 I'm certainly happy to have further discussions with the organisations and Glasgow City Council and looking whether that's feasible. Many thanks. That concludes question time. I will now move to the next item of business, which is a debate on motion number 10724 in the name of Keith Brown on trident. We are tight for time this afternoon. Members in the open debate will already have been advised that speeches are now of five minutes duration. I would also therefore ask opening speakers if they could be as brief as possible in the time allocated to them, any time that we save, and opening speeches may be used then in the open debate. I call on Keith Brown to speak to and to move the motion. Minister, you have 14 minutes maximum in which to do so. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. It's my belief that it's extremely important that we consider the issues raised in this motion, which I now move for a number of critical reasons. First of all, to consider the current opportunity to remove those obscenely destructive and indiscriminate weapons from Scotland forever. Then to consider the findings of the recent Trident commission report produced last month, which included the determination of the three main Westminster parties to proceed with trident replacement and also the massive costs associated with that decision. Finally, to consider the impact of those costs, currently estimated at over £100 billion at 2012 prices on the expenditure that we may make on conventional defence equipment specifically and on future budgets generally. Each of those issues is crucial to Scotland's future, and it's therefore extremely important that this Parliament considers those issues. We will have the opportunity, the people of Scotland will have the opportunity to decide that Scotland will once again take its place as an independent country. That choice, which I fully expect the people of Scotland to embrace, comes with this Government's commitment to secure the removal of trident nuclear weapons from an independent Scotland. I know that the Scottish Governments and, of course, my party are absolutely determined to seize the opportunity to begin in six weeks' time the discussions that will lead to the removal of nuclear weapons from Scotland. I cannot believe that, in addition to the SNP and to the green members and others in this chamber, that there are not others in other parties who would not be excited by that project, including among them lifelong campaigners against nuclear weapons, who would not be excited by the prospects of whatever their views on constitutional change of getting rid of nuclear weapons, especially given the alternative, which is a lifetime spent under the shadow of a new generation of nuclear weapons and delivery systems and the yoke of their massive cost. The vast majority of countries in the world neither have nor want nuclear weapons. Of the 133 United Nations member states, independent states, it is believed that fewer than 10 possessed nuclear warheads or aspire to do so. Of the five states that host US nuclear weapons, three have stated their wish to see them removed. The Scottish Government is a firm supporter of the treaty on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons. While some may question the success of the treaty in the ultimate aim of securing the reduction of nuclear arms, the NPT provides a clear basis for the international management and control of nuclear material technologies and information, but we must now build on that framework in order to take the next step. The Scottish Government therefore believes that, rather than renewing and further developing their nuclear weapons systems, nuclear weapons states need to focus their efforts towards nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. That is why, when we debated the issue in March of last year, the Scottish Government proposed a motion that endorsed the five-point plan for nuclear disarmament set out by UN Secretary General, Bankie Moon. That plan builds on the NPT and calls on nuclear and non-nuclear weapons states to fulfil their obligations under the treaty to pursue negotiations that are leading to disarmament. I am glad to say that, during that debate, the majority of the chamber supported that motion. With that context, I would turn to the UK Government's plans for the renewal of trident nuclear weapons. The Prime Minister has said that, in 2016, the UK Government will decide whether or not to replace the trident submarine fleet, but that decision, which prepares for trident missiles with nuclear warheads being passed on the Clyde through to 2060 and beyond, could have massive implications for the UK's conventional defence forces. However, if you look at the position of the three main parties at Westminster, the so-called trident main gate decision appears to have already been made. Both coalition parties and Labour have signalled their support for a new fleet of submarines carrying trident ballistic missiles with questions only around the size of the fleet and whether nuclear weapons should be on patrol continuously. It is particularly important for those Labour-backed benches who feel very strongly about nuclear disarmament to understand that the potential other option, the alternative, is the basing of massively powerful nuclear weapons and their delivery systems in central Scotland for the next 50 years or more. That is the alternative to what we propose. Of course, the current UK Government sticks to its line that it has no plans to move those weapons from HMNB Clyde, but we believe that information that is critical to that decision, information on the costs and the consequences for the future of the UK's armed forces has not been made available either to MPs at Westminster or to the general public. On 1 July, the Trident Commission, a cross-party inquiry led by representatives of the three main Westminster parties, published its concluding report. While I disagree strongly with their support for the UK retaining nuclear weapons, I was very concerned by their comments on the cost of Trident renewal and by the impact that those costs could have on conventional defence personnel and equipment. The UK Government has provided estimates only on the capital costs for replacing the submarine fleet that carries its nuclear weapons and for extending the life of the Trident missile and other infrastructure and warhead developments. According to the Trident Commission's report, that alone comes to a cost of £50.6 billion in 2012 prices. On Trident running costs, the Trident Commission estimates an annual in-service outlay of around £1.5 billion in 2012 prices. Over an assumed operational lifetime of 35 years, that suggests a further £52.5 billion in running costs, taking the total potential cost of the UK Government's Trident successor programme to over £100 billion at 2012 prices. The Trident Commission's overall financial assessment, which discounts future costs, suggests that the annual net present value of the Trident replacement system would average £2.9 billion per year. That is the equivalent of spending 9 per cent of the UK's current defence budget on nuclear weapons each year. Incidentally, it equates also to between 20 and 30 per cent of the entire capital budget of all three services. However, as construction of the successor submarine fleet reaches its peak, the annual cash costs are projected to be even higher than that, at almost £4 billion a year by the mid-2020s at 2012 prices. As the Trident Commission recognises, this will, and I quote, place a heavy strain on MOD's capital budget in the period 2018 to 2030. Between 20 and 30 per cent of the whole defence capital budget shared between the three services will be spent on Trident renewal. If you look at the appalling cost overruns, which tend to be typical of the MOD's projects, if you look at, for example, the UK aircraft carrier programme went from £3 billion to £6 billion in the butt of an eye, then nobody really expects that the figures that have just mentioned in relation to renewal of Trident will stay static. That concern is echoed by the comments of Professor Malcolm Chalmers at the Royal United Services Institute, who in January 2013 said that sharp increases in spending on Trident renewal in the early 2020s seem set to mean further years of austerity for conventional equipment plans. That means, by and large, among other things, of course, not enough helicopter support, not enough personal equipment for the troops, and perhaps not even enough troops themselves. That is what part of the price of Trident is. The report goes further, saying that important defence projects currently in the pipeline will surely suffer delay or cancellation, and even more worryingly that retaining the deterrent could negatively impact on other valuable security and defence capabilities. It is clear that renewing Trident nuclear weapons will impact on future defence equipment procurement. Equipment such as the T26, global combat ships that will be needed by forces at home and overseas. In that last respect, the Scottish Government supports the Trident commission's conclusion that the UK Government needs to be transparent about the cost to the public purse. A decision that commits to spending more than £100 billion of taxpayers' money has made major consequences for future defence contracts, and it comes at the expense of conventional defence capabilities. It has also been taken without transparency on the cost and the impacts of other areas of defence spending, yes or no. It has been stated quite clearly by Angus Robertson that savings from Trident will go into conventional defence, something repeated by Alex Salmond in his speech to the SNP conference in October 2012. Does he agree? Jackie Baillie has already had the answer to that question, which is in the white paper, which says that we will spend £2.5 billion a year in Scotland on defence. That compares to what we currently pay, which is £3.3 billion, even though only £1.7 billion for the last year that records are available was spent in Scotland. Therefore, we can both save on the budget and spend more on defence in Scotland, which seems to me a pretty good solution for the people of Scotland. Minister, I apologise that you have 14 minutes. That is why, on 8 July—I will go on a bit further if I can—the Deputy First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister calling for the true cost of trying in real to be made clear to the public. That includes transparency on the future UK defence projects, which could be delayed, scaled back or cancelled in order to fund the replacement programme. Today, we have still received no reply to that letter. It is also why I believe that this Parliament should support the Government motion today for such critical information to be made available to defence personnel, to industry and business, to MPs and MSPs and, most important, of course, to the public. Indeed, the call for greater transparency, yes or no? Neil Findlay. Is it not about rich the minister lecturing other people about transparency in the finances, when people ask him and his Government about the transparency of the finances for an independent Scotland? We are rebuffed at every time. I think that there is a point at which he can provide information for people who do not want to see that information and do not acknowledge information. We have provided substantial information in the white paper and elsewhere on that, but I would have thought that Neil Findlay would have been concerned about the lack of transparency from the UK Government on renewing triad nuclear weapons. We have not had a word from Neil Findlay on that issue, which I think is unfortunate. Indeed, the call for greater transparency in the nuclear weapons programme is more pressing when you consider, of course, again something that we have heard nothing from Neil Findlay on. The UK Government has recently updated the UK-US mutual defence agreement, including with regard to the transfer of nuclear weapons information, technology and material without informing even the House of Commons. In fact, the only reason that came to light was because President Obama had to report to Congress. That is how we found out about it. Surely some people in this chamber, other than the Government benches, must be concerned about that lack of transparency. Of course, the Scottish Government expects to be preparing for independence in 2016, and a vote for independence is the only option that comes with a commitment to secure the withdrawal of nuclear weapons from Scotland. Presiding Officer, it is this Government's aim for triad not to be withdrawn from Scotland within the first term of the Scottish Parliament following independence. We believe that it is achievable, and we look forward to sitting down with the UK Government to discuss that detailed timetable and to agree the arrangements. I can assure the chamber and the public that we will approach those discussions responsibly, and that we will work closely with the UK Government to manage the withdrawal of triads safely and securely. With regard to HMNB Clyde itself, the Scottish Government will maintain Faslane as its independent Scotland's main naval base and as a home to a joint forces headquarters. The number of military personnel numbers based there will continue at around current levels, and Faslane's conventional naval and forces HQ roles will support significant numbers of civilian personnel. We have given a commitment to work with the Westminster Government in order to preserve continuity of employment for all staff during that transition. I give way to Jackie Baillie. I thank the minister for giving way. Can I ask him specifically how many naval jobs and how many civilian jobs to support those naval jobs would be at Faslane? The crucial point is saying that we would retain those jobs because the number of naval jobs changes over time when she is well aware, as do the number of civilian jobs. What we have said is that we will retain the same number of military jobs based the joint headquarters for a Scottish defence force there, and also how they associated civilian jobs. Under the UK, we have now reduced to around 11,000 armed forces personnel in Scotland, and our intention is to have 15,000 armed forces personnel. We intend that an expansion of the armed forces, rather than the issuing of P45s to people in the front line, will take place at the current time. Minister, you are now approaching your last minute. There will be some who say that maintaining and trying at any cost is a price that is worth paying in order to protect our national security, and I disagree. I support the view of the former UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, who has commented that he does not consider Britain to be more protected by Trident and who also notes quite correctly that other countries, for example Germany or Japan, are managing quite well without nuclear weapons. That is why I believe that this Parliament should signal its opposition to the renewal of Trident nuclear weapons and commit to working with nuclear and non-nuclear states in the pursuit of nuclear disarmament. Scotland's population share of the equivalent annual cost for the Trident replacement programme equates to around £240 million per annum. To put that in a bit of perspective, that is more than we spend on the concessionary bus travel scheme and our support for the bus industry in Scotland—£240 million per annum—with a lifetime cost of around £100 billion and a peak cost of around £4 billion a year. The Scottish Government believes that Trident renewal, which we oppose on moral, economic and strategic grounds, could only be achieved at the expense of conventional defence programmes and procurement. The choice facing Scotland is clear. On 18 September, vote for independence and for the withdrawal of Trident from Scotland or leave that decision to the UK Government and face the possibility of another half century of nuclear weapons sailing from the Gareloch. I move the motion in my name. I now call in Willie Rennie to speak to you and move amendment 10724.1, maximum 10 minutes, Mr Rennie. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move amendment in my name. This debate this afternoon perhaps gives us an indication as to why the nationalists cause the independence campaign is struggling. They focus on 5 per cent of the total defence budget and leave ignored the 95 per cent of the budget that remains. That is perhaps why the independence campaign is struggling. It is perhaps why people are concerned that a rather more restricted campaign has been running and we need a more comprehensive answer from the nationalists across a range of issues, which is what I will try to address this afternoon. Today could be a big opportunity for the Government. After last night's debate, perhaps they are licking their wounds and I would be perhaps they are hunting for a game changer that resurrects their campaign for September. From the public, there is a thirst for answers. The minister in his backbenchers could perhaps provide some of those answers this afternoon, but so far they have been far too limited. The first thing that I want to do is to try and tackle the assumptions that the nationalists make about this issue. They imply that you are not serious about nuclear disarmament unless you support independence. I will put aside that, in this chamber, we are all disarmers—some are multilateral disarmers and some are unilateral disarmers—because the NPT treaty requires all members of the NPT treaty to work towards nuclear disarmament. I will put that to one side. However, what we need to consider is the fact that, on the Labour benches, there are many people who support unilateral nuclear disarmament, but their commitment to that cause has been questioned by this site. I think that that is unfair and is something that they should reconsider. I also believe that that is something that they try to apply to a whole range of issues. If you look at childcare, you are not fully committed to childcare unless you support independence. I firmly believe in expanding childcare and I have shown my commitment in this chamber. Is my commitment to childcare questioned by those people on those benches? However, I have tremendous ambition for Scotland. I want Scotland to do more. I want the best possible platform upon which Scots can achieve that great ambition that we have and that great talent. However, I am questioned because I do not believe in an independent Scotland. They also argue that Scotland will automatically result in fewer nuclear weapons in the world, will result in a financial benefit to Scotland and will keep us safer here, including on the Clyde. Some have been convinced by those arguments, but let us look at each one of those arguments in turn. First of all, on cost, Scotland's share of tried-and-work £200 million, we would no longer have to pay that. I admit it. I accept £200 million. It is a small fraction of the total defence budget, but it is not insignificant. It is a reasonable sum. However, compare that with the significant economic loss that would result, as a result in Jackie Baillie's constituency of the 8,000 jobs that would potentially lose because the vast bulk of the annual cost of tried-and is spent within the Fazlain area. That would be lost to Scotland. Of course, the Scottish Government would benefit £200 million. Gil Paterson says that I am making the issue up. Can it perhaps explain how I am exactly making that issue up? Gil Paterson, thank you very much for inviting me in. First of all, we are going to replace those jobs at the same time. It is just that we will not be working on nuclear weapons, so the fact that there is going to be less is absolutely untrue. Every single penny of investment, the £2.5 billion that is currently invested in tried-and nuclear weapons systems, the vast bulk that goes to Fazlain, the Helensburg area, will be automatically replaced. That is the commitment from the SNP Government, so we will be spending £2.5 billion alone in that area. That is a new policy from the SNP, a new policy that has not been costed in the white paper, and it would be very interesting to see the exact numbers. I will take an intervention from Chick Brody. I am not sure whether Mr Rennie is aware, but in 1983 George Unger, the Secretary of State for Scotland, said that oil had been found in very exploitable quantities in the Clyde south of Arden. Indeed, a production licence, a production licence. PL262 was given to BP in February 1984. Michael Heseltine confirmed two months ago that the MOD of which he was talking about had blocked all oil efforts in the Clyde. What does Mr Rennie support when he talks about costs? When we have lost the amount of revenue that we had and the jobs of young people lost to Scotland? If Chick Brody wants to rejoin the Liberal Democrats and sit on those benches and make a contribution and perhaps he could lead for the Liberal Democrats on this subject in future, I am sure that his constituents would be interested in that proposition. On the one hand, we have had an extra commitment—a financial commitment—from Gil Paterson of £2.5 billion investment on the Clyde, a tremendous commitment. I would like to see the costing for that. On the point of order, Mr Rennie, not to allow Mr Rennie to put words into my mouth. We were talking about employment, not money spent in Helensburgh. That is not a point of order, as I suspect. Have your experiences well aware, Mr Paterson, but you have made your point, Mr Rennie? I do not think that I needed to write a speech, in fact. My colleagues on those other benches would have helped with it. The second point is that we have to weigh up the £200 million that the Scottish Government would benefit from to the 8,000 jobs that we would lose on the Clyde. Secondly, it is on world peace. The argument is that the United Kingdom would have nowhere to put its nuclear weapon system, that somehow it would be forced to abandon the nuclear weapon system because Scotland would force it to leave those shores. If it thinks that the United Kingdom along its very long shore, right around England and Wales, there is no place at all whatsoever to base those nuclear weapons, then that is naive. The result is that we would have no fewer nuclear weapons in the world as a result. I am sure that they are holding up the CND report that apparently claims that there is nowhere along the very long coastline of the United Kingdom to its devices. I think that they might have an agenda. I think that they might think that they are perhaps in favour of giving it at any price and at any cost. However, the reality is that there would be a place for the nuclear weapon system in the rest of the United Kingdom, so it would not advance world peace. Thirdly, it is safety on the Clyde. It is implied that somehow Glasgow, Greenock and Paisley are under greater threat because the nuclear weapon system is in Helensburgh in Faslain. I suspect that, if a nuclear bomb went off in Plymouth, Glasgow might be affected at some point. I think that there might be casualties in Scotland. The reality is that it has never happened, there has never been an accident, but they try to exaggerate the consequence. However, the reality is that Glasgow and the west of Scotland would not be any safer if we moved the nuclear weapons south of the border. Some people have been convinced that if you believe—not just now—if you believe in an independent Scotland, you will result in a nuclear-free world. That is naive, and those who are voting for independence on that basis have been misled. I would rather maintain my influence over the weapon system to advance multilateral disarmament across the globe than to abdicate our responsibility and refuse to take part in any discussions and contribute to the debate by creating an independent Scotland. That, to me, is far from looking to the global interest. That is far from looking to world peace. That is far from trying to advance the peace of the world. It is what it is—it is turning in on itself, only considering what we regard as pure for ourselves and not what is in the interest of the wider world. That, to those who are considering supporting independence on that basis, is something that they should reconsider. They should not listen to those people on those benches. They are selling them a pig in a poke, and it is not going to work. I now call on Patrick Harvie to speak to and move amendment 1074.2. Mr Harvie, thank you. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate, restating, as we should, a reminder that, consistently, a majority of Scotland's people, Scotland's representatives at Westminster and here in this Scottish Parliament, have opposed current UK policy on the nuclear weapons that are based here. Yesterday, the cross-party group on nuclear disarmament heard from Bruce Kent of CND and Ward Wilson from the Rethinking Nuclear Weapons Project. Bruce Kent's voice in this debate is a familiar and much respected one. He reminded us of the history of the anti-nuclear movement in the UK, and he shared whether something of the hope felt by activists north and south of the border that Scotland can lead the way by voting yes to independence and then giving an unequivocal no to nuclear weapons. Many members will have heard Bruce Kent outline the moral arguments before against weapons of mass destruction. The principle among them, of course, is the inability of nuclear weapons to discriminate between civilian and military targets. They are only capable of the mass slaughter of innocent people. As the world has reacted with horror in the last few weeks over the civilian deaths that were met out in Gaza, the indiscriminate action not discriminating between civilian and military targets should be crystal clear that any country using nuclear weapons in any context would be a pariah state for generations to come. Additionally, there is a moral dimension to what nuclear weapons symbolise, their cultural meaning. As my favourite fictional Prime Minister Harry Perkins put it when announcing the dismantling of Britain's nuclear weapons, with this action we shall also be dismantling the idea that our freedom somehow depends on the fear of annihilation. It is an absurd and obscene idea. We want no part of it and I hope that we can capture the ambition to turn that fiction into reality. Ward Wilson, on the other hand, used yesterday's meeting to outline the strategic arguments. His case is the ideology of nuclear weapons based on myths, myths that need to be exposed. It is a compelling case. The myth that nuclear weapons won the second world war. We can and should mourn the lives lost in such vast numbers in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but there remains, even after all this time, no definitive reason to believe that either nuclear attack was the key event that led to the Japanese surrender. The entry of the Soviet Union into the war precipitated the immediate political response by Japan's Supreme Council, and the Japanese historian Tsuyoshi Hasagawa has stated that the Soviet entry into the war played a much greater role than the atomic bombs in inducing Japan to surrender because it dashed any hope that Japan could terminate the war through Moscow's mediation. The second myth is that they represent a leap in decisiveness. Even at the time of their development, that was a dubious claim. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki certainly killed on a mass scale, but so too did the fire bombing that had preceded it. The fire bombing of Tokyo alone killed well over 100,000 people on a par with the bombing of Hiroshima. From today's perspective, that argument is even less credible. Nuclear weapons are the messiest, the clumsiest of weapons available, not only incapable of discriminating between civilian and military targets, but incapable of reliable geographical targeting. To use them against a neighbour would be suicidal. Even to use them against a distant state would have incalculable impact on others nearby. At a time when military innovation is focused on precise, targeted and so-called surgical weapons, trident and its like begin to look like an absurd relic, as convincing a piece of technology as the blunder bus. Thirdly, the myth that deterrence is safe and reliable. Nuclear weapons have shown themselves unable to deter states from taking illegal and unacceptable conventional action against their neighbours as the situation in Ukraine demonstrates, despite that country's membership of NATO as a partnership for peace. Beyond that, we should acknowledge the long history of near-miss incidents in which threats, accidents and even weather phenomena have been misinterpreted and could so easily have led to nuclear exchanges with catastrophic consequences. Nuclear deterrence is inherently unsafe, unstable and precarious. The myth that nuclear weapons have kept the peace for 60 years can anyone seriously look at the history of the last 60 years and say, as we were told at the time, that there is a clear dividing line between the pre-nuclear and the post-nuclear age as we look around the world and see the proliferation of conventional weapons, the record of the UK in wars, whether for reasons that we call justified or not, and the continued power of the armed industry. That technology has not kept the peace. Finally, the nuclear gene cannot be put back into the bottle. The argument that it cannot be uninvented may be true, but that does not confer utility on a technology that has no useful purpose. There is a clear possibility and a growing momentum for a global ban on nuclear weapons, as shown at the conference, attended by over 140 Governments in Mexico earlier this year. A written constitution can achieve that in Scotland, but not only that, it can challenge the nonsense that a journey from unilateral disarmament to multilateral disarmament is in any way compatible with the UK's policy of unilateral rearmament. I can only imagine the commonwealth standard mental gymnastics required to make that link. A yes vote is not simply about moving them from one place to another. It is about tipping the balance in the rest of the UK as well and winning the case against renewal of this vicious system. The term of disarmament is a profound and complex issue encompassing geopolitical calculation of moral argument 2 and beyond an absolutist position of pacifism and drawing distinctions between weapons and different modes of war is always difficult and often ambiguous. Patrick Harvie touched on this. We should note and remember that it was 69 years ago today that over 50,000 died at Hiroshima as a result of a single bomb blast. Yet we also remember this week World War 1, in which on a single day in a single battle over 50,000 men died on one side alone, victims of the most conventional of weapons. I know that I've never been a member of CND, but I did campaign against land mines, which killed just as indiscriminately although one person at a time. Those issues are never black and white, and none of this has made any simpler by the unpredictable nature of conflict. The Cold War has ended, but tension in Europe has not. Conflicts in the Middle East seem never-ending but always changing, and drones and cyber warfare pose completely new questions of defence, security and deterrents. Pity that we once again find ourselves debating an issue like this as a tactic in the Scottish Government's pursuit of independence. It's a tactic that they return to and Mr Brown did this today because they think they've been terribly clever to spot that people in the Labour Party have different views on Trident. Here's a surprise. It's been like that since the 50s, when Britain first had a nuclear weapon. It's been like that since Ngai Bevan made his famous naked into the conference chamber speech in the year I was born. We are a democratic party. We tolerate debate and argument and different views. I know that's hard for the SNP to understand, but there it is. It has moved us quickly. On the issue of tolerating different points of view, do you remember during the last debate when Michael McMahon described CND as a campaign for nuclear delusion? Was that tolerant? That's Mr McMahon's view, and many of his colleagues would take a different view. That's the point I make. It's a difference in a debate that has taken us in the right direction over time. Since the end of the Cold War, the UK's nuclear capacity has reduced by 75 per cent. The last Labour Government alone reduced available warheads from 300 to 160 and got rid of aircraft-borne nuclear weapons altogether. We have not committed to the replacement of Trident either. I personally believe that multilateralism can work, but I acknowledge the views of many of my colleagues. I know that there is a perfectly respectable moral case for unilateralism. What there is not a moral or even logical case for is moving nuclear weapons a few hundred miles south and calling that disarmament. That's not disarmament, it's redeployment. That's not dismantling as Harry Perkins in the novel did, it's dissembling. Worse still is the Government's position that Trident should be moved to England, and then Scotland should join NATO, thus positioning ourselves four square behind NATO's nuclear deterrent, which we would of course include the very Trident that we had just expelled. As far as I am concerned, it is hypocritical to say that we shouldn't have nuclear weapons and we want to belong to NATO. How dare we say that? That's not my words, that's Sandra White MSP's words, and she is right. No wonder the SNP are split on this policy, on the policy of NATO. No wonder the SNP are split. Kenny MacAskill is no nigh bevan, but he was who had to be sent into the SNP conference to plead with them not to send the SNP into the referendum campaign naked on defence. But that NATO position is hypocritical and dishonest. It's dishonest too on Trident's savings, where we have a different story every day. It will pay for a conventional defence force, no, it will pay for childcare, no, it will pay for youth unemployment and colleges. And that's just what Alex Salmond has told us in recent months. I have a list of his colleagues, spending the same money on pensions, on schools, on welfare, on teachers and on a dozen other things. Mr Brian is laughing, he is going to spend it on export opportunities. So, you know, that's what you said. Sorry, Mr Brian, that's what you said. Your colleague Angus Robertson is going to spend it on more diplomatic missions. So, they may not be able to tell us what currency we will have, but at least we know that it must be a magic currency, which can be spent over and over and over and over again on different things. The truth is that the running costs of Trident are about £160 million per annum in Scottish share, and that would barely pay for this Government's plans to cut air passenger duty. It would only pay for a fraction of the corporation tax windfall that they've promised are big companies. It would not replace the £230 million that Fazlain injects into local economy, or replace the 11,000 jobs that are policy places under threat there. Disarmament is one of the great moral and political questions of the last three generations. To reduce it to a referendum tactic, as the motion does, is simply wrong, and we will vote against it. I now call on Annabel Goldie, six minutes please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. This is the third time in less than 18 months that I've spoken in this Parliament on Trident. Of course, it is important, but given what is happening to our country in six weeks' time, should we not be debating other things if Scotland becomes independent, such as the risk and uncertainty over currency, EU membership, pensions, NHS and jobs? Judging from the pasting that the First Minister took last night, those would seem more pressing issues. Indeed, not everyone seems to agree with the Scottish Government on this issue, because, according to a poll, 41 per cent of people agree that if Scotland becomes independent, Britain's nuclear weapons submarine should continue to be based here, and 37 per cent want to see them go elsewhere, so they don't even have a unanimity of position within Scotland. As I've said before, a nuclear weapons does have an awesome capacity for destruction, and they are expensive, but for the moment they are necessary. The SNP's position that if we banish Trident from Scotland's shores, our country will be safer and our conscience will be clear, I believe is both misconceived, notax and completely flawed. First, to achieve a safer world, as other contributors have said, we must use the forum of international influence and debate. We need to promote and deploy the existing non-proliferation treaty and focus the attention of the major world powers on multilateral de-escalation and disarmament. Secondly, how credible is the argument that, by simply plucking Trident from Fastlane and moving it down the coast without caring where it ends up, the world somehow becomes a safer place? That is a facile proposition, and I profoundly disagree with those who argue that removing Trident from Scotland will somehow make Scotland a safer place. No thanks. We remain safer by retaining Trident at Fastlane. Thirdly, the fundamental principles that are relevant to nuclear deterrence have not changed since the end of the Cold War and are, sadly, unlikely to change in the immediate future. Deterrence is the key word, and it is precisely because of their destructive powers that nuclear weaponry has the capability to deter acts of aggression. That scale of deterrence is completely different to any other form. Indeed, last month, the Trident Commission, an independent cross-party commission, said that it is in the UK's national interest to keep the Trident nuclear weapons system. We simply cannot dismiss the possibility that a major direct nuclear threat to the UK might re-emerge. The fact is that, since acquiring Trident and its predecessor, Polaris, we have had four decades of non-nuclear conflict. At present, as part of the UK, we have a strong defence capability. An independent Scotland's defence capability would be much more limited, giving it much less clout and much less influence on the international stage. What we all want to achieve—and I genuinely believe that that is what we all want to achieve in this chamber—multilateral disarmament cannot be negotiated from a position of weakness. It does not work that way. In fact, unilateral disarmament will only weaken the momentum for multilateral disarmament. The other aspect of this debate is the consequence of independence for thousands of jobs in Scotland. Many of them in the area of the west of Scotland, which I represent, are not only jobs in the armed services, but also in the many defence companies that rely heavily on contracts from the Ministry of Defence. The defence sector is a hugely important part of Scotland's industry. It employs over 12,600 people in highly skilled, high-value jobs in areas such as design, manufacture, assembly and maintenance. At present, Fastlane sustains around 6,700 military and civilian jobs, and that is projected to increase to 8,200 by 2022. However, for the communities of Helensburg, Western Bartonshire and their local economies, precipitate removal of Trident from Fastlane would have a disastrous effect. Fastlane contributes £250 million to the local economy, and the basin directly supports over 7,000 jobs in the area. If anyone wants to know how passionately that area feels, go to a public meeting on this issue and there will not be much support for the Scottish Government's motion before us today. We all aspire to a world that is free of nuclear weapons, and the only way to achieve that is to work proactively and vigorously and on the international stage to expand and enhance the non-proliferation treaty. The UK has an excellent track record in that respect. Unilateralism would be an absolute gift to any rogue nation of hostile power that was developing illegal nuclear capacity. Let us not hide our heads in the sand—those rogue nations and hostile powers do exist. At present, because of the existence of nuclear arsenals around the world, the possibility of further proliferation of weapons by rolled stakes and the continuing risk of worldwide instability and tension. The UK's nuclear deterrent remains an important element of our national security. That being said, and in line with the non-proliferation treaty, we are taking steps to reduce our nuclear arsenal. The Government is reducing the UK's stockpile of nuclear weapons to no more than 180 warheads and a maximum of 40 per vessel. That will be complete by the mid-2020s. As part of the UK, we are able to defend both our own nation, our citizens and influence international debate. We all want a nuclear free world, but the unilateral removal of Trident is certainly not the way to achieve it. Thank you very much. We now move to open debate, but before we do and before I call Mr Kidd to be followed by Michael McMahon, I just remind members that interventions made from a sedentary position are no more welcome than they have ever been. Mr Kidd, five minutes please. I declare that I am a co-president of Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament and the Scottish representative on the Global Council of Abolition 2000. There are members from across this chamber who favour nuclear disarmament, as indeed there are at Westminster, lest it be forgotten. Amongst others that I have worked with are my good friends Jeremy Corbyn MP of Labour and Baroness Sue Miller of the Liberal Democrats. I have worked with them and spoken with them at many international conferences overseas on achieving our joint aim of a world without nuclear weapons. With that in mind, I believe that today should be seen by us all as an opportunity to think about how Scotland, as the sole repository of the entire UK nuclear weapons arsenal, should look towards the removal of Trident and what timescale that should be aimed at. Because, as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, the UK has signed up to a duty to work towards the end of those weapons of mass destruction. It is our duty here, whether as unilateralists or multilateralists, to work in honest good faith to achieve that end, not just to talk about it. That must mean not upgrading or replacing Trident at a cost of up to £100 billion, with the intention, and that is the intention of the British Government to do so, to maintain this system for the next 40 to 50 years. That is not in good faith with the NPT. Indeed, it is our duty here to work towards nuclear disarmament as soon and quickly as possible. The reason behind that is because we are here representing not only the people of Scotland but people around the world who believe that nuclear weapons are a danger to us all. Why not continue with the established nuclear weapons such as Trident? There is one or two voices in the wilderness crying out, saying that nuclear weapons are actually a good thing. They have stopped us from having wars. I have not noticed that they have stopped us from having wars. I think that there are plenty of wars on going. There might not be nuclear wars, but they are wars. In other words, Trident has not stopped a single war. It just has not been a nuclear war. Nuclear weapons are not a force of nature. They are not a magic genie from a bottle, as was mentioned earlier by Patrick Harvie. They are an invention of man. They do not keep us safe in perpetuity because, like all man-made equipment, they are capable of failure. Like Carol Wallenda, the greatest type walker ever, you can walk the rope suspended in the air day and daily for over 60 years, but one day, as unfortunately happened to Mr Wallenda, even with great skill and great knowledge, your luck can run out and devastating tragedy will be the outcome. It might also be asked what good are nuclear weapons against cybercrime, or in the war against illegal drugs, or in the battle against the criminal madness of ISIS as they rampage across the Middle East, or the terror threats on our own shores. What good are nuclear weapons there? Long-term security without nuclear deterrence involves investment in international cross-border co-operation and conventional armed forces. To that point, from major military figures such as General Sir Hugh Beech, former master of the general ordnance of the British forces and General Ram's bottom former commander of the UK fuelled army in the UK and General Bernard Norland, former chief of the French Air Force to my friends and colleagues who have worked at the sharp end of missile delivery in the Royal Navy, retired lieutenant commanders Fergo Dalton and Robert Greene, all of these are officers who have had to oversee nuclear weapons in the real world and all of whom believe that Trident has no utility to the military and all of whom would rather have fully trained and equipped forces to defend their people rather than a genie with a magic wand which is supposed to cause fear in the ranks of enemies and keep us safe forever. Yesterday, in committee room 3, I held a meeting with guest speakers, the international lecturer and author, Ward Wilson, who is in the gallery and Bruce Kent of CND UK. Bruce, who actually says he supports Scottish independence, is a faster route to getting rid of Trident. That was a great meeting. It said a great deal. On top of it, I just received an email from the former mayor of Hiroshima, Tadda Toshi Akiba, who says that he is looking forward to a successful debate today in the Scottish Parliament, paving the way to an independent Scotland joining the 2020 vision of a world-free of nuclear weapons. The principles that apply to war of any kind are that we have an obligation to avoid war if at all possible, and the use of force must be a last resort. As Patrick Harvie quite rightly said, the use of force must be discriminant. Civilian facilities may not be the object of direct intentional attack, and care must be taken to avoid and minimise the indirect harm to civilians. The use of force must be proportionate. The overall destruction must not outweigh the good to be achieved, and there must be the probability of success. Having considered those principles, I cannot arrive at any other conclusion than that the fighting of a nuclear war must be rejected because it cannot ensure non-combatant immunity, and the likely destruction and enduring radiation would violate the principle of proportionality. The real risks inherent in nuclear war make the probability of success impossible. In a nuclear war, there are no victors, there are only victims. The argument for the possession of nuclear weapons as a deterrent is for me not an adequate strategy as a long-term basis for peace. It is a transitional strategy justifiable only in conjunction with the resolute determination to pursue arms control and disarmament. You cannot make the world safer through the threat of nuclear weapons, and you can only make the world safer from nuclear weapons through mutual nuclear disarmament. That will be required both bilateral, multilateral and, if possible, unilateral decisions, but all done in co-operation. That is where the SNP's position unravels beyond credulity. I am grateful to Mr McMahon for giving way. Would he acknowledge, simply as a matter of fact, that during this era of nuclear deterrence as a strategic concept, the world has seen an increase in the number of nuclear states, not a decrease? That is absolutely a fact. I cannot dispute that. However, the end does not justify the means, but the end can and should inform the means. Abolishing nuclear weapons is not a partisan or a nationalistic issue. It is an issue of fundamental moral values, and it should unite people across national and ideological boundaries. However, in order to achieve nuclear disarmament, we must carefully assess every nuclear policy proposal in light of its potential to help bring us closer to a world without nuclear weapons. What we cannot do in an international debate around nuclear disarmament is use a constitutional debate that would do nothing more than move an existing nuclear facility from one side of a border to another if we are serious about pursuing genuine nuclear disarmament throughout the world. It is essential to translate the goal of a world without nuclear weapons from an idealistic dream or pious hope to a genuine policy objective to be achieved carefully and in the context of international dialogue. There are valid questions about what new risks might arise as the world moves towards zero nuclear arms, and those questions deserve concrete solutions. Solutions that can only be crafted by the committed international policymakers and experts. Most world leaders, religious figures and other people of good will who support a nuclear weapons free world are not naive about the task that lies ahead. They know the path that will be difficult and will require determined political leadership, strong public support and the dedicated skills of many leaders and technical experts. The non-nuclear aspirations of the SNP and others are very welcome, but the contradictions between a NATO membership and the independent state action are incongruous to that aspiration. The SNP argues that an independent Scotland would have an independent defence and foreign policy that would defend Scotland's national interests, yet the reality is that, as a member of NATO, it would be impossible for a Scottish Government alone to get rid of Trident. The SNP also speaks about the speediest, safe removal of nuclear weapons, and it argues that we could see the dismantling of nuclear weapons within two years and removal within the first term of a post-independence Government, but the obstacles to that would be huge, not least from the NATO alliance itself. So whether you approve of Trident or not, it cannot be ignored that it is an assigned weapon to NATO, yet the SNP wants us to believe that a Scottish Government would be asking to join a military alliance while, at the same time, wanting to undermine the core part of that alliance's strategic strike force. As you draw to her clothes, please. Replicating the existing facilities of Faslain and Coolport elsewhere in Britain, and I believe, as Willie Rennie said, a new site would be found, would take at least a decade. So I don't doubt the sincerity of those in the SNP who wish to see Trident move for our shores. I support that ambition. I just cannot support their policy or this motion. Many thanks. I now call on Christina McKelvie to be followed by Neil Findlay up to five minutes, please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Trident and the elephant in our backyard, weapons of mass destruction that will cost us £4 billion a year in the by-the-mid 2020s. Do we want them there? Do we want secret night time convoys of warheads driving along the M8 or through my constituency via the M74 or through the largest population centres in Scotland? No, I don't think we do. Just in case anyone is unsure, moving these weapons and radioactive materials around by-road is far from safe. Whatever propaganda Annabelle Goldie would like to tell us today. A freedom of information request to the MOD revealed that it had been 70 safety elapses across the UK in five and a half years. Vehicles have got lost, a fuse box failed, fuel has leaked, brakes have overheated, alarms have malfunctioned and the gun flap of a vehicle opened inadvertently. Do not delude yourself, those are not safe. If there was to be some kind of accident and the MOD concedes that this is possible, our Westminster defence chiefs would refer to it as an inadvertent yield. That language tells me something about how the MOD views a potential accidental Hiroshima. I suppose that the entire population of Greater Glasgow would not only be an inadvertent yield but just collateral damage. That is not about the cost either. Just as important as the moral price, no, the price of immorality because the very presence of Trident is an affront to any concept of morality. David Cameron does not want Trident anywhere near his voters, neither do I, neither do I, but he knows very well that he has a choice to make, and that choice will cost him voters. After voting 18 September, Mr Cameron will have his own reality to face, but Scots have already paid too big a price to have these abhorrent weapons in our backyard. According to the Westminster Scottish Affairs Committee in October 2012, I quote, "...nuclear weapons in Scotland could be disarmed within days and removed within months. CND thinks it would take a couple of years to fully decommission the weapons. We plan, as a Government, to have them out of here by the first post-independence Parliament. We in Scotland, and not only yes voters, have made it very clear that we do not want Trident. In fact, 80 per cent of Scots have said do not replace it. In this chamber, members have repeatedly and conclusively voiced their opposition. On Monday, Bruce Kent, vice-president of CND, gave his backing to the yes vote because he points out that a yes vote would lead to the removal of a moral and a legal Trident from Faslain and Scotland, and most likely the rest of the UK. He added that it is quite clear that Westminster parties have no intention of getting rid of Trident. When I first heard Bruce Kent speak, I was 15 years old and he inspired me to join CND. My young son, who is 16 years old, is sitting in the gallery listening to this debate. I don't want his son at 16 sitting in the dark gallery listening to the same debate years from now. He spoke yesterday that he has lost nothing and he has lost nothing of his conviction. Absolutely nothing. Trident must go. How can anybody justify the power to wipe out half the world? The real threats to world peace come from the extremist terrorists, the 9-11 attacks that are a considerable divide between Israel and Palestine, the many tragic civilian deaths that we have seen in Gaza, the soonest Shiite split in Syria or the on-going internal battles in Afghanistan. Is anyone seriously suggesting that nuclear weapons will act as a deterrent to the Taliban? I am not pretending that aggression is not a risk against which we must equip ourselves as far as practicable. What I am saying categorically is that nuclear weapons is not the way to do that. The reason that most countries in the world are trying to stop nuclear proliferation is very simple. They recognise that the more weapons of mass destructions are available, the more they will proliferate. Countries that had not considered acquiring the capacity start to feel under pressure think that we have to do this because everyone else is, and you know what? Harley Button will do them a great deal. That is not a good base in which to build a defence policy. We have spent too long in enforced silence. It is time for the people of Scotland, the voices of our own electorate, to say no to Trident, no to Westminster and, yes, to an independent Scotland, where we can have the freedom to make our own decisions according to our own choices and priorities instead of wasting billions of pounds on Trident. Let us make a positive choice for ourselves. Employ another 3,300 nurses or 2,700 teachers. That is investing in the future. Trident is an investment in global murder. I will call Neil Findlay to be followed by Kevin Stewart up to five minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer and Presiding Officer. I have forgotten to declare my membership is CND and my register of interests, so I put it on the record now. It may be helpful in the interests of transparency that others do so as well during the debate if indeed they have such interests. I apologise to Bill Kidd for being unable to make that meeting yesterday. I did in 10 going but couldn't for other reasons. I have been an opponent of nuclear weapons all my adult life and my position is reflected by many people across the Labour Party in a wider Labour and trade union movement. The fact that there are different views and opinions on nuclear weapons and Trident renewal is hardly a revelation or a secret. Indeed, as Ian Gray pointed out, there have been differences within the labour movement since the nuclear issue raised its head. That range of opinion is reflected, further reflected, across wider political spectrum and society. We see people like the former Labour chief whip, Nick Brown, Lib Dem MP, Nick Harvey and former Tory MP and minister Michael Portillo. We see churches, trade unions and civic organisations all coming out against Trident renewal. To me, that type of broad coalition building is important. It is what organisations like CND should be doing, building the broadest coalition in support of their aims to convince people, through argument and debate, people from all backgrounds that the case against Trident is a strong one and a just one. It was therefore, in my view, a great mistake for Scottish CND to break with the consensus building by taking a position on the referendum, something that I think they may regret on reflection in the longer term, certainly. I thank Mr Finlay for taking intervention. I noted that he said that he was a member of the CND. I remember very well that vote as Scottish CND. Mr Finlay was not there. Can I ask why? Can I ask why? I was not there for a variety of reasons, but I know what people who were there and were very disappointed that the CND took that position. Unfortunately, you cannot be at everything, and the member will know that. On reflection, I think that they will regret that. Let me be unequivocal. I personally oppose nuclear weapons and the renewal of Trident for ethical, financial and practical reasons. Those weapons, designed using some of the most fantastic and sophisticated engineering skills and ingenuity available, have only one purpose. That is the destruction of human life on an unprecedented scale. Each of the current missiles has a range of up to 7,500 miles and is extremely accurate with the destructive power of eight Hiroshimas. If that is the level of destruction of just one bomb, then an all-out nuclear war or a unilateral attack using modern weaponry would see death and destruction on a scale never seen before. I cannot, in all conscience, support such a system whose only purpose is to kill my fellow human beings on such a large scale. However, having said that, I find the terms of today's motion cynical and opportunist. There is no attempt in the motion to build a broad parliamentary coalition against Trident replacement. No attempt to reach out and build the moral or practical case, just a cynical partisan attempt to use Trident, is a referendum issue. If it is the case that a vote for separation is somewhat less likely, given the First Minister's performance last night, however, if it is the case that a vote for separation brings us closer to Trident removal, then why did the SNP, after years of opposition, just at the time, think that they are about to achieve their political raison d'etre decide to join NATO, a first strike nuclear alliance? Is that not an odd position to take? Of course, even if the nuclear fleet sailed out of the Clyde to be moored in Barrow or the Tyn or the Mersey, would it make the world a safer place? Would it mean fewer nuclear weapons in the world? Of course it would not. It would simply displace them elsewhere. Even trying a few hundred miles south would not make me sleep any easier in my bed at night. It would not solve my conscience one bit. It is not an out-of-sight, out-of-mind issue for me when it comes to Trident. In my view, we have a far better chance of getting rid of Trident if we can convince UK public opinion, the military and politicians at all levels that Trident renewal is wrong and that the UK and the world will be a safer place without it. Then we should negotiate it away, because we will have much more negotiating power. Finally, let me finish with a quote from the late great Tony Bennett, a man who opposed independence that was a lifelong peace campaigner. He said, if we can find money to kill people, we can find money to help people. As always, he found a few simple, profound words to explain a complex issue. Thank you very much. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I think that today we should show some leadership and try and persuade others in the world to follow our lead to eradicate nuclear weapons, not only from Scotland, but from the entire planet. There have been many arguments here today, but some of the interesting things that have been said by former pro-nuclear supporters about Trident replacement have to be brought to the fore here today. Michael Portillo, the former UK defence secretary said on BBC This Week in 2 November 2012, said that Trident is completely passed itself by date, a waste of money and is no deterrent to the Taliban. Des Brown, former Labour UK defence secretary in the telegraph on 5 February 2013, said that updating Trident with a like for like replacement will demonstrate to the international community that we intend to keep nuclear weapons on permanent deployment for decades while seeking to deny those weapons to everyone else. In the process, it will destroy any chance of building the broad-based international support required for a stronger non-proliferation and nuclear security regime. I agree with both of these gentlemen. When I say take the lead, I think that in terms of treaties and nearing the eradication of certain other weapons systems, it has always required leadership from some nations to get to the biological weapons convention, to leadership from others to get to the point of the chemical weapons convention and, Mr Gray mentioned landmines, to leadership from some to get to the Ottawa treaty to ensure that those... On the landmine treaty, is that not an illustration of exactly what I was saying? The landmine treaty was a treaty that multilaterally agreed, where a significant number of dozens of nations together agreed to give up that weapon. That was multilateralism. I will answer that. No, it wasn't. In most regards, it was unilateralism, because at the end of the day, individual countries reached a point where they could come together. Unfortunately, some countries did not have signed up to that. Individuals got rid of their landmines before the signing of that treaty. That is unilateralism and that is the way we should go. In terms of Mr Finlay and certain others, I do not want to see nuclear weapons moved from Fazlain to other parts of these islands. I do not think that that will happen. I think that folk need to have a look at some of the evidence. Some of that evidence has been gathered up in John Ainslie's publication, No Place for Trident, which I think makes very interesting reading and bringing a lot of those points together. On page 12 of that work, Mr Ainslie says, in January 2012, the Telegraph quoted a MOD source saying, Bers would not be a problem. There are docks on the south coast that could be used without too much fuss, but there simply isn't anywhere else where we can do what we can do at Coolport. Without that, there is no deterrent. Beyond that, a former commander of Fazlain poured cold water in any plans to relocate. Rear Admiral Alibaster said, it would be very difficult—in fact, I would almost use the word inconceivable—to recreate the facilities that are necessary to mount the strategic deterrent without the use of Fazlain and Coolport somewhere else in the UK. That is one of the reasons why I think that if we vote for independence and say no to nuclear weapons here, that they will be eradicated completely and utterly from these islands, and hopefully, after that, others will see that we have taken the lead and will do likewise elsewhere. Finally, 100 billion pounds spent on trident at a time of austerity in my book is plain wrong, in fact, is evil. I have said in this chamber before that I would put teachers before trident, nurses before nukes and bairns before bombs. I hope that everyone will agree to support that motion today. As Iain Gray said, there have been different views in the Labour Party about nuclear weapons since the 1950s. I fully respect the views of colleagues who take a different position from me, but I have supported campaigns against trident for the last three and a half decades since trident was announced in the early years of the Conservative Government of the time. However, what I have never supported is trident nimbyism and the futile distraction of moving trident somewhere else. That would not help the cause of international disarmament one little bit. Any more than, for example, the movement of missiles from Belarus and Kazakhstan to Russia after the Cold War had any disarmament consequences whatsoever. I would argue that trident nimbyism would actually make the situation worth. It would strengthen the resolve of those in the rest of the United Kingdom who want to renew trident. It would strengthen their resolve psychologically and strategically, and it would weaken the multilateral possibilities that still exist at a UK level. We have heard many examples of this—how thinking is changing even within the military establishment, even within the political establishment. I think that the last speaker referred to Desmond a former defence secretary. I could mention Michael Portillo, a former Conservative defence secretary who is now against trident. Things are different from what they were 35 years ago. There are multilateral possibilities, but this trident nimbyism would weaken those possibilities that give way. I thank Mr Chisholm for giving way. If he supports the like of Des Brown, can he tell us categorically here and now what the Labour Party position is going to be in the run-up to the next election? His defence spokesperson at Westminster, Mr Coker, seems to be very much in favour of trident replacement, as are the Tories and the Liberals. I begam his speech by saying that there are different views, and that final decision will be taken in 2016. However, there is another consideration. Obviously, in general terms, I am opposed to trident, but if the SNP, in the event of a yes vote, sticks with this policy in a flexible way, it has to face the reality that there will be a heavy price to pay in the negotiations after independence. When already we know that the fiscal situation is going to be more difficult in an independent Scotland than in the rest of the UK, the fiscal challenges would become even greater because, think of the billions it would cost to remove trident, and we already know from the UK Government that that would be an important consideration in those negotiations. That is why, of course, there are some strong voices in the peace movement that do not believe that the SNP would stick with its policy. For example, Tim Duffy, one of the great peace campaigners in Scotland of the last few decades in the Justice and Peace Scotland editorial of the most recent edition, said that there were several problems with the logic of voting yes to get rid of trident, and one of the examples that he gave was that the real politics situation would be very tempting for the Scottish Government to accept some deal with the UK Government. Of course, it is very interesting here that the First Minister, last night, was very keen to mention again and again this mysterious unnamed UK minister who was going to say that there would be a shared currency. Of course, what he did not say was that minister said that there will be a single currency because we will do a deal on trident. I am not saying that that will happen, but that is the kind of thinking that would be involved because trident is the single most important bargaining counter that the Scottish Government has. Of course, there is another problem, another doubt as well, because it may well be that the Scottish Government would have to choose between joining NATO or getting rid of trident. Of course, they say—perhaps Jeane Rkerth is going to say—that there are lots of countries without nuclear weapons in NATO, but there is no precedent for a country that has kicked out a nuclear deterrent becoming a member of NATO. I have only got one minute left, but of course we know the story for the next six weeks. Trident will go, and the money released will go on everything. It is only a 20th of the defence budget, but it is going to be conventional defence. A lot of Keith Brown's speech was about that. The last speech was health and education, and somebody else wanted to spend it on new jobs at Fass Lane. That is just a referendum ploy, of course it is. It won't solve the financial problems faced by an independent Scotland. It won't contribute to international disarmament. It is just an anti-Westminster stick and a pawn in the referendum game. As someone who has opposed Trident for three and a half decades, I strongly object to Trident being used as a pawn in the referendum game. The more people think about it, the more they will see that it is not a good argument for voting yes. I now call on Joan McAlpine to be followed by Stuart McMillan. I come from Gwrwch, on the Clyde, and my family still live there. The subject is something very close to my heart, as well as the family home. I come from a family of sailors, Clyde sailors, and my father and grandfather have always kept modest boats at Invercip and Greenock and Port Glasgow. My childhood memories are defined by sailing to different parts of the Clyde and exploring lochs, coves and cowl and cintire. As a child, it really seemed like God's country going to those places to Loch Long and Carrot Castle. It was a really formative experience, and you got a real sense of freedom from it. However, as children, we soon began to realise that this country was not our own and that freedom was illusory. I remember sailing up Loch Long in my father's boat and being stopped by a military patrol boat that said that we couldn't sail to the western side of the Loch because it was too close to the Coolport base. I described that it was God's country and that is what it felt like, but very clearly God's country has been polluted by a great evil. The destructive power of this weapon is almost beyond our comprehension, so it is quite important to remind ourselves of just how destructive it is. The bomb in Hiroshima killed 200,000 people. The bombs that I carried on the Clyde are eight times more powerful than that, and there are a great many of them because each sub carries up to 16 missiles, each of which carries 12 bombs. That means that we have on the Clyde less than 10km from where my family lives and thousands of other people. One submarine has a destructive power 15 times greater than that which destroyed Hiroshima. I therefore find it strange to hear some members suggesting that removing those weapons from Scotland would not make us safer. The MOD has modelled the possibility of an accident at the ship lifting facility in Faslain, and it concluded that the societal contamination that could result means that the risks are close to the tolerability criterion level. That is like one of those jargonistic military phrases, a bit like collateral damage. It means that lots and lots of people would be killed, but that loss of life from the UK MOD's point of view is somehow tolerable. I would also point out that it is very clear that the weapons have nowhere else to go. I would point to Rob Edward's report in The Guardian last year in which the MOD itself revealed that the safety arrangements for Devonport do not permit the presence of submarines carrying trident nuclear warheads. In a response under the freedom of information law, the MOD indicated to The Guardian that neither the Devonport naval base nor the dockyard is a safety case to permit the birthing of armed vanguard-class submarines. The freedom of information request also disclosed that the MOD's internal safety watchdog, the defence nuclear safety regulator, has, quote, not provided any advice on the feasibility of docking an armed vanguard-class submarine in the dockyard. The Guardian goes on to explain that that is because 166,000 people live within five kilometres of Devonport compared to 5,200 within that distance of Faslain. I believe that the lives that could be lost if there was an accident at Faslain are just as precious as those that could be lost if there was a similar accident at Devonport. One should say that that is hypothetical, because, as I explained in the destructive power of those weapons, we do not know what kind of accident we are talking about. Obviously, it has the power to kill a great many more people than that. It is quite clear that the MOD's freedom of information response shows that the weapons cannot go to Devonport. The MOD considered alternative UK sites back in 81 and 82, and it concluded that it was too controversial and expensive to start from scratch. We should remember that it took 14 years to adapt Faslain and Coalport for Trident. Building from scratch would take much longer. Therefore, removing Trident from the Clyde would remove it from the UK, whatever the people around this chamber have said. That is why CND has taken a position on independence as the easiest and most achievable way of removing nuclear weapons from the entire UK. That is why I have great pleasure in supporting this motion today. Thank you. I now call Stuart McMillan to be followed by John Finnie. Today we have yet another opportunity to state the case, either for or against, to try the renewal. I suspect that at 5 p.m. tonight's votes will be akin to previous votes. That does not make this debate any less important, though. Debating this year's trial and renewal is important at any time. I am certain that one thing is for sure that the policy decision of trial and renewal does matter to many people across Scotland and across the rest of the UK in such a manner in the current debate over Scotland's future. I have stated in my case before, and I will say it again today, that I disagree with the renewal of the trial and renewal programme and also disagree with nuclear weapons. I believe that the money for the nuclear programme could be better invested in other policy areas. I genuinely believe that trial and renewal is a missed opportunity by the UK Government and that the only way that we can remove trial from Scotland is to vote yes next month. We are consistently told that nuclear weapons are a deterrent from some big bad bogeyman. In the past it was the USSR and we saw the increase in the nuclear arms race as a consequence, but nowadays the threat needs not come from a country but from individuals or from groups that have a particular cause. The existence of nuclear weapons in Scotland has not stopped those individuals or groups undertaking their actions, having nuclear weapons did not prevent an attack in Glasgow airport nor on public transport in London. One of the areas of discussion in this referendum debate is about Faslain and its future. Faslain will have a future. The white paper states that we plan that Faslain will be an independent Scotland's main conventional navy base and will also be home to the HQ for Navy and Joint Forces HQ for all Scotland's armed forces. I am sure that we can all agree that an independent Scotland requires defence capabilities and a base. That is where Faslain will come into its own. It will require to be reshaped, which will create job opportunities for conventional forces. Keith Brown, how many of the naval personnel would be retained at the base, said the same number. On page 239 of the white paper, it says that those arrangements will require around 2,000 regular and at least 200 reserve personnel. Where have the rest gone? Furthermore, at the comments that people from the no campaign have raised in the past, some of the comments of thousands of job losses are disingenuous and do little to inspire any confidence in politicians and the work that we are supposed to do. By all means, highlight legitimate concerns where they exist, but please do not pluck numbers out of thin air, claim them to be fact and pass them off to be above scrutiny. Stop treating the electorate for fools. I was speaking to a teacher who was not aware that the UK did not have a written constitution, and the UK shared the dubious accolade with Israel and New Zealand. She was furious and was asking how any nation can act in such a manner. With independence, we have the opportunity for Scotland to have a written constitution. Furthermore, we have the opportunity to ensure that constitutionally we can rid Scotland of nuclear weapons. What a fantastic legacy that would be for our future generations. With independence, we can secure the future of Faslain and the jobs that are there. With independence, we can rid Scotland of nuclear weapons and aim to do that in the first term of an independent Scottish Parliament. With independence, we can create a new Scotland by having a written constitution that is solely missing at UK level, and in that constitution we can guarantee no nuclear weapons in Scotland again. In years to come, that is a legacy that I will be proud to explain to my daughters that I helped to create. I am sure that it is also a legacy that future generations will thank us for as compared to blaming us for failing to act when we actually had the chance. Independence offers us that same opportunity to take responsibility to rid ourselves of Trident and its saver economy of billions of wasted expenditure. It is estimated that, by the mid-2020s, trident renewal will cost the UK £4 billion per annum. That is a huge amount of money that is wasted. It is estimated that trident renewal will cost up to £100 billion at the 2012 cost. What a huge waste of money! If we did not have nuclear weapons and the nuclear submarines, just think of the other opportunities that could open up. We know that there is oil on the west coast of Scotland. We know that Westminster Governments have refused drilling licenses to extract that oil. We also know that to extract oil requires huge investment in equipment and rigs and service vessels not to mention workers. What kind of oil boom could be generated for Ayrshire, Inverclyde, Argyll and Bute in the west coast of Scotland? The economic case for nuclear weapons does not stack up and hampers job security, job creation and investment. I would back in the motion of the Government's name tonight. John Finnie, to be followed by Christian Allard. Thank you very much indeed. I should first declare my membership of Scottish CND. The Trident weapon system is the easiest that we can use to illustrate a perversity of thought and futility of expenditure that is not unique to the UK. Indeed, of course, the Trident nuclear system is heavily dependent on the US in many ways. The obligation in every country and less with the minister here is to assess the risks that a country faces and put in place mechanisms to address those risks. I would commend the report by the Reef Foundation No Need to be Afraid, which highlighted that the risks shared with many countries relate to things like the continuity of energy and food water, not really a challenge for Scotland, and cyber attack. Trident, as many others have said, and other systems have done nothing to offset those particular risks. What we need is human security. If I can quote from the UN commission on human security from 2003, human security means protecting vital freedoms. It means protecting people from critical and pervasive threats and situations, building on their strengths and aspirations. It also means creating systems that give people the building blocks of survival, dignity and livelihood to do that. It offers two general strategies, protection and empowerment. Protection shields people from dangers, empowerment enables people to develop their potential and become full participants in decision making. I like the word speedy and safe withdrawal. I don't see that as withdrawal from Scotland, I see that as withdrawal from service and I think that that's a rich prize to gain and a rich contribution to give to the world. I like the words in the minister's motion that suggests collaborative working. I commend my colleague Patrick Harvie's, which enhances that and indeed brings in the constitutional element and I hope that the Government will support that. It's a very small planet that we all occupy and I see a very important role for the UN. I understand the very first resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations, which was adopted unanimously called for the elimination of nuclear weapons and there's been many, many fine words along those lines. I'm going to quote some more to you. I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents to the cause of mankind and world peace, to give us the means for rendering these nuclear weapons important and obsolete. Very, very fine words indeed when you know that they've been uttered by President Ronald Reagan, perhaps it takes some of the edge of it. I would ask how have the scientific community turned their attention to the cause of mankind. The cause of mankind will never, ever be served by the creation of more weapons, better weapons, smarter weapons, the drone wars that cowardly compact with an equally flawed legal basis for waging it. It's interesting that a US President calls on scientists to turn their talents to world peace. In an unequal world, police will always be more likely if we see progress for mankind and that progress would come with things like eradicating malaria aides. That would do far more for humanity than nuclear weapons. Of course there's growing inequality around the globe and that could lead to conflicts so the important that we share are resources with the developing world. Arms diversification is the future as I see it and I commend that reference in the Government's white paper, not everything that goes with these comments. We know that foreign and depends policies are inextricably linked and I would like to commend some things that have happened in Scotland in the past. For instance, the Edinburgh Conversations, this city played its part at the time of throwing relations in the Cold War, high-level discussions with academics and military people, hopefully contributed to making the world a better place. The talks in Cragallachy about concerned the dispute in the Caucasus, I think that that's the future that I want to see for Scotland. It's about, for me, talks not tanks, talks not trident. I think that there is a glorious opportunity and where I would differ from the minister, to me it's not about defence procurement, it's about having a new outlook and new Scotland and outward looking Scotland committed to social and environmental justice. We have one world, one humanity and if we work together and if people like my colleague Neil Findlay focuses his mind on this he will see that he is genuinely committed to the eradication of nuclear weapons. There is but one route to go with that. Neil Findlay? I hope that Mr Swinney will reflect on that when he emphasises genuinely. There are many people on this side who genuinely have that interest, so don't just assume that it's on one side the argument that people have genuine conviction on this. That's an insult. John Finnie, and you must conclude soon. Yes, well it's an insult you misheard, Mr Findlay, because what I was actually was commending your position on it and saying that given that position we should all work together for a better cause and the likelihood is that it's not going to be delivered with the present constitutional settlement, the likelihood is that that will be delivered with a strong will. That's what will deliver this. It's not bits of paper, it is a commitment and I don't doubt for one second the commitment of this Government and people on the yes side to deliver that better world. Thank you very much, I call Christian Allard to be followed by Lewis MacDonald, and speeches must be under five minutes. Point of order, Fiona McLeod. Could I have Fiona McLeod's microphone, please? Unfortunately, the screen is not showing that your card is in. Could you check what it's in properly, please? Could you perhaps move to the next console? Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and it is a genuine point of order. I'm seeking your advice. Can you intervene on a member in the middle of their speech? When you haven't been there to listen to their speech, I'd appreciate your ruling on that. It's entirely up to the member whether the member wishes to take an intervention, and that's something that the member who's taking the intervention has to make a judgment on. We're now extremely short of time. The next three speakers will have to adjust their timings accordingly. Christian Allard to be followed by Lewis MacDonald. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm delighted to speak today in this debate. The day we march the 69th anniversary of the first use of nuclear weapons against the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Tonight, I'll be joining the Aberdeen and District Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Group, which I am a member of, to commemorate the event as the fulfilment had on the Riverdeen Aberdeen. I will be speaking at the event as a member of the Scottish Parliament for the Northeast, as a member of Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, just like Nidfilne, but a lot more active than Nidfilne, and I will invite him to come to the debate of the CND and to be there because he's missed. We need a voice like him to have proper views and different views that somehow we can get rid of nuclear weapons in 50 years' time. Another member of the International Group for Parliamentary and for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, the PNND, Presiding Officer, a group that I joined just after I became a parliamentarian in May last year. As in previous years and the beautiful banks of the D, speakers from a variety of political, community and faith groups will commemorate the catastrophic event and will warn the many people attending against the renewal of the UK's own weapons of mass destruction, Trident. Let me take this opportunity, Presiding Officer, to call on the people of Aberdeen and across Aberdeenshire to join us tonight from 8.30 p.m. One of the speakers is us Aberdeen Mosque and the Islamic Centre, Imam Ibrahim. When Scotland's Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, came to give his support to Aberdeen Mosque and Islamic Centre last month, Aberdeen Central MSP gave instructions and I heard how much Imam Ibrahim appreciated the Scottish Government's support in Palestine. A few weeks later, I shared a platform with Imam Ibrahim speaking on what is happening in Gaza today. And again, Imam Ibrahim welcomes the Scottish Government's actions in support of Palestine. Imam Ibrahim talked of peace and how his own family was trapped in Palestine. Presiding Officer, if nuclear weapons were supposed to keep the world at peace, I would not be talking about Gaza today. I really look forward to Imam Ibrahim's contribution tonight. I'm also looking forward to his contribution of Ilda Meir's. I'm a 90-year-old poet in the Northeast, a member of the Scottish Jews for a just peace. She won't be able to attend tonight, but her words will resonate as some of us will read a selection of the poems. One voice tonight I will struggle to agree with. Presenting Officer is the voice of another Labour politician telling the world that they should disarm while voting for the UK to renew its nuclear weapon system, Trident. Many other voices have partied company with its nonsense, and now join us campaigning for an independent Scotland free from nuclear weapons. The people of Scotland are seeing through the same old and endless rhetoric from Labour and all other Westminster parties. Both political parties have no intention of getting rid of the UK nuclear weapons. I agree with Bruce Kant, who came to see us this week, that a yes vote in September will lead to the removal of immoral and illegal Trident from Fastlane and Scotland. Despite the sentence that I have used in many public meetings the past few months, as we all attended, maybe not, Mr Finlay, that a yes vote won't change a thing. I did say in many public meetings that a yes vote won't change a thing. It is what we do afterwards that matters. Let me assure you, Presiding Officer, that one thing we know will change is that Trident is for the dustbin and won't be renewed. Today, we are commemorating what happened in Japan 69 years ago in 40 days here in Scotland. Our answer will be yes to a nuclear weapons free Scotland. Thank you very much. I can only give you four minutes each. I apologise. Thank you very much. In this week of all weeks, we should not make the mistake of thinking that we can address our strategic issues of defence and security in isolation from the wider world. 100 years ago this week, the British Government of the day had to decide whether or not to resist Germany's conquest of Belgium. Seventy-five years ago next month, another British Government had to make a very similar decision whether to go to war over Germany's invasion of Poland. Those Governments took the tough decisions to go to war in both 1914 and 1939, and like so many other Scottish men and women, my grandfathers and my father lived with what happened in front-line service on land and sea. If we are serious this week about commemoration and learning from history, we must not abstract the question of defence from our shared experience or from the realities of strategic choices facing our country and our friends in the 21st century. The key driver of strategic policies since 1945 has been the unity of Western European and North American countries in the North Atlantic Alliance. NATO is not an economic association like the European Union. It is a military and strategic alliance where each member state promises to come to the aid of any other member state, which is attacked by a third party. The first question for any candidate member of NATO is not the nuclear question. It is whether or not to give that undertaking to meet the armed force if the need arises. However, if the SNP's answer is yes, that it would be willing to give that commitment in the event that it was the Government of an Independent Scotland, then it would have to answer the nuclear question too. As long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance. That is not a matter of my opinion, it is a matter of policy as spelled out in the strategic concept adopted by member states in 2010 as NATO's road map for the rest of this decade and indeed in every previous strategic concept. Of course, there are member states of NATO that do not have nuclear weapons on their territory, but there is by definition no member state of NATO that rejects the deployment of nuclear weapons as a component of NATO's collective defence. The strategic concept is the agreed policy of all members of the North Atlantic Council and by definition is supported by every NATO member state. Those members of the SNP who said in 2012 that if you vote to join NATO, you will not get out of Trident were absolutely right and they were right in that respect to this day. NATO's strategy is to retain and deploy nuclear weapons. The UK is one of three nuclear-armed NATO members. Scotland is where the UK's nuclear weapons are currently deployed. An independent Scotland whose first strategic priority was to remove those weapons would clearly be opposing the policy, not just of the UK but of NATO as a whole. The idea that an independent Scotland could simultaneously expel Trident and join the Atlantic Alliance is not credible from either side of the argument. I thank Lewis Macdonald for taking intervention. Much of his case is built upon the US or wider NATO view, as he says that he would insist on Scotland retaining nuclear weapons, but he is aware of the international Herald Tribune, which quotes a US official saying that the UK cannot afford Trident and that they need to confront the choice either that they can be a nuclear power or nothing else or a real military partner. The US does not want us to ask that. Lewis Macdonald is on your final point. You probably make a very helpful point because there is a decision yet to be made about the future of Britain's nuclear weapons capability after 2016, and that is a decision in which many people in Scotland would want to have a say as citizens of the United Kingdom. A decision by the UK to remain a nuclear armed power would carry much the same risk for a Scotland outwith the UK as it would if we remained as part of the union. A UK decision not to replace Trident would have significant implications for NATO and likewise would impact in Scotland whether or not we were part of the UK. Surely the best way to influence the future debate on nuclear weapons in Britain, in NATO and on a global scale is to stay in the UK, stay in the Atlantic Alliance and make sure that our voices are heard and that our interests are considered when those decisions are made, not to walk away and leave the big strategic decisions of our century for someone else to make. Thank you very much. Mark Macdonald, four minutes please. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. One day, Mr Smith, who lives in a quiet street, feels unsafe and feels insecure, so he decides to go out and buy himself a gun in order to protect himself and his family. He arrives home with the gun knowing that it is only for him to protect himself and to deter any threats that may occur. His neighbour across the street spots him arriving home with the gun and thinks to himself, we must live in an unsafe street, I'd better go out and buy a gun. That is what the idea of nuclear deterrence is. It is there to protect us from a threat that does not actually exist and Annabelle Goldie said as much in her speech, a threat that no longer exists but just in case. Just in case out there somebody develops a nuclear capability and also would choose to target it against us in the event that they did so. The point about that is that renewing the trident nuclear capability, whatever the size of that capability and the idea that somehow reducing the size of a nuclear deterrent is therefore an acceptable thing to do, one nuclear warhead is one nuclear warhead too many as far as I am concerned, so it does not matter about reducing the size. Unless you are reducing that to zero, I am not interested frankly. The idea that somehow the message that is sent out to those states who may or may not be in a position of trying to currently develop nuclear weapons capability of renewing the trident system, the message that that sends out to them is not that we are serious about nuclear disarmament, it is that we are serious about the continuation of nuclear deterrents or lack of deterrents in the current international system. I think that we need to get beyond this idea that we are defending ourselves by having trident on our shores. I am not suggesting that we are necessarily making ourselves a target, but at the same time there is no defence for trident because trident itself is no defence. The idea is that we should focus that down on the position of jobs. Now I understand and accept that there will be jobs that are linked to the current presence of trident on the Clyde, but firstly I have a difficulty with supporting something of the ilk of nuclear weapons on the basis that jobs are attached to it because I believe that the amount of money that is spent on trident would be far better served supporting far more jobs being deployed in other forms and other ways. Indeed, I am sorry that I only have four minutes, Mr Finnie, but trust me that we are on the same page on this anyway. On a 2007 report commissioned by Scottish CND and the STUC, among whose authors was the Labour MSP Claudia Beamish at the time chair of Scottish Labour concluded that a renewal of trident could place at risk up to 3,000 public service jobs. Few jobs resulting from investment in trident replacement are likely to come to Scotland, so what we are likely to see are risks elsewhere because of the removal of funding in order to front finance trident. I do not doubt for one second the sincerity of members in their position on disarmament. I do not doubt that at all. What I do doubt is the faith that they have that this would be resolved by means other than a yes vote. We are often told by the Labour Party that the Labour Party's position on the referendum is not so much vote no, it is vote no and then hopefully vote Labour and elect Labour in 2015 and everything will be all right. That is a leap of faith and a leap of logic that they have to justify. The leap of faith that has to be justified on this is not just vote no and then vote Labour in 2015. It is vote no, vote Labour in 2015 and hope beyond hope that the prevailing voices within Labour are those of Malcolm Chisholm and Neil Findlay and not those of Jim Murphy and Jackie Bailey. That is the difficulty that the Labour Party has to reconcile. It cannot come to the table and say with any categorical assurance that a no vote would result in a no vote to trident. What we can say categorically is that while the world sits around the table waiting for somebody to blink, a yes vote gives us the opportunity to be the first to do so and to lead the way internationally. Thank you very much. We now turn to closing speeches and I remind members that if they have participated in this debate they should be in the chamber for closing speeches. The Colin Patrick Harvie, up to six minutes please. Thank you Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I begin by taking on this suggestion that those of us who are voting yes and support disarmament all disrespect or resent in some way the diversity of views that exist on the other side of the independence debate. In the Green Party you will be pretty hard pressed to find anyone who wants to hang on to trident but you will find some, a small minority of our members who will be voting no and who are not convinced of the case for independence. We are capable of having that debate in the spirit of respect and friendship and it is important for me to say that because that is the spirit of debate that I think Scotland deserves and I respect the position even though I disagree with it that is taken by some in the Labour Party who recognise there are only a small minority of their members or MSPs might consider voting yes but who do support the principle of disarmament. Michael McMahon says this is not a nationalistic issue and I agree this goal should be able to unite us across the independence divide. I merely suggest to those in my own party and others who are voting no and who want disarmament. I merely suggest that we should apply the same test, a real politic that Malcolm Chisholm suggests that we think about in the context of post-yes negotiations. There may well be people on the Labour benches and elsewhere who are utterly sincere. I am convinced that they are of their values on disarmament but we know which way the 2016 decision is going to go. If the UK Parliament in any conceivable balance of power after the 2015 election makes that decision, we know that it will renew Trident. Let's be honest about that reality. The economic argument has also been made and explored. Now there is an economic argument for getting rid of Trident. It is not the one that I put to the top of my list most often in these debates because, frankly, I would be for scrapping the thing even if it cost us money instead of saving us money to do so. To me, I can acknowledge that you will hear a range of priorities about how best to use the £100 billion or so that would be saved over the long term by not replacing Trident. I could write you a long list myself. Personally, I regard that debate as the icing on the cake—the privilege of being able to debate what our priorities would be for that money. Let's face it that there is work that needs doing in our society, work with a social, economic and environmental benefit to our society and the opportunity to create dramatically more jobs than Trident could ever create is one that I look forward to being able to debate. Kevin Stewart I thank Mr Harvey for giving way. I too want to be able to have that debate about priorities about where we spend that money. Do you think that the UK Government should be open and transparent and say what is going to be cut to actually pay for this new nuclear weapon system if they go ahead with it? Patrick Harvie Well, I suppose that I would welcome that, but let's face it that that's not going to happen either. That is an ideological possession. The strategic arguments I think have often been lacking. Any kind of strategic argument that says why possessing this nuclear weapon system is a good idea. Annabelle Goldie got the closest to it. She seemed to suggest though that the strategic concept hasn't changed much since the Cold War or that somehow we need to have nuclear weapons in order not to have nuclear war. This seems a very bizarre argument to me. The promise at the beginning of this bizarre psychological experiment of mutually assured destruction is that it would keep the peace. Not that it would only prevent nuclear war, but it would prevent these power blocks from attacking each other conventionally as well. This is monumentally failed. Of course it failed. It's based on the dehumanising ideology of game theory. At no point has anyone proposed an actual strategic benefit from possession of a weapon that could only ever be used if the finger on the button belongs to a psychopath. The arguments are around a written constitution that has been raised as well. I know that there are arguments for and against a single codified written constitution. Ian Gray and I have had that debate before, but whether we look at a single constitutional document or hundreds of years of constitutional documentation, constitution should not just be about a dry approach to the mechanisms of government. It should convey something about how we conceive ourselves, what kind of country we are, our values and ambitions and a commitment to peace should be central in that, not only as John Finnie says opposing weapons of mass destruction, but building the economic, social and environmental justice around the world, which is the only long-term protection for human security and the only way for our world to move beyond the obsession with war and the aggressive projection of military power. The final point that I would like to make, Deputy Presiding Officer, is to colleagues in the SNP. I haven't heard this argument from the leadership and I'm pleased about it. I have from others colleagues in the SNP who suggest that Trident has been used by the MOD to block the exploitation of oil on the west coast. If so, that's the only useful utility that Trident ever gave us. Swapping one weapon of mass destruction for another is not the vision that I subscribe to if anyone ever sees the abolition of Trident as an excuse for the exploitation of oil from the west coast. Believe me, there will still be protest, there will still be debate and I'll still be willing to risk a rest to stop it. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Many thanks, and I'll call in Willie Rennie up to six minutes please. As predicted, this has been a debate that has been marked by tired slogans and old songs. It gives us, I suppose, some confidence to the nationalist supporters in a campaign that is failing to secure the necessary momentum, but I suspect it will fail to convince many undecided voters. It's not an argument that I suspect will carry much traction in the west coast, it's not much, it won't attract much support across the country because it has been seen as a bogus argument, it is not going to result in the claims that they make. It also poses a real challenge to those who believe it will save money, advance world peace and keep us safer. It's been exposed forensically this afternoon by numerous members, Malcolm Chisholm, with his Trident nimbyism, which I thought was an excellent description of the SNP proposition. Neil Findlay, a passionate supporter and member of CND, who quite rightly believes that he can achieve his ambition through the route of the United Kingdom, and Ian Gray, who described it as redeployment rather than disarmament, moving it south of the border, flitting it to another part of the United Kingdom, doesn't necessarily make the world any safer. He's also rightly criticised, Ian Gray has rightly criticised the SNP for using this as a tactic in the referendum for somehow claiming that only through this route can we achieve nuclear disarmament. I think that the passion that has been showed by many on the Labour benches for disarmament is an indication that there is a strong group of people who are campaigning relentlessly for that ambition. It's a tactic that we know that has been found favour in many other areas as well, the fact that they argue that, on the one hand, we should be nuclear free but, on the other hand, we should be a member of NATO, which we know has been a member of the NATO Alliance, the umbrella that that provides. That means that there will be a requirement to agree that nuclear weapons and nuclear submarines will be allowed into Scottish waters. On the one hand, we're sending Trident down south but, on the other hand, we're allowing them back into our own waters. That is an inconsistent position. That Jean Urquhart has rightly highlighted as being inconsistent. She has said that membership of NATO would be a barrier to removal of Trident, and she is right in that one respect. I know from the 90s that, in my part of the world, the SNP campaign vigorously for the refitting and refuelling facility to be based at the side, somehow managing to match those two inconsistent positions together. They don't want them in our waters, but they're quite happy for them to be refitted right here in Scotland. That inconsistent position is riddled through their policy. That's why I think that many people are sceptical, and quite rightly they are sceptical for not just now. The tactic also extends to the position on savings. Ian Gray again highlighted the many times that the money has been spent over and over again. The savings would be spent on defence, on childcare, on youth unemployment, on many, many areas, including personal care pensions, free tuition fees, welfare spending, schools and teachers. Not only is it going to be spent on the defence of Scotland, but it's also going to be spent in those many other areas. Many people have been promised that extra spending will be extremely disappointed after independence to discover that that promise will not be able to be fulfilled. We've also discovered this afternoon from Gil Paterson that not only every single penny of the trident expenditure will be spent in Faslain, but there will also be cuts from other public services in order to fund the full amount to the 8,000 jobs, because we know from Jackie Baillie that the 8,000 people that are employed in Faslain just now would be reduced to 2,000, because that's what it says in the white paper. I assume that there must be cuts to public services in other areas, and that's something that I suspect that Gil Paterson is perhaps in full support of. However, what this debate has also revealed has been a lack of any interest in any other areas of defence, as I said earlier on. 5 per cent of the defence budget, and that's what the trident accounts for. 95 per cent has been ignored this afternoon. Let's consider the issues that need to be scrutinised. For instance, in the white paper it says that we're going to have two frigates, four mine countermeasures, two OPVs, four to six patrol boats, auxiliary ships, 12 typhoon jets, six Hercules-1 C-130J aircraft, 15,000 permanent personnel and 5,000 in reserve. Both are based on the assumption that every single member of the Scottish member of the UK Armed Forces will agree to come back to an independent Scotland and serve in the Scottish defence force in the exact configurations that are required for a Scottish defence force. However, there will also be, based on an assumption, that the UK Government will agree to the division of assets. What I want to know from the minister, perhaps when he's winding up, is will he explain if that does not come about? What are the alternatives? What's the plan be? What happens if the people don't come back? What happens if we don't get that division of assets? They are more interested in the old songs, in the tired slogans than the realities of a defence budget. The sooner they understand that, the greater the chance they've got in the referendum. The debate has thrown up a mix of speeches, some excellent speeches on both sides of the divide and some right rubbish in the middle, as usual. One of the issues that was raised by Patrick Harvie was the history that got us where we are today. However, in spite of the fact that Patrick Harvie gave a good description, what he failed to do was go right back to the start of nuclear weapons. History tells us that, back in the 1940s, it became clear that a fascist regime that was waging unconditional war across Europe was in the act of developing not only nuclear weapons, but the means by which to deliver them through missiles. The Governments of the Allied Nations at that time decided to come together to work on a single project to develop a nuclear weapon that would act as a counter threat to any nuclear weapon with which we were threatened. The Manhattan project brought together the best brains available to us on the planet in the United States and here in Britain, but ironically also many Jewish exiles from the countries occupied by that fascist regime. By the time the Manhattan project had succeeded in creating that weapon, the war in Europe was over. The research project within Germany had failed to deliver that weapon. Those very scientists were the first people to campaign against the use of the nuclear weapon that they had devised. No, thank you. As we reach the point where we are discussing, as has been discussed by some today, the 69th anniversary of the use of that weapon first on Hiroshima and then subsequently on Nagasaki, I have to express my regret that that decision was ever made. But I, unlike Patrick Harvie, do not have the benefit of 2020 hide site and the people who made those decisions made them for reasons that were present or available to them at the time. In fact, before we leave history, it should also be noted that many people in the United States and here in the United Kingdom were convicted of treason for leaking the secrets of these weapons quite deliberately to the Soviet Union and to other countries, believing that they were doing so in order to create the very balance that we have talked about today as keeping the peace over many generations. No, I will not give way because I am expressing a view that differs from yours and, like your leader, you seek to talk over those with whom you disagree. That is not an acceptable practice in politics and I will not permit those who wish to do that to intervene. We went on to hear from Annabelle Goldie about the issues that have been raised that concern us regarding the Cold War. Yes, nuclear weapons did have the effect of bringing about the Cold War and keeping the peace, but they did not keep peace in conventional terms. That is why we should always be concerned to ensure that, as we go forward, we understand what nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation are about. That country has done a great deal to ensure that non-proliferation has been encouraged and developed. Sadly, the number of nations that have acquired nuclear weapons just in recent years has increased, but this country has done its bit to ensure that it did not find that technology from here. Nuclear disarmament, however, is something that people understand in different ways and at different times. There are those who argue for unilateral nuclear disarmament. I will never argue for that because I believe that the unilateral nuclear disarmament, especially in a country that has done its bit to keep the peace, is not going to deliver our objective in the long term. We have seen over the recent past, in fact, the distant past, the strategic arms limitation talks succeeding in vastly reducing the number of weapons that were being held by the major protagonists in the Cold War. What we need to do now is ensure that that multilateral approach is continued. Here in Scotland, we have to understand what the right position to take is. Those within the Scottish National Party and others, but not all, who support the Yes campaign, have made the mistake of believing that the presence and renewal of Trident are subjects on which they can gain some political credence. I believe that they are wrong. I believe that information contained in recent opinion surveys demonstrates that the people of Scotland have a far more substantial understanding of what nuclear weapons are about and how we would best dispose of them than do those who have spoken from the Government's backbenches today. The truth is that the loss of Trident would cost Scotland jobs and that it would cost Scotland credibility in the longer term. What would we get from that? The money that would be saved to an independent Scotland's budget by not having to fund the replacement of Trident would, in fact, not be able to achieve the objectives that they have set out. As has been described by many, Angus Robertson says that it will all go into the military budget. Annabelle Ewing regularly says that it will plug the gap in welfare in spite of the fact that, if you add it up, it does not come to a quarter of what would require for her to spend. Yes, it has been spent on youth employment, education colleges, you name it, they will spend it. I'm afraid you're out of time. That is unfortunately a cynical ploy of a desperate campaign running out of steam. Not in my backyard is not a basis for a system of government and it's not a basis for a constitutional change. I'm not naturally a cynic but I suspect that much of our time in the next few weeks will be spent debating issues through the UK Parliament's responsibility, all in an attempt to further the cause of the SNP's campaign for independence. I might suggest to them as gently as I can that, after the First Minister's performance last night, they might want to have a debate about currency. After all, the people of Scotland deserve answers to this most fundamental of questions. That said, I fully understand and sympathise with the SNP's clear need to create a diversion. It is the oldest political tactic in the book, create a distraction, debate anything but the issue of the day, which is currency, but the people of Scotland were not fooled last night. They won't be fooled in the future, so let's have the transparency. SNP members have been calling for in this debate. Let's clear the parliamentary diary to have a debate on currency, because I think that people would welcome that. I have a debate today as about Trident. Let me turn to Trident, Presiding Officer. My timing is impeccable. I have always acknowledged that there are many different views in this chamber across parties and even within parties. However, wherever you stand, as a unilateralist or a multilateralist, we have a responsibility to consider the consequences of our actions. Members have heard me speak before about the economic impact on Faslane and Coolport, and I make no apology for doing so again. There are currently 11,000 jobs dependent on the base, 6,700 employed directly at Faslane and Coolport, and that is the most up-to-date figure supplied by the MOD. Then there are further 4,500 jobs in the supply chain using standard-income multipliers about local economic impact. It provides £270 million. I want people to hear this because it is constantly questioned. It provides £270 million per year spent in the local area. I haven't made up those figures. Those figures are sourced from the ECOS survey that is done for Scottish Enterprise and Barcha about the economic impact of the base. Because of the decision made by the UK Government to make Faslane the base for the entire UK submarine fleet, the numbers directly employed are expected to rise to 8,200 by 2022. I am used to the cybernats hurling abuse at me on Twitter. I am used to members in the chamber trying to shout me down at the front bench again today, but there is no getting away from those figures. Those are facts. Those are real people who deserve to know whether they will have jobs if Scotland becomes independent. My local community needs to know what the likely impact will be. The jobs that Faslane are not low-paid and are not minimum-wage jobs are highly skilled workers on good salaries. They account for one-quarter of the full-time workforce in Western Barcha as a whole. Their loss would have a devastating impact on the local economy. The SNP claims that only 500 jobs are at stake, then the figure doubled to 1,000. However, the reality is that there would not be a strategic need for the base as currently configured. Angus Robertson, the SNP's defence spokesman, consistently refused to guarantee that the number of jobs retained after separation would remain the same. I will come back to Keith Brown in a minute. John Swinney slashed the budget for defence by more than a third, more than using up any notional savings from Trident. At the same time, ministers promised extra spending on health and education. The reality is that the budget is all going on conventional defence, according to Angus Robertson and according to Alex Salmond himself in his October 2012 conference speech. The truth is that you have not got a clue. It is interesting that Stuart Crawford, a defence consultant to whom the SNP used to pay attention before he jumped ship to the Liberals, has said that Faslane would only sustain 1,000 jobs in the future. What are the SNP's plans for the other 10,000? Are they simply to be thrown on the scrap heap? Do they not matter in an independent Scotland? I will give way to Keith Brown. I wonder if Jackie Baill could explain the four different figures that we have heard so far for the number of jobs at Faslane and the different parts of the Better Together campaign. Most he acknowledged the STUC's estimate of 1,536 jobs sustained by Trident. Surely if she is going to peddle a scare story, she should get it right with her colleagues? Jackie Baill. I am not peddling a scare story. I have been consistent for 15 years about the economic impact at Faslane. You seek to cloud that because you have no answers on jobs. At least now, let me give you credit, we can examine some of the SNP's proposals. I understand why you have not told us before what your plans are because on even the most cursory inspection, they fall apart. I asked the minister how many naval jobs would be provided. I was told that it would be the same. That is 6,700, rising to 8,200, but look at page 239 of the white paper. It simply says 2,000. So where are the 4,500 to 6,000 who are short? I am happy to give way for you to tell me where those jobs are. Minister, can we conduct the debate through the chair, please, on all sides? I am happy to respond, as I did before, to the point by Jackie Baill, by saying that we would be guaranteed the same number of military jobs at Faslane. What she has to reconcile, though, is all the different figures that our colleagues have given—four different figures—at 8,000, 11,000, 6,000, which is a right figure than Jackie Baill. I asked about naval jobs. There are naval jobs at Faslane. You replied about military jobs. You are going to put those people on the scrap heap. We discovered that Faslane is not a conventional naval base. I could have told you that. It will take 10 years to reconfigure. From the outset, at least five of the 13 vessels that make up the Scottish Navy will not be able to dock there. No submarines and experts say that we are unlikely to get any offshore protection vessels. We would have two frigates. We could order another two. That is interesting. Can I ask what frigates you will build? The intellectual property rights for the existing ones belong to the rest of the UK—minor but important detail. You also need an ITAL, licensed from the USA, to use any of their defence equipment, even a bolt or a screw. Do you even know what that is? Have you even made inquiries about how long that would take? You will, apparently, commission the frigates in the First Parliament. Two years to negotiate separation, possibly a further four years before you place the order. Potentially six years before the shipyards get anything to build. What do they do in the meantime? Twiddle their thumbs. I am told that it takes a year to build a frigate. I am also told that a frigate lasts for 30 to 40 years. A Scottish Navy, even if you replace every single ship in the first few years, will not sustain Scottish shipbuilding. The ministers are laughing. Do not just listen to me, listen to those who work in the industry, to Babcox, to BAE Systems, to the trade unions, to the workers at Faslane, Recife and the Clyde. They are the experts and, frankly, they think that the SNP's plans are just plain daft. Our ambition is to rid the world of nuclear weapons to achieve global zero. The difference is that the ultimate objective is shared, but the mechanism by which you go about it is certainly not shared. The SNP is simply using Trident to win a vote to separate Scotland from the United Kingdom. They are not serious. Thank you very much. I now call on Kenny MacAskill to wind up the debate. Cabinet Secretary, you have until five o'clock. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thought that the open debate was remarkably good. There were a great meal of passionate contributions and, indeed, articulate contributions, even if some I did not agree with. It was asked by Annabelle Goldie why we were debating. It has always been the case that this party has, as Patrick Harvie pointed out, as indeed other speakers did. We have always reflected on and sought to commemorate the bombing of Hiroshima. Sometimes it is in a member's debate, sometimes it is being by a parliamentary motion, but I think that it is appropriate that we should collect it. Equally, I think that Joan McAlpine made the appropriate point that, given the Rubicon crossing as we have moved from the atomic to the nuclear age, it is more important than ever. The points were made, as Ian Gray touched on World War One, which is appropriate to remember as we remember Hiroshima. However, it was also points made by Christian Allard, Bill Kidd and, indeed, many others that the possession of nuclear weapons has not stopped wars. We see confrontations on-going at the very moment as we speak. The world is most certainly not a safer place. Presiding Officer, we have heard a range of views during this debate. As someone who has marched alongside CND and supported nuclear disarmament and against Trident, my position will come as no surprise. However, for the first time, that decision on whether or not we continue to be home to Trident nuclear weapons can be in Scotland's hands. On 18 September, the people will decide whether Scotland will again be an independent country. There are many reasons why I expect the people of Scotland to support that proposition for jobs in the economy, for the improvement, for fairness in our public services and policies, and for practical reasons that will improve everyday lives. There will be practical benefits from Trident's withdrawal, such as reducing Scotland's nuclear footprint and freeing up the millions of pounds of Scottish taxpayers' money spent on their upkeep. However, the question of nuclear weapons is perhaps most closely tied to our vision of the kind of Scotland we want to be—a responsible and a peaceful Scotland that can take its rightful place in the world without the threat of nuclear weapons that is sought by everyone around the chamber. It is in that context that the Scottish Government will secure the withdrawal of Trident from an independent Scotland, and we will support a constitutional ban on the basing of nuclear weapons in Scotland to secure that withdrawal for future generations as many speakers, including Christina McKelvey and Stuart McMillan, made clear. That stands in stark contrast with the position of the three main parties in Westminster. They all support the replacement of Trident nuclear weapons, weapons that the UK Government has no intention of relocating away from the Clyde. On 20 March 2013, the Parliament voted in opposition to Trident. The STUC, Scotland's churches and others have also supported that call. Most important of all, polls regularly show that the majority public opinion in Scotland is opposed to nuclear weapons and to spending on Trident missiles. However, we have heard that the UK Government stands ready to confirm in 2016 an investment decision that plans for nuclear weapons to remain in Scotland for the next half century, another 50 years. One thing is clear—independence is the only option that protects current and future generations from the prospect of nuclear weapons continuing to be based in Scotland against the will of this Parliament and the people we represent. There are three arguments, though. The first is the economic argument. We have heard about the cost at 2012 prices of replacing Trident. Lifetime costs of around £100 billion. The equivalent every year of spending 9 per cent of the MOD's current budget on nuclear weapons, not what the military seek. Annual costs peaking at around £4 billion a year by the mid-2020s, and Scotland's population share of the equivalent annual outlay being around £240 million per annum. We see that renewing Trident would bring huge uncertainty for future conventional defence procurement, but to do so when one million people in Scotland and many more across the UK are reliving in poverty is doubly wrong. The Scottish Government believes that it is wrong for the UK Government to commit to spending £100 billion on nuclear weapons at the expense of its conventional defence capabilities, and, while it continues to slash the social budgets on which those who are in greatest need rely day and daily. There is a strategic and military argument. Those who suggest that nuclear weapons are essential to our national security—whatever the cost, I cannot accept that. We have heard that the presence of nuclear weapons has not prevented conflicts between nuclear and non-nuclear states, and it could be argued that its possession by a select few could encourage others to acquire them, as we have seen. Ultimately, this is no scenario that I can conceive of that justifies the use of Trident nuclear weapons, and that was made clear by many other speakers that the consequences would be catastrophic. Nuclear weapons present no deterrent to the threats that we face today, or those that we will face tomorrow. It is time for the UK and other nuclear weapons states to fully embrace the principles of the NPT and to work towards the abolition of nuclear weapons. However, it is not just economic and military that we make this argument. It is also a moral argument. We cannot forget that those are weapons of mass destruction in that wrang out around the chamber. They are indiscriminate and devastating in their impacts. Their use brings unspeakable humanitarian suffering and widespread environmental damage. My view on this issue is therefore simple. There should be no place in Scotland or any state for nuclear weapons. Exactly 90 years ago today, on 6 August 1945, which is why we debate it today, or one of the reasons a bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, three days later Nagasaki experienced the same fate. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed in horrific circumstances and the impacts remain visible to this day, as we heard from Bill Kidd with his narration from the representatives from that community. It is truly disturbing to reflect on the scale of suffering and devastation that nuclear weapons can bring. Above all else, it is to avoid the use of those weapons in the future, whether by accident or by design, that we must commit ourselves to ridding the world of their presence. We must, Presiding Officer, throw through words but also throw through deeds. In conclusion, only with independence can we secure tridents withdrawal from Scotland, and only with independence can we, through our written constitution, prohibit the future basing of nuclear weapons on our territory, and only with independence can Scotland take its full place in supporting the pursuit of nuclear disarmament. The decision is, in the hands of the people of Scotland, and I therefore call on the Scottish Parliament to support this motion to send a clear message of our commitment to the withdrawal of trident nuclear weapons and the pursuit of nuclear disarmament. That is an economic argument, a strategic argument, but most importantly of all a moral argument, and I therefore have pleasure in supporting the motion that was moved by my colleague Keith Brown. That concludes the debate on trident. We now move to the next item of business, and the next item of business is consideration of business motion 10729, in the name of Joffiths Patrick, on behalf of the parliamentary bureau, setting out a business programme. Any member who wishes to speak against the motion should press the request of the speaker, but I now call on Joffiths Patrick to move motion number 10729. No member has asked to speak against the motion, therefore I now put the question to the chamber. The question is that motion number 10729, in the name of Joffiths Patrick, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is there for agreed to. We now come to decision time. There are three questions to be put as a result of today's business. Can I remind members that, in relation to today's debate, if the amendment in the name of Willie Rennie is agreed, the amendment in the name of Patrick Harvie falls? The first question then is amendment number 10724.1, in the name of Willie Rennie, which seeks to amend motion number 10724, in the name of Keith Brown on trident, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The Parliament is not agreed. We move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 10724.1, in the name of Willie Rennie, is as follows. Yes, 17. No, 68. There are 29 abstentions. The amendment is therefore not agreed to. The next question then is amendment number 10724.2, in the name of Patrick Harvie, which seeks to amend motion number 10724, in the name of Keith Brown on trident, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? If the Parliament is not agreed, we move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on amendment number 10724.2, in the name of Patrick Harvie, is as follows. Yes, 68. No, 47. There were no abstentions. The amendment is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 10724, in the name of Keith Brown, as amended on trident, be agreed to. Are we all agreed? If the Parliament is not agreed, we move to a vote. Members should cast their votes now. The result of the vote on motion number 10724, in the name of Keith Brown, as amended, is as follows. Yes, 68. No, 47. There were no abstentions. The motion, as amended, is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time. If we now move to members' business, members should leave the chamber, should do so quickly and quietly.