Craig Murray has asked for clarity on whether the SNP would withdraw support for a minority Labour government if it joined forces with the Tories in the Commons to force through the renewal of Trident. I think the SNP have been pretty clear, actually - the scrapping of Trident would be an absolute condition for a confidence-and-supply arrangement, and without it Labour would have to go it alone and seek support on a vote-by-vote basis. That would mean looking to right-wing parties like the Tories, UKIP and Lib Dems to get things through that the SNP would never support (such as Trident), and it would mean looking to the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens to get things through that the Tories would never support (such as an increase in the top rate of tax).
But there has been a very strong indication that the SNP would not do anything to bring about an early election, which implies that Labour would not be 'punished' in a confidence vote for the renewal of Trident. And if you think about it, that's perfectly rational - an early election would have absolutely no prospect of producing an anti-Trident majority in parliament, so nothing would be gained by bringing a Labour government down. (And much might be lost, if the arithmetic after a new election was less favourable.)
That's not to say that the SNP are powerless to do anything about Trident in a hung parliament, though. As I've speculated before, Labour may quickly be worn down by trying to survive day-to-day on a vote-by-vote basis, and the security of the formal deal they originally shunned might start to look very attractive after a few months - particularly if the opinion polls were suggesting that they would lose a snap election. If the SNP's red lines for a deal hadn't shifted by then, Trident's days would be numbered.
Incidentally, I don't follow Duncan Hothersall on Twitter anymore (mainly because he seemed to block me for a while, which automatically deleted me from his followers' list), so I'd be curious to know what logical gymnastics he's been partaking in over the last few months to square his own views on Trident with continued support for Labour. During the referendum, he repeatedly told us he wasn't interested in simply shifting the location of Britain's nuclear weapons, but instead wanted to abolish them altogether. Well, we now have the SNP asking for a mandate to go to the UK parliament and abolish Trident altogether, while Labour are asking for a mandate to go to the UK parliament and spend billions of pounds renewing Trident.
Why is Duncan voting Labour? Does he even know?
One thing he does know for sure is that, whatever it is, it's not Labour's fault.
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty damn clear that little Ed and his spinners are the ones in serious trouble over Trident, not us.
ReplyDelete75% of Labour PPCs oppose Trident renewal
75 per cent of Labour's parliamentary candidates oppose renewing Britain's nuclear deterrent - including some in the party's safest seats.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/03/exclusive-75-labour-ppcs-oppose-trident-renewal
http://www.cnduk.org/get-involved/parliamentary/item/2019-labour-candidates-favour-scrapping-trident
James,
ReplyDeleteTo be clear, you are saying that the SNP would do nothing if a Labour government, with the support of the Tories, pushed through Trident replacement. The SNP would just continue propping up the Labour government for fear of losing their seats at an early election?
Hmmmm.
Your realpolitik fails because, unless under a credible threat that the alternative is no confidence, Labour will never agree not to renew Trident. So the whole issue then becomes just pointless rhetoric.
Well, I've suggested the chain of events which I think might conceivably lead to Labour abandoning Trident - ie. they would become so bogged down in day-to-day parliamentary warfare that they would eventually turn to the SNP in desperation, and ask for a confidence-and-supply deal to get them through the five years. I really don't see how voting a Labour government out leads to the abolition of Trident - it leads to yet another parliament with a pro-Trident majority.
DeleteI think the point you're making is that the mere threat of voting Labour down might act as a deterrent (ironically). I doubt it, because Labour would take the view that the SNP's "betrayal" in a confidence vote would be an excellent chance to win back their Scottish seats in an early general election.
Need to wait till we actually get the seats before we play ball........ They could force Mlliband into a free vote to the house, of 75% of Labour candidates vote against, plus SNP, Plaid and Greens, it might just be enough.
DeleteTrident seems to hold a similar position for Labour that Europe does for the Cons or Labour for the SNP, there is definitely a significant split of internal opinion there.
DeleteBut I think the leadership would resist the internal desire due to the external pressures from the USA etc.
On your question, DH still seems anti Trident, but given he's a massive Labourite he won't criticise them over it.
If/when labour vote for trident II then they will have proved to their last wavering supporters that the only way of getting rid of nuclear weapons from Scotland is to vote Yes. Either the SNP force labour into rejecting new nuclear weapons or labour signs the death warrant of the UK come the next vote. That's why it is a win/win for Scotland and the MSM are desperate to use any slur to claim that the SNP are about to drop opposition to Nu-Trident.
ReplyDeleteWhich is one very good reason why C Murray could never be an MP. To busy doing the work of the enemy. Think before you rant man!
Perhaps that brings us to the nub of the difference between us. I don't see the point of warming your arses and earning money in the Westminster parliament if you are not really changing anything. We don't need political careerists even if painted yellow. Fifty SNP MPs sitting there on big salaries, with research assistants and secretaries and constituency secretaries, might be nice for SNP nomenklatura but what exactly is the point if Trident renewal and the rest of the neo-con agenda continues?
ReplyDeleteCraig, that's the mirror image of the point I'm making - what is the point of bringing a Labour government down if that can't possibly lead to the abolition of Trident, and if we might be throwing away the chance to achieve other positive changes (not least the transfer of powers to the Scottish Parliament)?
DeleteAah, that's the other difference. I think the "more powers" thing is a diversion - worse still, a con. We will never get real full fiscal autonomy that leaves us the revenue from our hydrocarbons and whisky, and does not charge us for "national" schemes like Crossrail. It just won't happen. Any change will be designed to leave us fiscally worse off, or it won't be agreed.
ReplyDeletePlus frankly if we are still tied in to illegal wars and neo-con foreign policy, I don't care who does the sewers. Again I am not interested in a little bit more power, jobs and influence for the political class. I am interested in fundamental national freedom.
The gradualist approach took us far. But it is like a long jumper sprinting down the track, thinking "oh this is going well, I don't need to change anything when I get to the white board". That is where the independence lite tactic fails, and will always fail. There was a time for sprinting. Now its time for leaping.
I think that folk that voted No hoping for major new powers need to be shown that it will never happen. I believe this needs to be done before indyref2.
DeleteWell we could always just throw our arms up and not bother with elections at all craig or we could take the approach that has gotten us to within 5% of Independence and now looks set to deliver a historic hammerblow to the heart of the Labour party in what was once their safest seats.
DeleteYou are overlooking the cumulative effect 2011 and almost certainly May will have on the Labour party. Do I think there will still be some in Labour who will keep their heads firmly buried in the sand no matter what transpires? Yes, but there's also going to come a point where enough Labour supporters and senior figures in their party decide enough is enough and make a move on policies like Trident. We are winning the argument over Trident as that poll shows very clearly.
We get the public on our side, we get the other parties on our side and the rest will inevitably fall into place.
We fight the battles we can win and we shift public opinion on those we have not yet the power to decide.
So if you were an MP, Craig, what steps would you take to guarantee the abolition of Trident?
ReplyDeleteNaturally I would vote against it, and any government that voted it through I would vote against automatically on every issue of confidence because it had voted through Trident.
ReplyDeleteI could not guarantee success, but what I could guarantee is that I had 100% tried to stop it. Anything else is not 100% trying to stop it, but rather 100% trying to keep your arse in that well-paid job for five years.
Actually, it is known as being a pragmatist and we all know you are not. Both ways of thinking and acting have value, especially when they balance each other. From a more pragmatic viewpoint, the SNP not insisting before the fact on Labour dumping Trident support might lead to the many Labour MPs voting against it. While that is not a straightforward matter because of submitting to the whip, it is a possibility that should not be discounted. A more idealistic viewpoint is that you should never bend your principles.
DeleteBoth can be defended.
Frankly, I think the SNP was correct to refuse you for a party candidate but in Holyrood you would do a great job as an independent making sure that principles which are easily shoved aside are not forgotten, and possibly even passed into law.
Well that would make YOU feel better but wouldn't make a blind bit of difference.
DeleteAlso you have a touchingly naive view that the overwhelming majority of Scots are opposed to trident when they aren't.
As for being against the gradualist approach, the truth is that there's no chance that we would have got 45% if we never had the Scottish parliament. Don't take for granted that we'll get more than that again - the British state is especially weak at the moment.
What's needed from the SNP MP's is not to vote down a Labour govt that lets a Tory one in - they have to fight a guerrilla war of parliamentary procedure, investigations, using privilege and generally cut off the balls of the Labour govt.
Hopefully that can get the nukes moved away from Glasgow. Don't underestimate just how powerful nimbyism can be. With no one wanting nukes close it might even end up an issue in the Tory shires.
It does seem with your view of politics being about making a stand regardless of how successful that will be is incompatible with the SNP. Perhaps the SSP would be a better home for you.
No Craig if we had a grown up proper democracy then standing up as you do has merit but since we can only work within the bounds we are tied with subtlety rules how one plays the cards to our advantage.
DeleteUnder the new rules of the fixed five year parliament the SNP could not "bring down" a Labour government even if it wanted to, is that no t the case. A two thirds majority is required to call a new election. So once a Labour government is installed the only way it could be removed and a new election called is if Labour and Conservatives agreed to hold a new election. Am I missing anything? If not, all this talk about whether the SNP would bring down a Labour government is just bluster.
ReplyDeleteSame applies to the tories Donald. The FTPA is a wonderfully ironic bit of legislation that is now guaranteed to put any big party on the rack trying to cobble together a coalition or get enough votes to pass contentious legislation.
DeleteThe idea that both Labour and the tories will be perfectly aligned electorally to both think it is in their interests to have another election is a fanciful one, to say the least.
That's not to say an impotent Labour or tory administration might not fervently wish fervently to have another roll of the dice, but the chances of either of them suddenly becoming more far popular or more trusted by the electorate, just because they can't pass contentious legislation, is pie in the sky.
Donald : No, that's not correct. A two-thirds majority is one way to bring about an early general election, another is for the government to be voted down in a vote of confidence. If the latter happens, there are 14 days to see if any government can win a vote of confidence - if not, a general election follows automatically.
DeleteSo as long as the SNP vote with Labour on any confidence motion they are free to oppose them on anything else?
DeleteOpposing them on anything else wouldn't bring the government down.
DeleteOh come on Craig. This game's a wee bit more complicated than that if you are really interested in making ANY headway at all, rather than just another futile (though honourable) personal objection to WMD entered into Hansard. Trident is just another of many all important issues that we have zero chance of influencing UNTIL we achieve independence. That's not a judgement on Trident being less important than Indy, just a practical analysis of the absolute necessity in having to prioritise one in order to achieve the other.
ReplyDeletebraco
It's also obvious that we will make immeasurably more headway on Trident by forcing an unpopular Labour leadership (and rest assured, the polls tell us precisely that about little Ed even among Labour members) to choose between his own grass roots (incl. the 75% of candidates) and the westminster establishment/tory position on Trident.
DeleteI can think of few other things that would do more permanent damage to a weak leader like Miliband that trying to force the whip on a deeply unpopular policy like Trident after failing to even win a majority.
We saw the precise same thing when Cameron completely alienated his base and a great many of his MPs early on in the coalition. His incompetence forced him to use the whip against Eurosceptic MPs for agitating for an EU referendum. The result - They never trusted him from that moment on and he was forever their slave after that. It also spurred on the kippers since it was abundantly clear a sizable chunk of the tory party simply did not agree with him and remembered all the previous worthless Lisbon posturing. Only a couple of short years later Cameron had to reverse his position and call for an EU referendum.
I could certainly see a backlash against the Blairites in Labour after the election which could be galvanised and encouraged over issues and votes that would once have been perfectly normal Labour policy.
So if little Ed tries to force though a Blairite agenda (which he shows every sign of wanting to do) then he will very quickly find himself putting off votes and kicking all the more contentions stuff, way, way down the road.
You don't call votes you aren't certain to win and you don't try to force through hugely controversial and costly (£100 Billion) policy relying on tory MPs votes.
Far too many Labour MPs would remember that's precisely how they ended up neck deep in the Iraq catastrophe and still counting the cost all these years later.
I also doubt those Labour MPs would be too keen to put their own necks on the line for the following election just to please an unpopular Labour leader who couldn't win a majority.
Very good point, Donald Jacobs. Its not quite straightforward, it involves qualified majorities. I don't think anyone quite knows what would happen in practice.
ReplyDeleteJuteman I understand what you say, but I prefer to argue why more powers are not enough. We have 52% for Independence in polls now, and rising. Let's not start settling for devolution, even as a pose. Every year that passes the demographic is shifting our way.
James sorry have your blog back! Remain a fan, I just like to talk these things through, and absolutely do not hold with the notion we all must agree on everything because there is an election. Machine politics is the enemy.
What do people expect the SNP to do? Bring down a Labour government that voted for Trident, thereby allowing in a Tory government who also will have voted for Trident?
ReplyDeleteI think not.
Sadly some people seem to think student/gesture politics is a realistic approach when we know perfectly well what we have to do.
DeleteContinue to build support (and with over 105,000 members I don't think we'll be taking any lessons in how to do that) and show the scottish public we can be trusted to act in their interests and fight to achieve progressive policies for a better scotland.
We certainly won't win the next indyref or even get to that point acting petulantly or without thought.
Opinium Scottish sub-sample SNP 45% : Lab 25% : Con 17% : LD 5% : UKIP 3% : Grn 5%.
ReplyDeleteYou lot should stop being so fkn naive. Labour mps say now that they are against trident. Wonder why. When the election is over, they will change their mind. Once again, it will be proven that scotlands votes in parliament do not matter. The tories will vote with labour, labour mps will be whipped. Like they always have been.
ReplyDeleteYouGov have released a bit more from that Scottish poll first released on Thursday night.
ReplyDeleteIndependence question is now at 46Y, 49N and 5DK - translates to 48-52.
There's other stuff, such as "which party would be best for doing XYZ". Also when do you think there should be a second referendum, and when do you think there *will* be a referendum. Shows a certain level of pessimism amongst unionists.
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/8erf64vigv/Times_Scotland_Results_150409_Formatted_readyforwebsite_secondset.pdf
There are still parts of the poll missing - I was reliably informed there were questions about Frenchgate, such as 'do you think.Nicola Sturgeon said it?'
DeleteI thought some parts being released and not others was against the polling rules?
DeleteThe problem with Trident is that it is a single issue - issue. It is not the reason hopefully around 50% of the electorate will be voting SNP on 7th May. Some will be, same as some voted YES because Independence would get rid of Trident, not just the renewal, but probably the existing Vanguards by around 2026.
ReplyDeleteBut even if the desire not to renew Trident attracts more than 50% of the whole electorate of Scotland, it's a question of peoples' priorities. For most I would say it's really quite low down the list. To be worried about having a nuclear deterrent stuck in your backyard, you have to have a backyard in the first place, food in your belly and clothes on your back. That would mostly be provided by a job, for which you would need to be healthy to actually get to. And you'd want to have some security in that job, and a good decent wage. Any kids you'd want to get a good education, so that they too can have all that, and hopefully more than you have.
Worrying about Trident is a luxury for most people, austerity and its effects would be a higher prirority for most. Sturgeon iswas CND, so it's a high priority for her, but she is as aware of most peoples priorities as I think I am.
If it's a case of reducing the UK Government's austerity program and adding that £180 billion worth of spending, bringing more pwoers to Scotland in, indeed, that gradualist approach to self-determination, or wasting all on a flounce out of the House of Commons over the impossibility of getting a vote not to renew Trident, the path ahead is very clear to any pragmatists - or realist.
The whole issue of a nuclear deterrent is divisive. What is clear is that most people think £100bn could be better spent. If we accept the principle argument that they can't be uninvented, then arguing for a minimal, cheaper, air based deterrent is more likely to get support.
ReplyDelete10 bombs have the same deterrent effect as 200 missiles, especially when we are in NATO anyway. All it takes is 1 getting through to flatten Moscow.
As soon as you get rid of 'continuous at sea deterrence', the concept of mutually assured destruction is gone, because the nuclear capability could be taken out by a surprise strike. Really, what's the point of keeping these things? Sweden gets by quite happily without having the theoretical capacity to annihilate the population of Moscow.
DeleteBecause America still has them. This is only an argument for deterrence against Russia or China, not against smaller states. Frankly the UK's missile force isn't enough to deter either Russia or China and Labour quietly downgraded the capability last time around.
DeleteNow the argument has moved on to nuclear blackmail - notice how the Tories press that button. Here a second strike has value.
BTW air based would be pretty useless, done ICBMs and cruise missiles could do most of it, especially the SS20 type. We could spend some of the money on drones and use them to deploy the nukes.
If the UK had a few fighter jet or ship launched missiles, as part of NATO, they could be in any location. Who is going to take the chance that every single bomb would be wiped out simultaneously in some crazy surprise strike? In any case, an attack on one NATO state is an attack on all. That is the deterrent. We don't need an faux independent deterrent.
DeleteI try to avoid calling people stupid but Miliband and Balls force me to do so. They're thick. They just flew up to Edinburgh and told Scots they're too poor to make it under FFA against a background that will have reminded many of wicked Osborne's sermon on the pound. It didn't occur to them in their brainlessness that this might set off some really bad associations in Scots' voters minds.
ReplyDeleteNow, the SNP leadership, in contrast, seem to me to have real intelligence and tactical nous.
So when we think about how things are going to go at Westminster after the election, we need to bear this intelligence/strategic skill gap in mind.
Who's most likely to run rings round whom?
"Why is Duncan voting Labour? Does he even know?"
ReplyDeleteCost of Trident to Scotland: £163 million a year according to Alex Salmond in a speech a couple of years ago
Cost of full fiscal autonomy to Scotland: £7.6 billion a year according to the IFS
Using Salmond's figure we could fund 40 Tridents and still have more money for public spending in Scotland than we would under full fiscal autonomy.
Sling your hook, Simon.
DeleteYou could try responding to a point like an adult for once. You implied there was something odd about anyone who doesn't support Trident voting Labour. Simple arithmetic would tell you that what the SNP are proposing (full fiscal autonomy) is many times worse than Trident is on a resource level. Choosing to stop supporting a party who might waste £163 million a year and opt instead for a party that wants to waste £7.6 billion a year doesn't make a great deal of sense, does it?
DeleteHmmmm. Obviously this is beyond the comprehension of a 'balance sheet zealot' such as yourself, Simon, but Duncan Hothersall's opposition to nuclear weapons is primarily based on morality, not money. Feel free to try again, but bear in mind that if you want to be treated like an adult, it might be an idea to behave like one, rather than the boorish behaviour we've seen from you on this blog over the last 24 hours.
DeleteActually you were the one that focused on cost. Read your second last paragraph.
DeleteAs an aside, I'm not sure I've encountered anyone quite so blinkered as you are on here. The only "argument" you seem to have is to smear anyone who disagrees with you as some kind of irrational troll with an agenda. That's generally how children behave - don't attack arguments, just come up with a reason why the person saying them should be ignored and stick your fingers in your ears. It's about as weak as debating strategies get and I think deep down you know that yourself.
And for the record, who the fuck is Simon? I can take the embarrassingly weak arguments you're coming out with, but randomly inventing names for people is bordering on the mentally ill.
"bordering on the mentally ill"
DeleteYes, I rather suspected that all I'd have to do is let you talk for long enough and your true colours would shine through even more fully. And this is the man who repeatedly pats himself on the back about his "respectful" debating style, compared to others' "childishness" in "playing the man"? Oh dear.
And by the way - it's possible to mention cost in passing without being "focused" on it. It's also possible for me to mention cost without that being Duncan's motivation. To pretend that you can't conceive of these things not being possible in order to make a tedious debating point is, I'm afraid, the sort of thing a very immature child would do.
Well, presumably with an eye on the no deal with English marginals, Labour has now firmly ruled out any deal with the SNP. No siree Bob. Uh-uh. Absolutely not. Under no circumstances.
ReplyDeleteSigh. Seriously?
“ED Miliband and Ed Balls arrive in Scotland today to capitalise on Labour’s growing poll momentum by intensifying their economic attack on the SNP and underlining a post-election deal of any kind with Nicola Sturgeon’s Nationalists has now been ruled out.“
Two parliaments, two prime ministers, one house. That’s where this bit of machismo leads.
The response of the SNP should be to say, uh, OK we’ll not bring your government down. We will support you in the initial confidence vote so that you can form a minority government. We will support you in the event of a no confidence vote should one be tabled at any time.
We will support you in matters of defence and foreign affairs (unless you propose something daft, like renewing Trident - Labour don't need the SNP to fund renewal, the Tories will vote with the Government). We will support you in those votes where Scotland’s vital interests are at stake.
Other than that, in the case of English-only legislation, being mindful of the inequity perceived by other members of this House and the English electorate at large, we will continue our time-honoured practice of abstaining from voting.
The effect of this strategy would be:
1. To have in UK matters, Ed Miliband calling the shots, installed as British Prime Minister in the UK Parliament, propped up by the SNP,
2. In EVEL matters, where the Tories have a majority, David Cameron, de facto Prime Minister of England in an English parliament.
Two parliaments, two prime ministers, one house. And we all know that a house divided against itself cannot stand. The WILL be an agreement with the SNP to prevent this.
My inner Yoda tells me Miliband by the short and curlies Sturgeon has.