THIS week Parliament has been marching to a militaristic drum.

It began with the announcement of the Tories’ Strategic Defence and Security Review on Monday and moved on to the SNP’s debate on the future of Trident yesterday. Today there will be the latest discussions on the proposed military action in Syria not, to mention the potentially serious international fallout of the shooting down of the Russian jet by Turkish forces. Each step has serious and far reaching implications for our country and our security.

Monday’s announcement by the Prime Minister firstly showed the weakness of his Government’s approach to defence. It also proved how some Unionists were willing to do and say anything to shore up support in the days and weeks prior to last year’s referendum. Only last year Labour and the Tories together promised that independence would destroy Scotland’s proud shipbuilding industry, and guaranteed that no less than 13 type 26 frigates would be built on the Clyde if Scotland remained part of the UK.

After securing votes on the back of this scaremongering, the Tories have now announced that only eight ships will be built, a cut of 40 per cent, with no clear timescale for delivery.

This in itself puts jobs at further risk. This is a wanton betrayal of the workforce on the Clyde, and yet another broken promise from Westminster.

Yesterday’s debate in the House of Commons on Trident was another opportunity for the parties here to demonstrate unity across the parliamentary green benches.

For the SNP MPs, we collectively and individually reaffirmed our clear and total opposition to the renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons system.

We each fought the last election campaign on a strong and unambiguous platform of promoting unilateral disarmament, where Scotland can lead the world on this issue and demonstrate our moral compass as a progressive beacon in an increasingly threatening world.

This manifesto commitment, our unequivocal opposition to siting weapons of mass destruction on the Clyde was one of the main reasons for the SNP’s overwhelming success in May’s general election.

People know where the SNP stand on this important matter.

At the same time, this debate presented another chance for the majority of the Labour Party’s MPs present to stand side by side with the Tories against the interests and wishes of the people of Scotland.

Labour MP after Labour MP took their turn yesterday to show solidarity with their Tory colleagues and declare their unwavering support for a policy which was only recently rejected by their own membership in Scotland, not to mention their current party leadership.

It is a sad state of affairs when some Labour MPs at Westminster would rather team up with the Tories again than vote to endorse the views of their own members or Jeremy Corbyn himself, while others choose once again to abstain on one of the biggest issues facing the country to date.

What a shambles. Better together, indeed.

The renewal of Trident makes absolutely no sense on moral, strategic or practical grounds.

In a world of finite resources decisions have to be taken on what our national priorities are.

The purchase of weapons of mass destruction at the expense of peacemaking and conventional defence measures surely undermines our national security rather than promotes it?

Does anyone actually believe that the use of weapons of mass destruction such as Trident would be permitted under international law?

Wouldn’t their use be classed as a war crime or crime against humanity?

Arguably, the biggest current strategic threat to the UK is the growth of Daesh in the Middle East. What part do weapons of mass destruction play in combating that threat?

Would our resources not be better spent on other measures which would play a practical role in securing the region and creating a lasting peace for the millions of displaced people who have fled violence?

Now Parliament’s attention is turning to the prospect of military action in Syria.

No one seriously believes that further air strikes alone will move us towards political stability in the wider region.

However, David Cameron has still failed to address how military intervention will be effective or how it will contribute to a wider initiative to end civil war and secure reconstruction.

He has no plan for securing the peace.

We need a proposal which includes measures to close down all sources of finance and new recruits to the terrorist cult Daesh, including a government inquiry into their financing.

Rather than attempting to make a case for war, the Government is failing to address the clear and present need for a long term, comprehensive peace plan to secure stable Syria.

For example, if military action forces Daesh to give up territory in Syria and Iraq in the coming weeks and months, which force does the foreign secretary expect to take its place on the ground?

The US? The UN? Assad’s army? The Russians? Al Qaeda? Turkey? The Kurds?

These are dangerous times for the world. Rather than rushing to war, this Government now needs to bring forward a comprehensive plan for a long term peace.