine had retained its nuclear weapons because the Budapest memorandum was paving the way for Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons. Politicians from all parties have a duty to avoid conflict and war. I think about our own national model and forgiving my school boy Latin, Nemo me impunila quesit, no one provokes me with impunity. The United Kingdom, our country is not a warmonger, we're not an aggressive country, we don't try and impose our will on others by using hard power. We're a nation of pragmatists and we appreciate we've got to defend what we've got and that the best route to peace is through strength. That pragmatism calls on us to be pragmatic in the context of the reality that we deal with, not the one that we'd like but the one that we have to deal with, I would give way. Ruth Maguire, briefly. I thank Stephen Kerr for giving way. Peace is obviously more than the absence of war, it's about justice and safety. Would the money spent on these weapons of mass destruction and indiscriminate killing not be better invested in things that truly make people safe in this country? Stephen Kerr. For you giving me some latitude on my speech here, because I think I'll be the only one in this debate that's going to take a position different than the one that's in the motion. I agree with Ruth Maguire, funnily enough. Of course she's right, but again we're moving from the reality that we have to deal with to something that we perhaps would like and we have to deal with the reality as it is. That means in the spirit of that pragmatism that I've been describing that we have to be pragmatic about our need to retain, upgrade, modernise and keep relevant our nuclear deterrent. So the simple message that we need to send and that I'm afraid we will continue to need to send is one of deterrent. Deterring aggressive or aggressor nations from thinking that we can ever be intimidated by them or blackmailed by them in the way that Russia has attempted to do with Ukraine. I will conclude, again I thank the Presiding Officer for allowing me a little bit of latitude since I am the one voice saying something different. I reiterate, Vladimir Putin has made no secret of his detestation of our country, of the west. We have seen the lengths to which he's prepared to go to undermine the west, to undermine Ukraine, to attempt to obliterate Ukraine as a sovereign nation. We in the United Kingdom must never put ourselves in a position where we are defenceless. Our insurance in the nuclear deterrent is based upon reality and not some desirable fantasy. Mr Kerr, the latitude was granted for the interventions rather than any other reason. I now call Rona Mackay to be followed by Carol Mawkin around four minutes. It's no surprise to anyone that I disagree with every word that we've just heard Stephen Kerr say, practically every word. I thank Bill Kidd for bringing this debate to the chamber. I fully support his motion and I commend him for his unwavering commitment to getting rid of the obscenity of nuclear weapons. In fact, I'd even call him a trailblazer. I completely endorse my colleague's wish for our nuclear weapons free Europe and I would also like to welcome the United Nations legal expert and executive director of ICAN, Melissa Park, to the chamber. I hope that she enjoys the debate and can see how much support she has in the Scottish Parliament. Nuclear weapons are wrong at every level strategically, morally and financially. Even before I became involved in politics decades ago, I instinctively knew they were abhorrent. I'm delighted that the Scottish Government has set out how, after independence, Scotland can adopt a written constitution that protects and enhances all our human rights and gets rid of those weapons from the shores of our beautiful country. The First Minister's proposals for new constitutional rights for our independent Scotland include a constitutional ban on nuclear weapons being based in this country. Westminster's commitment to nuclear weapons leaves other aspects of our defence weakened and the outdated argument, some of which we've just heard the previous speaker, that they've kept the peace and that they're a deterrent as palpable nods since, as the world is witnessing the tragic and heartbreaking wars at this present time. Stephen Kerr. The member then, very straightforwardly, does she not accept the premise that the war in Ukraine might probably have never happened if Ukraine still had nuclear weapons? The reality is, it was the weakness, the perceived weakness of the position of the Ukraine that led Vladimir Putin to do what he did recklessly over a year ago. Rona Mackayn, I can give you the time back. I don't agree with that premise and, as part of your overall speech, that was woven into it and I don't agree with it. I don't think that they will ever be a deterrent and they never have been so. The UK Government's irresponsible obsession with nuclear weapons is an immoral and ruinous expense. Current estimates are that nuclear deterrent costs us around £2.7 billion a year. Look how that money could be spent on new hospitals, schools and uplifting armed forces pay. The Scottish Government supports long-term investment in fast lane as a conventional military base. Our position of nuclear weapons is clear. The SNP, after independence, would use Scotland's new sovereign powers to remove them from Scottish territory as soon as can safely be undertaken. On Saturday—I am going to repeat this, Bill did say this, but I think that it is worth repeating—the Scottish campaign for nuclear disarmament will hold a festival for survival, which promises to be an inspiring and landmark event. It is taking place in two venues in Glasgow and this will bring together campaigners, civic voices, think tax, academics, everyone interested in moving forward the case for removing these weapons from Scotland and from the world. It will include a range of workshops and cultural exhibits to bring hundreds of people together to discuss and debate the issue. The focus will be on the twin threats to our planet, nuclear calamity and catastrophic climate change, because the two are interlinked. The CND's statement on its website says that these twin issues fuse together to threaten the very habitat that we rely on. Today's nuclear bombs are many times more destructive than those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. All the nuclear states, including India and China, are developing new weapons, while the non-nuclear powers create new pressure towards disarmament through the UN treaty and the provision of nuclear weapons. In Scotland, we have a special responsibility to rise to this challenge. The removal of nuclear warheads from Fastlane and Coolport would dismantle the British nuclear weapons system and prove that nuclear states can be disarmed. We shared the deep concern about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from any use of nuclear weapons and recognise the consequent need to eliminate those inhumane and abhorrent weapons. The abolition of nuclear weapons would be a global good of the highest order and an essential step to promote the security and wellbeing of all people. The dream of a nuclear free world is one that sustains those committed to peace and justice for decades, yet we still seem very far away from that ideal. If I could perhaps say to the member on the Conservative benches that reality will only change if we change it and we must play our part in changing this reality, our job here is to build peace, not war and any small contribution that we can make towards that effort. I am happy to do and I'm sure many in the chamber will be too. It's Karl Mocken saying that it's the position of the Labour Party that we would unilaterally give up our nuclear weapons. We already have an example of a nuclear state that gave up its nuclear weapons, despite what we heard earlier. That was true in the case of Ukraine. Is she advocating that we should do exactly the same and leave ourselves vulnerable to the sort of blackmail and aggression that Ukraine has now suffered? I do not believe that the world is a safer place with nuclear weapons, so we disagree on that point. This is a member's debate and I am entitled to put forward my view on the fact that we should have a nuclear free world. During a time when horrendous war in humanity or on our screens day after day has really felt so appropriate that we strive to work on this. I thank Bill Kidd for his continuing work on this vital issue and I am clear in my support for the aims and recognition that is celebrated in this motion. We need more activity in this Parliament dedicated to peace and more Parliamentarians speaking boldly in favour of that. In regards to the motion, it is promising that 60 per cent of the world's countries are now nuclear weapons free zones. Although the pace is gradual, we are slowly decreasing the threat of nuclear weapons globally. It remains the case, however, that a small concentration of countries continue to put the entire globe at risk and I am ashamed to say that our own is included in that number. Striving to make Europe a nuclear weapon free zone is a noble and worthwhile pursuit that this Parliament can contribute to constructively with partners across the continent, many of whom will have a clear interest in Scotland due to its significance as one of a few areas in Europe to house nuclear weapons. Adding our voice to that orchestra has a definite impact and it is wise of us to do so. People want to hear from Scotland on this issue, so let's speak to the world about it. Let's speak to the world on this issue, something that we perhaps don't often enough do. Although there are differences of opinions on this across the chamber, even within parties themselves, Scotland and the UK more widely has played an important role in the anti-nuclear weapons movement for decades by being proactive and constructive and having our communities speak out about it, so there is no reason for us to slow that down. I understand that there is no quick fix to the mistakes of the past that brought these horrible weapons into reality, but I am confident that, in time, the idea that once we had nuclear warheads capable of mass death and destruction on our doorstep will seem completely ridiculous. It might not be in my lifetime. I hope that it is in my children's lifetime. Here, in this building, we can come together and make a difference. We can have a nuclear weapon free Europe. I do not want generations to come to suffer because of the mistakes that we made and that we did not speak out. This is a key responsibility for all people elected. Let's work together in the knowledge that we can make Europe a beacon to the rest of the world and have a nuclear weapons free Europe. David Torrance will be followed by Maggie Chapman in about four minutes. I am very grateful to Bill Kidd for securing this important debate and congratulating him on achieving cross-party support on his motion. He has been at the forefront of his campaign for many years and I commend him for his tireless efforts. It is another and a solemn responsibility to speak in this debate as we stand on the precipite of a country that stands for peace and one that seeks the abolishment of the threats and loom large over collective futures. Recent global affairs in the last few weeks have demonstrated that the state of safety and security is not one that we can take for granted. We know last week that Russia's Parliament backed to withdraw of Moscow's ratification of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, one of the most consequential international agreements for global security. In these turbulent times, the establishment of nuclear weapons free zones or NWFZ stands as a beacon of hope for the present and future generations and international community as a whole. We have a duty to our constituents to ensure that Scotland plays a leading role in driving forward ideas of peace, prosperity and a sustainable future. That's why I join others in supporting the United Nations agenda for disarmament and recognising and commanding the relentless efforts to establish more nuclear weapons free zones across the globe. Currently, there are five established NWFZs covering the regions such as Latin America, the Caribbean, South Pacific, South East Asia, Africa and Central Asia. These zones cover a staggering 56 per cent of the Earth's land area and include 60 per cent of its countries, sheltering approximately 39 per cent of the global population from the immediate dangers of nuclear weapons. Why make these NWFZs truly remarkable is that they are not merely symbolic gestures, they come with legally binding obligations, verified by the international atomic energy agency. Why we celebrate the milestone of achieving progress towards the UN agenda of disarmament, we must also face the undeniable reality but absence of nuclear NWFZs across the Europe continent. Scotland, with its clear history and standard on nuclear disarmament, has a unique perspective and a role to play. The Scottish Government's position on this matter is clear and I am proud to support the commitment to pursue a safe and complete withdrawal of all nuclear weapons from Scotland. However, our vision of a nuclear free Scotland has been threatened by changes in geopolitical landscape in recent years. One of the most alarming repercussions of Brexit is the potential impact of the UK's nuclear posture. Brexit has weakened our ties within Europe neighbours, particularly those who champion the peace and diplomacy. If the UK Government truly aspires to rebuild and strengthen our relationship with its countries, then the greater effort towards the establishment of NWFZs in Europe would certainly be a bold step in the right direction. I cannot believe that we have had no reference at all to the importance of NATO in all of this. NATO is a nuclear alliance. I understand that it is the policy of the SNP that we remain members of NATO. It is a nuclear alliance. Therefore, no acknowledgement of the important role that NATO has played in the peace of Europe for these decades seems remiss on the part of the speaker. David Torrance, I can give you the time back. I thank Mr Kerr for intervention. There are many nations in NATO that do not have nuclear weapons and are part of it. By establishing these zones, we can take collective ownership or our safety and security. It sends a powerful message that security can be based on mutual trust, co-operation and diplomacy. Most people in Scotland are strongly opposed to NWFZs and it is well established that an independent Scotland will be free of the nuclear weapons, but it is only with independence that Scotland's interests can be adequately represented on the international stage. The UK Government has not ratified to treat you on provision of nuclear weapons and has in fact decided to increase its stockpile of NWFZs. That is not only hugely disappointing but also a break in the commitment to international community. European history has borne witness to countless wars and conflicts and by establishing nuclear weapon free zones, we affirm our collective commitment to peace, unity and security. It will be a powerful signal to the world that Europe is united in its desire for a safer future for all of its inhabitants. As international security concerns are heightened and as global politics continues to change, we need to renew to encourage our global co-operation and diplomacy. The establishment of NWFZs in Europe is one of the many tools to help us to achieve this and it would be not just for our strategic or political decisions, it is a moral imperative. In conclusion, I love the path to nuclear disarmament is undoubtedly challenging. It is a path that Scotland is leading with determination and has demonstrated by cross-party support for its motion with unity. In the words of Robbie Burns, now is the day and now is the hour. The time to explore the establishment of NWFZs in Europe is now for Scotland, for Europe and for the world. I thank Bill Kidd for securing this important debate. I thank him and most others this afternoon for their clear stance. Nuclear weapons are a moral disgrace. I'm particularly grateful for Bill's motion highlighting the UN securing our common future document. It's five years since it was produced but it's had little attention either in this chamber or elsewhere in UK political debate and that is a shame because it's a rich and deep piece of work at least as relevant now as when it was written, probably more so. It closes with a quotation about disarmament from the great and visionary Dach Hammersheld and I quote, In this field, as we well know, a standstill does not exist. If you do not go forward, you do go backward. The past five years have seen us as a global community going backwards in some fundamental and tragic ways. We've seen the relentless rise of inequalities, the normalisation of war, the intensification of climate breakdown, the undermining of norms against nuclear weapon testing and, in a few short weeks, thousands of children killed in Gaza. We grieve together. Peace and justice both feel very far away. Bill's motion invites us to recognise, through our deep sadness, some of the quiet work of peace carried out by the establishment of nuclear weapon free zones. It asks us to recognise how much of the world is covered by these zones and how much is not. The gulf between hemispheres, between south and north, the majority and the minority, is laid bare for us all to see. And we acknowledge, especially in these days of pain, the dedication of those seeking such a zone in the Middle East. Mr Kerr may be interested to know that there is a central Asian nuclear weapons free zone, including Kazakhstan, with its extensive border with Russia, belying some of his comments about Ukraine earlier. So why not here? Why not in Europe? In 2016, the Peace Institute Frankfurt and others analysed that question. They argued for the value of a European zone, beginning perhaps with just a few committed countries, building momentum across civil society, courageous in resisting powerful opposition and challenging the deadly control of the nuclear status quo. That is a vision that many in Scotland share and that an independent Scotland might take as one of its priorities. Because we cannot underestimate the work of peace, neither its significance nor its cost, securing our common future reminds us that the casualties of modern war, whether nuclear or conventional, are more and more often civilians. It reiterates the connections between peace and the sustainable development goals, those minimum grounds for human flourishing. The absence of war is not just one goal, but an essential foundation for them all. It speaks of the gendered impacts both of violent conflicts and of unmet sustainable development goals. Women experience those shortfalls not just as absences, but as direct blows to their bodies, to their homes, to their children, to their hope. It reminds us of the obstacles to peace and disarmament. They are not just the accidental causes of conflict, disputed resources, land and beliefs. There are those for whom the expansion of war, the stockpiling of weapons, arms races and disaster capitalism mean profit and power. We must call them to account as clearly as we do the fossil fuel industry. Finally, there is a question for us all. What do we mean by security? Why do we support a defence sector, including NATO and its military industrial complex, without question? Yet refuse to fund peace to the same level. Are we content to cower beneath a nuclear umbrella, praying that the wind doesn't turn it inside out, watching the hard rain fall on our neighbours' uncovered heads? Or might we be more truly safe alongside them, building a sustainable shelter that we can all share? Surely we must all seek to secure our common future. I now call Marie McNair to be followed by Richard Leonard in four minutes. I congratulate my colleague Bill Kidd for securing this important debate on nuclear weapons-free Europe. I thank him for his commitment to the issue and his work as a convener of the cross-party group on nuclear disarmament. As always already mentioned, Bill has been one of the memory speakers for Saturday's Festival of Survival, and this event will bring together many campaigners for peace. It will focus on twin threats of climate destruction and nuclear annihilation. I wish this event every success and thank the organisers for their endeavour. In doing so, I also pay tribute to the Scottish campaign for nuclear disarmament, the international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons and all others who oppose nuclear weapons across the world. I am sure that many of us in the chamber and across Scotland saw the global blockbuster Oppenheimer over the summer. This film was utterly harrowing and brought greater awareness to younger generations of the sheer destruction and death that was caused in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was only able to illustrate some of the horror, for the reality was far more gruesome than could ever be depicted in film. Importantly, it grew people's attention to the real and present danger of nuclear weapons. Scottish CND estimates that there are 13,000 nuclear weapons in the world and that they have even more power to be destructive. Their use will be more catastrophic than ever. That is why we must be passionate about achieving a nuclear-free Scotland, three and foremost in a Europe where nuclear weapons are a thing of the past. Scotland's nuclear weapons base at Fastlane is only 40 minutes drive from my constituency and I am sure that many of my constituents will agree with me that it has done nothing to make us feel safer, rather more on edge. The SNP has a long... Stephen Kerr. Many of the member's constituents are probably employees that work at Fastlane. Probably tens of thousands of people depend on their livelihoods by working at Fastlane, so I think that that is the other side of the coin that deserves to be put down, displayed as well as this other side that you are talking about. Marie McNair and I give you the time back. I thank you for your intervention. I am not quite sure what it was there, but I think that there are only 500. I am sure that many of my constituents will agree with me that it has done nothing to make us feel safer, again, rather more on edge. Obviously, they are wrong, strategically, morally and financially, and they cost billions of pounds, money that could be much better spent on healthcare, education, housing, welfare and building a better future for our children. That certainly puts the debate about the level of social security in a different context. Critics might argue that a Europe free of nuclear weapons undermines our security, but the reality is quite the opposite. They are doing nothing to keep us safe in the current geopolitical landscape and more likely they have put us at risk. When we debate having nuclear weapons in Scotland and across Europe, I think that we all must remember the scale of damage that can be caused by these weapons. We know that existence is something that we can unite against. It was a proud moment when, by an overwhelming majority in 2015, this Parliament united in opposition to trident rural. An independent Scotland is not only a way to see nuclear weapons removed from our country, it would also be a significant boost in the removal of these weapons of mass destruction from the rest of the UK. It is clear that rehousing nuclear weapons elsewhere would be a significant challenge and that would hopefully prove impossible. By advocating for disarmament in our own country, we sent a strong message that we must work collectively to try and achieve a nuclear weapons free Europe and across the world. The nuclear weapons free Europe is about protection of humanity and the provision of a safer world for our children. At its core, it represents a dedication to peace, co-operation and a world where dialogue prevails over destruction. Presiding Officer, that is a world where we should all want to live in. Thank you. Thank you, Ms McMayor. I have just a reminder that when referring to Bill Kidd or any other member, full names should be used. I am conscious of the number of members who still want to participate in the debate, so I am minded to take a motion without notice under rule 8.14.3 to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes, and I call on Bill Kidd to move such a motion. Moved. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Thank you, Mr Kidd. Are we all agreed? That is agreed. That is not an invitation to extend the speech too much, Mr Leonard. I call on Richard Leonard to be followed by Ruth Maguire around four minutes, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I thank Bill Kidd for bringing this important debate to Parliament. We have been campaigning for a nuclear weapon free Europe for as long as I have been active in the peace movement. People like Edward Thompson, Mary Calder and Ken Coates formed European nuclear disarmament in the early 1980s in response to the deployment of American crews and Pershing missiles across Europe, including at Greenham Common, arguing that instead of being in the words of the propaganda a theatre of limited nuclear warfare, Europe must be a theatre of peace. And they joined up with dissidents like Rudolf Barrow in East Germany. Roy Medvedev in the Soviet Union, with the shared credo that, I quote, protest is the only realistic form of self-defence. Bearing witness to the enduring truth that nobody wins a nuclear war, we all lose the understanding that if we don't destroy these weapons they will destroy us, that there is a terrifying finality to it. Yes, I'll give it a word. Over 40 years now, Deputy Presiding Officer, since Richard Leonard and I first debated the whole issue of nuclear weapons, and I would have to say to him, and I hope he would accept, that in the 40 years since this country has not been involved in a land war or a war of any description in Europe, does he not agree, does he not acknowledge that the strength of NATO and the commitment, by the way Labour were the ones that founded NATO, does he not accept that the success of NATO, the strength of NATO, has been a guarantor of the peace and that underpinning that has been our nuclear deterrent? Richard Leonard, I'll give you the time back. No, and I'm afraid Stephen Kerr hasn't changed his position since he was in favour of Trident back in those days and I was against it. So I don't accept the premise of that, of his arguments either, because four decades on and the cause of peace and disarmament has never been more critical. Never more critical than it is in Europe today, with Russia waging war on Ukraine, but also just last week revoking its ratification of the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. Never more critical than it is today in the Middle East and the gravity of the situation we now face. With Israel, a nuclear state, with a substantial nuclear arsenal, with a government that along with the US administration is boycotting United Nations attempts to establish a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East. Yet it is my deepest conviction that all that people want, including the people of Israel and the people of Palestine, is a chance to live in peace. My message to all nuclear states, including our own, is that nuclear weapons are not just immoral, they are illegal. There is no such thing as a targeted nuclear attack. Its impact is indiscriminate. It cannot be limited to military installations. Entire civilian populations face annihilation. And just as 40 years ago we were warning that a war in Europe is not a limited war, a war in the Middle East is not a limited war either. It risks becoming a general war, a total war, a nuclear war, which is why it is unthinkable. And that's exactly why we demand a ceasefire now. UN peacekeepers on the ground and why we need a nuclear weapon free zone treaty in the Middle East if we are to secure a just and lasting peace. And finally, what of our own situation in all of this? The idea of an independent, the idea of an independent UK nuclear deterrent is mendacious. The Pentagon supplies us with nuclear warheads. Any use of weapons from these shores would need to be sanctioned by the President of the United States of America. And only then at the request of the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, who is always an American general, we are a client state. But the power of example should not be underestimated. That is why I do not flinch in my support for unilateral nuclear disarmament. And so I steadfastly oppose the commissioning of a new generation of nuclear weapons. It's why I will continue to campaign for peace, justice and disarmament, because even at this time of despair, I believe that hope will triumph over fear. That we can build a world where we convert skills and science from being in the service of violence, warfare and destruction to being in the service of the human condition, ecology and the cause of peace. And I firmly believe that working for that brighter future is not only our abandoned duty as members of this Parliament, it is also our solemn obligation as citizens of this world. Thank you, Mr Leonard. I now call the final speaker in the open debate, Ruth Maguire, around four minutes, please, Ms Maguire. Presiding Officer, peace and stability are precarious and safety and security are about more than the absence of violence and war. The number of conflicts around the globe and the accompanying human suffering are horrific. It's hard to witness even from our position of comfort and safety. And I know that many of the citizens that I represent feel entirely helpless watching the violence and destruction unfold from afar in Yemen, Ukraine and Gaza. The escalation of such hostilities to nuclear warfare is all too real a prospect. I want to thank my colleague Bill Kidd for securing this important debate and acknowledge his long standing and unwavering commitment to nuclear disarmament, peace and justice. I also want to thank my colleague Stephen Kerr. It's not often that we have a pro-nuclear voice in these debates and I think it's helpful. I know it's not always comfortable being the only person with a different position even for such a confident young person or a conservative as himself. It is helpful that we talk about our differences and that we exercise them. It's helpful for people to hear that. Nuclear weapons are a threat to safety and security. That they continue to be considered as a source of international influence by some is perverse to me. Those who do so often speak of deterrent. This is demonstrably not the case. Even if it were true, as Bill Kidd noted before in this chamber, it does not preclude the use of nuclear weapons for evil intent. Where those weapons of mass destruction are used to indiscriminately kill, to wreak environmental carnage, the results are catastrophic and long lasting. Whenever we speak of those matters, we must never forget that the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945, killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of civilians. Their effects are still being felt today. Close to 250,000 civilians met that unimaginable end in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and many thousands more have since died from radiation-related illnesses. There are currently five nuclear weapon free zones and the benefits of those treaties are clear. They have helped to strengthen global nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament norms of use and testing. They are a testament to what nations can do when working together and are the first step to the exclusion of all weapons of mass destruction. The Middle Eastern Treaty Organization reported that there are nine out of 28 countries that have the capability of creating weapons, worryingly four of which have already used chemical weapons during war. The Canberra Commission states, that, as long as any weapons remain, it defies credibility that they will not one day be used by accident or miscalculation. The establishment of a nuclear weapon free zone is a measured incremental approach to disarmament, slowly and methodically ruling out areas for nuclear deployment. It is also explicitly endorsed by the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, where article 7 formally defines the right for states to create regional nuclear weapon free zones, to assure the total absence of nuclear weapons in their respective territories. I wish to see an independent nuclear free Scotland. Until then, we must all continue to oppose the presence of nuclear weapons in Scottish waters and give support to the global fight for nuclear disarmament. Safety and security is about more than the absence of violence in war. It is about creating a just and equal society in which everyone can achieve their full potential, where no one is left behind. The continued progress towards the establishment of more nuclear weapon free zones will help to nurture and support those who need it most. Thank you, Ms McGuire. I now call Christina McKelvie to respond to the debate. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. May I commend Bill Kidd for bringing this important debate, a long-time campaigner for nuclear disarmament and a fine advocate in this Parliament and across the world for a world free of nuclear weapons, and a legend, I think. That's in my own words. Presiding Officer, can I also welcome to the debate today Melissa Park, the Executive Director of ICANN. I had the real privilege of meeting with her earlier and we discussed many areas of mutual agreement and co-operation that I think that we will continue those conversations as we move forward. Presiding Officer, I should also declare an interest and you'll not be surprised as an outspoken advocate and supporter of CND since my teenage years and I'll leave others to work out the timeframe for that. I am absolutely unequivocal in my opposition to nuclear weapons. Presiding Officer, the Scottish Government's position is very clear. Nuclear weapons with their indiscriminate and devastating impacts are morally, strategically and economically wrong. We firmly oppose the threat, use and the basing of nuclear weapons in Scotland. Mary McNair mentioned a new generation of young people learning about nuclear weapons from the film Oppenheimer where the words I am become death now resonates through all of those generations. Presiding Officer, we are firmly committed to pursuing the safe and complete withdrawal of all nuclear weapons from Scotland. Independence would all allow Scotland to achieve the same, uniting with allies across the world in securing nuclear disarmament. As Rona Mackay reminded us, in June this Government published a paper in our building a new Scotland series on a modern constitution for an independent Scotland. That paper proposed that the interim constitution should place a duty on the Scottish Government to pursue nuclear disarmament. I am sure that those colleagues across the chamber who share my opposition to those dangerous weapons will agree that independence is the sureest route to ridding Scotland of nuclear weapons for good. Presiding Officer, I join Bill Kidd and others in welcoming progress under the United Nations agenda for disarmament. I commend all countries acting as champions and supporters for these important actions. The international community, the vast majority of which opposes those weapons, must continue to work together to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons. I am particularly pleased to see the progress of nuclear weapons free zones and Bill Kidd's call for a nuclear free Europe. Those zones, as highlighted by David Torrance, provide a vital protection to the people and the environment of Latin America and the Caribbean, the South Pacific, South-East Asia, Central Asia and Africa. Within those zones in manufacture, acquisition, testing or possession of nuclear weapons is not allowed. That is us in the global north taking responsibility for our impact on the global south. Presiding Officer, Europe does not enjoy the protection of a nuclear free zone. As the motion notes establishing nuclear free zones is complex and difficult. Theodore Roosevelt famously said, nothing in the world is worth having or worth doing unless it means effort, pain and difficulty. Although I cannot completely agree with that sentiment, it would be nice if some things were easy. I hope we can all agree that a world free of nuclear weapons is surely worth having and working towards this is very much worth doing. Presiding Officer, as I have said and many others today, including Richard Leonard, the moral case alone should be sufficient incentive for nuclear disarmament. No more reason should be needed. However, let's consider the colossal waste of money for a moment. Estimates for the replacement of Trident range from the UK Government's own figures of up to £41 billion to a lifetime cost calculated by the campaign for nuclear disarmament at a staggering £250 billion, £205 billion, Presiding Officer. Money that could be well spent elsewhere. That simply cannot be done. With Ruth Maguire, I urge the UK Government to focus its defence spending on the capabilities that we need to fight the threats that we face in a modern world. I also urge the UK Government to recognise and compensate our Christmas Island veterans, many of whom I have proudly represented in this chamber. I join colleagues in thanking organisations such as the international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons, the Scottish campaign for nuclear disarmament, the parliamentarians for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, and their commitment to this cause is truly helping to make the world a safer place. Today, I commend Rona Mackay, Carol Morgan, David Torrance, Maggie Chapman, Mary McNair, Richard Leonard, Ruth Maguire and Bill Kidd for their unstinting commitment to the cause against nuclear weapons and the peace that we all seek for our country to live in, for our world to live in. Presiding Officer, can I turn to my conclusion? We live in a complex and fragile world, but nuclear weapons do not provide any meaningful deterrent to many modern-day threats. They have not prevented other nuclear arms states from carrying out terrible acts in the UK and around the world. Presiding Officer, I find it quite offensive for Stephen Kerr to suggest that Ukraine could have prevented their invasion if they had retained nuclear weapons, particularly when we consider the past and current threats to nuclear energy plants in that country. Oh, I certainly will. That is not, in fact, what I said. I think that the minister perhaps hasn't been listening to the debate as closely as she should have been. I asked the question of the chamber if Ukraine still had retained its nuclear deterrent, which it gave up freely on the back of the Budapest memorandum. Would Russia have so easily, without careful thought, have done what it did last year? That is what I asked. To misrepresent my views otherwise, I think that it is not in keeping with what I expect from a minister of the Scottish Government. Minister, I will give you the time back. Oh, it's not like Stephen Kerr to tell a woman off in this chamber, but quite frankly, I don't take lessons from Stephen Kerr, actually. You're a minister. Mr Kerr. Point of order, Stephen Kerr. Minister, can you resume your seat? Point of order, Stephen Kerr. Surely it is not in order when a minister is intervened on and a different point of view is put forward. For the minister then to revert to the sort of defence that we heard there. Basically accusing me, which I don't think is very respectful of some form of misogyny. I really object to that and I don't think it's necessary. Surely that's out of order. Mr Kerr, that is not a point of order, but it is probably timely to remind all colleagues that they should be treating each other with courtesy and respect, which I think we've managed by and large in this debate. Minister, if you could continue. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I've been listening to the Tone Police all my political life and I will not be listening to them going forward even from today. I think that the actual point that I made about nuclear armed states have not been prevented from having terrible acts perpetuated on them and that blaze bears Stephen Kerr's weak argument that nuclear weapons prevent war. They do not. There is no justification for the possession, threat or use of these weapons and I look forward to the day when we do make it possible to free Europe and the rest of the world from these weapons for good. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Minister, that concludes the debate and I suspend this meeting of Parliament until 2.30.