:00:16. > :00:20.future of Britain's nuclear weapons. The Liberal Democrats want them
:00:20. > :00:25.slimmed down, the Conservatives want them replaced like for like and the
:00:25. > :00:29.SNP want them out of Scotland. Which of them is right?
:00:29. > :00:32.Good evening. For more than 40 years, the UK has had a nuclear
:00:32. > :00:37.weapons system ready to fire at any time but the question over its
:00:37. > :00:39.future exposes deep divisions across the political divide. And it's an
:00:39. > :00:49.issue that already casts a long shadow over the independence
:00:49. > :01:00.
:01:00. > :01:07.Campaigners at the local peace camp want to see an end to the nuclear
:01:07. > :01:13.weapons based here. It seems to be quite black-and-white: The peace
:01:13. > :01:19.camp, on one side, and on the other side, the nuclear submarine. I
:01:19. > :01:23.definitely have the feeling that the world lies in between, where we
:01:24. > :01:33.don't need nuclear weapons. But when it comes to Trident, there is not
:01:34. > :01:37.
:01:37. > :01:47.much peace in this camp. The coalition is split on the issue. The
:01:47. > :01:48.
:01:49. > :01:53.successful launch of a test missile on 20 of July, 1960. The UK has
:01:53. > :01:57.maintained nuclear weapons continuously for more than 40 years.
:01:57. > :02:01.In the 1960s, the then Prime Minister struck a deal with
:02:01. > :02:08.President Kennedy to sell ballistic missile to Britain before Trident
:02:08. > :02:12.was acquired. Few issues in politics and the wider world have
:02:12. > :02:17.concentrated hearts and minds more than the existence and future of
:02:17. > :02:22.nuclear weapons. The UK government is well aware of this, but given
:02:22. > :02:30.that the life span of the Trident submarine fleet went extend much
:02:30. > :02:36.beyond 2020, a decision will have to be made pretty soon. Today, a
:02:36. > :02:41.Cabinet office review on alternatives would enable the UK to
:02:41. > :02:47.inflict significant damage and deter aggressors. It also suggested
:02:47. > :02:50.submarines could be operated at reduced readiness. It pointed out an
:02:50. > :02:56.entirely new missile system would be more expensive than renewing
:02:56. > :03:04.Trident. That's the kind of scenario the Liberal Democrats would like to
:03:04. > :03:07.see. This country faces a big decision in 2016 and the review
:03:07. > :03:15.concludes there are alternatives that don't compromise national
:03:15. > :03:21.security but allow us to move on. We can move on by ending 24-hour
:03:21. > :03:24.patrols when we don't need them. That way, we can move down the
:03:24. > :03:31.ladder of disarmament as a country without compromising national
:03:31. > :03:37.security. But the conservative side of the Coalition said the Lib Dems
:03:37. > :03:44.were being naive. Moving away from a tried and tested system, which has
:03:44. > :03:52.protected us for over 45 years now, to try something different,
:03:52. > :03:55.potentially more costly and more risky, at a time when Russia is
:03:55. > :04:02.spending $150 billion rebuilding its armed forces, including its nuclear
:04:02. > :04:11.forces, it Rana is attempting to obtain nuclear warheads to put on
:04:11. > :04:15.its existing missiles, this would be an extremely foolhardy thing to do.
:04:15. > :04:20.While the Coalition argues about what nuclear deterrent to maintain,
:04:20. > :04:27.the Scottish Government wants the powers of independence to remove it
:04:27. > :04:31.altogether. Westminster is trying to force Scotland to continue having
:04:31. > :04:36.Trident submarines, based close to our biggest city. The majority of
:04:36. > :04:44.people in Scotland don't want them in Scotland. Our trade unions are
:04:44. > :04:49.opposed, our church is opposed. We don't want Trident in Scotland.
:04:49. > :04:55.UK government won't make a final decision on a replacement until
:04:55. > :04:58.2016, after the next general election. Back at the peace camp,
:04:58. > :05:01.campaigners are determined to maintain their vigil.
:05:01. > :05:04.We did ask Danny Alexander to appear on the programme but he wasn't
:05:05. > :05:09.available. Nor were any Liberal Democrat MPs or MSPs able to speak
:05:09. > :05:12.to us tonight. We are delighted to be joined, though, by Christine
:05:12. > :05:15.Jardine, a former advisor at Number ten and Liberal Democrat candidate
:05:15. > :05:18.in the recent Aberdeen Donside by-election. Also here is Adam
:05:18. > :05:26.Ingram, former Labour Armed Forces Minister, and in our Westminster
:05:26. > :05:36.studio is the SNP's defence spokesperson, Angus Robertson.
:05:36. > :05:41.Christine, why do Liberal Democrats feel so attracted to this three
:05:41. > :05:48.submarine option? According to this report, it saves hardly any money at
:05:48. > :05:55.all. What we are looking at here is we want to look at replacing Trident
:05:55. > :06:01.with something that is not like the like. We have made clear that we do
:06:01. > :06:11.not want to replace it like the like. We want to step back down and
:06:11. > :06:14.step away from the height of nuclear weapons. If you are happy to spend
:06:14. > :06:24.tens of billions of pounds to replace Trident, you might as well
:06:24. > :06:25.
:06:25. > :06:32.have a whole lot rather than a bit of it. No, because the UK having a
:06:32. > :06:38.nuclear deterrent designed for the Cold War. What we have to look at is
:06:38. > :06:46.a way of creating a defence system suitable for the 21st century.
:06:46. > :06:51.Having once submarine fuel is a new way of thinking? What we are looking
:06:51. > :06:58.at here, what this report does is set up the facts. The two parties
:06:58. > :07:04.disagree on it. It allows all three parties to look at the decision that
:07:04. > :07:09.will have to be made in 2016 with all the facts. We do not want to
:07:09. > :07:19.carry on and replace Trident. We see an opportunity to roll back on
:07:19. > :07:23.
:07:23. > :07:31.spending. We need a more appropriate situation. None of us actually want
:07:31. > :07:41.nuclear weapons, but unfortunately, some are necessary. You've got to
:07:41. > :07:42.
:07:42. > :07:47.read the report. It concludes two points: The first is that any
:07:47. > :07:52.alternative will provide less resilience and give no guarantee
:07:52. > :08:01.that it acts as a deterrent. It will actually reduce our international
:08:01. > :08:10.standing, and raises the question of the miscalculation of risk. Those
:08:10. > :08:17.are two very powerful points. I have heard them picked up today. I don't
:08:17. > :08:24.think the miscalculation of risk point was raised. It also comes into
:08:24. > :08:32.the three submarine thing as well. A deterrent is important because if
:08:32. > :08:42.you have to put to see someone who has to make a decision, meanwhile,
:08:42. > :08:43.
:08:44. > :08:52.your aggressor may be escalating, we create a further escalation. But
:08:52. > :08:57.what this document ignores is the point that Christine was making,
:08:57. > :09:02.this idea of stepping down the ladder. This is not just about the
:09:02. > :09:07.technicalities of nuclear weapons, it is about Britain saying, we are
:09:07. > :09:17.taking a decision not to disarm but to make a step towards getting rid
:09:17. > :09:18.
:09:18. > :09:26.of nuclear weapons. I am not ignoring that. But you see the
:09:26. > :09:30.changing nature of the world, it Rana is on the threshold of
:09:30. > :09:37.potentially getting nuclear weapons. If that happens, more
:09:37. > :09:41.countries will seek to acquire them. We are into a more volatile and
:09:41. > :09:51.dangerous environment, and the decision taken now has to been for
:09:51. > :09:54.the next 40-50 years. I know you are against... You want these things out
:09:55. > :10:01.of Scotland. But do you think this debate about these options is
:10:01. > :10:06.meaningless or do you sympathise with one side or the other? It has
:10:06. > :10:09.to be seen within the prism of the UK political parties, particularly
:10:09. > :10:19.the Liberal Democrats trying to position themselves in the run-up to
:10:19. > :10:20.
:10:20. > :10:25.the elections. We are different from the Tories when it comes to
:10:25. > :10:30.defence. That is the key driver in all of this. In a couple of years
:10:30. > :10:38.time, the Lib Dems think they will be in a place to differentiate
:10:38. > :10:41.themselves from the Tories. They are not disagreeing in essence about
:10:41. > :10:47.deterrence or nuclear weapons being necessary. They are agreeing with
:10:47. > :10:54.the Tories that they should be on the Clyde and should overlook
:10:54. > :11:01.Scottish public opinion, the views of our churches. He answered my
:11:01. > :11:05.question is you do think is meaningless? It is meaningless in as
:11:05. > :11:09.much as it didn't look at all the options. Notwithstanding the fact
:11:09. > :11:19.that between the three of us, we have different views on all of this,
:11:19. > :11:22.
:11:22. > :11:26.the review didn't look at all the options. Surely, one should look all
:11:26. > :11:36.of the options and not simply say, we will have a debate about whether
:11:36. > :11:39.
:11:39. > :11:43.we should have four instead three boats. There is no reason for
:11:43. > :11:50.Scotland to have... You think Britain should just unilaterally
:11:50. > :11:54.disarm? That should send a very powerful signal that we need to look
:11:54. > :11:59.at the issue of nuclear arms and their place in the world. If we
:11:59. > :12:06.followed the logic of the argument we have already heard, that because
:12:06. > :12:16.other countries have been developing nuclear weapons, then we are never
:12:16. > :12:18.
:12:18. > :12:26.going to scale down nuclear weapons. Do you think the United States
:12:26. > :12:30.should disarm? You got to deal with the realities of the world. There is
:12:30. > :12:37.no way that the countries that have the largest nuclear weapon stocks
:12:37. > :12:47.will ever disarm. The argument against what you are saying, it is
:12:47. > :12:53.fine, we can do this because we will rely on the United States. No, it's
:12:54. > :12:59.not. It's looking at the world as it exists. I don't think anybody has
:12:59. > :13:07.ever expected countries like the United States, Russia or China now,
:13:08. > :13:15.the three largest, most powerful super states, are going to
:13:15. > :13:18.unilaterally disarm. There are other opportunities to set a start. We
:13:18. > :13:23.remember the reaction to Nelson Mandela when he made a decision
:13:23. > :13:32.about what South Africa were strewn with its nuclear programme. The UK
:13:32. > :13:37.could take a lead if it wanted to. Adam, can you imagine any scenario
:13:37. > :13:45.will give us a scenario where you could imagine a British Prime
:13:45. > :13:49.Minister authorising the use of nuclear weapons? British Prime
:13:49. > :13:59.Minister 's are taken through intense scenarios where such events
:13:59. > :14:00.
:14:00. > :14:10.could occur. Give us a scenario.You just need North Korea to act in a
:14:10. > :14:11.
:14:11. > :14:21.attack Britain with nuclear weapons! No, they would say they would attack
:14:21. > :14:28.
:14:28. > :14:34.one of their allies. A nuclear threat has to be posed. If there was
:14:34. > :14:43.a realistic threat from North Korea to attack South Korea, a British
:14:43. > :14:47.prime minister... You said our allies, you didn't say NATO. Look,
:14:47. > :14:56.you could consider a situation where North Korea exports a capability to
:14:56. > :15:04.another state, which then launches. That target could be well within our
:15:04. > :15:14.area of where our allies are. I only need to cite the way in which there
:15:14. > :15:16.
:15:16. > :15:21.was a near escalation of nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan.
:15:21. > :15:26.The deterrence kicked in and those two states then found another way to
:15:26. > :15:32.resolve their differences. That was a very dangerous environment. We had
:15:32. > :15:42.tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan at the time. We may have
:15:42. > :15:43.
:15:43. > :15:47.been affected by it. I'm sure Liberal Democrat rank and file would
:15:47. > :15:51.have listened to Angus Robertson and said, that is what we believe. Why
:15:51. > :15:57.do you want to sign up to the Adam Ingram argument as opposed to Angus
:15:57. > :16:03.Robertson? A lot of Liberal Democrats listing to Angus Robertson
:16:03. > :16:09.would have thought his argument was the most strange one for unilateral
:16:09. > :16:15.disarmament, because the Americans will still have weapons... I don't
:16:15. > :16:22.think that is what he said. None of us like nuclear weapons but what
:16:22. > :16:25.Liberal Democrats would be doing... Let's get this clear, Liberal
:16:25. > :16:34.Democrats are against unilateral disarmament by Britain because it
:16:34. > :16:37.relies exclusively on the US? that is what -- that is not what I'm
:16:37. > :16:41.criticising him for. I am saying that Liberal Democrats will make
:16:41. > :16:49.their decision based on what is said in this report. We will start
:16:49. > :16:53.formulating policy at our conference. Why did you use this
:16:53. > :16:57.report today to say you would like to go a lot further and you don't
:16:58. > :17:07.seem what relevance nuclear weapons have? We do have the courage of our
:17:07. > :17:12.convictions. We will use -- we will formulate our policy on that. This
:17:12. > :17:17.is an opportunity to step down the nuclear ladder. We want to embrace
:17:17. > :17:20.the approach which President Obama has outlined, leading a
:17:20. > :17:25.multilateralist approach. This could see Liberal Democrats being at the
:17:25. > :17:29.head of this move towards multilateral disarmament. Angus
:17:29. > :17:39.Robertson, many people watching this, they will route we -- they
:17:39. > :17:41.
:17:41. > :17:47.will agree that moving weapons down the road to England does nothing for
:17:47. > :17:52.the cause of nuclear disarmament. think we should be responsible for
:17:52. > :17:56.our own backyard. We should discuss whether Scotland should make defence
:17:56. > :18:01.and security decisions on its own which reflect the majority wishes of
:18:01. > :18:07.the people, Parliament and government and civic institutions.
:18:07. > :18:11.That range of institutions I was talking about before, churches,
:18:11. > :18:16.trade unions, majority parliamentarians have all voted
:18:16. > :18:21.against Trident. In the first instance, let's get the power to
:18:21. > :18:27.make that decision. Secondly, make that decision and get Trident to
:18:27. > :18:35.leave. That mixes the cards up and allows others to think about what is
:18:35. > :18:40.the best way forward. The majority of our allies, with -- even with
:18:40. > :18:44.within NATO, do not want nuclear weapons. We will have to leave it
:18:44. > :18:54.there. A quick look at tomorrow's front
:18:54. > :18:56.
:18:56. > :19:04.pages. The daily Telegraph, sharing of NHS as care crisis laid bare. And
:19:04. > :19:14.the times, Cameron Hammer 's Labour over failure of the NHS. That's it
:19:14. > :19:21.
:19:21. > :19:26.heated just about sums up the forecast for the British are the
:19:26. > :19:30.next few days. Today we will soon have cloud against -- across
:19:30. > :19:35.Northern Ireland and Scotland. Also more in England than we have had.
:19:35. > :19:39.For more than island, sunny spells and Tebbit is getting close to the
:19:39. > :19:45.mid-20s. The same in southern and eastern Scotland. The North West
:19:45. > :19:49.having the wet -- remnants of a weather front. Northern England with
:19:50. > :19:55.some long spells of sunshine, still looking at eyes in the mid-20s.
:19:55. > :20:00.Across the South of England, you may get close to 32 Celsius. With that
:20:00. > :20:05.kind of heat, we may get an isolated thunderstorm. If we see showers
:20:05. > :20:11.developing, they could be lively but they will be few and far between.
:20:11. > :20:18.Further west, more sunshine of course. Very little changes in that
:20:18. > :20:22.story as we look at the latter part of the week. Just last -- subtle
:20:22. > :20:28.changes. Temperatures may come down a couple of degrees on Thursday and