Free Public Transport Broadcast

Monday, November 27, 2006

New Labour Fear Trident Debate

Below is a letter I sent to the Sunday Herald last weekend

26/11/06

Dear Sir
New Labour Fear Trident Debate
Whilst reading Iain McWhirter’s piece on ‘Why a new Trident can only make the world a more dangerous place’ in last week Sunday Herald, I was interrupted by Northern Ireland Minister Peter Hain speaking to Andrew Marr on TV on the same subject.
Hain amply confirmed for me Iain McWhirter’s opening salvo – no pun intended - that Labour had already decided to replace Trident ahead of any debate. When Hain said ‘Cabinet has not yet had a discussion on the detail of all this’ few could be left in any doubt nonetheless that the principle of replacing these Intercontinental weapons has already been discussed and agreed.

I must confess McWhirters conclusion has been obvious for me from ‘New’, or should that be ‘Nuclear’, Labour since I visited the Aldermaston Weapons Establishment as part of a Scottish CND delegation in June. It was obvious then that preparations were far advanced for the manufacture of the second generation of Trident missiles. Gordon Brown, whom Iain McWhirter unconvincingly suggests is ‘no nuclear enthusiast’, announced that same day, in his Mansion House speech that he would make available the £75bn needed for the next generation of British WMD’s.

Given all that, Labour’s promise of a full and open public debate on this issue is rather lame. There will be no debate on the matter, open or otherwise because New Labour is frightened of the debate. The party which put the ‘con’ in consultation has already agreed to buy these weapons from the US. Clearly their emphasis now is in making the vote itself a formality. Peter Hain warned his Labour colleagues they were ‘all elected on a manifesto committed to defend an independent nuclear deterrent.’

And look at in whose nuclear company New Labour now stands. Only nine nations have developed nuclear weapons; Bush’s America, which has some 16,500 nuclear warheads, Putin’s Russia, who even use them as a deterrent against dissidents, China, Israel, Pakistan, India, France and now Kim Jung Ill’s North Korea. What a rogue’s gallery that is! And in the crazy world of ‘deterrence’ these countries all argue, just like Peter Hain, that they must have them because we already have them.

Compared to the Labour Party’s dishonesty and fear of debate, the Scottish Socialist Party would welcome an open and honest examination of the issue. We are keen for the public to see the chasm that exists between ‘Nuclear Labour’s’ position on all this and ours. Our policy is clear and unequivocal, nuclear weapons are immoral and a colossal waste of money. We would instead spend the £75bn on improving our health record, on greater educational access and opportunity, on our creaking social services, on lifting our youngsters and our seniors out of poverty, and by no means the least, on exporting peace throughout the world not militarism and illegal invasions of sovereign nations.


Colin Fox MSP
National Convenor
Scottish Socialist Party
EDINBURGH

1 comment:

George Dutton said...

Britain would not buy/have Trident but for the FACT that you have to have nuclear weapons to gain a seat on the UN Security Council as it is run by the USA what`s the point in that?.That is the only reason the UK wants them.Many in government have said they will NEVER use them no matter what kind of attack the UK comes under.Of course the Trident subs can be used for other purposes?.I wonder if the present Trident has any warheads on it why should it if they are not going to be used? it would also cancel out any accidents that Trident may have no worries if it did not have any warheads on it apart from the atomic subs themselves which would be a nightmare.It is the perception that the UK has them that is all important.Think about it why did the UK allow the USA to have so much say in if we could fire them or not (on the present Trident) the only reason I can come up with is they will never use them.Well only a madperson would maybe that is another reason for having no warheads after having Thatcher as PM.
Does anyone think that despots will care if we wipe out there entire country/countries?. At the end of the second world war Hitler only had one objective left that was to wipe out the German nation because they had let him down they had failed not him.That is the nature of a despot.So where is the deterrent in having Trident?.It does go beyond the boundaries of sanity to even think about buying Trident let alone use it.Who knows the truth when we have governments that are so dishonest with we the people.There again it may all just be me not wanting to accept an awful truth that there are warheads on Trident and they would use them.