Hustings #2
After the Hampden hustings, it was on to Galashiels for a hustings arranged by The Scotsman as part of its “Union Debate” series.
We’re always being told that public meetings belong in the past, and that they have no place in modern day elections. I think that’s a shame, but I also think that’s wrong – there was a healthy turnout in the Volunteer Hall, and the debate (and it was a genuine exchange of views) was heated, but actually took us all beyond the usual superficial discussion of issues which plagues modern politics. (A report on the hustings is available here.)
The Scotsman intended these debates to be about the Union and Scotland’s place in it 300 years on. I think in most cases they are turning into more general political discussions, but the paper deserves credit for having organised them nonetheless. We covered a range of issues from Trident to the education system. Not even the Labour candidate was backing the Government’s line on Trident, which led to me being the only one defending the concept of a nuclear deterrent being retained by the UK.
Personally, I don’t think we should take decisions about renewing Trident lightly – but the argument we often hear, that the nature of the threat which confronts us has changed, and that Trident will be no use against terrorism, I think misses the point. Nuclear deterrence did work during the cold war – and as a result of the West winning the stand off with the Soviet Bloc, millions of people from Eastern Europe now live in democracies and have freedoms their parents could only dream about. Of course Trident wouldn’t be used against terrorists – they demand a different response; the issue surely is that we have to confront the terrorist threat as well as ensuring we can defend our country against other emerging threats.
As usual, you think of the best comeback when the moment has passed. The question was asked “Who would we be aiming Trident at”. It’s a fair point, and the answer today might not be the same as it was when the current system replaced Polaris when I was growing up – but isn’t the whole point of it that we don’t know who will confront us or when? That’s why I think we need a nuclear deterrent – because we simply don’t know what we will face in the future. And in an uncertain world, we need to make sure that we are prepared for the worst, even as we hope for the best.
Not everyone agrees with my view on this (that’s an understatement); Simon Jenkins makes the case against renewal better than most in The Guardian.
On a lighter note, the best line, and I don’t think it was deliberate, was Jeremy Purvis being asked by David Lee of the Scotsman after a discussion on the benefits (as she saw them) of independence from Christine Grahame, “Jeremy, how far would you go with Christine Grahame?”
I’ll leave you to guess the answer.
March 14, 2007 at 10:52 am
Derek,
Very interesting contribution, but why is your banner the St. George’s Cross in negative? Not very positive is it? We need some red white and blue old boy. You look like one of those horrid Nats. Would also like to see you going stronger on the benefits we get from union and that the Scots are heavily subsidised by us and doing rather well from it.
Jim Silvey
March 14, 2007 at 2:59 pm
A very unusual case to make that we should spend £20bn+ on weapons of mass destruction which we don’t have a clear idea what their use may be for? Why not delay a replacement decision until the current Trident system is exhausted (at least another 10 years), or buy a new Trident system in 20 years time when you have a better rationale for its use? Wouldn’t the £20bn be better spent on hospitals, schools, soldiers even or tackling climate change?
March 14, 2007 at 5:37 pm
If we were to privatise hospitals, schools and there is a case for our armed forces also, then we could still have Trident, but would you boys support that? I say privatise the lot. I am certain most real Conservatives would agree.