Official Report 1103KB pdf
The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-13909, in the name of Bill Kidd, on the late Rev John Ainslie. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament recognises the enormous contribution to the debate on nuclear weapons that was made by the late Reverend John Ainslie in the Glasgow Anniesland constituency, the Parliament and throughout Scotland; celebrates the publication, in an accessible and searchable digital form, of the archive of all of his reports by the Nuclear Information Service, and welcomes the return of the physical papers for safekeeping by the National Library of Scotland.
12:59
Today, we are here to recognise the remarkable contributions of the late Rev John Ainslie to the debate on nuclear weapons. John was not just a leading figure in Scotland’s anti-nuclear movement; he was someone whose life’s work and deep commitment to peace profoundly shaped the discourse on disarmament here and abroad. I hope that his legacy will be honoured not only in words but in actions as we go forward. Although today’s debate pays tribute to John’s invaluable work, it also provides an opportunity to renew our commitment to nuclear disarmament and to a nuclear-free Scotland.
I welcome to the public gallery representatives of the Nuclear Information Service and the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Their efforts are vital, given the continued existence and proliferation of nuclear weapons here in Scotland and around the world. The Nuclear Information Service plays an essential role in the on-going effort towards nuclear disarmament, as it provides rigorous and reliable information on the United Kingdom’s nuclear weapons programme. It is through such efforts that we can engage in informed debates and challenge the dangerous and costly status quo of nuclear armament.
After the debate, there will be a meeting of the cross-party group on nuclear disarmament and, later, an event at the National Library of Scotland to celebrate the return of the John Ainslie archives. That event will feature a panel discussion with Scottish CND, the Nuclear Information Service and journalist Rob Edwards, and it will further highlight the importance of the Rev John Ainslie’s work.
John’s life was a journey defined by courage and conviction. Born in Aberdeenshire, he joined the Army in 1971 and studied international relations, becoming a junior officer. However, by 1980, his conscience led him to resign his commission, as a conscientious objector, and he became a passionate advocate for nuclear disarmament. On returning to Scotland, he pursued a degree in divinity and joined the Church of Scotland as a youth worker, while also emerging as a prominent figure in the disarmament movement.
In 1992, as the co-ordinator of Scottish CND, John made headlines by protesting against the arrival on the Clyde of the first submarine armed with Trident nuclear missiles. He did so with action, not just words, by paddling a canoe to confront the submarine—an act of bravery that led to his arrest by Ministry of Defence police. That moment symbolised his unwavering commitment to a world free from nuclear weapons.
John combined rigorous academic inquiry with grass-roots activism, which ensured that his contributions had both intellectual and practical impacts. He famously coined the phrase “Bairns not bombs”, which is a powerful slogan that captures his vision of investing in our children and communities rather than in weapons of mass destruction. That simple yet profound message continues to resonate today as we advocate for a nuclear-free future.
The reports and research that the Rev John Ainslie produced, now digitised by the Nuclear Information Service, remain vital in shaping international discourse on nuclear weapons. Those documents are living tools that continue to inform global efforts towards nuclear disarmament, including the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The return of those original documents to Scotland’s National Library is more than symbolic; it is a reaffirmation of Scotland’s role in the global peace movement.
Nuclear disarmament is not just an idealistic goal; it is a practical necessity. Nuclear weapons pose an existential threat to humanity. Their use, whether by design, accident or miscalculation, would have catastrophic consequences, and it is our moral duty to work relentlessly to eliminate those weapons from our world.
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which came into force in 2021, represents a historic step forward. Supported by a growing number of nations, the treaty explicitly bans the development, testing, production and possession of nuclear weapons. Scotland, through its people and its leaders, has consistently supported the treaty and the broader movement for disarmament, and John’s work laid much of the groundwork for that support.
However, significant challenges remain. Nuclear-armed states, including the UK, continue to resist such efforts, and they often cite deterrence as a justification. However, the doctrine of deterrence is fundamentally flawed. It perpetuates a cycle of fear and insecurity and increases the risk of nuclear conflict.
For as long as the UK maintains its nuclear arsenal on Scottish soil, we find ourselves complicit in that dangerous status quo. Yet Scotland has the potential to be a beacon of hope and a nation that leads by example, by advocating for disarmament and striving for a future where bairns not bombs is a reality.
As we honour the life and legacy of the late John Ainslie, let us commit ourselves to continuing his work. Let us strive for a Scotland and a world where peace, justice and human dignity are not overshadowed by the threat of nuclear weapons. John’s example inspires us to challenge the status quo and to work tirelessly for a safer and fairer future. Let us use this moment to act, to renew our dedication to nuclear disarmament and to build a future where our children inherit a world free from the threat of nuclear annihilation.
13:05
I am pleased to speak in this important debate, which I thank my colleague Bill Kidd for bringing to the chamber. His commitment to nuclear disarmament is well documented. He is the co-president of the global organisation Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament, and I applaud him for his unstinting work to get rid of the abomination of nuclear weapons from Scotland’s shores and from the world.
I also applaud the subject of today’s debate, the Rev John Ainslie. As we have heard, he was a son of the manse in Aberdeenshire who joined the Army in 1971, studied international relations at Keele University in Staffordshire and became a junior officer. By 1980, he had fallen out with the Army and resigned his commission, as a conscientious objector, and he became an active campaigner. After paying back his university fees to the Army, he undertook a divinity degree and entered the ministry of the Church of Scotland as a youth worker. He was one of Scotland’s foremost disarmament campaigners, along with the late Canon Kenyon Wright.
In 1992, when the first submarine armed with Trident nuclear missiles arrived in the Clyde, John—by then the co-ordinator of Scottish CND—was in a canoe buzzing the submarine when he was arrested by the MOD police. As we have heard, John did not just pay lip service to disarmament; he acted with bravery, and his arrest was a watershed moment in highlighting the absurdity of these weapons of mass destruction.
The Scottish National Party has a long-standing commitment to ridding our shores and the world of nuclear weapons. Until today’s debate, I did not realise that the oft-used phrase “Bairns not bombs” was coined by John Ainslie. For me, that slogan says it all. We want our children to grow up without the threat of nuclear weapons. Scotland does not want them; they have no place here. I have been a lifelong supporter of nuclear disarmament, having visited Faslane and Greenham Common back in the day. In fact, I think that I still have the “Protest and survive” badges and other memorabilia from then, which I am keeping to pass on to my grandchildren.
The money that is spent on these useless weapons is staggering. We could use that money in so many ways to build a fairer, greener Scotland. For me, their presence here is symbolic of having paid no heed to what the majority of Scots want and believe. Nuclear weapons are morally reprehensible. As Bill Kidd said, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which came into force in 2021, represents a historic step forward, along with the research produced by John Ainslie, which is now digitised by the Nuclear Information Service.
I again thank Bill Kidd for securing the debate. I thank all peace-loving citizens and organisations for their work to end the abomination of nuclear weapons. The most fitting tribute to John Ainslie would be to rid the beautiful shores of Scotland of them—something that I am confident will happen when we are an independent country.
13:09
I, too, congratulate Bill Kidd on bringing this debate to the chamber. He and I have spoken in numerous debates on issues such as this one over the years.
I might be a strange choice to speak in this debate, for a number of reasons. I am an MSP with a keen interest in the work of our armed forces; I have the Faslane nuclear base in my parliamentary region, which I have visited multiple times; and I would describe myself as a supporter of our continuous at-sea deterrent. However, I would like to think that the Rev John Ainslie, if he was here, would cherish this debate and all speakers’ participation in it. I have much that is positive to say about his work, even if he and I would perhaps have disagreed eye to eye on some of the substantive issues. The underlying premise of his desire for peace across the world is one that I hope we all share, irrespective of our views.
The Rev John Ainslie was co-ordinator of Scottish CND from 1991, when I was just 11, right through until his untimely death in 2016. In doing my research for this debate, I was interested to read that he trained to be an officer in the 1970s and he completed a degree in international relations, specialising in NATO’s nuclear strategy. He went on to serve in our armed forces in Ireland. I am reliably told that he possibly even worked in military intelligence, although I am not sure about the truth of that. Famously, he left as a conscientious objector, and he suffered and paid a price as a result of that. He faced tribunals and was forced to pay back some of his university fees.
At the time when Vanguard, which was the first of the Trident submarines, sailed up the Clyde, right in front of my home town of Greenock, he led a flotilla of around 50 small craft, with swimmers and canoeists in the water. The sight of that huge submarine of mass destruction alongside the tiny canoes and the swimmers must have been an iconic vision of that epoch.
In his many reports, which were very well received as being evidence based and well argued, he aimed to persuade the public of his convictions. Whether one agreed with his work or not, he provided a significant base of information about Britain’s nuclear capabilities. Indeed, I would go as far as saying that it enriched the debate on Britain’s nuclear deterrent. They are weapons of mass death and destruction. He was right about that. Of course, some would argue that that is their very purpose.
His campaign was born in a very different world. Let us look back to 1992, when his first report was published. The cold war was just over, the Berlin wall had just come down and the USSR had just collapsed. There was a feeling that a united Europe was giving way to a more united world. There was optimism at the time that the move towards an anti-nuclear world was gaining momentum and that disarmament would be universal.
However, that optimism and that sense of global unity have not lasted or stood the test of time. I believe that we are now in a far more dangerous and perhaps volatile world than we were in in those days. I think that the on-going conflicts in Ukraine and the middle east and the tensions in the Taiwan Strait and elsewhere reinforce the role that Britain plays in global affairs and the support that we give to and receive from our global allies. The nuclear deterrent is undoubtedly part of that. However, what the Rev John Ainslie did was challenge its existence through substance. He scrutinised the standards of the deterrent and challenged the risks associated with it. The many reports, which I do not have time to go into, were fascinating to read, and I look forward to seeing the archive at the National Library of Scotland.
I would even argue that the UK’s deterrent, as it is today, is all the safer as a result of much of the work that those who opposed its existence did. That work is clearly on-going, and those in the public gallery today are testament to that. Bill Kidd summed it up nicely. The Rev John Ainslie challenged the status quo. He asked difficult questions of people in power—perhaps questions that no one else was asking at the time—about the price of security, the meaning of deterrence, the legalities around its potential use and the realities of our global capabilities and those of our allies and our opponents. I believe that we are all safer for some of that research and work.
He made his arguments not through the prism of ideology, but through research and thought-provoking analysis, and he was never afraid to question the safety or indeed the costs of our nuclear deterrent. One thing that I am sad about is that he is not here to participate in this debate. Nonetheless, the movement, his friends, his family and those who continue to fly the flag for him, including Bill Kidd, who I have much respect for, keep alive his cause and the memory of those bold figures of the early CND who were never afraid to challenge the status quo. We should never be afraid to challenge the status quo, and that is something that we should all cherish in a democracy such as ours.
13:14
I thank Bill Kidd for leading the debate on a motion that celebrates the life and work of John Ainslie. Last month marked the 30th anniversary of a publication that I do not think is in the archive. It is a pamphlet that John and I co-authored—a coproduction between the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the Scottish Trades Union Congress: “Trident—Not Safe, Not Economic, Not Wanted” is its title. In it, we exposed the huge hidden costs of Trident and exposed the huge safety risk that it posed to the whole of central Scotland. It is a piece of work, three decades on, that I am proud of, not only because we were on the right side of the biggest moral question of our age—and I still firmly believe that to be true—but precisely because I worked on it with John. We would meet at 15 Barrland Street, on the south side of Glasgow, and at 16 Woodlands Terrace, in the grandeur of the STUC’s offices, with its views redolent of the cityscapes of Oscar Marzaroli.
John’s job title at Scottish CND at that time was administrator, but John Ainslie was no bureaucrat. He was an activist, a thinker, a campaigner, a writer, a protester, and a man of the highest principles. Just listen to his simple, but arresting, opening line in that pamphlet:
“A Trident submarine is designed to destroy a continent and to kill 200 million people.”
In the ensuing years, he became an internationally respected authority on nuclear weapons and nuclear disarmament, and no one knew more about the road convoys of warheads that were travelling through Scotland than John. Acutely aware of the dangers, the risks, the hazards—the unintended consequences—as well as the illegal and immoral intended ones, of the nuclear arsenal on our doorstep, he warned that central Scotland, from the Clyde to the Forth, could become a desert because he knew that a nuclear war could start by intent, but it could also start by accident.
The replacement of Polaris with Trident was controversial on its own terms. By 1994, when we wrote the pamphlet, according to the National Audit Office, there had already been an £800 million overspend, but Trident did not just bring about the proliferation of public money—it brought about the proliferation of public terror and, of course, it brought about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Now, 30 years later, we are drifting towards Trident’s replacement with the Dreadnought programme. We are doing that
“in conjunction with the United States”,
we are told, working closely to ensure that it is it is compatible with the Trident strategic weapon system. In other words, we remain a client state to the US, and this at a time when we know that there is a possibility of the return of Donald Trump to the White House.
Looking back 30 years ago, at the time I wrote:
“Trident is a triumph of the military complex over the needs of the impoverished. It is a triumph of foreign policy over social and industrial policy.”
I stand by those statements. I cannot think of a better time to launch John Ainslie’s archive than now, because he did ask the critical questions. He pioneered the use of freedom of information laws in search of truth and transparency. What better way to honour his memory than to continue with his work?
Finally, John knew that nuclear weapons do not bring stability; that they corrode the very foundations of our civilisation; that if we do not destroy these weapons of mass destruction, they will destroy us. I remain an inveterate and unrepentant supporter of unilateral nuclear disarmament. In John’s memory, we rededicate ourselves today to that great cause.
I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Constitution, External Affairs and Culture, Angus Robertson, to respond to the debate.
13:19
I am delighted and honoured to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish Government. I sincerely thank Bill Kidd for lodging the motion and I express my appreciation to him and the wider cross-party working group on nuclear disarmament for their continued work on this important issue.
I realise that I am at risk of repeating some of what has already been said, but it is important to begin by recognising the work and the legacy of the subject of Bill Kidd’s motion and the debate, namely that of the Rev John Ainslie, who sadly and prematurely passed away in 2016 after a battle with cancer. Today’s debate is a testament to his years of campaigning and his research on nuclear weapons and disarmament.
As others have mentioned, he was a former British Army intelligence officer. He worked tirelessly for many years as part of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and he was appointed its co-ordinator in 1992. That was also the year of the first of the Rev John Ainslie’s 20 reports on nuclear policy, the last of which was published in 2016. The reports covered a range of issues, including the practicalities of British nuclear disarmament and Scotland’s contribution to it, the costs and risks of the UK’s nuclear weapons modernisation programme and the humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons by the United Kingdom.
In addition to authoring reports, the Rev John Ainslie collected a vast number of documents—more than 3,000 of them—primarily related to the UK Government’s nuclear weapons programme. It is fitting that this debate is taking place on the day when we celebrate the return of that archive to Scotland, with events here in Parliament and at the National Library of Scotland, including an exhibition of some of the original documents. The whole of the collection is being added to the National Library. All those who are involved in digitising the archive and returning the physical files to Scotland for permanent storage are to be commended.
I will briefly reflect on members’ contributions, and I begin with Bill Kidd. I think that everybody in the chamber, regardless of their views on nuclear disarmament, unilateral or multilateral—I think, or certainly hope, that we are all committed to one or the other—would agree that Bill has been an unceasing campaigner for nuclear disarmament and that he deserves recognition from us all. Some years ago, I was pleased to be able to attend the international conference on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons with him, and I can attest to his deep commitment to the issue.
Rona Mackay rightly reminded us all of the phrase “Bairns not bombs”, which many of us have had on bumper stickers and which we closely associate with the feeling of relative priorities when it comes to nuclear weapons against social policy.
I have to say how gracious and thoughtful Jamie Greene was to make the contribution that he made. Notwithstanding the differences that he has with those of us who support a different approach to nuclear disarmament, he found a way of graciously marking his respect for John Ainslie without taking issue with his commitment to how we can secure a more peaceful world.
On the joint publication that Richard Leonard co-wrote with John Ainslie 30 years ago—Richard must have been a very young man then—I hope that, if it is not already in the National Library, it will be. I encourage him to check the inventory there—let us make sure that that is part of the wider collection.
The Scottish Government’s position on nuclear weapons is clear and long standing. We are firmly opposed to the possession, the threat and the use of nuclear weapons. They are strategically and economically wrong, undiscriminating and devastating in their impact. Their use would bring unspeakable humanitarian suffering and widespread environmental damage.
It is worth noting that every single signatory of the non-proliferation treaty—all states, including the United Kingdom—is publicly committed to nuclear disarmament. Frankly, we should get on with it. The Scottish Government has consistently expressed a commitment to remove nuclear weapons from Scotland in the safest and most expeditious manner possible, following a vote for independence. That position was last set out in one of the “Building a New Scotland” series of papers titled “An independent Scotland’s place in the world”, which I launched in March this year.
Nuclear weapons are obsolete, dangerous and impractical, yet in 2021 the UK Government broke its commitment to the international community by increasing the nuclear weapons stockpile to no more than 260 warheads. That is a 40 per cent increase from its 2010 commitment of no more than 180 warheads. In March this year, the Conservative Government published a command paper that set out that the UK’s nuclear weapons are the
“Ministry of Defence’s number one priority.”
It is disappointing, if not entirely unpredictable, that the new Labour UK Government is launching its strategic defence review in July and has reaffirmed its commitment to the UK’s nuclear arsenal.
Breaking the commitment to the cap of 180 warheads is completely at odds with article 6 of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, to which the UK Government is a signatory. Two independent defence experts from the London School of Economics have also concluded that the UK’s increase of warheads constitutes a breach of article 6.
Nuclear weapons do not provide a meaningful deterrent to many modern-day threats, such as terrorist attacks, and nor have they proven to be a deterrent to other nuclear-armed states carrying out atrocious acts, even on UK soil. Rather than making repeated and damaging cuts to conventional military forces and capabilities, the UK Government would do better to use the £41 billion that it is spending on replacing Trident to invest in modern conventional capabilities that are relevant to today’s threats.
The Scottish Government supports the objective of the non-proliferation treaty and the international treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. We recognise the key role that the international community has in collectively creating the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons.
As I have said, the Scottish Government firmly opposes nuclear weapons. We wish to see the Dreadnought programme to replace Trident scrapped and the £41 billion of taxpayers’ money put to better use. We will continue to call on the UK Government to do just that.
Finally, and most importantly, I again thank Bill Kidd for lodging the motion and members for their contributions. The Rev John Ainslie was not a person who sought the limelight but, through his expertise and his commitment to peace, he shone a light on the terrible weapons of mass destruction on our doorstep. I hope that, one day, we can achieve what he fought so long for—namely, a nation free of nuclear weapons.
I suspend the meeting until 2 pm.
13:26 Meeting suspended.Previous
First Minister’s Question Time