Trident

The debate over how Scotland defends itself now and in the future has engaged many people and organisations across Scotland. Although they express a variety of views, all face the situation of Westminster slashing the footprint of conventional defence forces from Scotland, while continuing to fund the replacement of unwanted, unusable nuclear weapons in our waters.

I have always been sceptical of the UK Government’s claims that Trident is the “ultimate guarantee” of our national security and became a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in the 1960s.

Trident is not a weapon that the UK Government is able to control, as the United States decides when, where, how and whether such weapons can be used. More fundamentally, however, as a defence strategy, Trident fails utterly. The real threats to Scotland—and, for that matter, the UK—are not now from nuclear nations, but come from elsewhere entirely and are the kind of threats that need to be dealt with by soldiers and by boots on the ground.

When we spend money on nuclear weapons, we take money away from those who bravely put their boots on the ground. Trident thus ultimately costs the lives of servicemen and women by diverting funds away from properly equipping and supporting those who keep us safe.

Some instances of our troops lacking kit are well documented. One less publicised example is in Iraq where our forces face the fairly obvious issue of extreme heat. However, the MOD still failed to prepare personnel for the conditions as reports emerged that the rubber in the soles of the soldiers’ boots was melting on the hot ground. Many of the soldiers used the internet to order leather-soled boots so that they could march across the deserts of the Gulf. Ultimately, a choice had been made to spend on Trident and to provide inadequate equipment to our military in theatres of battle.

The price of Trident is, therefore, bodies. When we do not equip our soldiers to undertake that most difficult mission that we ask of them, they are all too often never reunited with their friends and families.

I do not deploy any argument about the conflicts themselves, as I utterly support each of the soldiers, airmen, mechanics, cooks, drivers and medics who put themselves in danger. I do, however, demand that we stop pouring money into that weapon which cannot and will not ever be used, and instead properly equip the men and women of our armed services as they defend our interests.

The story at home is, sadly, similar. The UK Government seems intent on removing as far as possible, existing defence personnel and equipment from Scotland, not only compromising their strategic effectiveness but gutting the communities around the country who depend on nearby military installations.

The reality is that the UK government has been part of a massive defence underspend of over £7 billion pounds in Scotland in the last ten years alone, and has cut the defence footprint in Scotland relentlessly over the years.

Phillip Hammond and his MoD cronies continue to break promises to this day, closing bases at RAF Leuchars and Kinloss, refusing to deploy a joint strike fighter squadron to Lossiemouth and most recently privatising the vital search and rescue service, proudly and ably run by the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy for years. All of this, while continuing to insist that Trident nuclear weapons, which are too dangerous to be moved down South, are right at home in our Clyde waters.

Westminster cannot be trusted to make the defence and security decisions for Scotland which is why we need to vote ‘Yes’ in the 2014 independence referendum, so that we can ensure these decisions are made by those with the greatest stake in getting them right – the people of Scotland.

Our Aging Population - Including Me

In light of the publication of the Scottish Parliament Finance Committee’s report on Scotland’s ageing population, a debate was held in the chamber in which I was proud to participate, and I was generally impressed with the positive tone in which the debate was carried out.

The committee had looked at the many challenges that are presented by the sharp upward trend in average age in our society, which is being driven by the people of Scotland living longer and having fewer children. And it is true that a demographic shift toward an older population requires certain measures, both economic and social, to ensure that people are provided for in their later years.

The Scottish Government and the SNP are committed to moving toward preventative spending in both early years and for the elderly, thereby ensuring that more people living in Scotland can achieve their full potential in life, as well as offering better value for money for the tax payer in the long term. The integration of health and social care is just one example of the preventative approach which is also improving the efficiency and effectiveness of public services.

According to Age UK, it is estimated that it costs £5,000 to provide personal care for someone, ie at home, while it costs £25,000 plus per year for a person to be looked after in a care home or hospital. Therefore, maintaining free personal care in the face of savage cuts from Westminster is both saving the taxpayer money, and mitigating demand on hospital beds.

Moreover, it is increasing the number of older people who can retain their independence and continue to live and receive treatment in their own homes, thus remaining more active and more engaged in their communities.

However, to focus on purely the economic aspects would be to overlook the broader achievement that this demographic shift represents. That is, people in Scotland are living longer, healthier, happier lives, which is hugely encouraging and should be seen, first and foremost, as a success.

In fact, over the last ten years, overall life expectancy across the whole of Scotland has increased. However, there is still a need for progress on health inequalities to help close the gap between the difference in life expectancy between Scotland’s most and least deprived areas.

The committee and many of those speaking in the debate also talked about the positive impact of demographic change and recognised the potential of the older part of our population to make a positive economic and social contribution.

We know that over-65s can bring enormous experience and knowledge to their age peers and to the young alike, especially in the work place. Moreover, it is often this age group which regularly take it upon themselves to volunteer in the community, helping friends and neighbours as well as supporting charity work.

So let us talk about the positives of age and the recycling of experience and knowledge. Let us talk up the contributions that older people can make and create opportunities for those contributions to be made.

The SNP has this week introduced a bill in Parliament to extend the voting franchise to include 16 and 17 year olds. This is a ground-breaking move which shows our commitment in Scotland to fairness and inclusion.

By the same token, we must also ensure that our older people do not become disenfranchised from politics or excluded from society. If old people are isolated from the rest of our community, they will be denied the best quality of life, and other generations denied the opportunity to learn from them.