17/11/2015 Scotland 2015

As Syrian refugees settle down for their first night in Scotland,

A low-key arrival for 103 Syrian refugees who touched down at

will Scots greet them with open arms?

I'll be speaking to Scottish Government minister Humza Yousaf.

The Prime Minister says we shouldn't expect other countries to

carry the burden of protecting the UK.

He promises to set out a "comprehensive strategy" for air

More than 100 Syrian refugees are spending their first night

in Scotland tonight after arriving from camps in Jordan and Lebanon.

The Scottish Government said it was a proud day for Scotland, with more

They arrive here as the UK and other governments formulate their response

to the weekend's deadly attacks in Paris and amid concerns that

at least one of the attackers may have entered Europe through Greece

The First Minister today said any concerns about those arriving

from Syria were understandable but misplaced.

This family are one of many to have fled the war-torn country of Syria.

Until now they have been in a refugee camp in Jordan. Today they

set off for a new life in Scotland. This evening about 100 Syrian

refugees arrived in Glasgow on the first of several flights to you in

the weeks ahead. For sound destination will be the Isle of

Bute, locals have said they will be welcomed but some have predicted

challenges. It's not a hugely multicultural island. I don't see

that as a problem that it does present a challenge in this context,

it will be something that will take a bit of getting used to. But

Scotland has welcomed refugees before, such as the many families

forced to leave Kosovo during the war there in the 1990s. Scotland has

a long history of welcoming refugees, it's very proud of its

history. We have been involved in the general asylum dispersal

programme and resettlement programme back from the 1990s, when Kosovan

refugees came here, through the more recent programmes. We are proud that

Scotland will be one of the first areas in the UK to take the new

Syrian refugees. But the new arrivals have come

security concerns. It is the suggested that one of the bombers

security concerns. It is the could have travelled through Europe

using a suspected forged passport. There is a twofold security

screening process, one by the United Nations High Commissioner for

refugees, where they are registered with parametric eye tests and

information about them, then when they are selected on the grounds of

vulnerability, people who have suffered tragically, before they

come here, apart from medical tests, they are given security checks by

the Home Office. When it comes to tackling the real terrorists, could

there be a political tackling the real terrorists, could

great not to be drawn tackling the real terrorists, could

commanders and liaison officers being vigilant, I don't have many

fears, I'm sure people in Scotland will give these refugees a warm

welcome. Even you yourself have suffered some online abuse over the

weekend, we have heard today about a deliberate fire at a building used

as a mosque, it does seem, even if it's a tiny minority, that there is

some kind of backlash because of what has happened in Paris. They

just tend to be after a terror attack, police say a spike in two or

three days, what is important is communities have come together, the

First Minister at the Glasgow Central Moscow was an important

symbol to say, if there are any hate crimes against any communities, then

the full force of the law will come down on those who perpetrate them

and there will be zero tolerance. In my own case, the police have said as

much to me when they have come to investigate, so I have full

confidence that people from all communities, when they see these

hate crimes happening, they will make sure people speak up against

them. Whenever an attack like this happens, whenever there is a

backlash or repercussions, I have always found them voices of good far

outweigh the voices of negativity. Would you have preferred the

refugees arriving into different circumstances? Nobody would have

liked to have seen the circumstances we have to witness on Friday but we

are where we are, what we shouldn't have done was delayed them arriving

here for any longer, they have been living in camps for months,

literally years, some of them. Tonight will be the first night many

of them will be sleeping on a mattress, in a bed, under a roof,

feeling safe for the first time in years. If we had delayed because of

Friday, it would have been the wrong thing to have done. What lessons

would you have learned from previous resettlement experiences about how

to do it better this time? Hats off to Glasgow City Council, they have

been great and sharing experiences and stop one of the things we have

been guarded against and made sure we haven't done is concentrating

refugees in one area, putting them into that perhaps wasn't suitable

for the Scottish community here, high-rises, all of the in one block,

that was the wrong thing to do, create your toes, it was something

we were conscious not to do. -- create ghettos. For the first, many

authorities have said they will be taking refugees, the Isle of Bute

say they will be looking forward to welcoming refugees. I think it's

great that we have been able to spread and disperse them wider. The

public might be jittery, especially in the face of reports that one of

the arrest attackers had actually come into Europe as a refugee. How

confident are you that the vetting has been as good as it could be for

these refugees? Those anxieties are understandable and we shouldn't

dismiss them got refugees arriving today and the ones that will be

arriving after, they haven't just been screened once but twice, once

by the United Nations and a second time by the Home Office. So I am

confident that the screening is robust. I would also say that these

refugees are also fleeing the very same terror that we saw unfold in

the streets of Paris just a few days ago. They have been on the receiving

end of that, that's why they have left their homes in the first place.

And these are the most vulnerable. So I would be confident they are

genuine. You think we all write to feel safe after Friday? I can

completely understand why people would be fearful. I would say, let's

be on the alert, but let's not be alarmed. If we start to live our

life in fear, we don't go out, we don't enjoy yourself socially, we

are handing victory to the terrorists and that is in the last

thing we want to do. The Metropolitan Police have increased

the number of armed response vehicles in London by a third. EU

think we need a similar response here? The police have been working

with the government and local authority partners to assess what

the threat level is here in the UK. And specifically in Scotland. I have

every confidence the police will take every measure to ensure all

communities is as safe as possible will stop the just not the alarmist,

that is sure we have the correct intelligence on the ground, the

important thing is we can not and terrorists victory by living our

life in fear. This is the Metropolitan Police commissioner

taking this action, if they have a more visible presence in London, is

there a danger that someone like last go or Edinburgh might be more

of a soft target? I wouldn't say that at all. Police Scotland work

closely with divisions up and down the UK and that cooperation of

intelligence information is shared, so if there was any threat to

anybody here, we would know about that and we would take appropriate

action. The security level hasn't increased, the threat level hasn't

increased, and the UK Government doesn't feel that an attack is

imminent so we have to keep that in perspective. We understand London is

the capital, often will have a lot more attention, there may be safety

concerns, think of the football match being played at Wembley, so

there are circumstances that may have caused that, I don't know, but

I know the police are taking every precaution here. Moving on to the

Prime Minister on air strikes today, he's obviously trying to put the

case for air strikes in Syria against IIS, he has said, should we

really expect other countries to carry the burden of protecting our

country? Doesn't he have a point? The question is whether air strikes

would make you country safer. The second question is, dropping bombs,

is that going to defeat I S? You have the US, France, Russia,

dropping bombs. We are driven in. What's the difference? It hasn't

made any difference to their ability across the world serving another

country doing that, I am not concerned at will make a difference.

The leader of the SNP has said as much, we would listen to what they

promised as to say but it has to be part of a longer term strategy that

creates stability across the region, not a knee jerk reaction. And

doesn't fit the narrative that is Alex Tait have, that this is a war

of Islam versus the West -- that Islamic State have. We will listen

to what the Prime Minister has to say but we are sceptical of air

strikes in Syria. The Prime Minister is offering a full spectrum

approach, including military action, counterterrorism,

humanitarian support, is it possible that the SNP will change its

position? We've said all along we are sceptical of what has come along

but we will listen to what the Prime Minister has to say but it has to be

part of a longer-term strategy, about securing the long-term future

we won't be safe in the long-term. So only a UN mandate? That is what

we have said previously, that any monetary intervention should be

sanctioned by the UN. That gives it important legal parameters. Thank

you. The Minister for Europe and

International Development, Humza Yousaf, speaking to me

earlier. As we were hearing,

the Prime Minister made it clear just today that he believes

Britain's made armed forces should It looks likely that Parliament

will vote on it before Christmas. But will he be able to convince MPs

to support him? Many MPs, even some in his own

party, remain to be convinced. My firm conviction is that we need

to act against Isil in Syria. There is a compelling case for doing so.

It is for the Government, I accept, to make the case to this House and

the country. It's for the Government now,

as the Prime Minister said today, They haven't done that yet, so it is

for the Government to bring forward the arguments for why they believe

this is justified and I believe we have to keep an open mind,

we must not rule options out, but We need to see the UK -- why the UK

adding to the bombing in Syria will add anything to the situation and we

need a much more strong mandate not only across Syria and the Middle

East. The international political agreement is what my and my

committee think we should -- the Government should be focused on.

When it is getting embroiled in an area complicated politically,

militarily and legally, and if they are not going to make a significant

difference to the outcome, it is a second order issue and we are

completely London centric. Joining me now from London is

Elizabeth Quintana, senior research fellow for air power at the

Royal United Services Institute. Thank you for joining us. Do you

think there is now a strong case for British military intervention in

Syria? Well, the Prime Minister and Secretary of State have been making

the case for a few months now, and it was quite clear from the recent

strike from Jihadi John that Arab intelligence officials had been very

closely involved in tracking a number of these people, and in fact

our assets, over parts of Syria and that is also helping to disrupt

threats back here in the UK. The difference is that we can't do the

final bit, we can't pull the trigger, and the Prime Minister is

increasingly frustrated about that. But if you think about everything

that goes up until the point of pulling the trigger, UK officials

are certainly involved in all of that and it is important when you

have a threat level in the UK that is at least as great as it was just

after 7/7 and after 9/11 on a sustained basis, with teenagers

being radicalised within weeks, it is important that we firstly

understand what is going on within Iraq but also, yes, collectively

there is a much more concerted effort to disrupt this particular

organisation. -- going on within Syria. We have just heard from Nat

MP that saying -- saying bombing so far hasn't prevented IS from

carrying out atrocities like that in Paris on Friday. No. There are a

number of levels to Syria. The first issue is that there are many

regional partners involved, some of which also support Isis. There are

many foreign fighters coming to Syria. There are 15,000 also people

who have been killed from within Isis but as many have joined them

again, and obviously, as the connections grow across the world

among them, we will continue to have attempts or successes like we saw in

Paris and previously in Egypt, very unfortunately. But Isis is an

organisation committed to global domination and it is locked in a war

with our kinder, who is the biggest, baddest jihadists group across the

Muslim world. -- with Al-Qaeda. So whether or not we act in Syria, the

threat is likely to come here in the UK, and certainly that was made

clear by the Home Secretary earlier this week. At the simplest level,

though, lots of people are wondering, would bombing make

Britain safer? Well, it depends whether you look at it in the

short-term or in the long term. In the short-term, yes, potentially it

might increase the risks to the UK and yes, it might focus the of Isis

on the UK. But you have to ask whether that is worth leaving the

organisation alone and whether we just carry on and hope for the best.

And history would suggest even over the last 18 months that it's not an

organisation that will sit on its hands and that it will look

increasingly to find different ways to move elsewhere. So, yes,

eventually we would need to tackle the problem at its source and, yes,

we need to do everything we can to solve the Syrian Civil War, and the

Vienna talks are very much to be in courage. But that doesn't solve the

problem, which is ultimately that we need to tackle them on their home

turf. Can you understand why the SNP, Labour, even the Tory dominated

affairs Select Committee remain to be convinced? They don't see an exit

strategy, for example. Well, that was an inquiry that was conducted

with a particular end in mind without really listening to those

giving evidence. But anyway! I understand people don't like the

idea of engaging in militarily -- military activity that won't achieve

the outcomes. We need tough people to resolve the Civil War and have a

more concerted international effort but ultimately that will require,

still, some kind of military action against Isis if we wish to undermine

their narrative of success and undermine their hold on the

territory in that part of Syria. Now, I also understand that people

don't agree with the particular military strategy being used at the

moment. They seem to think it is not comprehensive enough, and certainly

you can look at different air campaigns and what the coalition is

doing. One or two strikes on a daily basis in Syria, the French 20

strikes in one day, the Russians using a much more aggressive

approach - might not necessarily agree with that. But there are

different ways you can conduct an air campaign. That's all I'm going

to say on that issue. And certainly there are issues about needing to

have a competent and appropriate ground force in concert with those

strikes, so, yes, lots of questions about the way you take the fight to

Isis, but there is certainly a need to get a grip pretty quickly

because, like I said, this is not a problem that will go away. It will

only get bigger. Thank you. We must leave it there.

Here now to discuss some of the day's news are Daily Record

journalist Anna Burnside, and The Herald's political editor,

Thank you to you both are coming in. Let's kick off with the arrival

of the Syrian refugees. It's been said they will be warmly welcomed by

Scotland. Do you think it might be a little less warm in the wake of the

Paris tax? No, I don't. It's true they have been a number of

unpleasant incidents. -- Paris attacks. There was that event in

Bishopbriggs which was potentially connected with this. I think

potentially it makes the already difficult and sensitive job of

settling people, often very traumatised, into a new country and

a new way of life slightly harder. I agree also that Scotland's political

leader struck exactly the right tone today. The First Minister, as MSPs

were agreeing a motion of condolence with Paris, talked about not

allowing the anger, shock and fear to undermine Scotland's reputation

as an open and tolerant and welcoming place. And the other

leaders spoke well, too. You know, echoing those sentiments. So I think

for all of the idiocy, there are many more encouraging, really

hopeful signs, including a Facebook page, which showed something like

400 people wanted to turn up at the airport! Probably the last thing the

authorities wanted! But to greet the refugees and show their support. So

if it all goes quiet for three months or six months, we will start

to his stories, good stories, about people rebuilding their lives in

this country. -- start to hear stories. The times has a YouGov Paul

saying support for resettling refugees have slumped. -- government

-- Osman web poll. Do you think that is worrying? Yes. I do think them

arising for plane at night -- arriving from a plane at night, you

don't think that would have happened, so I do think it is

worrying. I was heartened by what she said. I think the politicians

are striking absolutely the right note but it's whether that extends

down to the people in the street, in Glasgow, in Butte, in the cities,

villages and towns where these people will be living. I just hope

that is trickling down to them and their neighbours and the people

their children are at school with, and so on, and other people in that

poll, because that would be ghastly for them to have left the horrors of

a refugee camp to come to Scotland in November and not be given the

welcome they deserve. That would just be awful. But if it turns out

that one of the Paris attackers did actually enter Europe as a refugee,

aren't the public right to be a bit worried about that? I think their

fears are absolutely understandable. But there have been repeated

assurances about the vetting that will have taken place. The refugees

coming to Scotland have been in camps. They are people whose

identity is known. We are reassured that. So we perhaps have less reason

to fear than you might think. Now, we saw that France were playing

England at Wembley this evening. Jeremy Corbyn, Prince William were

at the game. Do you think it is a gesture of defiance to see public

figures at the game like that? Definitely. And there is certainly a

feeling coming from Paris that as a city and country, France doesn't

want this attack to stop people doing the things they enjoy, like

going to big sporting events, like going to the cafe for a coffee,

discussing philosophy, smoking. And I think that's a lovely and very

French response to this horrible, horrible atrocity, and it's great to

see the crowd at a big football match making a rather hand fisted

attempt to sing the Marseillaise and making eight big group mass

statement like that. -- making a big group mass statement. Are the public

actually feeling defiant or are they just fearful? We have heard of

another bomb threat. The German authorities in Hanover were right to

take that action. We have to be authorities in Hanover were right to

deemed necessary in London tonight. crowd out what football match, that

is the prevailing sentiment. -- out to watch a football match. That is

great. Charlie Hebdo tonight has its latest cover to be published

tomorrow. What do you think of that? That is what it is all about. It is

tomorrow. What do you think of that? saying, well, I would