IAN Blackford has reiterated the SNP’s commitment to removing Trident, as he suggested the UK’s nuclear deterrent should go precisely because there is a “threat to the world from nuclear weapons”.
In an interview with the PA news agency, the SNP Westminster leader was asked whether Russia’s invasion of Ukraine had changed his party’s position on the nuclear deterrent.
Russia has recently raised the spectre of a nuclear war, reporting that its land, air and sea nuclear forces were on high alert following orders from President Vladimir Putin.
Nato itself has no nuclear weapons, but three of its members do: the United States, the UK and France.
Blackford reiterated his party’s commitment that the UK gets rid of its Scotland-based Trident nuclear deterrent, saying: “No, (the party position has not changed). Absolutely not at all, because there is a threat to the world from nuclear weapons.
“The idea that having nuclear weapons provides a deterrence that removes that threat is far-fetched, to say the least.”
Blackford also rejected claims put forward by Defence Secretary Ben Wallace that an independent Scotland would be more vulnerable to terrorism threats and Russian aggression if it became independent.
He said: “Well, I think he makes a lot of wrong assumptions. One of the wrong assumptions that he makes is that Scotland would be standing alone. Scotland wouldn’t be standing alone.”
Blackford added: “The SNP Scottish government is very clear that an independent Scotland, amongst other things, would seek to be a member of Nato.
We would be alongside our friends or partners in the Western world, and we would want to make sure that we’re taking our responsibilities for defence and security just as any other independent country does.”
On whether an independent Scotland would be able to join Nato, Mr Blackford appeared positive given its “strategic importance”.
He said: “I think Nato made it clear that it seeks to work with those that apply for membership. And I think given our strategic importance, and our desire to be a constructive voice within the family of nations of Nato… just as we would be back in Europe as well.
“Let’s not forget the importance of defence and security in Europe. I look forward to the constructive discussions that we will have.”
It seems the SNP have learnt nothing from the situation in Ukraine. The reason nuclear deterrents are needed is because of the threat to the world from nuclear weapons.
I’m sure most people would rather live in a world without any nuclear weapons, however, that isn’t the world we live in. Therefore, Trident is a necessary evil. We would rather not have it, but because countries like Russia do, they are needed.
Forgive my ignorance, I understood that an anti-nuclear country wouldn’t be able to get into NATO.
I don’t mean that they have to possess them but they would have to accept a doctrine that would allow for their use and if need be they wouldn’t be able to stop a NATO operation if for example a nuclear armed jet needed to have access to an emergency landing strip, a nuclear sub needed to dock to take on supplies.
Can anyone clarify the NATO stance on anti-nuclear nations gaining entry?
Obviously it wouldn’t stop an independent Scotland from staying out of NATO and just relying on NATO to stop the danger before it gets to the North Sea, just wondered about NATO entry requirements.
>The idea that having nuclear weapons provides a deterrence that removes that threat is far-fetched, to say the least.”
This is a stupid thing to say. Mutually assured destruction makes them useless. That is just an accepted truth that is beyond dispute.
Being against where trident is neither here nor there, the point of it is to have 1 sub at sea at all times at the others in various stages of preparedness. Then any enemy knows they cannot take out the uk and its silos for eg without being attacked themselves.
Part of the detterence is having the counter attack always available. Silos can be fucked with or destroyed. A sub you cant see who could be within range of your capitol in friendly waters is doing its job. Imagine in thus era of cybersecurity if russia disabled uk missile silos and could attack without counterattack?
Consider the scenario where every nation gets rid of nukes and goes to 0. What would happen? A renewal of an arms race to build the first threat. Once that nation/group has it they can use it without fear of nuclear reprisal and effectively do what they want. No nation would invade them to stop them.
Note. Im not for or against them, but this is the reality of the last 70 years. To pretend it isnt is simply foolish. I expect a higher level of education from leaders.
> The SNP Scottish government is very clear that an independent Scotland, amongst other things, would seek to be a member of Nato.
So the SNP want the protection that NATO nukes, including British, afford Scotland but just don’t want to get their hands dirty with hosting them? Pathetic stance.
I saw someone in /r/Scotland say that an independent Scotland wouldn’t need to be in NATO because allies would jump to its defence anyway. Essentially having the protection but without contributing anything to it. Pretty selfish really.
SNP again showing they have no more sense than a glorified Parish Council.
7 comments
IAN Blackford has reiterated the SNP’s commitment to removing Trident, as he suggested the UK’s nuclear deterrent should go precisely because there is a “threat to the world from nuclear weapons”.
In an interview with the PA news agency, the SNP Westminster leader was asked whether Russia’s invasion of Ukraine had changed his party’s position on the nuclear deterrent.
Russia has recently raised the spectre of a nuclear war, reporting that its land, air and sea nuclear forces were on high alert following orders from President Vladimir Putin.
Nato itself has no nuclear weapons, but three of its members do: the United States, the UK and France.
Blackford reiterated his party’s commitment that the UK gets rid of its Scotland-based Trident nuclear deterrent, saying: “No, (the party position has not changed). Absolutely not at all, because there is a threat to the world from nuclear weapons.
“The idea that having nuclear weapons provides a deterrence that removes that threat is far-fetched, to say the least.”
Blackford also rejected claims put forward by Defence Secretary Ben Wallace that an independent Scotland would be more vulnerable to terrorism threats and Russian aggression if it became independent.
He said: “Well, I think he makes a lot of wrong assumptions. One of the wrong assumptions that he makes is that Scotland would be standing alone. Scotland wouldn’t be standing alone.”
Blackford added: “The SNP Scottish government is very clear that an independent Scotland, amongst other things, would seek to be a member of Nato.
We would be alongside our friends or partners in the Western world, and we would want to make sure that we’re taking our responsibilities for defence and security just as any other independent country does.”
On whether an independent Scotland would be able to join Nato, Mr Blackford appeared positive given its “strategic importance”.
He said: “I think Nato made it clear that it seeks to work with those that apply for membership. And I think given our strategic importance, and our desire to be a constructive voice within the family of nations of Nato… just as we would be back in Europe as well.
“Let’s not forget the importance of defence and security in Europe. I look forward to the constructive discussions that we will have.”
It seems the SNP have learnt nothing from the situation in Ukraine. The reason nuclear deterrents are needed is because of the threat to the world from nuclear weapons.
I’m sure most people would rather live in a world without any nuclear weapons, however, that isn’t the world we live in. Therefore, Trident is a necessary evil. We would rather not have it, but because countries like Russia do, they are needed.
Forgive my ignorance, I understood that an anti-nuclear country wouldn’t be able to get into NATO.
I don’t mean that they have to possess them but they would have to accept a doctrine that would allow for their use and if need be they wouldn’t be able to stop a NATO operation if for example a nuclear armed jet needed to have access to an emergency landing strip, a nuclear sub needed to dock to take on supplies.
Can anyone clarify the NATO stance on anti-nuclear nations gaining entry?
Obviously it wouldn’t stop an independent Scotland from staying out of NATO and just relying on NATO to stop the danger before it gets to the North Sea, just wondered about NATO entry requirements.
>The idea that having nuclear weapons provides a deterrence that removes that threat is far-fetched, to say the least.”
This is a stupid thing to say. Mutually assured destruction makes them useless. That is just an accepted truth that is beyond dispute.
Being against where trident is neither here nor there, the point of it is to have 1 sub at sea at all times at the others in various stages of preparedness. Then any enemy knows they cannot take out the uk and its silos for eg without being attacked themselves.
Part of the detterence is having the counter attack always available. Silos can be fucked with or destroyed. A sub you cant see who could be within range of your capitol in friendly waters is doing its job. Imagine in thus era of cybersecurity if russia disabled uk missile silos and could attack without counterattack?
Consider the scenario where every nation gets rid of nukes and goes to 0. What would happen? A renewal of an arms race to build the first threat. Once that nation/group has it they can use it without fear of nuclear reprisal and effectively do what they want. No nation would invade them to stop them.
Note. Im not for or against them, but this is the reality of the last 70 years. To pretend it isnt is simply foolish. I expect a higher level of education from leaders.
> The SNP Scottish government is very clear that an independent Scotland, amongst other things, would seek to be a member of Nato.
So the SNP want the protection that NATO nukes, including British, afford Scotland but just don’t want to get their hands dirty with hosting them? Pathetic stance.
I saw someone in /r/Scotland say that an independent Scotland wouldn’t need to be in NATO because allies would jump to its defence anyway. Essentially having the protection but without contributing anything to it. Pretty selfish really.
SNP again showing they have no more sense than a glorified Parish Council.