THIS morning at 11am we marked the 97th anniversary of the Armistice that brought ‘the Great War’ – ‘the war to end all wars’ – to a halt in 1918.

On Sunday I once again had the great privilege of laying a wreath at the war memorial in Port Glasgow in honour of those who sacrificed their lives for our country in this conflict. Sadly it did not prove to be the war that ended all wars and only 21 years later the world was plunged into further and more destructive conflict in World War II.

Both world wars had their political origins in Europe. In the aftermath of the second there was a determination that it should never happen again. This led to the creation of the Council of Europe in 1949, the forerunner of what we call today the European Union.

Europe was however divided in 1945 by the so-called ‘Iron Curtain’, with countries to the east coming under Soviet domination and in some cases occupation. This period ushered in the ‘Cold War’ and the threat of a nuclear holocaust that certainly would be the ‘war to end all wars’.

With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union Europe is now a very different place from it was in 1945. We have experienced a period of 70 years without conflict between the major powers and the European Union has expanded to include many of the former Soviet bloc countries.

It is against this backdrop we should perhaps consider two of the major political debates facing the UK at this time: whether to remain in or leave the European Union and whether to renew or abandon our independent nuclear deterrent.

The debate over our membership of the EU is likely to focus on the economic impacts of remaining or leaving, including the impact on jobs, and the political arguments around whether we should make our own decisions or continue, as some would see it, to be ruled from Brussels. Where have we heard these arguments before? The current Conservative UK Government is committed to an in-out referendum on the EU some time in 2017.

The decision we make will have profound implications for Scotland and for the UK as a whole, including us here in Inverclyde.Next year we are likely to have a similarly profound debate over the future of the UK independent nuclear deterrent, although this time the decision will be taken by our parliamentarians rather than the people.

I’m sure nevertheless our Members of Parliament will listen to our views before casting their vote. The debate is already well underway in Scotland with both the Scottish Labour Party and the Scottish Parliament recently voting overwhelmingly against the renewal of Trident.

As a Young Socialist back in the 1980s I actively campaigned for the removal of the US nuclear submarine base at the Holy Loch and the scrapping of the British nuclear deterrent.

I was a founding member of the Inverclyde Peace Festival, joined CND and lobbied for Inverclyde to be declared a nuclear-free zone.

Thirty years on I am older but not necessarily any the wiser.

It is true the thought of using nuclear weapons is abhorrent. It is also true that the cost of renewing Trident is huge and the money could be spent on many good causes. Cynically we could get rid of Trident and continue to shelter under the American nuclear umbrella as part of NATO. There are those who support the renewal of Trident to protect the thousands of jobs at Faslane and Coulport, including the jobs of many workers from Inverclyde. While I have sympathy with this view, the decision about renewing Trident has to be taken on strategic defence grounds.

Before abandoning our independent nuclear deterrent we should be convinced this will indeed help to make the world a safer place and that there are better ways of defending our country.

Whether it be on the EU or on Trident, we would not wish to make any decision that could undermine the relative peace and security we have enjoyed in Europe for the past 70 years, a peace that so many gave their lives to secure.