Government and Military

Minister for Parliamentary Business

Bruce Crawford MSP

Janet Fenton, Edinburgh Peace and Justice Centre, St John’s,Princes Street, Edinburgh, EH2 4BJ ___

4th February 2011

Dear Janet and colleagues,

Many thanks for your recent correspondence on the Scotland Without Nuclear Weapons Working Group, its report and the Scottish Government response. The Scottish Government remains opposed to the possession, threat and use of nuclear weapons and as such I read your material with interest.

As you are aware, while decisions on the basing of nuclear weapons on Scottish soil are reserved to the UK Government, this has consequences for devolved responsibilities and the people of Scotland and the Scottish Government have a legitimate interest in this matter. We are fully committed to continuing to take a leadership role in disarmament and non-proliferation and have demonstrated this throughout the term of this Government. We have for example convened a summit to discuss Trident, commissioned the work of the Working Group and have both attended and hosted a number of events to further the discussion on non proliferation and nuclear weapons free zones. We have also held several members debates in the Scottish Parliament on this issue and, as you will be aware, on 14 June 2007 the Scottish Parliament approved a motion to congratulate the majority of Scottish MPs for voting to reject the replacement of Trident and called on the UK Government not to go ahead with proposals in the UK Government White Paper, The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent. These measures signal the opposition of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government to the presence of nuclear weapons on our soil.

With regard to the transportation of nuclear weapons, the MoD’s Local Authority and Emergency Services guidance (LAESI) provides information on the contingency arrangements which govern the movement of nuclear weapons within the UK. However, we believe that in order to ensure that any relevant local arrangements remain robust and are at a state of readiness as and when required, local authorities should be informed whenever nuclear weapons pass through or fly over their areas and that information for such movements should be made available to affected authorities and to the Scottish Government. We have signalled these concerns to the UK Government, and we will now pursue this matter formally with the MoD.

In relation to the question of regulatory and health & safety shortfalls, I share your concerns with any threat posed to our communities by the presence of nuclear weapons in Scotland. The Radiation (Emergency Preparedness and Public Information) Regulations 2001 requires the MoD to undertake risk assessments at nuclear defence sites and to make robust arrangements to protect public safety and to prevent incidents occurring. However, we also share the Working Group’s concerns regarding the exemption of defence sites from the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 and support their view that the Health & Safety Executive should be responsible for regulating defence establishments in Scotland, including the naval sites at Faslane, RNAD Coulport and the Naval Test Reactor at Dounreay. Furthermore, in light of the need to ensure that every effort has been taken to secure public safety, we believe that risk assessments relating to these sites should as a matter of principle be shared with relevant local authorities and with the Scottish Government. We have therefore raised our concerns with the Ministry of Defence in writing in April and again last December and have reiterated our request for full information on this matter.

We will continue to press both these issues with the Ministry of Defence in the strongest possible terms, to support both our own and local authorities’ assessments of the level of risk posed to our communities by the presence and transportation of nuclear weapons in Scotland. I have asked officials to raise this again in their next regular meeting with the Ministry of Defence, scheduled for mid February.

On issues of legality and noting in particular the opinion of the High Court in the Lord Advocate’s Reference (1 of 2000), matters of defence are reserved to the UK Government under the terms of the Scotland Act and the view of the Scottish Government is that there is no mechanism for challenging the presence of Trident in Scotland in a Scots criminal court. However, these are matters which we take seriously and I have therefore asked officials to consider your arguments within the context of the above High Court ruling.

Concerning the economic impact of the withdrawal of Trident, recent work on the implications of the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) has shown the concerted effort that is required to prepare for and respond to significant changes in employment profiles within a region. We also acknowledge the March 2007 report from the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the Scottish Trades Union Congress on the economic and employment consequences for Scotland of cancelling Trident. Whilst we therefore concur that the employment profile surrounding and associated with Faslane will change at some point, we must address the stark reality that we are currently facing economic impacts of other defence decisions arising from the SDSR, and we do not at this stage have the resources to examine the detailed requirements for future changes at Faslane or the necessary clarity from the MoD on the future Scottish defence footprint within which such changes will take place.

In the event that a decision is taken to decommission Trident, there will be a significant lead time, one in which we will be able to create and implement a strategy for diversifying the economic profile of the area. Creation of a decommissioning plan will make more sense and when done in conjunction with facts and detail about the proposed timing and phasing of decommissioning and the plans for reuse or development of the base and any other related defence assets or businesses.

That work should also build upon the activity currently in hand to assess and manage SDSR impacts and will need to take account of lessons which we, and indeed the MoD, can learn from the approach taken by other governments such as the United States, to both assessing and managing the various impacts on communities arising from the closure of or significant change to a military base. At that time, I concur that there must be a way for those not directly involved to participate in the planning process and in the provision of information.

With regard to next steps, I would like to work with interested parties to progress the positive role that Scotland can play in international peace and would welcome the opportunity to discuss with you all how we can do so in a constructive and cost effective way, perhaps building on the ideas about International Peace Day which the Scotland Without Nuclear Weapons Working Group put forward. I have asked my office to arrange a meeting for us to discuss how we could progress this and would welcome thoughts from all the groups who took the time to write to me on this and related matters. Scotland has the opportunity to make a difference here from the unique position we are in.

We would also welcome the opportunity to support a follow up nuclear weapons convention and I would ask you to contact Kirsty Baker, one of my officials, to discuss what form this might take and how we could progress it after the election. Whilst we are unlikely to be able to offer financial assistance, we can offer support, advice and Ministerial participation in such an event.

In closing, I fully appreciate your perspectives on these matters and have asked officials to continue to progress the work in following up the Working Group’s report and our response. We are opposed to the possession, threat and use of nuclear weapons and I will continue to do what I can to promote the role that Scotland can play in non proliferation and disarmament.

Yours

BRUCE CRAWFORD

Printer friendly version

Home | Top