It underlines
the difficulty that the SNP/ Green/ Plaid group would face if they tried to
make abandoning Trident an absolute demand before giving any support to Labour
to form a government – it would be a certain way of diminishing, rather than
maximising, their influence. The clear
statement from the SNP’s leader that, whilst it might not be a red line in
terms of some sort of loose arrangement, there are no circumstances in which
SNP MPs would vote for a renewal of Trident is probably as good as it gets at
this stage.
I’m still of
the view that the best hope for scrapping Trident is the second Scottish independence
referendum, whenever that comes, bringing with it a forced relocation cost for
a state reduced in size. At things
stand, under any conceivable election outcome, there is certain to be an
overwhelming majority in favour of Trident renewal in the next parliament. Regardless of whether the PM is Cameron or
Miliband, any vote on this issue will easily pass through parliament, despite
opposition from the SNP, Plaid, and the Green Party.
The Lib Dems,
ever keen not to be missed out of anything, seem to have suffered something of
a logic bypass on the issue, with their claim that anyone wanting a
de-escalation of the UK’s nuclear weaponry should vote for them, since they are
proposing only to build three replacement submarines, rather than the
Labour/Tory four. In essence, they are
trying to persuade those of us who oppose Trident that instead of voting for
one of the parties which is absolutely opposed to Trident but which have been
forced to recognise the reality that their influence on this issue will be
zilch, we should vote for a party which wants to retain Trident despite the
fact that its influence on this issue will also be zilch. It’s a very strange argument.
Posts
3 comments:
Are those against Trident against it for idealogical reasons or for reasons of cost.
Assumedly, if for ideology, the Plaid position is entirely ridiculous given that hey now seem to be in support of a new nuclear power station at Wylfa.
As for the cost argument, I'm amazed that so many people don't seem to understand that all those territories without nuclear weapons actually end up footing the bill for all those with them. A guarantee of security has never come cheap (as the UK found out during the Second World War).
Perhaps there is another argument which I have failed to recognise.
"Are those against Trident against it for idealogical reasons or for reasons of cost."
I'm not sure that those are the only two possibilities, but I guess that the reason depends on the individual - I can only speak for myself. If it were free, I'd still be against it.
"the Plaid position is entirely ridiculous given that hey now seem to be in support of a new nuclear power station at Wylfa"
I'm not here to speak for Plaid. That party's energy policy is indeed incoherent, but there's no necessary connection between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Indeed, one of the best arguments that I've heard in favour of nuclear energy (although it still didn't convince me) came from Sir John Houghton who argued that building new nuclear power stations would be a good way of disposing of all the plutonium in the weapons stockpile. So it's perfectly possible for someone to be in favour of nuclear energy and against nuclear weapons. That doesn't make Plaid's stance 'ridiculous'. (Although there are other reasons why the party's energy policy might be so categorised.)
"... I'm amazed that so many people don't seem to understand that all those territories without nuclear weapons actually end up footing the bill for all those with them."
Perhaps they don't understand it because it isn't true? If you're aware of some mechanism by which the £100bn which Labour-Tory are proposing to spend on Trident is going to be repaid to the UK by non nuclear weapons states, then please feel free to tell the rest of us.
" A guarantee of security has never come cheap"
Quite possibly; but there are very few people who believe that possessing weapons of mass destruction which can never be used provides any sort of 'security' to anyone.
I agree that there will be a large pro-Trident majority in the Commons, whatever the outcome of the election
It may be a little more difficult to insist on it remaining in Scotland if the SNP win a landslide, perhaps 50 seats or more.
Insisting on it remaining there, would significantly weaken the prospects of the Union surviving, and hasten another referendum.
Additionally, there could well be civil disobedience, mass picketing of Faslane, for example which may require the use UK military force which would be politically unacceptable in the circumstances.
We will almost certainly be in new territory if the polls are correct.
I'm of the opinion that the use of the neoliberal consensus at Westminster to frustrate the SNP on Trident, Home Rule, austerity & whatever else, will finish off the Union sooner rather than later.
How this will affect Wales is a matter of conjecture.
Post a Comment