DAVID Lammy has said Russia’s invasion of Ukraine forced his conversion to become pro-nuclear weapons.
The shadow foreign secretary claimed Vladimir Putin would not have invaded its neighbour if Ukraine had kept its weapons of mass destruction.
In an interview with the i newspaper, Lammy explained how he had come to support Trident, after voting against it in 2016.
He is charged with hypocrisy both by the Tories, who are pro-nuclear weapons and the pro-independence parties who are against them.
Lammy told the paper: “Had Ukraine been allowed to retain their nuclear weapons after its independence from the Soviet Union, they would not have faced the invasion that they did from Putin.”
READ MORE: John Swinney and Anas Sarwar clash in TV debate over Labour's economy plans
As shadow foreign secretary, Lammy is a member of the Privy Council which he said meant he had been given access “on bipartisan terms” which had demonstrated the “seriousness of the systemic risk that Vladimir Putin poses to our country”.
He added: “So, for all of those reasons, the nuclear deterrent is essential, and that’s why John Healey [Labour’s shadow defence secretary] has talked about the triple lock, which is about upgrading our submarines, absolutely 100% maintenance of trident and, of course, our long-term commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence.”
Lammy has previously spoken of his admiration for Labour’s post-war foreign secretary Ernest Bevin, one of the fathers of Nato and one of the key proponents for the creation of Britain’s nuclear weapons programme.
But deputy Labour leader Angela Rayner has insisted she remains personally opposed to nuclear weapons, telling the BBC: “I haven’t changed my mind.”
She also voted against the renewal of Trident in 2016 and The Guardian reported that four years ago she wrote to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament that she was committed to a “a world without nuclear weapons”.
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