 Mae'r ddem Bjelon Llywodraeth yn unig dŷn o'w wiliad, mae roi defnyddio, ond dyma'r wybodaeth bod byr yi'r cysteisio i dd Gymru yw ei fod yn ei awdurdod. Mae'r ddiddordeb ag ym Mhwylwyr Ym Mhwylwyr Ym Mhwylwyr ym Mhwylwyr Ym Mhwylwyr Ym Mhwylwyr yw hi'r Gwylwyr John Wilson i Fyrniadau C siblinga i Gwylwyr. Mae'r ddiddordeb agrwm yn ddylch iaith i gyd yn ei ddweud ym Mhwylwyr Cwylwyr ac ymwylwyr Fel fawr oo ein hyn yn y cyfgiliau Diolch yn nhw, eli yn rhan fальнаяwr i shootersaeth gallu ffórfailig yn cael â ddirfujineth yn gallu mae'n gondoeid nesaf The United Nations Resolution 22489 has been cited as the basis for launching airstrikes in Syria, while it is true that the resolution calls for member states to use all necessary measures in the fight against Ash. It goes on to say that such methods should be used in compliance with international law, in particular with the United Nations Charter, as well as international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law. It is difficult to see how bombing densely populated areas, packed with civilians, achieves us. In fact, the UK Secretary of State for Defence has stated that civilian casualties are inevitable. While this week's common space reported the MOD as saying, in terms of the identity of those killed in bombing rates, the MOD concedes that that was not information that we hold readily. The MOD has absolutely no idea who our bombs are hitting. The UN resolution further states that the situation will continue to deteriorate further in the absence of a political solution to the Syrian conflict. This part of the resolution should have been embraced fully and further efforts to progressive Vienna peace talks should have been made. While it is clear that those talks lacked a crucial dimension, no Syrians were involved. They were, however, clearly a positive first step at bringing together regional and global powers and an attempt to find a diplomatic solution to some of the issues facing Syria. I hope that we continue to see further progress through this process, including the involvement of groups in Syria. It is impossible to see how a final solution to this situation without their involvement. The UN resolution also calls on member states to prevent and suppress the financing of terrorism. It is simply implausible that an international coalition, including the UK and the USA, with the backing of the UN, has exhausted all available avenues in this regard. It appears that maintaining good relations with Saudi Arabia, a state that operates in a strikingly similar manner to Daesh and its approach to criminal justice, is more valuable than cracking down on its financing of terrorist organisations. Also, the continued airstrikes by Saudi Arabia in Yemen is highlighted at the Amnesty International event that was held in this Parliament last week. Presiding Officer, the idea that further bombing in the Middle East can bring about a peaceful resolution to the situation in Syria and elsewhere is utter nonsense. If bombing really worked as suggested, Iraq and Syria would be among the most peaceful countries in the world. They have been repeatedly bombed, cities have been destroyed, countless civilians have died, yet we are told that the threat from terrorism is bigger today than it has ever been. Syria has been on the receiving end of airstrikes from a long list of countries over 15 months of bombing, with an estimated 30,000 bombs being dropped. It is delusional to think that dropping more bombs in Syria will lead to a peaceful resolution to the current situation. I thank Mr Wilson for taking the intervention. I wonder if he would just confirm for the chamber that those of us who disagreed with bombing that that was not a position of do nothing. I will come on to that in my speech and I thank that Elaine Smith for that intervention. I think the haste with which British planes began bombing Syria, mere hours after the commons vote was carried, demonstrates the desire to be seen to be amongst the big boys and play to delusions of grandeur, rather than offer any credible solution to the problems that exist in Syria or elsewhere. The crisis in Syria has resulted in a large number of people having no choice but to leave their homes, with countless millions displaced in the country itself and millions having fled to neighbouring countries such as Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey. In the case of Lebanon, one in four of the population are now refugees. I mention what apologies I won't be able to say as I'm hosting the event for Syrian refugees, but can the member join with me in welcoming the many Syrian refugees who are now in Scotland? At home, we have seen the local authorities across Scotland, including in Central Scotland, have been preparing to welcome Syrian refugees. Indeed, among the first of those refugees were a group of 12 families now settling into their new lives in the Monklands area of North Lanarkshire. It is unfortunate that a small minority in our society have displayed intolerant views towards those refugees, as well as existing Muslim communities in Scotland in response to this situation. I am sure that everyone across this chamber, regardless of their views on airstrikes, will join me in condemning the rise of Islamicphobic attacks and in the use of bigoted sectarian and racist language. I am certain that the vast majority of people in Scotland will extend a warm welcome to those arriving from such hellish conditions. I believe that our greatest weapon in the fight against Ash and our efforts to stop further radicalisation is humanitarian aid. We must put humanitarianism at the forefront of our effort to support the Syrian people rather than bombs. Bombs will create more refugees, more civilian casualties and ultimately result in more recruits becoming radicalised both at home and in the territories controlled by Ash. I must highlight the incredible demonstrations that have been taking place across Scotland in Glasgow, in Edinburgh, outside this Parliament and across Scotland and the UK. People have been saying, do not bomb Syria. It is clear to me from conversations that I have had, from emails that I have received and from the demonstrations that we have seen, that people across the country do not support this action and it was pleased to see that the overwhelming majority of Scottish MPs voted against the UK Government's motion. I am also pleased to see that the members across this chamber—green, independent SNP and Labour—have supported my motion and allowed this debate to take place. Finally, I feel that the decision to embark on military action should always be the last resort. I do not believe that it is what is happening here. We have failed to learn glaring lessons from previous military actions in the region. The UK Government has been determined to take us into action in Syria for the last two years. First, it wanted to bomb Assad, now it target Daesh. In the rush to war, there is no proper strategy to end the game. I fear that this action will only strengthen the grip of terrorists on the region and increase the suffering of ordinary Syrians, and I utterly condemn it. I look forward to the minister's response and will listen carefully to what action the Scottish Government will be taking to mitigate against the on-going crisis in Syria. During the Iraq war, the slogan adopted by those campaigning against the war was not in our name. The bombings in Syria by the UK Government are not in my name, and hopefully in yours. As we all break for Christmas and think about time with our families and our children, maybe we should reflect a bit on some of the children who are facing hardship in this world. UNICEF says that Syria is now one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a child, and they are now in the midst of winter. 7.5 million Syrian children inside and outside of that country are in need of humanitarian aid. 2.6 million children no longer in school. 2 million living in refugee camps around Syria. Some children, under the age of five, know nothing other than a war zone, know nothing other than fleeing across land and sea from those war zones, and know nothing other than life in a refugee camp. For some, long journeys across land and sea take their childhood, and for many, many children it takes their lives. I am very concerned about the worry in language developing. We are conflating the security of our nations with the Syrian refugee crisis. I believe that it is a dangerous and disturbing move. The bombs that are used in the airstrikes of which John Wilson spoke about are called brimstones. Now, for me, brimstone is sulphur. It is a chemical compound that we use in fires. It has a definition in the dictionary of hell's fire. Each of those bombs cost £100,000 each. Calling them smart bombs does not make them sexy or palatable for me at all. Those young people that I speak of either flee hell's fire or die in hell's fire from what we see every day when we see those bombers going out to do that job. What do we hear from the supporters of war? We hear collateral damage. When they say collateral damage, I say men, women, children, homes, cabani, yesides—that is what I see and hear when they say collateral damage. In such dehumanisation of people will be the catalyst, I believe, for generations of radicalised young people with no other outlet for that fear and intimidation. I do not believe that the case for a diplomatic intervention has been taken forward. I do not believe that it has been advanced at all by the UK Government and I believe that it is something that it should be advancing in all areas. Bombing will never bring a resolution to this problem, whether it is dodgy dossiers such as the Prime Minister's 70,000 ground troops, which turns to dust in his hands under any scrutiny whatsoever. Air strikes, as many have said, do not help the situation, but they certainly do not hinder Daesh. There is an exhibition by a photographer who spent some time with children fleeing those war zones. His name is Magnus Women and I will read one of his extracts. Shehid used to be playful, she especially loved to draw, but her mother soon noticed a common theme in her sketches, weapons. She saw them all the time. That family are now living on the Hungarian border, they pick food from nearby trees. The family said that if they had known how difficult it would be to make that journey, they would have risked their lives in Syria. I say, not in my name, not in our Parliament's name and certainly not in my country's name. I congratulate Tim MacGregor for bringing forward the motion and supporting the thrust of it, but I think that each potential war situation is unique and must be looked at on its own merits. My own view is that war is always a last resort. I have opposed UK military intervention in nearly every instance that has happened in my adult life, but clearly there are exceptions unless someone is an imminent and an absolute pacifist. The second world war is the classic exception that everybody except extreme pacifists would accept. We should accept that every situation is different, but equally we have to accept that the behaviour of Daesh is very comparable to that of the Nazis in terms of their cruel, murderous and in many cases exterminating behaviour. I think that people throughout the world are understandably appalled by that. We should remember that the vast majority, overwhelming majority of Muslims are appalled and not only that, but in fact the largest number of the victims of Daesh are themselves Muslims, so those are very important messages to get out. I can understand people's emotional reaction to Daesh in terms of wanting to bomb. I suppose that there is also the issue of self-defence. I think that there is a traditional ethical justification for war in terms of self-defence, and that would apply in this situation because of the threat to this country from Daesh, whereas it would not have applied, for example, in the Iraq war. We need to look at the situation specifically. It is different from Iraq. For me, it was a much more difficult decision than Iraq, and that is why I respect those members of my own party who took a different view. At the end of the day, I opposed and continue to oppose the bombing in Syria. Of course, there are several reasons for that, the first being the one that John Wilson referred to in terms of innocent people being killed. I was very struck by a tweet that Tim Christina McKelvie did the other day, saying that life expectancy in Syria in 2010 was 75.9 years and in 2015 is 55.7 years. There are too many people being killed in Syria already, but, again, we have to realise that many of those people are being killed by Daesh rather than by the bombs of Britain and many other countries. Another factor is that the British contribution to bombing is not changing the situation very much, but, crucially, the British and other bombs are not going to change the situation in the ground. That is why a lot of the debate over the last month or so has been about that precisely. The reality is that there is no credible ground force to take land held by Daesh and, therefore, bombing is strategically not effective. I myself tweeted an article this morning about the title of which was, Do not rely on Syria's moderate fighting force, it does not exist. We have to look at those strategic realities. Of course, there is the consideration about the consequences for ourselves. We are already a target, but, clearly, that is going to make us more of a target. That cannot be the overriding argument against bombing, but it is something that we have to take into account. We have to look at the alternatives, because there is no option of doing nothing. Daesh has to be taken on and they have to be defeated for the sake of the people who live in the Middle East most of all, but also for our own sakes in terms of self-defence. Clearly, there are a range of measures in terms of cutting off funding, oil revenues, arms supplies and so on, and getting involved as far as possible in the negotiation process, because, ultimately, there has to be a negotiated settlement. Part of the problem, of course, is the complexity of the situation in Syria, and so many of the forces fighting Daesh are also fighting each other. It is an incredibly complex situation, but bombing Syria cannot be the answer to it. Finally, we have to say something about the refugees, firstly, because we have to do everything that we can to support and welcome those refugees, but secondly, we must counter the views of those who are connecting that issue with the issue of terrorism. Let's welcome the refugees and do everything positive that we can to resolve the situation in Syria. Thank you so much. I now call on Jamie McGregor to be followed by John Finnie. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I first would like to congratulate John Wilson on securing time in Parliament for this important debate, and I also entirely agree with his remarks concerning Islamophobia and the need to put a stop to it. It is with a very heavy heart, though, that I take part in this debate, as it is yet another sign of the current instability of our world, a world filled with conflict and atrocities. Every wasted life is a tragedy. There is no doubt about that. In all conflicts where we are taking part, we should continue to do all we can to minimise civilian casualties, and I do have the highest confidence in that our servicemen and women are doing all they can to ensure that outcome. The recent vote in the House of Commons on the UK stepping up its involvement in Syria was important for a number of reasons. First, we are sending a clear and unequivocal message of support to our brothers and sisters in France, showing that Britain is a partner you can rely on regardless of circumstance. We must do all we can to ensure that the nightmare of Paris is not repeated, not in Paris and nowhere else. Secondly, the Islamic State of Daish has proven yet again that their striking capabilities are good. This is not a petty gang of thugs in a faraway land. This is an organisation well versed in spreading terror and death wherever they go. If we fail to stop them, we do not only fail to keep the people of Britain safe, we also fail the people of the region that has to suffer the heavy hand of Daish. Homosexuals thrown off rooftops, invaluable cultural treasures destroyed, people burnt alive and beheaded for their beliefs. Those are people who do not want to negotiate and finding a diplomatic solution with Daish is very probably not possible, and that is very, very regrettable. Presiding Officer, it is not common to hear a Conservative directly quoting a Labour shadow foreign secretary out of agreement, but I shall do my best to do justice to Hillary Brennan's excellent speech in support of our intervention. His analysis of our enemy was very poignant. He said, we are faced by fascists, not just our calculated brutality, but their belief that they are superior to every single one of us in this chamber tonight and all the people we represent. They hold us in contempt. They hold our values in contempt. They hold our belief in tolerance and decency in contempt. He is right. Daish despises all that we stand for. However, that in itself does not warrant airstrikes, but all they seek to, not today, not tomorrow, but as soon as they can, destroy all that we hold dear. The UK has already been fighting Daish in Iraq and we have, alongside our many allies, managed to weaken their foothold in Iraq. Before last week's vote, however, Daish fighters could just cross the fictional border between Iraq and Syria to seek cover. This safe haven no longer exists for them. Britain was asked by the world community to act. We have heeded the call for aid. Britain again stands shoulder to shoulder with our allies, fellow champions of freedom and against a common enemy. We now have to ensure that our airstrikes are conducted in a manner that is as efficient as possible using strategies developed to minimise civilian casualties, getting adequate intelligence from the ground, allowing for precision pinpointed strikes is absolutely essential. With a comprehensive strategy and with strong backing of the UN, both of which we currently have, we stand a good chance to defeat these evil forces that seek to destroy us, embodied by Daish. 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, where Russia carpet bombed Grozny. They did so, as history will show, with the compliance of the west. That was part of a deal that links in with another phrase from the motion, which is about Western military action in the Middle East. We know that there is ample precedent for that. I would like to talk about a couple, and that is Iraq. We went there on a false premise, and if we could, and I suggest that we do not set aside the obscene levels of death there, did we achieve our aims? Indeed, what were our aims? Libby is another example, and people will remember the deal in the desert. Again, if we could set aside the obscene levels of death, and I suggest that we do not, have we achieved our aims? What were those aims? What we have done is that we have delivered anarchy to both those countries. No one doubts for one minute, and I am no different, that there is an obligation placed in the United Kingdom to protect its citizens. How you do that is that you assess the risks, and you put in place mechanisms to deal with those risks. There are none of the assessed risks that the UK faces, which are the same as every western liberal democracy. There is continuity of energy, food, cyber attack, terrorism, and such things, which are going to be addressed by bombing anywhere. Language, of course, is very important. As with everything, we need to ask ourselves who's interests are being served by any particular action. I suggest that it is not always the nation state at very, very frequently as the arms industry. How depressing that a senior UK politician talks about getting their module back. Whatever a module is, if that is what gets it back, killing and mindlessly inflicting violence in another country, then again, not in our name. Of course, what we do know is that munitions made 30 miles from here have contributed to death in the Middle East, killing in Yemen, and it is all that Saudi Arabia plays in that. It is a vile, obscene regime, and everything that is said about Daesh could be absolutely replicated in respect of that. Again, back to the language, we are told that the west is very keen to see democracy, but of course we know that when it comes to Palestine or Egypt, that that is not necessary with the case. Likewise, who determines who the goodies in the bodies were? I have to say that I have the highest regard for our Kurdish sisters and brothers, the largest dispossessed nation in the world, but a nation that the west was not into the dawn when Saddam Hussein gassed him. Now they are back on side, but of course there are all sorts of conflicts, and those conflicts relate to NATO's involvement, the role of Turkey, and of course Turkey is seizing its opportunity to attack our Kurdish brothers and sisters. I wonder if it is a good thing for a country to have oil, or a bad thing. It would help South Sudan or Myanmar and their minority populations who were being abused there if they did or did not have oil. I think that we need to be alert to all the dangers that are associated with this conflict. I, as ever, prefer tanks, not tornadoes. I am concerned that we fuel it by our investment, and I include, yes—I will repeat it again—the investment in the arms trade of the Scottish parliamentary pension scheme. I have to say that I guess again that the pressure on 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 a one-world, 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, so I falsely do it to everyone who is coming to the island of Bute, and I thank you very much for saying that. Thank you very much, and I now call on Willie Coffey to be followed by Neil Findlay. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and thanks also to John Walston for bringing the issue of the decision by the UK Government to launch your strikes on Syria to the attention of the Scottish Parliament in this debate. Syria was a country of 23 million people before this conflict began. I say it was because Syria seems to be a country no more. It lies in ruins. Its infrastructures and tatters, schools, hospitals, towns, villages and rubble. Four million UN-registered refugees abroad. Another million unregistered. Seven million displaced internally, and over a quarter of a million of its citizens are dead. Basically half its population is displaced in one form or another. We are witnessing the death of a nation in front of our eyes, and its people are fleeing, having lost all hope for peace. They flee their own government, from the rebels fighting that government, from Daish IS fighting everybody, and from the combined air strikes targeting all of them. The Russians target the rebels and Daish. The West targets Daish and the regime, and helps the rebels. The West asks the Russians to stop targeting the rebels since it lets the IS and the regime off the hook. Asad says the Russian intervention is more effective, but he would, wouldn't he? What an absolute disaster has been created, and no wonder that one's proud country is literally bleeding to death. All of that was known to us before the UK decided to pitch in with its contribution of more air strikes. Surely any reasonable person must be asking whether the UK military involvement, which started only minutes after the vote for action, is helping or making things worse. The House of Commons did not authorise a plan for peace, but authorised a plan for war. Have we learned nothing from the past and glorious adventure in Iraq, where the country was told a pack of lies to make it easier for a prime minister to side up with the American military campaign there? There was no plan for peace then, and there's none now. What disturbs me is the glib claim by the UK defence minister that there are no reports of civilian casualties. How reassuring. No wonder are there no reports, there are no reporters. Mercifully, though, what we do have is a citizen's journalist social media presence through Twitter feeds and Facebook from a group called RBSS, which means that RACA is being silently slaughtered. It's a social media platform of underground citizens who try to report what's happening in RACA. They report on IS crucifixions, beherings, sexual abuse and some of their members have even been murdered by IS. They describe RACA as it was though, a wonderful city with its universities, its cafes, its bars, rich in energy resources and a solid agricultural base, which became a focal point for the rebellion against Assad. It's now a stronghold for Daish, attracting more and more fighters from abroad to live in this so-called caliphate. They describe it now, though, as a prison where women are not permitted to leave and its citizens are basically human shields against airstrikes. Many local people have joined IS through fear and youngsters have been forced into training camps to be indoctrinated. Of the airstrikes, the RBSS says that the bombing strategy is plainly stupid. The west bombing the outskirts, the Russians allegedly hitting a hospital or a university while the people are trapped inside the city. People are afraid that their city is simply being bombed into oblivion, just like Kubani. Even military commentators say that IS can't be defeated there unless it's on the ground. RBSS feels that the only way that it can rebuild Syria is through the civic society growing and spreading, countering and destroying IS propaganda and social media is crucial in achieving this, and they need help to continue with that. Presiding Officer, are we closer or further away from a solution by sending an RAF planes to rain more bombs down in RACA? I fear that we may be further away, and those brave citizens of RACA seem to think that too. While the western Russia have different aims in Syria and IS holds the city of RACA and its citizens to ransom, it doesn't hope to be any prospect for peace. A bombing campaign in its own can't succeed. Surely it has to be within our wit to devise an intelligent and coordinated campaign to nullify IS and its propaganda and to embrace the civic rebellion that has sprung up in the hope that somebody somewhere will listen and act to protect and cherish the citizens of RACA and to work for the restoration of this nation of Syria. Once again, congratulations to John Wilson for bringing us this debate. I thank Colin Neill for being followed by Jeane Arkart. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I too congratulate John Wilson for bringing this forward. I think that there have been really good contributions today. I have had fear watching some of the debate around this issue that we might follow some of what has been said elsewhere, and I'm really pleased that that's not happened. People who present this as being the good guys don't want to bomb and it's the bad guys who do, I think, do their case, whichever side they're on, no credit whatsoever, that kind of argument, without any nuance or recognition of the complexity of the situation. I think that weakens the argument against bombing considerably and it certainly does not bolster it. I am absolutely clear in my opposition to the bombing of Syria. I don't do that as a pacifist or a peaser, because my view of a very complex situation, and I think that Willie Coffey explained the complexity at the beginning of his speech very well, my view of that complex situation is pretty straightforward. In a situation where we have a long, protracted, devastating civil war that has reduced the proud, sophisticated, cultured, developed country to one big pile of tragic rubble, and where Daesh, Isolices, whatever title they operate under, are engaged in nihilistic barbarism and brutality, do we assist that situation, do we make that situation better or worse by sending in airplanes to join in the thunderstorm of bombs raining down on that land, while air strikes de-radicalise, de-escalate and already a pollen situation where we will escalate it further and will further radicalise those who have nothing left to lose, while creating more Syrian orphans and widows hasting the end of the civil war, while the demolition of more homes and factories and infrastructure and what remains of civic society help 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, then going to a Christmas party and wiping out dozens of people? I just cannot see how it will, and the reality is that since 9-11, we've had the war on terror unleashed following those horrendous events in 9-11. Has that brought an end to terrorism, or has it stoked the flames of it further? The war on terror far from making the world a safer place has made it a much, much more dangerous one. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria have to ask what have we learned that would appear not very much. The desire to do something does not mean that we would just do anything. The reality is that, in an age of spectacularly advanced technology and modern communications, you cannot bomb your way to a victory over terrorists such as Daesh, who are operating in a cell structure. Where are they based? Who knows? Where do they live? Who knows? Who are they? Well, who knows? As we have seen in the past in events such as the Glasgow airport bombing, doctors, teachers, accountants and IT consultants are people doing normal, everyday jobs. Dealing with that type of threat will never be ended through military hardware. It has to be dealt with through cutting-off funding, cutting-off propaganda, communications, education and ending the civil war in Syria and conflicts across the Middle East, which stoke up resentment and that feeling of helplessness. I will finish on a more upbeat point. Today, two lorries will come to Livingston and collect donations that my local Labour Party collected for Syria that will send hundreds of boxes to help the refugees in Germany. 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 do know is that bombing is not the solution. I would also like to congratulate John Wilson for bringing a very timely topic and subject for debate in this Parliament. I am only sorry that there are not perhaps more people who see this possibly as one of the most important debates to be held here. I agree with almost everything that I have heard and I am very powerful at speeches. I cannot really add to any of that, but what I want to talk about is the fact that the seriousness of war and the lack of coverage in our media we know exactly what those bombs are capable of because we can find out for ourselves, but we are not, I think, showing and we never do the harshness of war. It has been described very well in this Parliament to the few people who are hearing it now and it will be in the parliamentary report. It seems to me that Scotland is a nation and although defence and military matters are still reserved to Westminster, there was no doubt, Presiding Officer, absolutely no doubt whatsoever, that the representatives through the democratic process of the people of this country voted against bombing in Syria. I think that that should have been a headline repeated and repeated and repeated. No, not in my name and as Christina McKelvie said, not in our country's name was this excusable. We knew what was going to happen. It's no surprise that we know that it won't fix anything, it didn't fix it before and it won't fix it now. To put the hand on humanitarian aid starting perhaps in this country, the obscenity of a bomb costing £100,000 is the obscenity of thousands of people with no food in this country and a genuine desire to help Syrian people as refugees now. Why are we allowing this to happen? How, I would ask our minister and our Government and all the members of this Parliament, how do we get that message now into a press that is supporting the arms race and supporting the people of Syria? Not the 78 per cent of people in this country that recent polls show are opposed to the bombing in Syria, but reflecting that, reflecting the nationhood of this country and the people's desire not to have bombed in Syria, how do we now have that expressed? And how does Westminster react to that when a country clearly has objected and wants to take no part in the war? Yes, I welcome John Wilson's debate today, but I think that the debate isn't over and we really should be taking this, making our voice heard in a much stronger fashion, because if we can do it in Syria, we'll do it the next time. We will not learn and we will constantly be carried along by a Westminster military machine that is not reflecting the will of the Scottish people. Thank you so much. I now call the minister, whom is it your staff, to close the debate on behalf of the Governments of Minutes thereby, please minister. Thank you, Presiding Officer, my thanks to John Wilson for bringing this debate to the chamber and thanks to the members, all of the members that have contributed to what I think was a very thoughtful debate indeed. The crisis in Syria is one of the worst humanitarian disasters of recent times of scale, of the suffering unimaginable. We've heard some of those figures, some of the numbers that have been mentioned of those that have lost their lives and been displaced already. It's important to remember, of course, that the situation in Syria is not a new one, it's not a recent event. The conflict in Syria, the bombardment by the regime on their own people, has been happening for four and a half years of a brutal civil war. The recent attacks in Paris, Beirut, Istanbul and elsewhere around the world inevitably make us ask ourselves what can we do to respond, how can we keep ourselves safe? On that point, I would say two things, I would say that I agree with Neil Findlay's assessment that when we can't do something for the sake of it, doing something doesn't mean doing anything. I think that that was the phrase that he used. It's certainly one that I would agree with. The second point that I would make on that was going back to Jamie McGregor's contribution, which I thought was a very thoughtful contribution actually, although I disagreed with many parts of it. It's very thoughtful indeed, but he made the point that there was an obligation on the UK to respond to the call from our allies, in this case, in France. What I would say is that the Scottish Government relationship with France and with our allies is as strong as we'd wanted to be, and we always looked to strengthen it. However, that relationship of strengthening with our allies should not be based on simply exceeding to demands or requests without any critical analysis. We should always be prepared to listen to requests of our allies, but that relationship should be one that is built on mutual respect. The same way that the relationship between France and the UK is as strong as it ever has been, despite the fact that France did not listen, did not exceed to the calls of the UK and the US to get involved in Iraq, for example. You can have a different foreign policy, you can make different decisions, I don't think that it's right to characterise that, which in fairness I know Jamie McGregor wasn't. However, as others have done, it's simply not standing up for our allies. The Scottish Government is not opposed to military intervention simply as a matter of principle and within itself, as Elaine Smith MSP had said before. Those who are opposed air strikes simply don't believe that nothing should be done whatever. However, as members across the chamber have said, any action can only be undertaken when it's legal, of course, when there's a clear objective in mind and when it's part of a wider coherent strategy to achieve peace. The solution 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, indeed, the terrorism that has affected so many other countries. Indeed, as many members of the chamber have said, there's a risk that it makes those two factors worse. Despite being asked time and time again to explain what the strategy is during that House of Commons, I feel the debate in the Scottish Government feels that the Prime Minister failed to make a convincing case that air strikes in Syria would help to end violence or undermine extremism. For example, a very simple question that was asked time and time again by MPs in the House of Commons was how will UK efforts help to defeat Daish where 11 other countries, including three permanent members of the UN 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 to ask permission to bomb Daish perhaps speaks about the lack of coherent long-term planning that exists. Furthermore, rightly, as others have done, we have pushed the UK Government to provide more detail of the number of 70,000 so-called moderate forces. Who would take over control of areas that have been vacated by Daish? Very many respected MPs from across the political spectrum and security experts have cast doubt on that figure and the answers that were given by the Prime Minister. I want to touch upon the refugee issue that has been mentioned by a number of members. I think that Christina McKelvie spoke particularly powerful about how some children would not know anything other than a refugee camp in their entire life. She spoke very powerfully about that. Everyone understands that there cannot be a military solution to the conflict in Syria. We know that it requires, of course, a diplomatic effort to find an end to that conflict. However, in the meantime, we must continue to offer any assistance that we possibly can to refugees. I have been overwhelmed by the response that Scotland has shown right up and down the country by local authorities and by people who are looking to help refugees in any way that they possibly can. I am proud of the Scottish Government for leading that call not just this year but for many years to say that refugees must be welcomed here from Syria. It is unacceptable that we have 4 to 5 million, closer to 5 million now, refugees living in camps. We must help the most vulnerable. From a Scottish Government's perspective, we have given £500,000 in funding to help the situation in Syria. We have taken almost 40 per cent of the entire intake of refugees that have come pre-Christmas. We should continue to push the UK Government to do more. That £20,000 figure over the parliamentary term is not enough. A good start would be to opt in to the European scheme and take more refugees. On the question of the question of the UK Government and John Finnie and many others, about what the Scottish Government can do, where can the focus be, what action John Wilson asked and what can the Scottish Government take? We must, from our perspective, be willing to assist in any way that we possibly can to help to build peace and to help the situation in Syria when there is a diplomatic solution. There will be a diplomatic solution. Nobody knows exactly when. The peace talks are still going on, but there will be, but we have to ensure that the conditions are right for when that negotiation, when that settlement comes to be. On the Scottish Government, the First Minister recently announced that the Scottish Government will be working with the UN Special Envoy to Syria, Stephen Demistra, to provide training for women in the skills that are needed to contribute to the forthcoming peace negotiations. I was in that meeting with the UN Special Envoy, and he made the very important point that, in 30 years plus of conflict resolution that he has, women are the key to finding peace. He believed that very sincerely and gave very thoughtful reason for why that was the case, not as a tick-box exercise, but how fundamentally helping to train women could come about bringing peace when a diplomatic solution is found. I think that it does no one any good to characterise each other as the good or the bad guys, depending on how they chose to vote in the House of Commons debate on what position they take in the chamber. The decision to extend airstrikes was a very difficult one, even for the Prime Minister. I think that many of us have sleepless nights over that decision, but that decision has been taken. As Jean Arquett said, we must continue to make the case of it, why there is not a military solution and redouble the diplomatic effort. In the meantime, as that violence continues, unfortunately, the one thing that we can do is contribute to that peace, but we must continue to give the most vulnerable of the most vulnerable a home here in Scotland. I join with other members across the chamber who have already said that refugees are most certainly a welcome here. Thank you all for taking part in this important debate. I suspend this meeting of Parliament until 2.30 this afternoon.