Tuesday, 20 January 2015


From the office of the proprietor

Munguin Towers,
Munguin Rise,

Dear the Labour Party of Great Britain,

I was just reading a Wings over Scotland story about your voting today on the issue of Trident Renewal, of which, incidentally, I feel you should be heartily ashamed.

I noticed that, with his usual aplomb, Stuart was able to provide a link to  the 2010 Labour manifesto "A future fair for all"  in which you said that you were committed to maintaining Britain's independent nuclear deterrent.

I was wondering if any of you could explain to me in what way a weapons system which is joined at the hip to America's system and which cannot be used with a) permission, and b) the physical passing of the firing codes from the Pentagon to the submarine commander, could be called "independent".

You might also like to comment upon the fact that the Scottish Conference, according to Neil Findlay, voted against the retention of the weapons of mass destruction. Given the alleged ''independent (not a branch office at all) nature'' of the Scottish party, (according to what you said when Iain Gray was leader, again when Johann Lamont was leader and now that Jim Murphy is leader), is it not strange that this resolution has been discarded. Particularly given that the weapons are based not 20 miles from the centre of Labour's heartlands...Glasgow.

Kind regards

Proprietor: Munguin's Republic.

PS: Take my advice and tell that dimwit Donohoe, if he can't say anything that isn't completely and laughably ridiculous, or that doesn't even remotely make sense, then he'd be better to shut up and just take the money. 

He really made a fool of himself tonight.

(Dictated by Munguin, signed in his absence by TPW.)


  1. I thought you might like this, form the Scotsman.

    George Kerevan

    Yesterday the House of Commons debated whether the UK should replace its present Trident submarine nuclear deterrent. The three main Westminster parties – who support a next-generation, seaborne deterrent – largely boycotted the discussion.

    Reason: the debate was called by the SNP and Plaid Cymru, who are opposed. Labour said it considered the debate a political gimmick – though fearing back-bench defections, shadow defence spokesman Vernon Coaker was dispatched to defend the indefensible.

    But debating the future of the Trident replacement is no gimmick. Indeed, it is urgent. For in a classic move, the Ministry of Defence used the Christmas parliamentary recess to slip out news of its latest increase in spending on the project’s “assessment phase” – a euphemism to disguise the fact parliament has not technically approved the new subs, or how many there will be. The MoD has sanctioned another £261 million of funding, £206m of which will be spent on new facilities at the BAE Systems shipyard at Barrow-in-Furness.

    There is a delicious irony in Labour refusing to join the SNP at Westminster to hold the MoD to account. Yesterday, 20 January, when the debate took place, was also the 750th anniversary of the first parliament of elected representatives at Westminster.
    And where is the MoD’s extra cash for nukes coming from? It will be “drawn down” from the future budget of the Trident replacement – a budget still not put before parliament. I could think of a lot of things one could fund in that fashion – the English NHS, for instance.

    Of course, the de facto decision to replace Trident has long since been made, by the then Labour government in December 2006. Last year, the Tory-Lib Dem coalition quietly renewed Britain’s long-standing nuclear weapons co-operation treaty with the US, the so-called Mutual Defence Agreement, which dates back to 1958. The heart of this latest iteration of the treaty is a deal to design the warheads and reactors for the new generation of subs.

    You might find it odd in a democracy that such a treaty can be signed without scrutiny by elected members. In fact, the Crown (that great euphemism for the Executive in Downing Street) merely has to lay the said renewal “before parliament” within 21 days, for it to become law. True, MPs can request a parliamentary debate. However, governments routinely get round this by simply refusing to table such a debate for supposed lack of interest or time. Labour did this brazenly in 2004, the last time the US nuclear treaty was renewed.

    Rank-and-file Scottish Labour was clearly discomforted by the decision of the party’s leadership to ignore Tuesday’s debate and side – yet again – with the Tories. Labour squirming over the Trident replacement project is standard. Back in 2007, when the Scottish Parliament voted against renewing Trident by 71 MSPs to 16, a majority of Labour members abstained. An honourable exception was Malcolm Chisholm, who actually resigned as a minister under Jack McConnell over replacing Trident.

    Clearly feeling the heat, a spokesperson for the unashamedly pro-nuke Jim Murphy put out a statement claiming: “Scottish Labour believes in a world totally free of nuclear weapons. Our record is beyond reproach… Labour governments have always led international efforts for multilateral nuclear disarmament…”

    Does Labour have a record “beyond reproach” in seeking to rid the world of nukes? On the contrary, successive Labour governments have actively promoted nuclear delivery systems...............................................continued

    1. In 1946, prime minister Clement Attlee and a small group of Labour ministers took the secret decision to build Britain’s first atomic bombs. They also ordered a fleet of V-Bombers to deliver them. Labour was just out of office by the time the first British nuke was tested in 1952. But Winston Churchill, the new Tory prime minister, happily congratulated the Labour front-bench on giving birth to the British Bomb. He added, sardonically, that “as an old parliamentarian I was rather astonished that something well over £100m could be disbursed without parliament being made aware of it”. For £100m read £4 billion in today’s money. Add in the V-Bombers and nuclear power stations to manufacture the fissile material (disguised as “peaceful” electricity generation) and Labour nearly bankrupted the Austerity Britain of the 1940s in order to join the atomic club.

      Did this buy security? Not a bit of it. The reason the Americans agreed to the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement was, in fact, to make the UK a junior partner that can never use its nukes independently of the White House. Every Lockheed Trident D5 missile at sea today is rented from the Pentagon. Royal Navy submarines must visit the US base in Kings Bay, Georgia, for the maintenance and replacement of these missiles – so much for all the referendum scare stories about Faslane.

      Trident is not an independent deterrent but an expensive – and unnecessary – political status symbol. For as a nation, we do not face any existential threat from another nuclear power. If anything, spending money on Son of Trident actually diverts cash from where it is needed most – countering the threat from Islamist terror.

      I suspect Labour’s residual support for a Trident replacement stems from the need to protect its flank from Tory attacks that it is soft on defence, or because the new subs will be built in Labour’s northern heartlands where its vote is threatened by Ukip. But if need be, skilled engineering workers in Barrow can be redeployed to build other ships for the much depleted Royal Navy. Besides, Labour has suffered electorally more from past Blairite military adventures than from alleged pacifism.

      Labour will retort – using a dubious logic – that Britain will only keep its nuclear deterrent as long as other nations do, and that it will take the lead in promoting multilateral disarmament. The trouble is that Labour has been saying this since 1946 while simultaneously spending money the UK can ill afford on each successive generation of mega-death technology.

      Besides, after the Iraq War, how can anybody believe in Labour’s credentials as an honest broker in the international arena?

  2. Brian Donohoe dear dear dear Brian!


    Gawn yersel Brain. I mean admission after admission after admission and from a Labour M.P. to boot. LOL

    1) He *ahem* admits that the Russians have their submarines sailing up the Clyde

    2) By admitting (1) he admits that there is NO anti submarine protection in Scottish waters

    3) By admitting (1) and (2) he admits that there is NO defence of Scotland or her waters

    4) by admitting (1), (2) and (3) he obviously admits that Trident is indeed a useless White Elephant

    5) by admitting (1) through (4) in the way he did he has quite clearly signalled his intent to quit politics and start up as a comedian!

    My questions for Brian are:

    1) Did he get the name of the Russian submarine captain

    2) was he at the dock side when the sub tied up

    3)Was it really him who took the orders from the crew for their fish suppers.

    4) how impressed was he with the Russian sub

    5) why did he not "do a deal" with the Russians to hire their sub until such times as Westminster can provide suitable defences for Scotland and her waters

    1. Neat piece of comedic work yerself Arbroath.

      The man's a bad joke.

    2. I try from time to time Tris. LOL

  3. Shame, on them. Party of the people, my arse. Utterly disgraceful and indefensible.

    1. The party of the (privileged) people.

  4. I see the inquiry in to the Iraq war, has been "delayed" till after the GE.

    1. They take us for fools.

      Clearly there is some very damaging stuff in here that might well affect how we vote...ie NOT for the establishment parties, but instead for independent candidates, Greens, Plaid, SNP, SSP and UKIP (who, for all their faults, can't be held responsible for war crimes).

      We need to keep it in mind that there is something, or some things, that the establishment does NOT want us to know.

  5. Tris

    Even before I started to take any real interest in politics I thought these weapons were an absolute waste of time and money. I never slept any easier knowing that should someone fire one at Scotland I would die in the comforting knowledge they their poor people would die too.

    Labour, as always, are a disgrace and all of their members are complicit. That scum of a party can't and wont change and if there are any decent members left then they should be joining the SSP. McGovern did not turn up yesterday, again, I tweeted him but not waiting for a reply. He is a part of the problem and an expense grabbing expensive one at that. I really hope the good people of Dundee West get rid of this joke of a representative as soon as possible. He shames us all.


    1. I think I can understand the assured mutual destruction principle, Bruce, although, I'm not certain that it will work.

      I stand as accused by Niko, a pacifist. I can't fathom how we could get to the 21st century, with all the sophistication that entails, and still need to kill each other like savages when we disagree about something.

      To be able to wipe out millions of people with one missile seems to me to be an ignoble boast. Surely there is something these days that would be as much of a deterrent, but would not involve ordinary folks' deaths.

      Of course there are nut jobs around the world adn we have no idea what the likes of Putin might get up to if provoked enough.

      Actually, it might be an idea not to provoke him too much (Note to King Abdullah.)

      As you say though, in the end it has never brought me any comfort that, when I am turned into a crisp I can guarantee that somewhere on another part of the globe there will be a few million people heading for the same fate. I'll not be there to see it.

      The deal is that the people who operate these weapons systems are never going to be the ones that are killed by them. The likes of David Cameron and Liz Saxe Coburg Gotha won;t be hanging about in London waiting to be frazzled.

      If the West has to have a defence system, and it all the great brains of the world have decided that it must be nuclear, then it seems rather ridiculous that one of the poorer countries in Europe, with low standards of living for the working people, should be among the countries providing it, while far richer countries do not.

  6. Bravo Munguin and Tris, I think you said all the things that so many people here in Scotland believe, that Trident does nothing other than secure the place at the "TOP" table to feed the ego of the British Prime Minister who lost that right after the second world war when they became indebted to the United States. Reading yesterday of another Labour Apparatchiks involvement with the Henry Jackson Society (Ed Ball) I wonder how the likes of Kim Philby and Co, who wandered off and helped the Soviet Union were described as Traitors whilst those who are obviously in the pay of the United States are not. I though you were regarded as a traitor if you sold your country to another?
    I shall laugh my head off if someone says Labour sent it's brightest and best to Westminster, with the likes of Brian Donohoe, how can they have. A child at primary school could have picked a whole in that silly statement. Where is Niko when you need him?

    1. Munguin humbly acknowledges the praise, Helena!!!! (Well, in as much as Munguin does anything humbly).

      Aye Donohoe showed himself up as a complete dimwit.

      It's one of these...I can;t really believe a grown up is saying this... and in something that must have been prepared. Did he not get someone else to listen to that before he came out with it.

      I refer him to Arbroath's comments above. If this is the state of the Scottish defence systems, then high time we got rid of the bombs and got a few wee Dad's army types out there looking for Russians in the Clyde.

      Still, look on the bright side, there's hope for us all if someone a dim as that can "earn" £80,000 a year!

    2. Oh Dear, just as well that my Dad is no longer here, because he was a very reluctant Dad's Army type during the war, being that he was considered to be in an industry that was needed. Though I think he would have been less reluctant if the uniform had been better. What he would have made off the Labour Party now is anyone's guess considering I remember him voting Liberal one time,

  7. tris

    This true story was told to Dr Carol Cohn some years ago by what she described as a white male physicist who was part of a group of American nuclear strategists: “’Several colleagues and I were working on modelling counterforce nuclear attacks, trying to get realistic estimates of the number of immediate fatalities that would result from different deployments. At one point, we re-modelled a particular attack, using slightly different assumptions, and found that instead of there being 36 million immediate fatalities, there would only be 30 million. And everybody was sitting around nodding, saying, ‘Oh yeh, that’s great, only 30 million,’ when all of a sudden, I heard what we were saying. And I blurted out, ‘Wait, I’ve just heard how we’re talking – Only 30 million! Only 30 million human beings killed instantly?’ Silence fell upon the room. Nobody said a word. They didn’t even look at me. It was awful. I felt like a woman.’ The physicist added that henceforth he was careful never to blurt out anything like that again.

    I felt like a woman.’ ”

    That the answer you and the others are all wimmin and we are all MEN

    1. Strangely it takes a man to recognise that he has made a mistake. A real man not some creature who thinks he is one.
      Most women respect men like that, we certainly do not care for warmongers at least I do not.

    2. Jealousy will get you no where Niko.

    3. Jimminy

      Sorry but its in my nature

  8. Re: emailing my local mp, about Trident renewal;

    Dear Jim

    Thank you for your email regarding Labour’s position on the UK’s nuclear deterrent.

    Like you, I want to see a world free of nuclear weapons, and the Labour Party recognises the importance of Britain leading international efforts for multilateral nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. The last Labour Government was the first Government of a nuclear power to call for an end to nuclear weapons, leading directly to the establishment of the Global Zero campaign.

    My personal views have been well documented, as has my support for CND.

    On Tuesday, I was in Aberdeen alongside the Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls, Scottish Labour Leader, Jim Murphy, and Shadow Energy Minister, Tom Greatrex, making the case for urgent action to support Scotland's oil and gas industry. As I am sure you are aware, hundreds of jobs have already been lost and thousands more are at risk, many of them in industry supply chains stretching across Scotland, including in our local area.

    If adopted, our Oil Industry Roadmap will safeguard the future of Scotland's Oil and Gas industry, and with it the jobs and wages of thousands of Scottish workers and their families. I hope, therefore, that both the UK and Scottish Governments will respond positively to our call for urgent action.

    I appreciate that you have strong views on this matter. However, I am sure you will also appreciate that I represent many constituents whose jobs are currently at risk.

    Yours sincerely

    Cathy Jamieson MP

    I never knew I could read weasel.

    1. Well I do not think I saw her name on the list of those who voted No. I see it was one of those letters which said "do not look over there, look over there" that Labour just love to use.
      I chose not to bother Thomas Docherty, he is another one like Jim, more concerned with the doings of the Pope than his constituents. I could not care less if he was actually working for the Vatican State but Dunfermline West, well it has many religions.

  9. Tris, off topic your readers may like this,
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30919612, you will love the smile on Nicola's face at the end.

  10. Sorry for going O/T Tris but I think you may enjoy this if you haven't already seen it. :-)


  11. Replies
    1. That's some roll call of cowardly, self aggrandising wastrels.

  12. See Jim McGovern didn't show up again....bet the slimy piece of poo still managed to claim the train fare....

    1. He was maybe doing his stint on the shore line of the Clyde on Labour's Russian Submarine Watch programme. Either that or he was runner boy for the Russian sailors fetching and carrying their fish suppers and bottles of Irn Bru!

    2. Jim? Do something useful? You must be....oh, I see! :-D