Meeting of the Parliament 17 December 2015
I thank John Wilson for securing the debate and I thank all the members who contributed to what has been a thoughtful debate.
The crisis in Syria is one of the worst humanitarian disasters of recent times. The scale of the suffering is unimaginable. In the debate we have heard some of the figures for the number of people who have lost their lives or been displaced. It is important to remember that the situation in Syria is not a new one. The conflict and the regime’s bombardment of its own people have been going on for four and a half years in a brutal civil war.
It is inevitable that the recent attacks in Paris, Beirut, Istanbul and elsewhere in the world make us ask what we can do to respond and how we can keep ourselves safe. On that point, I would say two things. First, I agree with Neil Findlay’s assessment that we cannot do something for the sake of it—I think that the phrase that he used was that doing something does not mean doing anything; I certainly agree with that.
The second point concerns Jamie McGrigor’s speech, which I thought was a thoughtful contribution, although I disagreed with many parts of it. He said that there was an obligation on the UK to respond to the calls of our allies, meaning, in this case, France. The Scottish Government’s relationship with France and our allies is strong, as we would want it to be, and we would always look to strengthen it further. However, the efforts to strengthen those relationships should not be based on simply acceding to demands or requests without any critical analysis. We should always be prepared to listen to the requests of our allies, but those relationships should be based on mutual respect. For example, the relationship between France and the UK is as strong as it has ever been, despite the fact that France did not accede to the calls of the UK and the USA to get involved in Iraq, for example. It is possible to have different foreign policies and make different decisions. It is not fair to characterise that as not standing up for our allies—I know that that is not what Jamie McGrigor was doing, but others have done that.
The Scottish Government is not opposed to military intervention simply as a matter of principle. As Elaine Smith said, those who opposed air strikes do not simply believe that nothing should be done. However, as other members have said, action can be undertaken only when there is a clear objective in mind and as part of a wider, coherent strategy to achieve peace.
The solution that was proposed by the UK Government to broaden air strikes to include targets in Syria does not address the root causes of either the war in Syria or the terrorism that has affected many other countries. Indeed, as many members have said, it risks making those situations worse. The Scottish Government and I feel that, despite the fact that he was asked time and again to explain what the strategy is, the Prime Minister failed to make a convincing case that air strikes in Syria will help to end the violence or undermine extremism.
For example, MPs asked time and again how UK efforts will help to defeat Daesh when the efforts of 11 other countries, including three permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, have failed. Indeed, the fact that the Prime Minister asked Parliament for permission to bomb the Assad regime in 2013 only to return two years later for permission to bomb Daesh speaks volumes about the lack of coherent, long-term planning.
Furthermore, as others have done, we have pushed the UK Government to provide more detail on the 70,000 so-called moderate forces that would take over control of areas that were vacated by Daesh. Respected MPs from across the political spectrum and security experts have cast doubt on that figure and on answers that were given by the Prime Minister on the issue.
I want to touch on the refugee issue. Christina McKelvie spoke powerfully about how some children will not know anything other than life in a refugee camp. Everyone understands that there cannot be a military solution to the conflict in Syria. We know that it requires a diplomatic effort to find an end to the conflict. In the meantime, we must provide any assistance that we can to refugees. I have been overwhelmed by the support that has been shown across Scotland, from the efforts of local authorities to the desire of individuals to help refugees in any way they can. I am proud of the Scottish Government for leading the calls—not just this year but for many years—for refugees from Syria to be welcomed here. It is unacceptable that there are now close to 5 million Syrian refugees living in camps.
We must help the most vulnerable. The Scottish Government has provided £500,000 to help the situation in Syria and we have taken nearly 40 per cent of the refugees who arrived before Christmas. We should continue to push the UK Government to do more. That figure of 20,000 over the parliamentary term is not enough. A good start would be to opt into the European scheme and take more refugees.
Jean Urquhart, John Finnie, John Wilson and others asked what action the Scottish Government can take and where its focus should be. We must be willing to help in any way we can to build peace and help the situation in Syria when there is a diplomatic solution—there will be a diplomatic solution, even if we do not know exactly when it will happen, as peace talks are still going on. We must ensure that the conditions are right for when that negotiated settlement comes about.
The First Minister recently announced that the Scottish Government will work with the UN special envoy to Syria, Staffan de Mistura, to provide training for women in the skills that they need to contribute to the peace negotiations. I was at the meeting with the UN special envoy, who made the important point that, in his 30-plus years of conflict resolution experience, women have been the key to finding peace. He believes that sincerely and gave thoughtful reasons why that is the case. It is not a tick-box exercise; training women could fundamentally help to bring peace when a diplomatic solution is found.
It does no one any good to characterise each other as the good guys or the bad guys depending on how people chose to vote in the House of Commons debate or, indeed, on the position that they take in this chamber. I am sure that the decision to extend air strikes was a difficult one even for the Prime Minister, and many of us had sleepless nights over it. However, that decision has been made and, as Jean Urquhart said, we must continue to make the case that there is no military solution and redouble the diplomatic efforts. In the meantime, as the violence unfortunately continues, we can contribute to the efforts to achieve peace and continue to give the most vulnerable a home here in Scotland. I join other members across the chamber in saying that refugees are most certainly welcome here.