Apr 252014

CND 2 futuresWith thanks to Gavin Mowat, Constituency Assistant to Christian Allard MSP.

North East MSP Christian Allard has taken the opportunity to highlight the choice between two futures that the people of Scotland will be presented with on the 18th of September.

Mr Allard said that the obscene Trident nuclear weapons would be removed from Scottish waters following a Yes vote in the independence referendum. The SNP MSP added that voting Yes in September will send the signal to the world that Scotland would rather develop its healthcare and education than spend £100 billion on renewing weapons of mass destruction.

The North East MSP said that a No vote in the referendum would send the wrong signal to the world and waste £1.5 billion per year on weapons that will never be used.

Mr Allard’s comments follow the recent SNP conference in Aberdeen where the party renewed its commitment to getting rid of Trident following a Yes vote in September.

Commenting, Christian Allard MSP said:

“The referendum is a choice between two futures.

“A Yes vote on September the 18th is a vote to remove nuclear weapons from Scotland once and for all.

“Westminster politicians want to renew a weapons system that can destroy the world. The Scottish Government would rather build a system of childcare that will be the envy of the world.

“Voters can guarantee their taxes will be spent on building a better society instead of building obscene weapons by voting Yes in September.”   

Chair of Aberdeen and District Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Jonathan Russell added:

“Scotland could set an example to the world by diversifying its skilled workforce away from Trident and other aggressive technology towards developing our own alternative energy industry. This in turn would build an economy which would bring in finance to allow our health service, child care and other welfare spending to flourish.

“We need to be getting away from the UK model of disastrous foreign interventions, cutting welfare to the bone, developing nuclear power and fracking and holding onto our imperial power by threatening others through keeping Trident.”

  •  Comments enabled – see comments box below. Note, all comments will be moderated.


  13 Responses to “Local MSP Highlights Choice Between Two Futures”

  1. I am sure there could be advantages to Scotland becoming independent, but we will loose much, much more than we could ever gain by doing so. We are in the centenary of World War One and many Scottish families lost loved ones in both World Wars keeping Britain safe. I will be remembering those who gave their lives when I vote to keep Britain together.

    • That doesn’t really make sense Sean. Regardless of whether you want to remember those who died in WW1/2, it has absolutely no bearing on the vote for independence – the two are entirely unrelated.

      As an aside, nobody died in World Wars to maintain Scotland’s right to have nuclear weapons. Britain is less safe with Nuclear weapons in it, and less safe when it continues to support aggression in the middle east. If you want to keep Britain safe, then there is a far greater chance of that happening in an independent Scotland, as Trident would not be supported. With the UK’s first past the post system, you are tied to a Conservative or Labour party for the foreseeable future – both of those parties have attached themselves firmly to Trident. I’m not saying that independence is right or wrong, simply that if your goal is a safer Britain, then a non-nuclear independent Scotland should be your choice.

      • I am sorry you failed to understand what I had written.

      • Maybe I did, but it very much looked to me like you were conflating something that has absolutely nothing to do with independence (remembering victims of WW1) with independence.

    • Sean, if you wish to remember those wo gave their lives in both World Wars before to vote in 144 days, please do acknowledge that many of those serving at the time did want Scotland to be an independent country, just like the ones serving today.
      As someone who wasn’t born here, I do object to folks bringing those wo gave their lives in any wars to the debate. I know many veterans who will vote yes.
      For you Sean to understand where I am coming from, both my great grandfathers lost a brother in WW1, my grandfather was fighting alongside British forces for 3 days in Dunkirk, I served and trained with many other nations’ armed forces including Germany, I want my children and grandchildren to learn from the past for the world to live in peace.
      We are commemorating the start of WW1 this year, commemorating and not celebrating. British triomphalism has no place in this debate.

  2. The leader of the SNP – one Alex Salmond has publicly conceded that nothing can be promised, guaranteed or believed in the course of the Referendum campaign and that includes the so called promise to get rid of Trident. This article presents an exemplary contrast between the cynical and the naive; the former represented by the unashamedly populist SNP and the latter by anyone who believes a word they say.

    The last two lines, in particular, of today’s excellent piece by Bob Smith aka “The Poetry Mannie” sum up the situation perfectly.

    • You’re right Bruce, but I think it’s fair to say for certain that Trident will definitely stay as part of the Union. I wouldn’t trust the SNP to fulfil its promise, but I do believe that voting Yes will see us gain a number of parties to whom Trident will be unacceptable. The opportunity to vote for those parties, in a fairer PR system, will present itself very soon after the referendum. You’re not voting for SNP, your voting to decide whether you think the Scottish people can be better represented as an independent country than as part of the UK – the answer to that is overwhelmingly yes.

      • Hi Rico,

        Like yourself, I wouldn’t trust the SNP to fulfil their promises. With regard to predicting voting intentions, this is an impossible task. At the last UK election, almost 80% of Scottish voters chose parties committed to retaining Trident. At the last Scottish election, a year later, only 45% of Scottish voters chose parties committed to retaining Trident. I would argue that the latter was heavily influenced by those who decided to give a vote of confidence to the SNP, as a devolved Executive, rather than an endorsement of unilateral nuclear disarmament. Such results do not suggest a groundswell of popular opposition to Trident, and provide no certainty of outcome, no matter what system of voting is employed.

        With respect, I do understand that this is not a party political contest but the SNP are, beyond doubt, the driving force behind a Yes Campaign which cannot come up with one single definitive response to key questions on EU membership and currency union, to name but two. It is a dishonest and divisive campaign which provides vitriol rather than vision and derision rather than detail. The practical difficulties which would be presented by separation are considerable and are not, in my opinion, outweighed by any potential advantages.

  3. Christian Allard makes a very valid point. Why spend billions on weapons we cannot use when the money could be used to much better ends? Westminster lives in an outdated “British Empire” bubble where power on the world stage is the be all and end all. I would rather live in a country where the government strives to better the position of it’s populace, not consign many to the hardship of food banks, no heating or lighting and abject poverty. Roll on independence. We live in one of the wealthiest nations on the planet. It is time that was reflected in the position of the man in the street, not a handful of super-rich individuals.

  4. Christian,

    To discuss what the thoughts and opinions of long dead soldiers may, or may not, have been, particularly in the context of apparently seeking political advantage, appears unseemly and undignified. To attack someone and accuse them, quite falsely, of “British triumphalism” seems, in my opinion, to indicate a clear unwillingness to tolerate any opinion which does not support the Scottish Nationalist cause.

    I would like to hear more about how an independent Scotland, as an aspiring member of NATO, might present, as part of their application process, their intention to immediately and unilaterally rip apart the NATO nuclear strategy at a stroke. Would it be the case that NATO, just like the UK Government and all 28 states within the EU, will simply do what Scotland says?

    • Bruce, to be sovereign is to negotiate your position in the world. After a Yes vote and if the people of Scotland vote for the SNP to form the first government of an independent Scotland, this will happen:

      “The SNP wishes Scotland to fulfil its responsibilities to neighbours and allies. On independence Scotland will inherit its treaty obligations with NATO. An SNP Government will maintain NATO membership subject to an agreement that Scotland will not host nuclear weapons and NATO continues to respect the right of members to only take part in UN sanctioned operations. In the absence of such an agreement, Scotland will work with NATO as a member of the Partnership for Peace programme like Sweden, Finland, Austria and Ireland. Scotland will be a full member of the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP) of the European Union and the Organisation for Cooperation and Security in Europe (OSCE).”

      • Christian,

        Your unwillingness to address legitimate concerns about making presumptions as to the opinions of dead soldiers to gain political advantage and unjustified attacks against those who disagree with you speaks volumes!!

        It is somewhat ironic that your response begins by referring to negotiation and ends with an SNP resolution which clearly claims automatic rights to NATO membership, under terms and conditions strictly laid down by the SNP, and an additional option of membership of other associations due to our automatic right to EU membership, presumably also under terms and conditions strictly laid down by the SNP. Forgive me if I suggest that this sounds more like dictatorship and delusion than negotiation.

        Today Scotland, tomorrow the world!!

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>