Much as we like to mock Scottish Labour for their deep-seated terror of stating a firm policy position on any subject whatsoever (other than “SNP BAD”, of course), we have to give credit where it’s due. Last weekend, Johann Lamont finally comprehensively addressed a subject she’s been ducking since before this website even existed.

Under the inquisitorial gaze of the BBC’s remorseless Brian Taylor, Lamont bit the bullet and laid out her position once and for all, in simple plain-speaking terms, on Britain’s nuclear deterrent. The BBC website is a little bit flaky with video, so we’ve transcribed the six-minute exchange for you below. Let that be an end to the matter.

————————————————————————————————–

BRIAN TAYLOR: Let me turn you finally to an issue on which we got many, many, many questions, because people seem to be puzzled. Do you support replacing Trident?

JOHANN LAMONT: Well, one of the things I have said – this is obviously a big question that people raise more generally – I’m very interested in the work that’s been done at a UK government level, to look at whether there is an alternative to that, and I think we should look at that report when it comes out. Because nobody, I mean, I can see why people would look at that and say to me ‘Well, you want to test the value of that spend and you want to test the value of that spend but somehow this over here can’t be looked at at all.’

So I apply the same criteria to that. I think that is really important. And I also think that we need to get into the more general debate about how we make sure our world is a safer, a safer place, and I have respect for people on all sides of this debate round Trident, but I do think that that report when it comes through will be a very, will give a very interesting information.

TAYLOR: The point is there, you’re saying the replacement might not be like-for-like for Trident, it might be another one. Do you believe in multilateral nuclear disarmament, or do you believe in scrapping Britain’s nuclear weapons programme?

LAMONT: I believe that what we need to do is, em, I suppose you could now term it as multilateral disarmament, that you work with other countries across the world to create a secure world.

TAYLOR: And meanwhile retain Britain’s nuclear arms?

LAMONT: Well, that is part of that discussion, that part of that debate, and I suppose where people think there may be a change is precisely because you’re then investing in renewal. So I want to look at, y’know, what’s the affordability of that, is there an alternative to that, because that might then aid the debate around multilateral, em, nuclear disarmament.

TAYLOR: But to be really clear, in the absence of any multilateral agreement for the scrapping of nuclear weapons more generally, you believe that Britain should retain a form of nuclear deterrent, whether that is Trident or whether that is a cheaper replacement?

LAMONT: Well, I don’t think these things are, are false, I think it’s almost like a false choice you present there. I think it’s part of a process that, how do you, I suppose the difference is between those who presume that we’ll be there forever, and those who want to move to make the world a safer place. That is the bigger debate.

TAYLOR: But you wouldn’t scrap it unilaterally? You would not scrap Britain’s deterrent unilaterally if you were in a power – position – to do so?

LAMONT: I don’t think we CAN do that. I think, but what, I think some of this debate is almost like a… there’s a curious debate that by voting for independence you somehow could make that unilateral step. I’m not sure that’s true, you might move the problem, but I also think we need, again, to refresh that debate, which is about, actually where is the energy around, em, disarmament – and I know a lot of people like Des Browne, my colleague, is doing a lot of interesting work around this – is there an energy to recast that debate from the old ones, which I was very engaged in, uh, as a young woman, so, but I think now, actually –

TAYLOR: You would have been marching against Trident, wouldn’t you?

LAMONT: Yes, well –

TAYLOR: So why are you now in the vanguard supporting it?

LAMONT: Oh, I’m not in the vanguard of supporting it, that’s not true. What I’m saying is, you don’t, I suppose what I have learned, and what I consider now, is that you look at where you are now and where you get to where you want to be, and everything that drove me to march for peace was about how to make the world a safer place, and I think that debate can must be framed, not between those who want Trident to go and those who want it to stay, but how do we refresh and re-energise the debate round, multilateral, em, nuclear disarmament shouldn’t just be a place where you go to because you don’t want to deal with the current situation, it has to have active energy, and I think across the world we have leaders who are willing to do that.

TAYLOR: Trident was a policy you and the Labour Party in Scotland strongly opposed, the majority of the Scottish Parliament – including Labour – strongly oppose, and yet [it seems] you’re just saying it would be retained as honest negotiations continue.

LAMONT: Well, I’m, I’m not saying that, I think that it’s, I go back to the same point again, it’s about energy and driving the thing forward and changing the terms of the debate. I don’t think there is, em, anyone in, in Scotland, who, em… would want to close that debate down, we recognise the importance of Faslane to the economy locally, and we have people who are very strongly advocating that.

We understand the importance of feeling secure in the world, but I suppose my, I apply first principles like that, as to everything else, let’s test it against the evidence, and not let’s settle for, some of what the false debate around the independence debate, which would suggest that somehow we can wish Trident away. That is not, uh, the case.

TAYLOR: [Some people say] it ISN’T a false debate, Trident nuclear weapons in Scotland will stay if the ‘Better Together’ campaign wins. By implication reminding us that the SNP policy is to scrap Trident, and send it packing from Scotland’s shores.

LAMONT: Yes, and there is, and I recognise there are people who have come to the independence debate and will vote for Yes precisely for that, and I respect them for that. I think we can also, however, say that it’s not simply what we have now or the alternative through the SNP. How again do we create that change, and that debate, inside the United Kingdom, and that’s about challenging assumptions –

TAYLOR: To be clear, your position is no longer – if it ever was – your position is not one of unilateral nuclear disarmament, you are not there, you are not in that place?

LAMONT: What I think we need to do is have that debate across the world, and we have to, but the bigger challenge for me, where the debate now seems to lie is between those who say ‘Never change that now, it’s not possible’, we need to look at it further.

TAYLOR: But there might have to be some form of replacement for the deterrent that is currently based at Faslane? There might have to be a replacement?

LAMONT: Well, I want to see what the report says, because I think that people are gravely concerned about the cost of it, and I understand that in tough economic times, and I want to look at what that report says about actually how you can address that problem.

————————————————————————————————–

Let’s hear no more talk of evasiveness, readers. Frankly, anyone who’s read the above and still doesn’t have the faintest idea what Johann Lamont and Scottish Labour’s position on the British nuclear deterrent is must be some manner of idiot.