Small steps and giant leaps

Tweet

 

During its conference, which starts tomorrow, the SNP is due to debate the issue of Trident and the removal of nuclear weapons from Scotland within three years after independence. There is little doubt that the party will reaffirm its opposition to allowing the weapons to remain on the territory of an independent Scotland. Amongst the ‘solutions’ apparently being considered by London is that if Scotland is ‘granted’ its independence, it will be on condition that part of the country is carved out and remains part of rUK (or Greater England to give it a more appropriate title) as some sort of ‘overseas possession’. The fact that anyone could even consider for a moment that independence is theirs to ‘grant’ or that they have some right to retain any part of Scotland that they choose demonstrates that, deep down, many of those in charge in London really do see Scotland (and by extension, Wales) as a possession rather than a partner.

One of Labour’s senior MSPs at Holyrood has attacked the SNP’s proposals, pointing out that moving weapons from Scotland to England (Wales, thankfully, having now been ruled out) does nothing for nuclear disarmament; the same number of weapons would still exist, just in a different location. She has a point, although it would be reasonable also to point out that her party’s position – leaving the weapons where they are – isn’t exactly a major step towards disarmament either. A more valid criticism of the SNP would be that, having reversed its previous policy on NATO a few years ago and decided that an SNP-led Scotland would join NATO after all, there is a degree of hypocrisy in being part of a nuclear-armed alliance with a collective policy of being ready to use nuclear weapons whilst refusing to have them stationed on its soil. That wouldn’t make Scotland unique, of course; there are plenty of other NATO members who neither possess nuclear weapons nor are willing to host them.

There are some serious questions to be asked about whether NATO really is a nuclear-armed alliance or not. Whilst three member states possess nuclear weapons, the French arsenal is excluded from the NATO command structure, and there have long been doubts as to whether the UK missiles (which are only leased from the US) could ever be launched without US agreement. In theory, ‘NATO’ could launch a nuclear strike, but in practice, any decision would be taken in Washington, not at NATO HQ. And NATO’s whole pretence of being a nuclear-armed alliance, as well as the concept of deterrence in mainland Europe, depends on an assumption that the US would be prepared to engage in all-out nuclear war in the event of an otherwise unstoppable incursion into another NATO member state. That is no more credible under Biden than it was under Trump. Whether such a debunking of NATO’s status as a nuclear alliance is enough ‘cover’ to excuse the SNP’s decision to join NATO is a matter of opinion. I don’t find it so, and remain deeply disappointed by the SNP’s move away from the sort of defence posture followed by the Republic of Ireland, which looks to me a far better model for an independent Scotland (or Wales).

Does that mean that the SNP’s stance on closure of the base at Faslane is little more than gesture politics, at the expense of Scottish jobs, as Labour’s Baillie suggests? I think not. Whilst I’d like to believe that being forced to build a new base in Greater England might encourage a future Greater England government to think again about whether and why it should retain nuclear weapons, I suspect that’s just a pipe dream on my part. There seems little prospect that they will ever abandon their delusions of power and greatness, and the need to wave their missiles around is fundamental to that. But there is nevertheless a sense in which Baillie is wrong. Whilst it’s true that a single decision by one small country like Scotland has little effect overall, disarmament is necessarily a step by step process, and some of those steps will be very small. Labour’s argument that Scotland should do nothing is tantamount to arguing that no country should do anything; it’s a recipe for making no progress at all. And to misquote Neil Armstrong, even if it’s a tiny step for the world, it’s a giant leap for Scotland; it’s the biggest single thing that they can do to promote the idea of ridding the world of the scourge of nuclear weapons. I’m sure that the SNP will get this one right this weekend.

Buying and selling nonsense

Tweet

One of the key policy differences between the leader of the Labour Party and the man seeking to depose him is the issue of nuclear weapons, and specifically the replacement of Trident.  Whilst there seem to be some in the Labour Party for whom the main justification for keeping Trident is that it provides jobs (making it the most expensive job creation scheme ever), the position of Owen Smith seems to be that he actually wants to get rid of nuclear weapons completely, but believes that the only way to do that is through bargaining with other nuclear weapons states, and to get a seat at the table, the UK needs to spend a vast sum of money renewing its current systems.

Whet they have not explained to date, as far as I can see, is why the UK so desperately needs to have a seat at that particular table in the first place.  If we didn’t currently possess such weapons, would anyone – in the Labour Party or elsewhere – seriously suggest that we needed to develop them simply in order to take part in the negotiations to get rid of them?  Of course not – the idea is a silly one.

But if that looks like nonsense, stop and consider another aspect of the question for a moment.  Does possession of such weapons actually guarantee a seat at the table, even if we were to agree that it was desirable to have one?  The evidence suggests otherwise.

The closest the world has actually come to an agreement to rid the planet of such weapons was in 1986, when Gorbachev proposed to Reagan that nuclear weapons should all be scrapped within ten years.  Sadly, the proposal came to nothing, largely because Reagan was not prepared to abandon the Strategic Defence Initiative.  But where was the UK in this?  Er – nowhere.  No seat at the table, no invite to the talks.  Although, formally, it was agreed that the nuclear capabilities of the UK and France should be excluded from the US-Soviet talks, it was implicitly assumed that if the ‘big boys’ did come to an agreement, then the ‘minor players’ would fall into line.  It’s unthinkable that they would not.

It remains true that any serious progress on nuclear disarmament depends on the US and Russia, and that the UK’s input to that will be close to zero, with or without weapons.  And that must be as obvious to the pro-nuclear lobby in the Labour Party as it is to me.  So why are so many people buying a line which is such patent nonsense?

Nuclear chickens and eggs

Tweet Yesterday, Baron Kinnock demonstrated his commitment to internal Labour Party democracy by telling the party’s duly elected leader that he will never win power promising unilateral nuclear disarmament.  Three things struck me about this.

In the first place, there is a serious question as to whether it’s actually true.  It’s one of those things that can never be known until it’s tested; so I can no more be certain that it isn’t true than he can be certain that it is.  I do seem to recall, however, that there is some empirical evidence to the contrary, albeit a long time ago.  I’m sure that the Labour Government elected in 1964 had a manifesto pledge to scrap Trident – it was one of the things that excited me at the time about the possibility of a Labour Government.

(They didn’t actually implement the promise of course.  But whether any government would ever implement such a promise is a rather different question from the one which Kinnock has raised.)

Secondly, even supposing that it were true, what does it really tells us?  At best it would tell us that if leaders of all the three major parties reiterate consistently and in unison for fifty years (with one brief, minor – albeit welcome – aberration under Michael Foot) that possession of nuclear weapons is essential, and manage to convince the electorate that it's true, then it’s unlikely that the public will change its opinion overnight.  That wouldn’t be an unreasonable conclusion to draw, but it’s a long way short of what he said.  Which came first - public opinion or the insistence of politicians?

There’s a fundamental logic flaw in the conclusion that he did draw, namely that no party can ever propose scrapping nuclear weapons because of the climate of opinion which politicians like himself have done so much to normalise.  It amounts to little more than saying that after telling people one thing for fifty years, you can’t simply tell them that it wasn’t actually true, and must continue to peddle the same line indefinitely, because you can only be elected by telling the same old lie. 

And thirdly, he didn’t even mention the question of whether the UK needs or should have nuclear weapons at all.  It’s as if that is entirely a secondary question to the Labour Party’s need to win elections.  Still, I suppose that saying we must build new nuclear weapons so that Labour can win the election is at least a bit more honest than the Labour Party’s official position, which is, if I understand it correctly:

1.    Nuclear weapons are bad

2.    No country which doesn’t currently possess them must be allowed to develop them

3.    Those countries which do possess them must negotiate to get rid of them

4.    The UK needs to spend £100billion on new nuclear weapons so that it has something which it can negotiate to get rid of

Trident renewal is thus either a £100 billion fling to get Labour elected, or else it’s a very expensive bargaining chip.  Or maybe both.  It’s a depressing lack of leadership and vision, an inability to imagine that politicians might have any responsibility to lead rather than follow.  And the issue is a classic example of what went wrong for Labour as a would-be party of peace, progress and justice.

How much real influence?

Tweet There was certainly something refreshingly different about the pictures of the leaders of the SNP, Plaid Cymru, and the EnglandandWales Green Party meeting in London yesterday.  Not at all like the usual pictures of senior politicians.  And I can certainly understand why the London-based commentariat, looking at things through the prism of Westminster politics, is taking more interest in parties which might, as they see it, hold the balance of power in a hung parliament after May next year.

But I wonder whether that prism isn’t giving them a rather distorted view, which looks rather different with a bit more analysis.  Paradoxically, it seems to me that the more electorally successful the SNP are next May, the less real influence they might end up wielding.  And I say that for a number of reasons.

Whilst the experience of voting for one party and getting a government of another has become commonplace in Wales and Scotland, it’s actually very much the exception in England.  The sheer size and dominance of England within the union means that, taken as a unit, it almost invariably gets the government for which it votes.  The only exception would be if the Tories had a slight margin in England which was more than balanced by an ‘excess’ of Labour MPs from Wales and Scotland.  If the SNP really do win anything like the numbers of MPs which some recent opinion polls have suggested, then the loser would be Labour, and the probability that the largest party in England would also be the largest party in the Commons becomes close to certainty.  England would get the government for which it voted.

Ah, but it might be objected, but how do they get their legislation through without a majority of the whole house?  Given that the SNP has a long-standing policy of not voting on ‘England-only’ matters (whilst there is the difficulty at times in determining which matters meet that definition, it’s pretty clear in a wide range of fields), the government of the day in Westminster doesn’t need a majority of the whole house, merely amongst those MPs from EnglandandWales, in effect.  And reaching that point looks like a much easier target for either Labour or the Tories to achieve.  It’s EVEL by any other name, but without having to change anything.

On UK-wide matters, such as defence or foreign policy, the SNP-led block would of course vote, but their votes would only count for anything if there was a significant disagreement between the Labour and Tory parties.  And on issues of war, peace, and weaponry, how often does that really happen?

Much as I’d like to believe that a hung parliament could be the stimulus for nuclear disarmament, it won’t happen.  Only a few self-deluded old stagers within the Labour Party could convince themselves that their party is really, deep-down, a party of disarmament.  It isn’t – Labour has supported (or even taken) all of the key decisions on maintaining and upgrading the UK’s nuclear weapons for decades.  And with the Tories and Lib Dems also committed to retention – disagreeing only about how the weapons should be delivered if they were ever to be used, with the Lib Dems perversely supporting a less reliable and less accurate approach to mass destruction – there is a huge majority in the Commons against nuclear disarmament.  The next election isn’t going to change that.

So what’s left to influence?  Fundamentally, only the budget.  And given that the three parties have already said that the only party they’d even talk to about that is the Labour Party, just how much would that party really have to concede to win a fairly trouble-free five year term?

An independence dividend

Tweet According to the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee, a ‘yes’ vote in the independence referendum, followed by the election of an SNP Government determined to stick to that party’s pledge to remove nuclear weapons from Scottish soil would mean that “the UK would lose the ability to operate its nuclear deterrent and effectively be forced into unilateral disarmament”, for some years at least.

I’m sure that he’s actually trying to argue that independence would be a bad thing, but he manages to make it sound even more attractive to anyone opposed to the possession or use of weapons of mass destruction.  I wish that things were that simple, but sadly they’re not, and I suspect that all those involved understand that.

Quite apart from the three big ‘ifs’ in the initial statement – ‘if’ there’s a yes vote, and ‘if’ an SNP Government is then elected, and ‘if’ that Government decides to honour the party’s pledge, there would still be a process of negotiation to be gone through before independence, and I have no doubt that the timescale for removal of nuclear weapons from Scottish soil would be part of those negotiations.

It suits those trying to make simplistic points to make simplistic assumptions about how ‘instant’ everything would be; reality is very different.  Much as the idea of Scotland forcing the rest of the UK to abandon its nuclear weapons appeals to me, I somehow doubt that life could be that easy.

Not a very well-made point

Tweet

Apparently, Carwyn Jones wasn’t really serious when he suggested that Trident should come to Milford Haven.  He was just making a point.  And the point that he thought he was making was, apparently, that independence would cost jobs.

It seems to me that, far from making a point, he’s actually missing one, and rather spectacularly so.  Whilst it is true that the SNP have said that they would want to remove Trident from an independent Scotland, and whilst it is true that removing Trident from Scotland would mean that Scotland lost those particular jobs, it isn’t the process of becoming independent itself which leads to that outcome.  There’s a step missing from our First Minister’s thought processes here.

What we can say is that IF Scotland becomes independent, AND IF the SNP then form the government of that independent Scotland, then the Scottish Government will ask the owners of Trident submarines to remove them from Scottish soil (or should that be Scottish waters?).  But if Scotland becomes independent and then elects the Labour Party or the Conservative Party to govern it, then the probability is that the Scottish Government would be happy to keep Trident.

(For completeness, we should also consider the theoretical possibility that the Scots would elect a Lib Dem government, in which case the government would probably be both for and against on alternate weekdays, and agnostic on weekends.)

It’s clear to me that the key event in deciding whether Scotland loses Trident jobs isn’t whether the Scots vote for or against independence; it’s what sort of government they elect if or when they become independent.  I suspect that SNP will be mildly pleased (insofar as they care at all what Carwyn Jones thinks) that such a senior member of the Labour Party is unable to conceive of anyone other than the SNP governing an independent Scotland, but the rest of us certainly can conceive of such an outcome.

The only real conclusion that Carwyn Jones or anyone else can draw from what the SNP is saying is this – if the people in a country elect a government opposed to the siting of nuclear weapons on its territory, then those weapons will be removed, and the jobs of the people involved in manufacturing, deploying, and maintaining those weapons and their delivery systems will be lost.  Well, duh! 

Of course they will.  And those of us who are opposed to nuclear weapons whether pre or post independence have always known that those particular jobs would be lost by disarmament.  But diverting expenditure from nuclear weapons into peaceful purposes will almost certainly generate more jobs in total than it loses; and will certainly be more sustainable.

There are plenty of people, even in Carwyn Jones’ own party, who understand that.  And there are plenty of people who would like to see the rest of us having the sort of choice over nuclear weapons which the SNP would give to Scotland.

Tuppence a bomb

Tweet

The Sunday Times carried a large article (protected by their paywall) on the Lib Dems’ proposal for a cheaper replacement for Trident, under the dismissive headline “tuppenny Trident”.  Contrary to the impression which a number of Lib Dem politicians have tried to give over a lengthy period, which is that the party is opposed to nuclear weapons, it seems that they are only really opposed to expensive ones.  As long as they can get cheap ones, then they’re quite happy to support the development and deployment of a new generation of nuclear weapons.

To say that their alternative proposal would only cost tuppence is an exaggeration to say the least; their proposals would still mean spending billions of pounds on weapons of mass destruction rather than using the money for peaceful economic development; it’s just a smaller number of billions. 

For that, they’d get slower, shorter range missiles.  To the extent that such weapons actually deter anyone at all – and I certainly don’t believe that they do – it seems that the Lib Dems are setting their sights somewhat lower in terms of who they want to deter.

There is also the little matter of the illegality under international treaties of developing and deploying a new nuclear weapons system, but it seems that the Lib Dems, just like the Labour and Conservative parties, believe that international treaties are things which only apply to other people.  And all three parties appear to be convinced that possessing bigger sticks that the other kids is the way to ensure ‘influence’ in the world. 

It’s an outdated view of the world, but one which is hard to shift.  And in the meantime, our taxes will continue to be spent on unnecessary and useless weaponry in pursuit of that outmoded view, whichever of the three parties exercises power in London.

Using the wrong arguments

Tweet Last week, the Druid hosted a keen debate about Wylfa B after posting on the government’s attitude to a consumer-funded levy. It looks increasingly as though the framework being set by the UK Government for a new generation of nuclear power stations makes the proposed Wylfa B an unlikely prospect.

If the power station never gets built as a result, I’d see that as good news; but it seems to me to be the wrong reason for stopping the development – just as most of those arguing in favour seem to me to be using the wrong arguments. I suppose there’s a certain irony there, though. Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with subsidising nuclear power if we think it’s the right energy policy - after all, we subsidise renewables on that basis.

But I've never understood why so many of those who support the building of new nuclear power stations do so primarily on the basis of the jobs it would create. I think I could make a much stronger case on other grounds.

It's not that it wouldn't bring good, well-paid jobs; nor that we don't need such jobs. It's more that those jobs could equally be provided on the basis of a policy of using renewable energy, so the need for jobs is not a valid argument for favouring one energy policy over another. Coal mining also provides jobs; but it's not a reason to build new coal-fired power stations.

There are a number of arguments against nuclear energy. For me the single most important one has long been that we simply don't have a worked out solution to the issue of nuclear waste. (And, associated with that, there is the little matter of economics. If we don't know what we're going to do with the waste, we don't know what it's going to cost either – and that means that we really don't know the cost of nuclear energy. I am utterly convinced that, whatever the politicians say, the taxpayer will end up picking up the cost for decommissioning and waste management.)

But there are arguments in favour as well, and if I was going to make a case for supporting a new nuclear station, I'd make it on the basis of energy security and on environmental grounds, not jobs. I still don't personally believe the case to be strong enough, mind; but I'm conscious that I'd then have to argue against the likes of James Loveluck and Sir John Houghton, both of whom have come to the conclusion that nuclear energy is something we have to embrace. And I've certainly heard Sir John make a powerful case.

What would it take to convince me?

I have to admit that I'd start to waver a little if the UK Government were to announce that it would decommission all the UK's nuclear weapons and use the plutonium therein as a nuclear fuel. That would be a real case of 'swords into plough shares'.

It still wouldn't be enough though. What I would really need is to be satisfied about the management and disposal of waste; and we're nowhere near achieving that. Without that, the abiding problem of nuclear energy is that we buy plentiful secure electricity today at the cost of leaving a dangerous and costly legacy to the future. And that's why I believe that it's still right to argue against nuclear energy.

Assessing Value

Tweet The report that David Cameron remains committed to replacing Trident was hardly a surprise. The conversion of the Lib Dems during the last election campaign to support for nuclear weapons was rather more of a surprise; probably especially so to many of their members.

What interested me in this report, though, was that the MoD will try and "ensure that the renewal of the deterrent provides value for money". It's a worthy aim, of course, and something which should apply to all government expenditure. Calculating the monetary cost is one side of the equation, and is probably the easy part, although based on most MoD procurement exercises, the final cost will no doubt be many times the initial estimates. But how will they assess 'value'?

If the 'deterrent' ever has to be used, then its 'value' could presumably be assessed in terms of the number of people killed and amount of damage caused, but the whole point of a 'deterrent' is that it is never actually used.

However, it isn't enough to argue that because it has never been used, that must prove it deterred people who might otherwise have attacked the UK. It could equally be the case that they wouldn't have attacked anyway, in which case the actual value delivered is a big fat zero.

So, where is the evidence that the UK's possession of a nuclear weapons capability over the past 60 years has ever actually deterred an attack on the UK? I understand the argument that the nuclear arsenals of the US and USSR were so massive that any nuclear attack by one on the other would result in the utter destruction of both (and an extreme case of 'collateral damage' for the rest of us). It meant that only a lunatic would ever launch such an attack, thereby making it less likely (although I have to confess to occasional concerns about the sanity of certain occupants of both the White House and the Kremlin during the cold war).

But 'mutually assured destruction' never really applied to the UK's stockpile; it was never big enough for any other hostile nuclear power (with the possible exception of France, with whom the UK hasn't always been the best of friends!) to feel certain that they couldn't 'win' a nuclear exchange. So, what have Polaris and Trident actually deterred? If, as I suspect, the answer to that is nothing at all, then the 'value' of possessing them is also zero. And the 'value' of the proposed replacement is likely to be of the same order.

A meaningless gesture

Tweet The first elections of which I have any memory were those of 1964 and 1966. In the first Labour narrowly scraped in, and in the second, they consolidated their position. There was a lot of excitement, and a mood of change - sweeping away '13 years of Tory misrule', in the 'white heat of the technological revolution'. They were good slogans; sadly, in many ways they turned out to be just that – slogans.

One of Labour's key pledges was to scrap Polaris; the change of heart once in government was one of the reasons why so many young people at the time ended up turning against the Labour Party. Nuclear weapons have always been something of an Achilles heel for them; they returned to an abolitionist position during their long period in opposition after the election of Thatcher, only to abandon that principled stand again before being re-elected in 1997.

Indeed, looking back, it seems that several of the key decisions to upgrade and renew the UK's nuclear weapons have actually been taken by a party many of whose members genuinely and sincerely oppose the very existence of such weapons.

I have never believed that the 'independent deterrent' was either 'independent' (the missiles cannot be fired without US permission) or a 'deterrent'; and at long last mainstream views are coming around to a similar viewpoint, even if only because the nature of any 'threats' is perceived to be different. Plaid have never been supporters of nuclear weapons, but at a time when both the Lib Dems and even the Tories are coming around to the idea that replacement of Trident is a pointless and unnecessary expense, the party which has traditionally provided the backbone of CND at UK level seems to be the only one still wedded to the concept.

It's against that backdrop that we need to consider the statement made by Brown yesterday that he might reduce the number of submarines from 4 to 3 in any replacement programme. The statement was so highly caveated as to be pretty meaningless. Effectively, he seemed to be saying that he'll reduce the number from 4 to 3 as long as he ends up convinced that the actual number of missiles which can be fired at any time remains the same as currently. And it was predicated on what happens as part of the replacement process, which will still proceed.

Trying to present that as a contribution to disarmament is one of the most utterly dishonest things that I've ever heard him say (and there's plenty of competition). In no sense or meaning is he proposing any reduction in the UK's capacity to launch weapons of mass destruction; indeed, his whole position is based on building a whole new generation of such weapons. To expect nuclear wannabes to respond by dropping their aspirations is totally unrealistic. The UK under Labour is making no contribution whatsoever to a process of global disarmament.