IN THE spirit of the new politics of honesty that Jeremy Cobyn is trying to usher into the Labour Party, I won’t claim the position on Trident that emerged from the Labour Party conference was not a setback.

Perhaps some of us thought that if we could get Jeremy elected then anything was possible. This included a rapid shift on Labour’s pro-renewal position on Trident, a position that leans heavily on trade union concerns about jobs and deep-seated assumptions about Britain’s role in the world that have infected the Labour Party for a long time.

Just how deep-seated this is can be seen in the imperialism of Clement Attlee’s government. For all the social and economic advances it made, we should not forget its role in developing Britain’s nuclear capacity.

In the event, support for a debate on Trident was just 0.16 per cent of the trade union vote while support among constituency Labour parties was scarcely better at 7.1 per cent.

What that meant was that when the national policy document was endorsed by conference (no amendments are allowed), Labour was left with the multilateralist position set out under the “global role” section of that report: “A brief discussion took place on the UK’s nuclear deterrent. Attendees welcomed Labour’s renewed focus on and commitment to multilateral disarmament and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, while also acknowledging the heavy reliance of north-west England and Scotland on the defence jobs created as a result of this capability.”

In itself the statement reflects the concern for jobs and a laudable desire for non-proliferation and mutual disarmament.

This, you might argue, is not the best but perhaps not the worst platform to develop a unilateral position from. After all, there are five years to the next election. So what’s the rush?

Besides, the absolute need to focus on an anti-austerity programme so brilliantly launched by McDonnell is worth the, hopefully temporary, delay.

This ignores three enemies to the Corbyn project: time, momentum and money.

Time, or perhaps timing, is a problem. In May 2016 we have the Scottish Parliament elections and the SNP, as expected, has already fastened on to the Labour Party conference as evidence that the Corbyn project is doomed.

The prospect of a left-wing challenge by a party that the SNP has characterised as irredeemably right-wing (on the basis of its need to assuage an inherent tendency to the right by the English electorate) strikes a discordant note in the SNP’s incessantly piped political message.

Corbyn’s victory, after all, was clearly based on a radical movement emerging in the cities and shires of England, demonstrating the SNP’s limited understanding of the dynamics of class politics.

Here is the SNP deputy leader Stewart Hosie: “Labour’s position on Trident has become utterly indefensible ... Jeremy Corbyn needs to be straight with the people of Scotland — will Labour oppose Trident nuclear weapons on our shores, or simply allow the Tories to go ahead with this outdated and unwanted project?”

It is clear, therefore, that this could hobble the Scottish Labour Party’s fight against the nationalists.

The implications of this for the Corbyn project are two-fold. If Labour in Scotland, as currently expected, is defeated, perhaps in a way that threatens its very future, Labour’s right — having helped limit Scottish Labour’s capacity to defeat the SNP— will lay the blame for the defeat at Corbyn’s door.

Further, if Corbyn is seen as unable to deliver the kind of radical policies his election promised, the very energy that took him to the leadership — in the shape of many who have never been involved in politics and others returning in the hope of something better than earlier experiences — will dissipate, making it that much more difficult to win elections.

This is especially true in Scotland where cynicism about politics has an alternative in the welcoming arms of a nationalist project that promises the indulgence of all political dreams no matter how contradictory.

And then of course there are the fiscal implications of paying for Trident and what that would mean for John McDonnell’s economic strategy. As pressure mounts for a detailed account of what a left Budget will actually look like, the shadow chancellor, if Trident is to be renewed, will have to factor in these costs.

There is of course a heated argument over what it will actually cost, but CND estimates it will be £100bn over a projected 40-year lifespan. That means £2bn to £2.4bn per year that has to be found in a left-wing Budget that McDonnell has promised “would be lifting the burden from middle and low-income earners.” His capacity to do that would surely be constrained by such a spending commitment.

Of course, all of these negative consequences can be avoided if it becomes clear that the current Labour position on Trident is temporary. And indeed it may be. As I write, constituencies and affiliated organisations are submitting motions for debate at the Scottish Labour Party conference which takes place at the end of this month. Many of those are calling for an end to support for Trident renewal.

Furthermore, they reflect an understanding of the legitimate worry about jobs in the defence sector and hence they reflect the need for a credible defence diversification strategy.

Prospects of success are strong. Alex Rowley, the deputy leader of the Scottish Labour Party, supports such a move. And although not personally committed, the new leader Kezia Dugdale has made it clear that she would accept such a shift as part of her new dispensation for a more open and democratic Scottish Labour Party.

If Scottish Labour can adopt such a position in a country where Trident is based then there is every hope that next year the Labour Party will change its position on Trident.

As McDonnell put it at the end of his speech to the Labour Party conference: “We remain inspired by the belief and hope that another world is possible. This is our opportunity to prove it. Let’s seize it.”