Skip to main content

1-20 of 104 results for subject:Trident

Subject X
Scottish National Party

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More
Scottish National Party (104)

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

Motion to adjourn agreed to on question. Relevant documents: The Referendum on Separation for Scotland: Terminating Trident—Days or Decades? Fourth Report of the Scottish Affairs Committee, HC 676, and the Government Response, HC 861, and the response from the Scottish Government, contained in a letter from the Deputy First Minister,...

Lead member
Ian Davidson
Answering member
Lord Robathan
Department
Ministry of Defence
Type
Adjournment debates
Date
7 March 2013
Reference
559 cc317-362WH
House
House of Commons

rose—

Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
7 March 2013
Reference
559 c329WH
House
House of Commons

rose—

Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
7 March 2013
Reference
559 c334WH
House
House of Commons

rose—

Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
7 March 2013
Reference
559 c342WH
House
House of Commons

rose—

Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
7 March 2013
Reference
559 c347WH
House
House of Commons

This debate is about the consequences of separation. Independence would mean the separation of the United Kingdom armed forces into a Scottish section and a United Kingdom section. The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs therefore felt that it was important that we thoroughly explored what the consequences of separation would...

Member
Ian Davidson (Labour; Co-operative Party)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
7 March 2013
Reference
559 c317WH
House
House of Commons

I thoroughly agree with what my hon. Friend is saying, but does he not agree that it is extraordinarily complacent of the Ministry of Defence not to even consider the issue or be prepared to discuss it at all?

Member
Sandra Osborne (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
7 March 2013
Reference
559 c317WH
House
House of Commons

The Committee has made it clear that we believe that both sides in this debate—the Government and the various Ministries and those arguing for separation—should indicate much more openly than they have been willing to until now exactly how they intend to respond to various initiatives. In this case, having...

Member
Ian Davidson (Labour; Co-operative Party)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
7 March 2013
Reference
559 cc317-8WH
House
House of Commons

Neither I should. The shop stewards said to us this morning that they have 50 years of security from the United Kingdom for those employed at Faslane and Coulport. They outlined to us that they understand that they might get answers from those seeking separation in November, after the publication...

Member
Ian Davidson (Labour; Co-operative Party)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
7 March 2013
Reference
559 c318WH
House
House of Commons

Is it not the case that it is about the security not just of existing jobs but of additional jobs over the next few years, as the new submarines are based there?

Member
Lindsay Roy (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
7 March 2013
Reference
559 c318WH
House
House of Commons

Indeed. That is a very valuable point. At the moment, 6,700 jobs are based at Faslane and Coulport. Under the existing United Kingdom Government proposals, which I understand are supported by all parties, that number would rise to 8,200 in the fairly near future. We have the opportunity to balance...

Member
Ian Davidson (Labour; Co-operative Party)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
7 March 2013
Reference
559 c318WH
House
House of Commons

Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the devastating impact that the loss of those jobs would have on the communities from which employees come, such as Helensburgh, Clydebank and Inverclyde?

Member
Iain McKenzie (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
7 March 2013
Reference
559 c318WH
House
House of Commons

Indeed. Some 6,700 jobs would be lost. To be fair, many are naval jobs in uniform. Presumably many of those people would be relocated elsewhere, and therefore would not be directly made redundant, but the other jobs would obviously be lost if Faslane and Coulport were closed, as would all...

Member
Ian Davidson (Labour; Co-operative Party)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
7 March 2013
Reference
559 c318WH
House
House of Commons

Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, does he share my concern and consider it to be extraordinary that the gentlemen who appeared before the Select Committee this morning have been seeking answers from the Scottish Government to perfectly reasonable questions, and that the Scottish Government, despite the fact that they...

Member
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
7 March 2013
Reference
559 c318WH
House
House of Commons

My understanding is that the SNP has existed for some 80 years. It seems somewhat incredible that it has not thought through its plans for how separation would affect the armed forces in Scotland as a whole and Faslane and Coulport in particular, although it is fair to point out...

Member
Ian Davidson (Labour; Co-operative Party)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
7 March 2013
Reference
559 c319WH
House
House of Commons

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his contribution so far. As he is aware, Trident is one of the systems based at Faslane. There are different views, which the Committee has no doubt heard, of how many jobs are directly reliant on Trident, but we also have seven Astute class...

Member
Baroness Clark of Kilwinning (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
7 March 2013
Reference
559 c319WH
House
House of Commons

The key word is “realistically”. We have not had any estimates from the Scottish Government that we regard as solid; we have had to search around. On the point about the number of jobs directly involved with Trident, the UK Government have made it absolutely clear that, on the solid...

Member
Ian Davidson (Labour; Co-operative Party)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
7 March 2013
Reference
559 cc320-2WH
House
House of Commons

The Select Committee took evidence on relocation, and perhaps its Chair could enlighten me on exactly where and by whom that relocation would take place. The document, “Trident: Nowhere to Go”, analysed every option and historical document going back 30 years when planning was less stringent, and concluded that there...

Member
Michael Connarty (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
7 March 2013
Reference
559 c322WH
House
House of Commons

The Committee took the view that there was a possibility of relocation elsewhere in the United Kingdom, not just in England. Locations in Wales were also mentioned. Francis Tusa, editor of Defence Analysis, was perhaps most optimistic about how to do that. He pointed out helpfully that the loading facility...

Member
Ian Davidson (Labour; Co-operative Party)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
7 March 2013
Reference
559 c322WH
House
House of Commons

I am incredibly interested in what my hon. Friend is saying. My understanding is that one difficulty is storage, because at the moment a hill or a mountain is used. One proposal seems to be to rebuild such a mountain elsewhere in England or Wales. Did the Committee receive evidence...

Member
Baroness Clark of Kilwinning (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
7 March 2013
Reference
559 c322WH
House
House of Commons