02/12/2015 Politics Scotland

Minister and Labour. As I understand it, Jeremy Corbyn spoke up and spoke

about attacks on Syria by the UK immediately after the Prime

Minister. But as I understand t the summing up by Labour will be done by

Hilary Benn, who takes the opposite point of view and who'll vote for

the Government? Incredibly difficult. Hilary Benn was sitting

next to Jeremy Corbyn when he made his comments opening the debate. You

are right, when the debate closes just before 10.00pm, the summing-up

for the official opposition, for Labour, will be made by the Foreign

Secretary, Hilary Benn and he will he argue directly against what his

leader has been saying. Hilary Benn is on the record as saying he

believes that the UK and UK Government ought to go ahead and

take military action in Syria, to extend the air strikes. That shows,

just over this whole process, how divisive this issue has been for

Syria. The Conservatives, they have rebels, they have people who don't

#130r the Prime Minister's line on this, far fewer. Labour is split

down the middle on this issue. We had a very fractious Shadow Cabinet

meeting on fund this week where Jeremy Corbyn wanted his team it

back him and say they would be opposed to air strikes. The Shadow

Cabinet said they were not going to wear that. That's why we have this

compromise for Labour, where they have a free vote where, they can

vote as they please on this one. But it will be, on parliamentary terms,

on such a crucial defence and foreign affairs issue, to have the

leader of the main Opposition party arguing one thing and then, as the

debate closes tonight, his foreign affairs spokesman arguing something

completely different. It will be extraordinary in parliamentary

terms. #12k3w4r this idea, David of directly challenging people, seems

to be the tactic du jour. We had Jeremy Corbyn challenging the Prime

Minister to apologise and Angus Robertson of the SNP he was having

some success by basically challenging anyone from the

Government to explain how many of the 70,000 ground force that is

supposedly are there, to move into areas like Raqqa, how many are in

Angus Robertson's phrase "moderate" who would support the queft? This is

what opponents of David Cameron see as a weak point. He mentioned the

figure of 70,000 that his security experts have said were potentially

ground troops who could go in to Raqqa and other places in Syria,

once Isil had been bombed. But a lot of people say it is far fewer, and

they are a disparate group, and their main aim is fighting the Assad

regime, not Islamic state And it'll be very difficult to get them to

physically coalesce. There is no guarantee they'll want to go to

Syria and fight Islamic State. This is a chink, in David Cameron's

armour, hence why Angus Robertson and other opposition parties are

going for it strongly. Don't go away.

The Prime Minister, David Cameron, opened the debate saying Governments

of all colours had to make decisions on how to fight terrorism, not

whether to. But he was interrupted by Opposition MPs demanding he

apologise for his comments that people who planned to vote against

military action were terrorist sympathisers. David Cameron said he

respected people who disagreed with his position and reminded the House

of the case for extending air strikes to Syria. Isil have brutally

murdered British hostages. They've inspired the worst British attack

against British people since 7/7 on the beaches of Tunisia and plotted

atrocity after atrocity on the streets here at home. Since November

last year our Security Services have foiled no fewer than seven different

plots against our people. This threat is real and the question is

this: Do we work with our allies to destroy and degrade this threat and

do we go after these terrorists in their heart lands from where they

are plotting to kill British people or sit back and wait for them to

attack us. The Labour Leader, Jeremy Corbyn,

opposes the bombing, but has given This morning he said public opinion

was moving increasingly against what he called

"an ill-thought-out rush to war". Whether it is a lack of strategy

worth the name, the absence of credible ground troops, the missing

diplomatic plan for a Syrian settlement, the failure it address

the impact of the terrorist threat or the refugee crisis and civilian

casualties, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Prime

Minister's proposals for military action simply do not stack up.

The SNP's Westminster leader, Angus Robertson, said the UK Government

would have "a huge problem with legitimacy and mandate" in Scotland

It may well win the vote tonight but it will do so with the support of

only two out of 59 Scottish MPs. Opinion polls released today show

that is 72% of Scots are opposed to the bombing plans of the Government.

And in normal circumstances, in a normal country under these

circumstances, the Armed Forces would not be deployed.

Let's go over to the House of Commons where the debate is taking

If we think that the coalition air strikes should continue, can we

really say no, when France, having gone through the terrible ordeal of

Paris, says they want our help in continuing those air strikes now?

And I have argued, in this place and elsewhere, continually, for our

country to do far more, to share in the international support for

refugees who are fleeing the conflict. I still think we should do

much more and not leave it to other countries alone. But that same

argument about santurary applies to security. And I don't think we have

leave it to other countries to take the strain. I cannot ignore the

advice from security experts, that without coalition air strikes over

the next 12 months, the threat from Daesh in the region, but also in

Europe and in Britain, will be much greater. And I think we have to do

our bit to try to contain that threat - not to promise we can

defeat or overthrow it in the short term because we cannot but at least

to contain what they do. I also think it is important to make sure

we degrade their capacity to obliterate the remaining moderate

and opposition forces, however big they are, because when Vienna does

get properly moving, there has to be opposition forces. It cannot simply

be a peace debate involving Assad and Daesh as the only forces left

standing. That will never bring peace and security to the region.

So, if we are to do our bit, and to take the strain, I think we also

need to have more limited objectives than the Prime Minister has set out.

In self-defence, to support the peace process, but not just to

create a vacuum for Assad to sweep into. It makes the imperative of

avoiding civilian casualties even greater. Because where there is any

risk that people are being used as human shields to cover targets.

However important those targets might be, those air strikes should

not go ahead. It makes the imperative of civilian protection

even greater And that's not mentioned in the Government's

motion. It should be the central objective, not just for the

humanitarian troops prevent the refugee crisis but also to prevent

the recruitment that fuelled Isis. I think time limits, too T I don't

sporan open-ended commitment to air strikes until Daesh are defeated as

I know the Foreign Secretary raised yesterday. Because if it isn't

working in six months, or if it proves counter-productive, we should

be ready to review and we should also be ready to withdraw. And we

will need to review this. I think tonight we should lend the

Government support and keep that under review, not to give them an

open-ended commitment that this should carry on, whatever the

consequences might be. I would say finally to the Government - I have

#1e7d their argument but if we want coalition air strikes to continue on

an international basis, we should be part of that. -- I have accepted

their argument. But I would urge them to accept my argument, that we

should do more to be part of supporting santurary for refugees

fleeing that conflict, too. And there are no easy answers in here

but I would say, too, in the interests of cohesion in our

politics and in our country, the way we conduct this debate is immensely

important. None of us, however we vote tonight, are terrorist

sympathisers and none of us will have blood on our hands. The blood

has been drawn by Isis, Daesh, in Paris, across the world and that's

who we must stand against. THE SPEAKER: A five-minute limb I it on

backbench speeches will now apply. -- limit.

Has been a great deal of talk about solidarity with our French allies

following Paris. It is all very well to talk. To make a mockery of our

own credibility if we ignore security council resolution which

has been secured unanimously. We cannot ignore that call and expect

our international partners to look at as with any shred of respect or

goodwill. How can we have any self respect if we read this fight to the

brave Kurdish woman fighting with antiquated weapons? But this is not

all about national pride, or self-respect. It is about keeping

the British people safe. Those at risk are being murdered by

terrorists and those at risk are being brainwashed into joining them.

I welcome the Prime Minister's announcement that 5 million will go

towards the establishment of a unit to counter extremism. And the

announcement of a review to root out those funding extremists in the UK.

According to a University Professor at 95% of Daesh recruits are signed

up by friends and family. There are few things more dangerous than

misfit to think they can live out side the law being recruited by the

lure of Daesh. It is one of the most barbaric and she digitally dangerous

enemies we have ever faced. Its ability to recruit or delete

Westerners and transform them into murderers and suicide bombers and

its lack of mercy to any man, woman or child are unparalleled. It

creates, in sleaze and decapitates. It's victims are Muslims, currents,

French, British. It's a growth depends on the steady beat of

battlefield Victor Ruiz, looting along the way. It plays headlines

which reinforce apocalyptic propaganda. A manager of a store in

Raqqa says that Daesh loses popularity amongst ordinary people

when it loses its brilliant Victor Ruiz. That is at the heart of this

argument. There are very destruction of the caliphate State in itself is

the right thing. It's existence along with its self proclaimed

Califf and the nonsense that they have fulfilled what happy ideology.

-- Wahabi ideology. We're joined this afternoon by Paul

Gilbride, who is a former Scottish political correspondent and

columnist for the Daily Express. The debate has been overshadowed by

David Cameron's intemperate comments about sympathisers. He has

undermined his own argument and presentation. In what should be a

crucial debate ahead. Should he have stood up at the beginning and said

something along the lines of, I did not mean what you think I meant in

those comments last mate and if anyone thinks I am suggesting that

just because they disagree with me, I am sorry. It would have taken the

sting out of that issue straightaway and then he could have proceeded

with his arguments. This blind determination to appear prime

ministerial, never apologise, has undermined his argument. The cause

you were impressed with other than that. Yes, other than that I thought

he was impressive. He too each point and explained why extending the

bombing into Syria was important. But each time there was an

intervention it seems, certainly at the beginning of his speech, it was

about a demand for him to apologise. Everyone from Alex Salmond, to come

in front, every time there was an intervention it was this point. In

many ways from a former PR man that is one of the worst PR disaster she

could have had at a crucial time before setting out his case for

Britain warming Isil. He might say he could afford to because Labour

have a problem. If it Cooper, one of the leadership contenders,

supporting with qualifications, extending the inner strikes into

Syria. We heard Jeremy Corbyn opposing it. Labour's case will be

summed up by Hilary Benn who will vote against his own meter and with

the Prime Minister. What an extraordinary situation. The Leader

of the Opposition opening a debate with one point of view and his

foreign fears spokesman causing it with the opposite point of view,

supporting the Tory Government. It is indicative of what Labour is

undergoing at the moment. It speaks a lot to, what does Labour stand

for? Let's go back to

our political correspondent, David Porter, who's on College Green with

the Conservative MP Iain Stewart. Thank you. Yes, with me is Iain

Stewart, who represents Milton Keynes constituency. He is also

parliamentary private secretary to David Mundell. He is a Scot through

and through. Why are you voting in favour of this military action? This

is a difficult decision that every MP has got to make. On balance I

fear that the risks and costs of not taking action are significantly

greater than any risk of taking action. There is a real and credible

and specific threat to the UK from Daesh at the moment. Anything we can

do to reduce that threat and the risk to lives in the UK and any

other Western Norwich City we have to take. What about the argument

that if you do attack Isil in Syria it is more likely they will at

Britain? We are already at the top of their target list. The Prime

Minister said in the debate only on that the security services have

already foiled seven very specific terrorist attacks on this country.

It is not could they attack us, they are planning to already. But

underlines why we have to strike at their heart and try and reduce as

much as we can the threats to this country. In military terms will it

make much of a difference with America and France taking such a big

rule or is it more about symbolism? It is not about symbolism. We have

the specific contribution that we can make. Our allies are asking us

to make that contribution. We cannot subcontract our defence to others.

Yes, we do have to take part. But no one is pretending that if strikes in

Syria either be all and end all. The motion is a wide ranging motion

looking at different aspects that we have to take in this conflict. It is

not a new conflict either. We are already at war with Daesh in Iraq.

They do not respect the border between Iraq and Syria. This is

merely extending it into areas where they are strong. Hopefully we can

reduce specific and real threats to this country. The Prime Minister has

made much of British military technology. But inevitably in any a

real campaign there is an inherent risk of civilian casualties. To use

that awful phrase, collateral damage. The first time that happens

there are going to be a lot of people in that place who will feel

uncomfortable. You have also got to remember that Daesh are killing

people in Syria now. They are killing Muslims. They are throwing

gay people off the tops of buildings. These are not nice

people. They are causing atrocities now. Our specific contribution, what

our allies are asking for, is we have the technology and capability

to minimise civilian casualties. That is what the Brimstone missile

does. That is the contribution we can make. It would reflect badly on

as a free did not answer those calls for help. The Prime Minister has

made much of 70,000 potential ground troops in Syria who may take action

against Isil. When people look into this it seems far more difficult to

try and mobilise those forces, whatever the numbers are. And I

think there is a fair amount of scepticism that even if Britain does

not put boots on the ground, the boots on the ground already there

will rise up and stick them on. The figure of 70,000 comes from the

Joint Intelligence Committee. It is a credible figure. But nobody is

pretending that these are a well drilled, unified force. But it does

not include extremist jihadist who we will not work with. The danger is

if we do not involve ourselves now that number will diminish and make

the task of defeating Daesh even more difficult. This is not a

straightforward good versus bad conflict. There are some

questionable people that we will have to work with but the greater

goal is to defeat Daesh and reduce the security threats that is real

and present to our country. But those of us with long memories

remember the security experts told as it was 45 minutes until Saddam

Hussein could launch missiles on large parts of the Middle East and

Western Europe. But proved to be a fallacy. I accept that. I was not in

Parliament at the time of the Iraq debate. I capability as the west to

respond to these terror threats was debate. I capability as the west to

administered by that claim. I am not pretending otherwise.

administered by that claim. I am not a cohesive force but we have to work

with it. And if we do not work with them know they will be attacked and

their numbers will diminish. This entire situation is a balance of

risks and costs, challengers. I think on balance, I have thought

this through carefully, our national is that it requires us to take

action now. Thank you very much for joining us.

Let us go back to the House of Commons now. I fully understand all

the caveats that colleagues have put Commons now. I fully understand all

draw lessons of one kind or another. The Prime Minister is

absolutely right to think that we have got to look at the present

situation and the future. We hopefully have learned lessons, both

political and military, from that war, but we could end up with having

our current operations, our current politics, determined by past

experiences. Our predecessors sat in this commons in the 1930s,

determined never to have a Great War again. The Labour Party was divided.

There were pacifists, those who wanted collective security. My own

party supported appeasement, which the overwhelming majority of the

British public did not, because they genuinely, they were not evil

people, they wanted to prevent another war. The fields because they

were dealing with people in other countries who were not prepared to

negotiate. The second lesson learned from that was in 1956. Anthony Eden

believed that Nasser was another miscellaneous. I believe we should

put to one side where we stood on these other campaigns and look at

what the situation is today. The final point I would speak on this is

that there has been a great debate on the 70,000 moderate or

non-moderates people who might or might not provide ground forces. I

am sure their leader of the SNP is trying to do a survey to answer

whether they are moderate or not. I have always run out of time. We know

in the Second World War that when Churchill and reserve built were

looking at resistance in Europe, it was difficult to try and find out

whether people were commonest, non-Communist, Gaullists, the

criteria was where the fighting the gnats ease. There is not an easy

solution to this. The Prime Minister has laid out as far as he can a set

of proposals and I would urge the House to vote with the Prime

Minister on this occasion. Our Westminster correspondent

David Porter joins us again and he's with the Shadow Scottish

Secretary, Ian Murray. I do indeed. Big Ben have just

chimed 3.00 for us. Iain Murray you will be voting against military

action tonight. Why that course of action? I think it is an incredibly

marginal decision. I think all MPs have gone through a long process of

trying to decide what is the best way forward. We fully appreciate the

UK is involved in air strikes in Iraq but I think those have been

successful because of the ground forces that are there, backed up by

the Iraqi and Kurdish ground forces being able to retake the ground and

being able to move Isil, Daesh out of that ground and away else where.

The difficulty in Syria and we have seen this in the Chamber already in

the short debate we have had, is there are no Syrian ground troops.

The Prime Minister says there are 70,000. He said the 70,000 have come

from national security advisors but the foreign affairs Defence

Committee and the Defence Select Committee and the Prime Minister in

the House hasn't been able to clarify what those numbers are, and

if they are actually for or against us and hasn't been able to clarify

how that will all be co-ordinated. So, on balance, I just don't think

extending air strikes to Syria is going to make a blind bit of

difference with regards to how this situation is resolved. It is very

noticeable that there is a different tone to the debate today than there

was when the Prime Minister came to the House last week. There is a real

edginess to it, is that because of comments that the Prime Minister has

made, or is it because people are now realising - we are voting

potentially to put or troops in harm's way? A bit of both. And I

think the Prime Minister saying last night that the people voting no were

apoll gists for terrorists. I think that was unfortunate and I think it

is unfortunate he hasn't apologised. Not just for those who are

supporting military action but those opposing it and it has deflected

away from the incredibly serious issues which we have to deal with

it. It is a difficult situation for Members of Parliament and the

country. This is a very marginal decision. I think that means people

have a heightened sense of the responsibilities. There is also some

people in that Chamber who are still incredibly torn about the designs we

should respect it is incredibly difficult and we should always be

reaching out to the people who share different views, and know that they

are perfectly entitled to do so. Not wishing to labour the war analogy

too much, but your own party, the Labour Party is virtually at civil

war. You had Jeremy Corbyn standing up making his points against

military action, sitting next to him, Hilary Benn, the Shadow Foreign

Secretary, arguing for military action? Well, the Labour movement

have always had a proud tradition of being a Democratic Party. We are a

broad church party. Jeremy Corbyn has recognised that and that is why

he has allowed a free vote. I think you will find when Hilary Benn wraps

up the debate later on this evening, he says identical things to what

Jeremy Corbyn has said and indeed will reflect pretty much what the

Prime Minister has said in his opening speech as well. The

difference comes at the end of that process, when Jeremy came to the

conclusion, after seeing all the evidence, he thinks in terms of a

marginal decision we shouldn't extend air strikes. And Hilary Benn

will say - given all the evidence in front of me, I think we should

extend air strikes to Syria. It is a perking effectually legitimate

difference of opinion. I'm glad there is a free vote. O to reflect

on this issue or not to have allowed Labour members to have had their

voice, I think would have been a disservice to the country. Talking

about the new style of politics, what do you make of the reports that

certain Labour MPs who said they are going to support military action,

have been the subject to what I think most people would think is

some pretty hardcore abuse? Well, it is dreadful. Social media can be a

place where people can sprout off without any thought. All that of

abuse can stop. But it was tragic stha the Member of Parliament for

Walthamstow, probably one of the best of the 2010 intakes had people

campaigning outside her house yesterday on the basis she was

undecided. It is unacceptable. It is happening to Peter Kyle today as

well, the Labour MP in Hove. These decision are difficult. Nobody knows

if this decision will be the right one, whatever decision Parliament

makes tonight and nobody really knows if it'll make Britain safer or

not. These are difficult decisions and that kind of activity is totally

and utterly unacceptal and must stop. If you have that level of

abuse, to put it bluntly, will the Labour Party, will the Parliamentary

Labour Party be able to put itself back together again after this? Well

the Parliamentary Labour Party is a very collegiate group of people. We

all work together for the common good of our Labour values and to get

Labour back into Government, and to respect our constituents' views.

Whether you are for today or against it is irrelevant in terms of the

Parliamentary Labour Party. Jeremy have made his view known, I have

made my views known which are different to close colleagues. I did

a debate yesterday with Toby Perkins, I was in a close college of

him. He was yes I was no. It was a perfectly collegiate debate. That's

what politics should be about. Thank you for joining us. We'll let you

get back to the House of Commons and the debate. Back to you.

Paul Gilbride was listening to that with me.

We heard there will one of the Conservative members saying - let's

put the past behind us and consider the evidence. But you can sort of

understand when people hear a very specific analysis of how many ground

forces are supposedly there to help the Western powers, that it comes

from the Joint Intelligence Committee and you have got to trust

it, that the alarms bells start going off? Absolutely. It is shades

of Blair's 45 minute warning with Saddam Hussein and his missiles.

Look, these 70,000 moderates that David Cameron seemed to pluck out of

the air from the Joint Intelligence Committee last week, these can't

people that are -- aren't people sitting about, sipping shinny lattes

and flicking through the Guardian. They may not be out and out

Islamists, but they will be owe supposed to what we consider Bern

values. But as David Cameron says, short of putting Western boots on

the ground, this is all we have to work W as was said earlier, it is

not black and white, it is variant shades of grey. Maybe if these guys

see us getting involved with Isil and the prospect of progress in the

Vienna talks, may coalesce into some kind of fighting unit worthy of the

name. It is a big if. The other side of this, Paul, is someone, I think

again it was a Conservative member asked - I think it was Angus

Robertson, I maybe wrong - a couple of hours ago on this debate, he Saud

- hang on, wait a minute, if you are saying we shouldn't get involved

because there aren't 70,000 on the grounds, are you saying the

Americans and French should not be involved in military action in Syria

as well? You know, there is that side of it. There absolutely is that

side of it. It is not a perfect situation as David Cameron said.

That in itself shouldn't stop us from not taking any action. The fact

of the matter is if you want to degrade Isis you need to hit their

command and control centres and they are over the border in Syria based

around mainly Raqqa. There are two tracks here - there is a discussion

about whether military action or the UK's participation in noe it in

Syria would be effective but a parallel track - an argument to say

- well, require theive of the results of that, Britain needs to

get involved, quite literalry to fight its way to the negotiating

table. -- irrespective of that. Absolutely. I don't think it should

be underestimated, forgotten. If that atrocity in Paris had happened

on the streets of Britain, we would expect the French to stand together

with us in tackling those responsible. We absolutely would and

I think in terms of the international community, the

civilised world, Britain has got to stand shoulder-to-shoulder even if

it's a small escalation in its military commitment. It has to be

seen to be doing that, to show solidarity, if nothing else. Right,

Paul, we'll come back to you later. David Porter is still on

College Green and he's with the That is hae right. Douglas Chapman,

thank you for joining us this afternoon. How do you counter the

Prime Minister's argument - you will be voting against military actions

tonight, that it is more dangerous to do nothing than to take military

action? Let's be honest, it is not as if we are doing nothing. With a

we have decided to do today is take the stance that prevents the UK to

go ahead and bomb or further bomb into Syria. There are lots of things

that the UK can be doing and are already doing in terms of providing

other kinds of military support and intelligence which I think is a

great strength of the UK and we should be doing more of that,

instead of just joining a batched ten other nations that are quite

honestly, just bombing for the sake of it at the moment, without any

real sense that there is an end game. What happens if you are flying

over Iraq, the RAF is flying over Iraq, it sees an Isil target which

may be a convoy or something like that, it goes into Syria. Under your

argument, you couldn't take them on. But under the Prime Minister's

argument, you would be able tying action against them? Well, you know,

it is not just about the bombing campaign that actually we can take.

There are a range of actions the Government could have been taking

over the last 12 months in terms of cutting off supplies, cutting off

their access to social media, which is used a lot by Isis and Daesh to

spread their vile messages. So there is a whole range of other things we

could be doing, in terms of the case being put against forces in Syria

the negative forces in Syria. A whole bunch of stuff they could be

doing, other than bombing. Surely the argument is you just don't do

one thing, you go across the border, take them on militarily and

financially, try to kauft the supply of funds and as you say, you deal

with the social media side. -- try to cut off the supply.

You can't do it by one thing, you have to do it by all. That's the

argument the Government put forward today. The Americans have been

bombing in Syria for the best part of a year. We are still at a stage

where Syria still remains quite a, it is a mess of a nation. We need to

take more direct action, perhaps, through more diplomatic means, for

example, of making sure that we can make the case that Syria needs to

move towards stability and peace, rather than just expanding another

arm of violence that we have seen far too much of in the Middle East

in recent years. On this issue, we have seen that there are divisions

within the Conservative Party, not as great as the divisions within the

Labour Party. Why is it to a man and a woman that the SNP group down here

is so solid? Well, I think we have been solid right through from the

beginning of May, irrespective of what the issue has been, whether it

has been on fighting austerity or this issue today that we have about

bombing fourth bombing of Iraq - sorry, further bombing of Syria. The

group is very much together. While we have a very robust debate within

the group, you know, the line of travel that we usually take is one

that we all stand up and agree to. That's just been part of the make-up

of the SNP for some time. You can see that for the Scottish

Government. They tend to stick together on the line and make sure

we have a very solid case to put, and that's based on principle.

Discipline other parties would love to have. It seems extraordinary,

amongst 54 individuals, that there are no dissenting views whatsoever

on what, probably if you spoke to ten people in this area now, there

would be different views? I can say that the argument has always been

positive, trying to look at diplomatic solutions, trying to make

the Government look at possibilities of more actions via the UN and we

have taken a firm and very pragmatic line in terms of what we want to do

in Syria. But at no point, from my experience, has anyone Saud - yes,

we should be going in and bombing in Syria, where we have already got ten

nations already bombing in Syria and why bombing by the UK, as an 11th

force would not have a huge impact on the end result. When the votes

are counted tonight, it is likely that 57 out of the 59 MPs from

Scotland will have voted against military action, against extending

the air raids. Of what is going to be the knock-on effect of that in

politics in the next six or seven months? I think it is part and

parcel of where we are in Scotland. We have a certain view. We take a

view on our place, in the world, how we can develop our economy, the kind

of society we want and want our kids to grow up in. And if we keep making

that move, that we are obviously at odds with the rest of the UK. I

think it strengthens the case to say that maybe we should be think being

how we do things differently in the future. Maybe it is an opportunity

that again will come to the people of Scotland in the not too distant

future. Thank you very much for inJoing me. You can get back to the

debate in the House of Commons. Back to you.

Let's go back to the House of Commons for the final time this

Let's go back to the House of Commons for the final time this

I was so proud when I watched England fans singing the French

national anthem, standing shoulder to shoulder with our friends and

allies. How could we not do that today? But if you want to know what

has really pushed me into the position where we have on balance to

back military action against Daesh it is my personal experiences in the

refugee camps this summer. I have been personally moved and affected

by what I met. I could give you a anecdote after anecdote that would

break your heart. A 7 -year-old lad being lifted from a dengue and he

said, are Isil here? I cannot castigate the Prime Minister for not

taking enough refugees and for Britain not standing as tall as it

should. We must also do everything to eradicate that which is the

source of people fleeing from that terror. We are under the spectre of

a shocking and illegal war in Iraq and that is a lesson from history

that we must learn from. The danger is today that for too many people we

will be learning the wrong lessons from history if we choose not to

stand with those refugees, not to stand as part of the international

community of nations. This is a tough call. On balance it is right

to take action to defeat and degrade this evil death cult.

I entirely endorse the comments of the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

Until we remove Daesh we are all at risk. We are at risk with revoked

bombing in Iraq and in Syria. I was in France and saw the standard

reaction of the French populace. There is no negotiation with people

who will gun down people in a restaurant or take a bomb to a

football stadium. A priority is to remove Daesh. It is nonsense that if

we all voted one year ago to bomb in Iraq that are aeroplanes stop at an

arbitrary boundary in the sand. If we are invited by our severely

damaged and her allies and neighbours the French, it is a

dereliction that we do not offer that technology. I have taught in

the past few days to experienced Allied generals. There is also an

intangible benefit. There is no doubt that having the UK playing a

full part in a Coalition, bringing intelligence planning, experience,

does have an intangible moral and philosophical boost to the campaign.

I am quite clear that this is about the safety of our citizens. We are

better off if we engage in this activity. I would like to touch on

that artificial boundary. They have been called nation states. Syria and

Iraq were treated in the 1920s eight of elements of the Ottoman Empire.

If you look at Iraq there were three elements. The Kurds emerged from

World War I. They were promised a country. They did not get one. We

are living with the consequences of what was decided then. When I was at

Cambridge a professor talked about the fat cats, France and Britain

came out of the First World War with these new entities, increasing their

sphere of influence. But was always presumed that they would be French

and British influence, passive or active, and Iraq in the 1920s. This

system work until 1958 when the King was killed. It sort of worked under

the horrendous dictatorships of Sadam Hussein and Assad. It has

broken down now. It could have worked but it was a terrible

decision by the American presidents to withdraw the garrison. They

should have been there for the long-term. The reason why the

Americans withdrew was because Iraq would not give an Agreement under

which US forces would not be liable to Iraq law. That is by the

inelegant were forced to withdraw. And of course the regime

inelegant were forced to withdraw. corrupt has now gone. We now need to

look at how do we now need to look at how demeaning these entities

work. It is not an option to destroy these boundaries. What I would put

to the front bench, and that is a line in the motion giving grounds

for this, follow what the current Prime Minister is

for this, follow what the current War I boundaries. If you look at how

the Ottoman Empire do that, they left the locals to run their own

show. There is a clear breakdown in Iraq where you could give

significant autonomy within these entities. We will not get support

for locals to remove Daesh, considering the terrible conditions

they are living under, if they do not feel they will emerge at the end

of this difficult process with an entity to which they are loyal and

in which they are safe. entity to which they are loyal and

not happened with MPs be considering extending that action? It is

impossible to know. Shankill Shaik had an impact. It has brought about

a significant change in the attitude of Russia. -- Sharm el-Sheikh had an

impact. There is no a Security Council

resolution which authorises and calls on us as people who have the

capacity to do this to do what we can. What about the argument that if

you extend the action to Isil in Syria you might make Britain more of

a target? I understand that they are already a

target by virtue of the fact that we are part of the military initiative

in Iraq with other countries, at the invitation of the Government of

Iraq. Not only that, also because of what we are. Daesh will attack

Western liberal democracies such as I was. I and a standard that concern

but I would say we are already just about at the highest state of

anti-terror alert in this country and you have to understand also that

Daesh are a dreadful organisation. They subjugate women. They thought

the people of roofs. They take the terror across the globe. This is a

threat that has to be confronted legally with a political and

diplomatic strategy moved forward through international organisations

like the United Nations and then afterwards you have to have a plan

for stabilisation and reconstruction. That is another

thing that has changed in recent weeks. The progress through the

Vienna talks which has brought 63 different nations and two

organisations together to come forward with that plan for

stabilisation and reconstruction. And if you are going to do that then

you have got to be prepared to be in there for quite some time and to

commit money to do it. But the cost of not doing that would be dreadful.

Yet there is a lot of scepticism about 70,000 troops that David

Cameron has talked about, that they are there or are willing to get

involved in action. Everybody says you will not achieve what you want

to without boots on the ground. Boots on the ground will have to

come from inside Syria and possibly neighbouring countries. It cannot be

European or American forces. Since a rack that is no longer possible. I

would like to see some of the Gulf States like Saudi Arabia coming up

much more firmly to the plate, Turkey should be doing more to cut

off the finances and oil supplies for Daesh, but that is something

that you can achieve through international action of the sort

that we are able to make. Then a Scottish context, 57 out of

59 Scottish MPs will vote against militant reaction. How in the coming

weeks and months will that play into the wider Scottish political

arguments? That is a consequence of the fact that the SNP are so

dominant as a force in Scottish politics since the May election. And

of course the whole is quite remarkable discipline. There is no

other party in the Commons at the moment that is voting with the

unanimity, the single allergy of purpose that the SNP are doing. The

people of Scotland will take much the same view as people in the rest

of the UK, there is no appetite, no enthusiasm for military action, but

I think there is an understanding, we think back to the human response

this summer as we saw that stream of refugees fleeing that civil war in

Syria. It was a compassionate response which was motivated by a

desire to help. If you are to turn away from the opportunity to help

when you have it, and it is just an opportunity not guaranteed, if you

turn away from that is because it is too difficult and will maybe involve

some things that are unpalatable, then frankly I think you cheapen

their compassion. The refugees will keep coming until you resolve the

situation in Syria. Thank you for joining us.

Paul Gilbride is still here. Let us try to unpick, what exactly is this

strategy? A military campaign against Isis. This process in Vienna

which produces an Agreement that Assad either steps down or will step

down. There is traditional authority at which point these 70,000 people

say, we do not need to fight the Syrians anymore, we will fight with

the west end fighting Isis. They get defeated and that is a new regime in

Syria. Is that it? From where we are sitting that appears to be wishful

thinking. It does not look credible. But what is the alternative? You

have got to start somewhere. With the Syrian crisis there is the

schism between Sunnis and Shias. You have got to start somewhere.

If there could be some Agreement between Iran and Russia it is not

completely pie in the sky, is it? No, that nation States and great

powers have got to look at what the interest are. It is in no 1's

interest, surely, -- nobody 's interest for an entity like Daesh to

remain and perhaps even cruel and influence. Certainly not in the

interests of the civilised world. On the politics of this. We have

pointed out that Labour are pretty much all over the place on this and

it is not looking credible but is the SNP looking anymore credible?

This idea that they have 54 MPs, all of whom have spontaneously decided

they all agree with one line. If you look at Labour they are

almost at one end of the spectrum, the elite disguised chaos. There is

a broad Church and there is civil war almost. Then you look at the

SNP. We have learnt their lesson well from Tony Blair and new Labour.

It is almost like the hive mind. But the politics of the SNP, is this a

material change, is it something they can exploit for electoral gain?

We'll have to leave it there. That is all for now. Analysis on the

vote on Scotland 2015 on BBC Two tonight.