| UNISON City of Edinburgh Branch |
|
 |
|
|
CONFERENCE 2007 Trident threat to peace - and public services UNISON's National Conference backed Edinbugh's motion to reaffirm the union's campaign to oppose Trident replacement, warning that the billions of pounds it would cost to replace the missile would mean huge cuts in public services. "The money for Trident doesn't come out of the defence budget. It comes out of general revenue", said Edinburgh's John Stevenson moving the composited motion on behalf of three branches, Scotland and the NEC. "It doesn't come from fewer tanks - it comes from fewer public services and up to 3,000 fewer jobs in Scotland". But it was not just the £76 billion costs that mattered, there were legal and moral arguments against Trident. "As long ago as 1996 some of the judges on the International Court of Justice concluded that the use of nuclear weapons was inadmissible in any circumstances. That is our position in UNISON", said John. He told delegates that MSP Michael Matheson has drafted a Bill for the Scottish Parliament to make it an offence to support or commission acts furthering the threat to use or the use of nuclear weapons of mass destruction. "We are proud of the majority of Scottish MPs who voted to scrap the weapons. Of over half of all Labour backbench MPs who voted against. "We are proud of the MSPs, most of whom oppose Trident. We need to build and maintain links with them and this motion calls for that", said John. John argued there was public support for UNISON's position. "58% of people oppose Trident at this cost and almost half at any cost. Eight out of 10 want a full parliamentary debate and that is what we want", he said. UNISON Scottish Convenor Mike Kirby quoted a report by Scottish CND and the STUC showing that replacing Trident will cost more jobs than it provides. "But the funds released by arms conversion would create a major opportunity for proactive investment particularly in renewable energy development and manufacturing", he said. The report challenged false claims that 11,000 jobs would be lost if Trident were not replaced. In fact the reduction in direct, indirect and civilian employment would be less that 1,600 and that would take until 2022. Concluding, John Stevenson turned to the moral argument. "At the STUC in April, our regional secretary Matt Smith quoted former UN Nuclear Weapons Inspector Hans Blicks. "So long as any state has nuclear weapons, others will want them - and so long as any such weapons remain there is a risk they will one day be used by design or accident. And such use would be catastrophic". "That is the argument. Not the cost. Not the arms race. Not defence. But basic simple humanity For humanity's sake, say no to Trident" |
||||