TRIDENT is not wanted in Scotland. That was the message sent out to the rest of the UK by yesterday’s debate and vote in Holyrood.

For years the supporters of Trident have claimed that there is more to the renewal of Trident than we might think. It is not a simple yes or no.

Before the debate the Tory MSP Alex Johnstone tweeted: “Only country ever to unilaterally give up its nuclear deterrent was the Ukraine. Result: Russian invasion.”

Not only is that tweet inaccurate – South Africa has so far managed to avoid being invaded by the Russians – it is ridiculous. To even half-think that Britain would be invaded if we were to get rid of Trident shows a lack of understanding of what is happening in the world just now.

It is the same lack of understanding that has caused David Cameron to be quite so obsessed with airstrikes in Syria.

The report from the Foreign Affairs Committee published yesterday saying that any military action taken by Britain would be illegal and make minimal difference can surely not have been widely different to the briefings and the planning seen by the Prime Minister.

Cameron must have known exactly how little difference British military action would have made in the region and yet he has been obsessed with convincing MPs to support him.

It is only now when the country sees the truth of what British involvement in Syria would mean that he stands down from that task.

You have to ask why so many of our politicians convince themselves that Trident is necessary. You have to ask why our politicians would willingly rush into a situation where they will do only harm.

They will argue that it is because they inhabit the real world and those opposed to both those things are living in the “stripped pine Scandinavian peacenik sauna republic” as Ukip MEP David Coburn put it.

But it is increasingly obvious they are wrong.

The need to do something about Daesh and Assad and the many, many violent groups in Syria and Iraq is almost overwhelming as we see bodies of children being picked out of the Mediterranean sea, the destruction of cities and villages, and communities eradicated.

This is a situation where the reality is almost too horrific to comprehend.

And yet, it is the reality that more now than ever needs to be understood.

Our involvement in Syria would only have done more damage. We would have found ourselves in a proxy war, with no idea of what would happen next. It would have been a disaster.

Let us focus on those areas where we can do good. Let that be through diplomacy and through providing help to those fleeing.

We are in the 21st century. What is happening in Syria and Iraq are wars of this century.

Trident is a weapon of the last century.

The money we would spend on Trident renewal is money that can be better allocated on the challenges of this century.

Ex-Labour minister slams party’s opposition to Trident renewal

Backing the bomb: Jackie Baillie votes for Trident as rest of Labour join SNP against nuclear deterrent