THE threat of conflict between Ukraine and Russia has rekindled grave fears of nuclear Armageddon.
For most people, the prospect of a global nuclear conflict is the stuff of nightmares.
But one House of Lords member has stunned onlookers with his blasé remarks about worldwide annihilation.
Baron Truscott, a petroleum and mining consultant, made his now infamous remarks following a statement by Lord West of Spithead.
West told the House: “The greatest risk to the survival of mankind is not global warming, it is an accidental thermonuclear war.
“One has only to look at the dreadful behaviour of Putin, not just around Ukraine but in a number of other ways, and his very loose talk about his de-escalatory policy of using a nuclear weapon should he be losing a conventional war, to see what the real risks are.”
READ MORE: 'How about naw': Gove's plan to move House of Lords to GLASGOW ridiculed
Tory peer Baroness Goldie replied: “That would be a very alarming prognosis and a very unwelcome outcome, which I obviously hope can be avoided.”
Aside from a few Bond villains, few would consider that response to be controversial.
But amazingly, Truscott took issue with the description of nuclear Armageddon as an “unwelcome outcome”.
In a written question submitted in December, he asked: “Further to the remarks by Baroness Goldie on 29 November (HL Deb, col 1130), what are their reasons for believing that a thermonuclear war with Russia would be an ‘unwelcome outcome’?”
The question has now gone viral on social media after resurfacing amid reports of a potential Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Reassuringly, Goldie was steadfast in her reply.
“It is difficult to envisage any scenario in which war, whether accidental, thermonuclear or otherwise, and irrespective of which other parties may be involved, would be a welcome outcome,” came the curt response. “Her Majesty's Government is committed to resolving issues peacefully and diplomatically wherever possible.”
READ MORE: 'Squid for brains' Tory chairman claims 'woke psychodrama' is endangering the West
If Truscott's name sounds familiar, you may know him from the 2009 expenses scandal when he and another peer were suspended from Parliament for six months for offering to change the law in exchange for cash.
He was also criticised in 2017 after pocketing nearly £57,000 in taxpayer-funded allowances despite speaking just three times in a year.
In case anyone needed it, here’s yet another reminder of how ludicrous the unelected House of Lords is.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel