Corbyn to combine with SNP against Trident renewal – for all the right reasons
Here’s some more misrepresentation from The Guardian:
The Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has said he intends to work with the SNP to remove nuclear weapons from Scotland.
“Why’s that misrepresentation?” you ask. Isn’t it obvious? Corbyn wants to remove Trident from the UK altogether.
Reaffirming his long-standing opposition to Trident in a BBC Scotland interview, Corbyn said: “In the House of Commons I was chair of the CND [Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament] group and one of the vice-chairs is from the SNP, and yes, we will be voting with them on this – or they will be voting with us, whichever way you want to put it.”
Giving an in-depth interview on Scottish concerns in advance of his first party conference as leader, he said: “My position on Trident has been very clear all of my life,” he said. “I think Trident should go. I do not believe that it is a form of defence.
“I do not believe it is something that anyone in their proper mind would ever want to use, so I ask the question is it really sensible to commit such a vast proportion of our assets – £100bn over 25 years – to this when we could be spending it on developing our industrial infrastructure?”
Source: Jeremy Corbyn planning to link up with SNP to remove Trident | Politics | The Guardian
He’s right – Trident isn’t a form of defence. We can’t even use it without asking the USA first, for crying out loud. No sovereign state should be in thrall to another for its defence.
He’s right – nobody in their right mind would ever want to use nuclear weapons. With ever-more-sharp targeting of weapons, we don’t need to – or won’t in the very near future.
So he’s right again – why should we pour £100 billion down this pointless radioactive money pit when we could be investing it in a revitalised economy that may solve our economic ills and give us the wherewithal to mount a proper defence of the realm, if necessary?
He is planning to vote alongside the SNP, though. What a shame some of that party couldn’t resist playing silly games with it – but you can read about that in the Guardian article.
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!
Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
(but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:
Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.
Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:
The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:
I cannot believe some of the idiots who promote a “nuclear deterrent”. The US has Russia surrounded on all sides using NATO and Germany has just agreed to take even more Nuclear warheads. When the US finally provokes WW3 IN EUROPE (not in it’s own back yard) they will force Russia to take retaliatory action. WHO DO YOU THINK RUSSIA WILL STRIKE FIRST? IT WILL BE THOSE WITH CLOSE RANGE NUCLEAR CAPABILITIES!!!! That would be the EU countries aligned against it. Meanwhile back at the ranch over the pond the US is sitting pretty while we take all the flack.ie. nuclear strikes on London, Birmingham, etc, nuclear fallout and radiation destruction. Who cares if you have a ****ing big stick if you are going to be nuked as soon as you threaten to use it? I live far enough away from the likely targets but what about the other 50 million people? With over 2,000 warheads Russia can use, half of Europe will be under fallout while the US bats away Russia’s long range nukes and vice versa. Washington is by no means stupid and has had ample practice at shelling nations, it is using the EU and NATO to further its own self-interest and knows full well the consequences.
Spending billions of pounds on something we can’t actually use, without obliterating ourselves in the process, is truly a waste of money. Corbyn is promoting a genuine saving – which after five years of Osborne’s false economies, is just what we need.
I do not see how the valid point the SNP makes regarding how other Labour MP’s may vote on this issue is playing ‘silly games’. While Corbyn may be very much against nuclear weapons, Unlike the SNP, he cannot guarantee the rest of his party will back him.
The SNP spokesman was trying to score party political points. How does Brendan O’Hara know what will happen in another party’s conference? He doesn’t. He’s playing silly games and hoping to take the public with him. It worked in your case.
You really do hate the SNP’s don’t you?
No.