Hansard

I, too, congratulate John Wilson on bringing the debate to the chamber. There have been some really good contributions from members. I had feared, watching some of the debate around the issue, that we might follow some of what has been said elsewhere, and I am pleased that that has not happened.

People who present the issue—whichever side they are on—as a debate between the good guys who do not want to bomb and the bad guys who do are doing their case no credit whatsoever. That kind of argument, without any nuance or recognition of the complexity of the situation, considerably weakens—and certainly does not bolster—the argument against bombing.

I am absolutely clear in my opposition to the bombing of Syria, not as a pacifist or an appeaser but because of my view of what is a very complex situation. Willie Coffey explained the complexity of the situation at the beginning of his speech very well, and my view is pretty straightforward.

In a situation in which a long, protracted, devastating civil war has tragically reduced a proud, sophisticated, cultured and developed country to one big pile of rubble, and in which Daesh—or ISIL or ISIS, or whatever title they operate under—is engaged in nihilistic barbarism and brutality, we must consider whether we assist and make the situation better or make it worse by sending in our planes to join the thunderstorm of bombs raining down on that land. Will air strikes deradicalise and de-escalate an already appalling situation, or will they escalate it further and further radicalise those who have nothing left to lose?

Will creating more Syrian orphans and widows hasten the end of the civil war? Will the demolition of more homes, factories and infrastructure, and what remains of civil society, help to prevent French citizens from killing French citizens in the concert halls of Paris? Will the inevitable collateral damage—in other words, the deaths of more innocent people—prevent otherwise respectable US citizens living in suburban America from stockpiling weapons and then going to a Christmas party and wiping out dozens of people? I just cannot see how that will be the case.

In reality, has the war on terror that was unleashed following the horrendous events on 9/11 brought an end to terrorism or stoked the flames of terrorism further? The war on terror, far from making the world a safer place, has made it a much more dangerous place. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria: I have to ask, what have we learned? Not very much, it would appear.

The desire to do something does not mean that we should do just anything. The reality is that, in an age of spectacularly advanced technology and modern communications, we cannot bomb our way to victory over terrorists such as Daesh, who operate in a cell structure. Where are they based, where do they live and who are they? Well, who knows?

As we have seen from past events, such as the Glasgow airport bombing, terrorists are in fact doctors, teachers, accountants and information technology consultants: people doing normal, everyday jobs. That type of threat will never be ended through military hardware. It must be dealt with by cutting off funding, propaganda and communications; through education; and by ending the civil war in Syria and the conflicts across the middle east that stoke resentment and feelings of helplessness.

I will try to finish on a more upbeat point. Today, two lorries will come to Livingston to pick up donations that my local Labour Party has collected for Syria. Hundreds of boxes will be sent to help the refugees in Germany, and I am very proud that we did that. The response from the public in West Lothian was huge.

I do not pretend to have any answers, but one thing I know is that bombing is not the solution.