Hansard

I, too, congratulate John Wilson on bringing this pertinent motion and giving us all an opportunity to discuss it.

The motion talks about “bombing densely populated areas”. We know that after the second world war, the first location where that happened was in Chechnya, when Russia carpet-bombed Grozny. I think that history will show that they did so with the compliance of the west. It was part of a deal that links in with another phrase from the motion, about

“Western military action in the Middle East”.

We know that there is ample precedent for that, and I will talk about a couple of cases.

One is Iraq. We went there on a false premise and if we could set aside the obscene levels of death there—although I suggest that we do not—the question is, did we achieve our aims? Indeed, what were our aims?

Libya is another example—people will remember the “deal in the desert”. Again, if we could set aside the obscene levels of death, which I suggest that we do not, the question is whether we achieved our aims. What were those aims?

What we have done is delivered anarchy to both those countries. No one doubts for one minute—and I am no different—that there is an obligation on the United Kingdom to protect its citizens. That should be done by assessing the risks and putting in place mechanisms to deal with them.

None of the assessed risks that the UK faces, which are the same as those faced by every western liberal democracy and concern things such as continuity of energy supply, food, cyber-attack and terrorism, are going to be addressed by bombing, anywhere.

Language is very important. As with everything, we need to ask whose interests are being served by any particular action. I suggest that it is not always those of the nation state—very frequently it is those of the arms industry. How depressing that a senior UK politician talks about Britain having “got its mojo back”. Whatever a mojo is, if killing and mindlessly inflicting violence on another country is what gets it back then I say again, not in our name.

We know that munitions made 30 miles from here have contributed to death in the Middle East—the killing in the Yemen. The role that Saudi Arabia plays in that shows that it is a vile and obscene regime. Everything that is said about Daesh could be repeated in respect of it.

To go back to the language that is used, we are told that the west is very keen to see democracy. However, we know that when it comes to Palestine or Egypt, that is not necessarily the case. Who determines who are the goodies and who the baddies? I have the highest regard for our Kurdish sisters and brothers, who are from the largest dispossessed nation in the world, but a nation that the west was not interested in when Saddam Hussein gassed them. Now they are back onside, but there are all sorts of conflicts relating to NATO’s involvement and the role of Turkey, which is seizing its opportunity to attack our Kurdish brothers and sisters.

I wonder whether it is a good or a bad thing for a country to have oil. Would it help South Sudan, or Myanmar and the minority population that is being abused there, if they did or did not have oil? We need to be alert to all of the dangers that are associated with this conflict. As ever, I prefer tanks to Tornados. I am concerned that we fuel the conflict by our investment in the arms trade, and I include in that investment by the Scottish parliamentary pension scheme.

I have to say that I just get the impression that the United Kingdom likes war. I do not like war; I like the role that the Scottish Government will play in conflict resolution. I do not like the demonisation of people who oppose violence. I will oppose violence from every quarter. I want adherence to international law, I want respect for human rights, and I want one world and one humanity.

I do not want a piece of the action. The action that I want a piece of is showing compassion to our Syrian refugees. Fortunately, we will be showing compassion to everyone who is coming to the isle of Bute.