Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


SNP steps up calls to scrap nuclear arms

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 04 February 2009
By Joe Quinn
THE SNP yesterday stepped up calls for Scotland to be rid of nuclear weapons.
The call came at a conference in Edinburgh where the SNP MP Angus Robertson said Scotland could "help lift the nuclear shadow".

But the Nationalists came under attack from Labour, who accused them of wanting to give up nuclear weapons when other countries had them and "rogue nations" wanted them.

"Scots don't want their country left defenceless," said the Labour MP Eric Joyce.

"Scotland can ill afford to lose the 11,000 jobs delivered on the Clyde by Trident and the naval base," he said.







Page 1 of 1

 
1

Rufus-T-Firefly,

03/02/2009 22:54:50
Robert Mugabe and President Ahmadinejad better start checking their mail.

Another pointless SNP letter from Salmond is probably on its way.
2

UK007,

04/02/2009 00:25:36
#1 RFT - Another pointless comment.
3

drunken proffet,

Tassy 04/02/2009 02:15:44
Using nuclear weapons is a "no brainer." Expensive to store them, expensive to deliver them, and they create total havoc in the local real estate values. Now biological weapons, that is the stuff for nightmares. Everyone has heard of "Typhoid Mary", when you add on the many carriers of exotic disease in the present population you maybe figure out that humans are amateurs in this type of warfare. Nature is the king. Stick to the simple stuff like bombs and bullets, you know it makes sense.
4

donald,

glasgow 04/02/2009 05:22:43
Buchenwald provided jobs for local. So what?
5

Saul Tyre,

Germany 04/02/2009 06:31:50
"Scots don't want their country left defenceless," said the Labour MP Eric Joyce.

If Germany, Spain, Italy and all the other European countries apart from the UK and France have been 'left defenceless' for so long, why haven't they been invaded?

"Scotland can ill afford to lose the 11,000 jobs delivered on the Clyde by Trident and the naval base," he said.

Don't you just love those people who refuse to close asbestos factories and bitumen plants to save jobs? And please note the use of 'and the naval base', which provides more jobs than Trident.

Eric Joyce is only one of many Labour donkeys.
6

Queen D,

Glasgow 04/02/2009 08:59:40
Headline in the Times saying Obama having talks with Russia to decommission nukes!
Des Browne in the Herald saying its time that Westminster got rid of Trident.
Makes you think that the Obama effect might be having an influence over Trident 2 ( not to mention MONEY)
Then of course the PM can say he's been talking about this for years and claim the credit.
But then we all KNOW don't we?
A majority of MSPs voted against T2 so all the people of Scotland hold them to it, and remember Westminster was looking at ways to force it on Scotland in the very recent past.
I will discount Mr Joyce and his opinion.
7

Scimitar1,

04/02/2009 10:25:03
Another vote loser for that crowd.
8

Farky,

Edinburgh 04/02/2009 10:28:34
I am not at all sure what Scotland's financial contribution is towards keeping Triedent. I do suspect however that our share of operating costs would easily pay for those currently empolyed in the maintenance of these bombs would be more than enough for them to retrained & employed in other aspects of naval duty.

Most Scot's would opt for the removal of these weapons if they had the choice. I am so glad that the SNP are one of the groups calling for there removal!

We don't need them & we don't want them!
9

Dr. James Wilkie,

Vienna 04/02/2009 10:33:01
The impoverished UK now cannot afford the Trident update, leading members of the defence staff have publicly stated that the system is strategically useless, the population of Scotland is vehemently against having weapons of mass destruction in their country, and the new US administration has declared its policy of working towards the abolition of all nuclear weapons - a commitment that is also binding on the UK under the UN Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. My opinion is that the Trident upgrade is already dead, and it is only a matter of time before the existing system is declared redundant well ahead of its planned service lifetime.

10

alanh,

ek 04/02/2009 11:13:13
who do we point these nuclear weapons at?


we will NEVER use them therefore they are a total waste of money that could be much better used elsewhere
11

Andy Mac,

G20 04/02/2009 12:18:47
Should be a no-brainer, as Saul Tyre says, the rest of Europe doesn't need them. But then, the rest of Europe doesn't suffer from delusions of grandeur the way the UK does.

An estimated 75bn will be paid to the US for this extravagant system (God bless our "special relationship"). That's money going out of the economy.

Puts the 50m for the painting in Edinburgh in perspective.
12

Arfur,

04/02/2009 13:20:59
11 sm753, - "Deterrence". Look it up.

Really so if we didnt have them we would be invaded? Did i miss Iran invading Ireland or something? Tube.
13

 sm753,

04/02/2009 13:41:44
12

"But then, the rest of Europe doesn't suffer from delusions of grandeur the way the UK does."

Tell that to the French and the Russians.

"An estimated 75bn will be paid to the US for this extravagant system"

And how much are the French paying for their wholly indigenous system (which they only have because the US refused to let them have Polaris or Trident)?

Once again, look it up.




14

Brian Hill,

04/02/2009 14:36:48
How did Germany and Japan go from being bankrupt after WW2 to the two strongest economies outside the USA (until German Unification dragged Germany from that position)?

Simple. Not allowed by treaty to build armies they instead ploughed their resources into the infrastructures of their respective countries.

Scandinavia has benefited from a similar approach to life. The result being a far higher standard of living in those countries and happier populations generally.

And Scandinavian has never been threatened by nuclear weapons, but then, as #12 Andy mac says, such countries don't have our delusions of grandeur.

Scotland will survive quite happily and more safely without Trident. And let's not forget as it stands now we are a prime target in the event of a conflagration.
15

 sm753,

04/02/2009 15:25:53
15

"Simple. Not allowed by treaty to build armies they instead ploughed their resources into the infrastructures of their respective countries."

Which they could afford to do because they sheltered under the nuclear deterrents of the US and NATO, including the UK one.

(Which has always has a significance out of proportion to its size - as does the French one - as it provides a potential aggressor with an independent decision centre to worry about.)

Remind me, what is the Nats' policy on NATO membership?
16

Embra Don,

04/02/2009 17:16:27
#11 sm753
If I might rephrase # in response:

Who are they deterring? "Anyone" is no answer - give us an example.
17

Embra Don,

04/02/2009 17:20:40
#16 sm753

"A potential aggressor" ? Like who?

My as well spend £1bn on a system to keep the potential Lions out of Leith docks.
18

 sm753,

04/02/2009 19:54:05
17

"Who are they deterring? "Anyone" is no answer - give us an example."

Yes it is.

This is a system and policy for the next 50 years.

Please provide a list of the conflicts which were foreseeable, and foreseen, 50 years out.

Oh, you can't.

BONGGG!
19

Saul Tyre,

Germany 04/02/2009 20:51:42
Sm753:

The people don't want these weapons here, the MSPs voted against them, top army brass have questioned their necessity. It's all there for any clown to read. Look it up.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 

More Nuclear energy

More Nuclear energy >>

Today's Vote

Is Alex Salmond right to oppose building a new nuclear power station in Scotland?
Yes
No

Web Links:

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.