16/07/2013 Newsnight Scotland

future of Britain's nuclear weapons. The Liberal Democrats want them

slimmed down, the Conservatives want them replaced like for like and the

SNP want them out of Scotland. Which of them is right?

Good evening. For more than 40 years, the UK has had a nuclear

weapons system ready to fire at any time but the question over its

future exposes deep divisions across the political divide. And it's an

issue that already casts a long shadow over the independence

Campaigners at the local peace camp want to see an end to the nuclear

weapons based here. It seems to be quite black-and-white: The peace

camp, on one side, and on the other side, the nuclear submarine. I

definitely have the feeling that the world lies in between, where we

don't need nuclear weapons. But when it comes to Trident, there is not

much peace in this camp. The coalition is split on the issue. The

successful launch of a test missile on 20 of July, 1960. The UK has

maintained nuclear weapons continuously for more than 40 years.

In the 1960s, the then Prime Minister struck a deal with

President Kennedy to sell ballistic missile to Britain before Trident

was acquired. Few issues in politics and the wider world have

concentrated hearts and minds more than the existence and future of

nuclear weapons. The UK government is well aware of this, but given

that the life span of the Trident submarine fleet went extend much

beyond 2020, a decision will have to be made pretty soon. Today, a

Cabinet office review on alternatives would enable the UK to

inflict significant damage and deter aggressors. It also suggested

submarines could be operated at reduced readiness. It pointed out an

entirely new missile system would be more expensive than renewing

Trident. That's the kind of scenario the Liberal Democrats would like to

see. This country faces a big decision in 2016 and the review

concludes there are alternatives that don't compromise national

security but allow us to move on. We can move on by ending 24-hour

patrols when we don't need them. That way, we can move down the

ladder of disarmament as a country without compromising national

security. But the conservative side of the Coalition said the Lib Dems

were being naive. Moving away from a tried and tested system, which has

protected us for over 45 years now, to try something different,

potentially more costly and more risky, at a time when Russia is

spending $150 billion rebuilding its armed forces, including its nuclear

forces, it Rana is attempting to obtain nuclear warheads to put on

its existing missiles, this would be an extremely foolhardy thing to do.

While the Coalition argues about what nuclear deterrent to maintain,

the Scottish Government wants the powers of independence to remove it

altogether. Westminster is trying to force Scotland to continue having

Trident submarines, based close to our biggest city. The majority of

people in Scotland don't want them in Scotland. Our trade unions are

opposed, our church is opposed. We don't want Trident in Scotland.

UK government won't make a final decision on a replacement until

2016, after the next general election. Back at the peace camp,

campaigners are determined to maintain their vigil.

We did ask Danny Alexander to appear on the programme but he wasn't

available. Nor were any Liberal Democrat MPs or MSPs able to speak

to us tonight. We are delighted to be joined, though, by Christine

Jardine, a former advisor at Number ten and Liberal Democrat candidate

in the recent Aberdeen Donside by-election. Also here is Adam

Ingram, former Labour Armed Forces Minister, and in our Westminster

studio is the SNP's defence spokesperson, Angus Robertson.

Christine, why do Liberal Democrats feel so attracted to this three

submarine option? According to this report, it saves hardly any money at

all. What we are looking at here is we want to look at replacing Trident

with something that is not like the like. We have made clear that we do

not want to replace it like the like. We want to step back down and

step away from the height of nuclear weapons. If you are happy to spend

tens of billions of pounds to replace Trident, you might as well

have a whole lot rather than a bit of it. No, because the UK having a

nuclear deterrent designed for the Cold War. What we have to look at is

a way of creating a defence system suitable for the 21st century.

Having once submarine fuel is a new way of thinking? What we are looking

at here, what this report does is set up the facts. The two parties

disagree on it. It allows all three parties to look at the decision that

will have to be made in 2016 with all the facts. We do not want to

carry on and replace Trident. We see an opportunity to roll back on

spending. We need a more appropriate situation. None of us actually want

nuclear weapons, but unfortunately, some are necessary. You've got to

read the report. It concludes two points: The first is that any

alternative will provide less resilience and give no guarantee

that it acts as a deterrent. It will actually reduce our international

standing, and raises the question of the miscalculation of risk. Those

are two very powerful points. I have heard them picked up today. I don't

think the miscalculation of risk point was raised. It also comes into

the three submarine thing as well. A deterrent is important because if

you have to put to see someone who has to make a decision, meanwhile,

your aggressor may be escalating, we create a further escalation. But

what this document ignores is the point that Christine was making,

this idea of stepping down the ladder. This is not just about the

technicalities of nuclear weapons, it is about Britain saying, we are

taking a decision not to disarm but to make a step towards getting rid

of nuclear weapons. I am not ignoring that. But you see the

changing nature of the world, it Rana is on the threshold of

potentially getting nuclear weapons. If that happens, more

countries will seek to acquire them. We are into a more volatile and

dangerous environment, and the decision taken now has to been for

the next 40-50 years. I know you are against... You want these things out

of Scotland. But do you think this debate about these options is

meaningless or do you sympathise with one side or the other? It has

to be seen within the prism of the UK political parties, particularly

the Liberal Democrats trying to position themselves in the run-up to

the elections. We are different from the Tories when it comes to

defence. That is the key driver in all of this. In a couple of years

time, the Lib Dems think they will be in a place to differentiate

themselves from the Tories. They are not disagreeing in essence about

deterrence or nuclear weapons being necessary. They are agreeing with

the Tories that they should be on the Clyde and should overlook

Scottish public opinion, the views of our churches. He answered my

question is you do think is meaningless? It is meaningless in as

much as it didn't look at all the options. Notwithstanding the fact

that between the three of us, we have different views on all of this,

the review didn't look at all the options. Surely, one should look all

of the options and not simply say, we will have a debate about whether

we should have four instead three boats. There is no reason for

Scotland to have... You think Britain should just unilaterally

disarm? That should send a very powerful signal that we need to look

at the issue of nuclear arms and their place in the world. If we

followed the logic of the argument we have already heard, that because

other countries have been developing nuclear weapons, then we are never

going to scale down nuclear weapons. Do you think the United States

should disarm? You got to deal with the realities of the world. There is

no way that the countries that have the largest nuclear weapon stocks

will ever disarm. The argument against what you are saying, it is

fine, we can do this because we will rely on the United States. No, it's

not. It's looking at the world as it exists. I don't think anybody has

ever expected countries like the United States, Russia or China now,

the three largest, most powerful super states, are going to

unilaterally disarm. There are other opportunities to set a start. We

remember the reaction to Nelson Mandela when he made a decision

about what South Africa were strewn with its nuclear programme. The UK

could take a lead if it wanted to. Adam, can you imagine any scenario

will give us a scenario where you could imagine a British Prime

Minister authorising the use of nuclear weapons? British Prime

Minister 's are taken through intense scenarios where such events

could occur. Give us a scenario.You just need North Korea to act in a

attack Britain with nuclear weapons! No, they would say they would attack

one of their allies. A nuclear threat has to be posed. If there was

a realistic threat from North Korea to attack South Korea, a British

prime minister... You said our allies, you didn't say NATO. Look,

you could consider a situation where North Korea exports a capability to

another state, which then launches. That target could be well within our

area of where our allies are. I only need to cite the way in which there

was a near escalation of nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan.

The deterrence kicked in and those two states then found another way to

resolve their differences. That was a very dangerous environment. We had

tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan at the time. We may have

been affected by it. I'm sure Liberal Democrat rank and file would

have listened to Angus Robertson and said, that is what we believe. Why

do you want to sign up to the Adam Ingram argument as opposed to Angus

Robertson? A lot of Liberal Democrats listing to Angus Robertson

would have thought his argument was the most strange one for unilateral

disarmament, because the Americans will still have weapons... I don't

think that is what he said. None of us like nuclear weapons but what

Liberal Democrats would be doing... Let's get this clear, Liberal

Democrats are against unilateral disarmament by Britain because it

relies exclusively on the US? that is what -- that is not what I'm

criticising him for. I am saying that Liberal Democrats will make

their decision based on what is said in this report. We will start

formulating policy at our conference. Why did you use this

report today to say you would like to go a lot further and you don't

seem what relevance nuclear weapons have? We do have the courage of our

convictions. We will use -- we will formulate our policy on that. This

is an opportunity to step down the nuclear ladder. We want to embrace

the approach which President Obama has outlined, leading a

multilateralist approach. This could see Liberal Democrats being at the

head of this move towards multilateral disarmament. Angus

Robertson, many people watching this, they will route we -- they

will agree that moving weapons down the road to England does nothing for

the cause of nuclear disarmament. think we should be responsible for

our own backyard. We should discuss whether Scotland should make defence

and security decisions on its own which reflect the majority wishes of

the people, Parliament and government and civic institutions.

That range of institutions I was talking about before, churches,

trade unions, majority parliamentarians have all voted

against Trident. In the first instance, let's get the power to

make that decision. Secondly, make that decision and get Trident to

leave. That mixes the cards up and allows others to think about what is

the best way forward. The majority of our allies, with -- even with

within NATO, do not want nuclear weapons. We will have to leave it

there. A quick look at tomorrow's front

pages. The daily Telegraph, sharing of NHS as care crisis laid bare. And

the times, Cameron Hammer 's Labour over failure of the NHS. That's it

heated just about sums up the forecast for the British are the

next few days. Today we will soon have cloud against -- across

Northern Ireland and Scotland. Also more in England than we have had.

For more than island, sunny spells and Tebbit is getting close to the

mid-20s. The same in southern and eastern Scotland. The North West

having the wet -- remnants of a weather front. Northern England with

some long spells of sunshine, still looking at eyes in the mid-20s.

Across the South of England, you may get close to 32 Celsius. With that

kind of heat, we may get an isolated thunderstorm. If we see showers

developing, they could be lively but they will be few and far between.

Further west, more sunshine of course. Very little changes in that

story as we look at the latter part of the week. Just last -- subtle

changes. Temperatures may come down a couple of degrees on Thursday and