This video from Scotland says about itself:
4 April 2015
At George Square, Glasgow.
From daily The Morning Star in Britain:
Dodging the Trident issue
Friday 10th april 2015
ACCORDING to Ed Miliband, “Michael Fallon is a decent man” who has demeaned himself and his office by suggesting that the Labour leader stabbed his brother in the back and would do the same to Britain’s defences.
By responding in this way, Miliband avoids joining Fallon in the gutter to exchange personal insults.
But, in assuring us that “national security is too important to play politics with,” he also dodges the necessity to confront the Tory lie that our people’s national security depends on possession of unaffordable weapons of mass destruction.
“When Britain could face nuclear blackmail by rogue states, this self-indulgent approach is more suited to a student protest group than a party of government,” he wrote.
The logic of this stance is that every non-nuclear state is open to blackmail and, consequently, every state that values its independence ought to develop a nuclear arsenal.
Yet international law commits all nuclear states to do everything they can to prevent proliferation and indeed to take steps towards disarmament.
In any case, a number of former nuclear states – South Africa and ex-Soviet republics – have turned their backs on possession of nuclear weapons and none has been subject to blackmail by mythical “rogue” states.
Such hypocrisy comes naturally to Tory politicians imbued with nostalgia for Britain’s empire, when our country’s ruling class could order the rest of the world about.
Commitment to an independent nuclear deterrent that is neither independent nor a deterrent reflects a desire to pose as one of the imperialist elite as though little had changed since Victoria was on her throne.
Their only role is to enable the Westminster government to pose as a major world power and to permit British politicians to engage in willy-waving global summits – all the while glancing over their shoulders to make sure that they are in step with transatlantic big brother.
The one certainty about Trident missiles is that they neither should nor could be fired.
Any prime minister who deployed them against a non-nuclear state would be an international pariah risking an appearance at the International Criminal Court.
Worst still, opening fire on a nuclear power would be an insanely suicidal act since it would invite retaliation that would dispatch this island beneath the waves.
So what basis can there be for dogged determination to hold on to these WMD other than a cowardly fear of being deemed soft on “defence” issues?
Every major parliamentary party acknowledges the “need” to implement public spending cuts but is prepared to waste up to £100bn on a white elephant project to replace the Trident fleet of Vanguard-class submarines.
There are often hard choices to make in politics, but where is the difficulty prioritising need?
With 13 million people living in poverty in Britain and over a million dependent on parcels from foodbanks, how can replacing a genocidal weapons system be seen as most important?