![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Replied to a letter from Scotland's for Peace saying that he would vote against the replacement of Trident - "My answer to them is simple - No to Trident, No to son of Trident and No to any so called Independent Nuclear Deterrent. I am opposed to the UK having any nuclear weapons. For me it is simply wrong. "We are told Trident is needed as a deterrent, although noone can identify who we are trying to deter. In the past, during the Cold War there was an obvious threat, now there is not. Whatever the arguments about deterrents, the Cold War days of two nuclear power blocks facing off against each other are in the past. There is no such threat today. Having Trident has not deterred other countries from developing their own nuclear weapons. "The UK, and the USA have both, of course, been attacked despite having nuclear weapons; both have been attacked by terrorists. Trident could not be used against those terrorists, as they were not based in one country, one city or one place. One retired General summarised Trident as: "useless, expensive and dangerous". "You may be aware that The Scottish Parliament passed a Liberal Democrat motion to reject the government's plans to replace the Trident nuclear weapon system in 2007. The parliament later passed a further Lib Dem motion calling on the government not to go ahead with the proposals to renew the Trident system. "So to answer your question directly I would vote against any replacement for Trident" |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||