The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


What IS Labour’s policy on Trident?

Posted on August 30, 2012 by

Nationalists like to taunt Scottish Labour “leader” Johann Lamont for her reluctance to reveal her position on nuclear weapons. But in fairness to the little-seen notional chief, she’s hardly alone in her ambiguity. Despite the UK’s nuclear force being a huge issue, costing taxpayers tens of billions of pounds and being central to Britain’s permanent seat on the UN Security Council, one of the country’s two biggest political parties simply doesn’t seem to know – and hasn’t known for years, despite being in government on both sides of the border – whether it’s in favour of it or not.

As we noted earlier today, a Labour government resolved as recently as 2010 to replace the ageing weapon system with an upgraded version. But the overwhelming majority of over 230 with which that resolution passed was achieved thanks to the uniform support of Conservative MPs. Close to a third of Labour MPs – 94 out of a total of around 350 – opposed the motion along with all 55 Lib Dems and all six SNP members, and a narrow majority (31) of all Scottish MPs were against.

In the Scottish Parliament, meanwhile, renewal was overwhelmingly rejected despite (or perhaps because of) Labour refusing to take any position at all. A June 2007 vote conducted just after the SNP’s historic victory saw the Trident replacement scheme voted against by a comprehensive majority of 71-16, with all but four of Labour’s MSPs abstaining while the SNP, Lib Dems and Greens (along with the four Labour rebels) all voted No, and only the Tories backing the policy that the UK Labour government had chosen and voted to impose on Scotland.

It’s extraordinary that Labour has managed to maintain such a startlingly contradictory position for so long. Just two months ago the party’s shadow defence spokesman, Scottish MP Jim Murphy, blogged a statement from his fellow shadow defence minister Alison Seabeck reiterating that Labour’s official policy was to back Trident renewal. Yet in the country where the weapon system is sited, 37% of its Westminster MPs (15 from 41) voted against the proposal and not a single one of its Holyrood MSPs was prepared to vote in favour.

It’s difficult to overstate what a bizarre situation that is. That 37% is the very same percentage of Lib Dem MPs (21 from 56) who voted against the tuition-fees increase in England, having signed a conspicuous public pledge months earlier promising to do so. Yet the Scottish Labour MPs had made no such pledge.

An official Labour Party policy which chiefly affects Scotland, then, is backed by barely 60% of its Westminster Scottish MPs, and by 0% of its Holyrood MSPs. Of the six people who stood for the Scottish leadership in 2011 just 33% support renewal, while the successful candidate refuses to tell us what her oft-changed personal view is.

(Or indeed the Scottish party’s position, given its supposed policy independence from London. The 2011 Scottish Labour election manifesto makes no mention of Trident, or nuclear weapons in general, anywhere in its 98 pages.)

It’s incredible, in the literal sense of the word, that Labour feels able to make dramatic and strident pronouncements on the subject while cynically looking both ways at once. Poor old Ian Davidson is apparently so confused he rages against disarmament as a dire consequence of independence, despite not just opposing renewal but wanting the existing system scrapped.

Johann Lamont constantly angrily demands that the SNP detail every last possible consequence of a Yes vote in the referendum. Perhaps it’s time she set an example and started telling us what a No vote will mean. If, that is, she has any idea.

7 to “What IS Labour’s policy on Trident?”

  1. Arbroath 1320 says:

    Aha the nuclear Trident question.
     
    I have it on good authority 😆 that Scottish Labour policy is that if they, Labour, don’t mention Trident then it can’t possibly exist! 😆
     
    The only things that exist in the alternate universe inhabited by Labour are things that Labour want to speak about. Nothing else exists! :LOL:

    Reply
  2. Cuphook says:

    I thought a thought but the thought I thought wasn’t the thought I thought I thought.

    Mind you – this could be applied to any of their policies.   

    Reply
  3. Arbroath 1320 says:

    WHIT?
     
    Labour have POLICIES!
     
    Will wonders NEVER cease?
     
    Does the Lamentable one know that Labour have policies I wonder.
     
    Naw, she disnae know about any Labour policy, if she did she’d be the first to be seen shouting from the roof tops. Wouldn’t she?

    Reply
  4. Doug Daniel says:

    Perhaps someone in the mainstream media would like to take them to task about this, and find out their position once and for all? After all, if someone is trying to tell us that Scottish independence leading to nuclear disarmament for the UK is a bad thing, the very first question that would pop into my head would be “so you’re against nuclear disarmament, then?”

    Meanwhile, the SNP tries to debate a nuanced change on their position on NATO, and it’s talked about as if they’re just blithely changing their anti-nuke stance. The level of hypocrisy is stunning, absolutely stunning.

    Reply
  5. James McLaren says:

    Their policy is to have as many policies as is necessary by the circumstance and time of the need.
     
    In Scotland, they have a compliant MSM who never ask questions of them and their cognitive dissonances.
     
    The word, any word today, is the message, if it can been repeated authoritively ad nauseum.

    Reply
  6. Arbroath 1320 says:

    I know I’m O/T here, but I’ve just watched this video of Ryan, no NOT the guy with sausage rolls and wee dugs but the Republican V.P. candidate. Having listened to it I reached a point where I was uncertain about who he was ACTUALLY talking about. Was he REALLY talking about Obama and the Democrats? I felt for sure he was talking about the Tories, RED, BLUE and YELLOW, as well as the Bitter Together campaign. 😆
     
    link to order-order.com

    Reply
  7. Arbroath 1320 says:

    Sorry folks, I’ve just read this over on NNS.
    link to newsnetscotland.com
    Are we worried folks?
    Well I don’t think WE are worried but Westminster sure as hell are! 😆

    Reply


Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. If your comment does not appear immediately, DO NOT REPOST IT. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.


  • About

    Wings Over Scotland is a thing that exists.

    Stats: 6,984 Posts, 1,252,078 Comments

  • Recent Posts

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

    • Elmac on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Contribution made and more if required. We need justice to hold these lying corrupt sleazebags to account. If the prosecution…” Oct 1, 23:31
    • MarkerPost on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Donated. Hope the fund is ring-fenced…” Oct 1, 23:17
    • James on Whatever Can Have Happened?: ““….they smelt of pubs…. and Wormwood scrubs…. …and too many right wing meetings….” What a shower of unionist twats….” Oct 1, 22:24
    • Jamie on In The Eyes Of The Law: “I have donated. Good luck to you.” Oct 1, 22:17
    • Captain Caveman on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Donated Stu.” Oct 1, 21:05
    • Alf Baird on In The Eyes Of The Law: “As Fanon wrote, in a colonial society “The national middle class discovers its historic mission: that of intermediary”, between who…” Oct 1, 20:48
    • crisiscult on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Don’t post much, not on Twitter/X anymore (nothing to do with Musk, just find it unusable these days), but always…” Oct 1, 20:44
    • Northcode on In The Eyes Of The Law: “My understanding is that Justice Reviews are really narrow — they don’t look at the underlying merits or reopen investigations,…” Oct 1, 19:36
    • Heaver on In The Eyes Of The Law: “£100 donated. Just ask if you need more. You might not get, because I may not have, but no harm…” Oct 1, 18:31
    • McDuff on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Done. Go get them rev.” Oct 1, 17:21
    • 100%Yes on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Reading the comments I’ve noticed unionist donating as well. This isn’t about what side of the political argument your own…” Oct 1, 17:01
    • 100%Yes on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Donated a tenner but as time goes on I’ll donate more as and when needed. I actually believe this is…” Oct 1, 16:50
    • Spartan 117 on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Caption competition. “Naw, ah didnae pish oan yer new trainers. Ye did it yersel.” “How’s he *that* big, min?” “Couple…” Oct 1, 16:04
    • Rev. Spooner on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Done. This is excellent and important work, regardless of which side of the Indy debate we sit. All power to…” Oct 1, 16:02
    • Northcode on In The Eyes Of The Law: “It’s worth remembering that some legal processes are much narrower than the big stories often attached to them. And they…” Oct 1, 16:01
    • sarah on In The Eyes Of The Law: “I wish you all the best in this legal action [and am sending a modest donation]. This time you have…” Oct 1, 15:54
    • Hatey McHateface on In The Eyes Of The Law: “Bizarre pic of Swinney taking a leak. I guess that was intentional.” Oct 1, 15:35
    • Hatey McHateface on Whatever Can Have Happened?: “Classic 🙂” Oct 1, 15:31
    • Aidan on Whatever Can Have Happened?: “As far as I can tell both questions are the same, so yes it is hard for me to understand…” Oct 1, 15:11
    • Spartan 117 on Whatever Can Have Happened?: “Aye, that it is Cap’n. The sheer hatred dripping off its posts is mortifying and amusing in equal measure. That…” Oct 1, 14:52
    • sam on Whatever Can Have Happened?: “It depends on the question asked. Is that hard for you to understand? Check for yourself.” Oct 1, 14:41
    • Mark Beggan on Whatever Can Have Happened?: “Wings very own Father Jack Hackett. ‘Drink, Drink! Arse. Feckin Girls! Drink!’” Oct 1, 14:23
    • Aidan on Whatever Can Have Happened?: “So your polling says that support for a united Ireland in the EU is both 34% and 63% does it?” Oct 1, 14:15
    • Captain Caveman on Whatever Can Have Happened?: ““it’s like having a filthy thieving vagrant squatting in your front room, eating all your food, drinking your beer and…” Oct 1, 14:03
    • Captain Caveman on Whatever Can Have Happened?: “It’s not “squealing”, Fatso, it’s “unrestrained, raucous laughter (and pointing)” at you hilariously deranged foamers. Fucking state of you embittered,…” Oct 1, 14:01
    • sam on Whatever Can Have Happened?: “Polling in NI says that the current opinion is that support for a united Ireland is at 34%. Polling by…” Oct 1, 13:46
    • James on Whatever Can Have Happened?: ““Squeal, piggies, squeal”. LOL.” Oct 1, 13:42
    • Mark Beggan on Whatever Can Have Happened?: “– the ones who dream. Dreaming is free. Everything else has a price. Even death has a price. But dream…” Oct 1, 13:29
    • Spartan 117 on Whatever Can Have Happened?: “Inebriated idiot.” Oct 1, 13:18
    • Aidan on Whatever Can Have Happened?: “We get it mate – you hate the English, and thanks to a complete accident at birth you are somewhere…” Oct 1, 12:52
  • A tall tale



↑ Top