 The final item of business is members' business debate on motion 14915, in the name of Alison Johnson, on remembering conscientious objectors. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put. I ask those who wish to participate in the debate to press the request-to-speak buttons now. I call on Alison Johnson to open the debate for around seven minutes, please. Just over 100 years on, from the end of the First World War, there have been many events to mark what was then known as the war to end all wars. In communities across Scotland and far beyond, people have been reflecting on the first industrialised war, in which as many as 19 million people died. It is important that we remember, each in our own way, perhaps for different reasons, the millions of people who have died in conflicts in the past, and that we recognise the devastating loss caused by conflicts that continue to rage across the globe today. It is important that we pay our respects, too, to those who object to war on moral, political and religious grounds, because they have made and are still making their own sacrifice. When it became apparent by the end of 1915 that the First World War would be prolonged, that more soldiers were needed, the Military Service Act of March 1916 introduced conscription to the UK. For those whose views, beliefs and conscience demanded of them that they did not fight, conflict with the expectations of government and society was extremely challenging, those who appealed against Military Service faced local tribunals who decided between conscience or cowardice. The first six months of the act saw more than 750,000 cases being heard by tribunals of which only a small number were recognised as legitimate. From March 1916 until the end of the war, only 16,000 men were registered as conscientious objectors and given alternative service of national importance. Conscientious objectors endured ostracism. They risked their livelihoods, their reputations. In 1914, the Order of the White Feather tried to shame men not in uniform into signing up by branding them cowards, presenting them with a white feather. In some cases, their own families could not understand their stance and shunned them, too. Conscientious objectors were forced into highly dangerous jobs. They were used as forced labour. They broke rocks for months on end. They endured brutal conditions in prison where they suffered terrible treatment from warders and other prisoners. 73 First World War objectors died in prison. However, there were also many tens of thousands not then eligible for military service who objected to war and campaigned for peace, including women. The women's peace crusade was founded in Glasgow in 1916, campaigning for an end to war and for a just peace, in particular they campaigned against a punitive peace settlement. Crystal McMillan, a great Edinburgh figure, a pioneer in so many fields, travelled to the Hague in 1915 to participate in a conference of the Women's International League that called on the warring countries of Europe to stop fighting. She went on to be a delegate to the Paris peace conference in 1919, but this principled struggle against war and for peace continues today. Britain was one of the first countries to scrap military conscription, but more than 40 countries around the world still do conscript their citizens into military service. Some of which had previously scrapped the practice and have reintroduced it. It remains the case today that many people are still forced to make a decision between performing a role they object to on sincerely held religious, political or moral grounds, or being punished sometimes with imprisonment. With 50 wars going on around the world right now, tens of millions of people remain active in peace movements. That is why I wholeheartedly welcome the work of the Edinburgh Peace and Justice Centre and others to place in Princess Street Gardens a memorial to conscientious objectors and to all who oppose war. There are 37 war memorials in Edinburgh, eight of them in the gardens, from the Royal Scots monument to the stone commemorating the volunteers from Lothian and Fife who fought in the Spanish Civil War. We rightly remember those who have died in war, but there is no memorial to those who have objected to war and struggled for peace. Several such memorials exist in London. There is one in Cardiff, but none in Edinburgh or in Scotland at all. From conscientious objection in the first and second world wars through protests against the Vietnam War to Scotland's resistance to the Iraq War, our country has a long and proud history of principled objection to war, and it is a long past time that this is recognised in our capital city in Scotland. The Peace and Justice Centre has been working very hard indeed to find the right design for the memorial, to win permission for it to be built and to fund raise to meet the cost of design and construction. I am particularly pleased that a design by award-winning Edinburgh artist Kate Ive has been chosen. Kate has designed a beautiful tree sculpture, a bronze tree sculpture, and it will become the first piece of art by a woman to be on permanent display in Princess Street gardens. The tree's bronze flowers are based on those of the dove tree, and the dove tree's flowers are said to look like handkerchiefs. Kate was inspired by the story of a no-conscription fellowship meeting in London in 1916. In support of conscientious objectors and war resistors, an aggressive crowd was gathered outside, threatening to break in, so the chair asked the 2,000 attendees to wave their handkerchiefs instead of clapping to avoid further angering the crowd. Handkerchiefs were also a common item sent by families to their loved ones fighting on the front lines during the two world wars. There will be a small granite stone at the heart of each flower and the bench that will be built alongside will also be made from Aberdeen granite to commemorate the death of Scottish conscientious objector, 20-year-old Walter Roberts, who died at the dice work camp, where inmates were forced to quarry granite in dangerous conditions. The sculpture, which is intended to be in place by August 2019—that is the centenary of the end of imprisonment of first world war objectors—is intended to be in place by then. I would like to thank the City of Edinburgh Council for its willingness to place, to put the memorial in the heart of this world heritage site, in the heart of our capital city, because it is right that local people and visitors alike are afforded an opportunity to reflect on the possibilities of peace building and conflict resolution, on the traditions of individual liberty and internationalism. Neil Findlay. To say that we hope to get the widest possible support for the proposal. It is important to say that it is not just pacifists who would support the erection of a memorial. There are many people who would, in certain circumstances, agree with taking up arms, taking up conflict, in certain circumstances, but they should be welcome to support that as well. I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Findlay's contribution and welcome it. I would like to thank the City of Edinburgh Council for its willingness to adopt the proposal, because it is right that the opportunity to reflect is available in the city. I want to live in a Scotland where it is globally recognised as a beacon of peace and inclusion. I wrote to the councils to support the proposal last year, and I warmly welcome the progress that has been made. However, there is more to do. I will begin to wind up. I would like to thank the Edinburgh Peace and Justice Centre for leading this effort, along with many other groups. The Muslim Women's Association of Edinburgh, Edinburgh Stop the War, Edinburgh CND, St Thomas of Aquinas secondary school and the Quakers and representatives of some of those organisations are with us in the gallery today. We rightly remember those who have died in conflicts, and so too must we remember those who have and continue to work for peace, because they too sometimes make sacrifices with their own lives and deserve to be remembered, and we all deserve a space in which to reflect on that contribution. We now move to the open debate. Mr Findlay, some of your fellow members found it difficult to hear you, which was fairly unusual. I will pull your microphone in a wee bit, but thank you very much. Speeches of four minutes, please. We are quite tight for time. Bill Kidd, followed by Maurice Corry. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and thank you very much to Alison Johnstone for bringing the topic of conscientious objectures forward for debate. I thank the Edinburgh Peace and Justice Centre and others for their proposals for the memorial. Since the early 20th century, we have seen that the contribution of conscientious objectures took many forms during periods of conscription. The Military Service Act of 1916, which brought in conscription for 18 to 41-year-old unmarried men, stipulated that individuals could appeal to civil courts over the grounds of conscientious objection. Before the Military Service Act of 1916, pacifists, many of whom would become conscientious objectures, protested against the escalating arms race and then against the outbreak of war. According to the opposing war memorial project, many thousands marched on Glasgow green in opposition to the outbreak of what was then called by some, the great war. It is this instinct to stand up for what you believe to be right, which is essential for our democracy. In the context of remembering World War I, how do we recognise conscientious objectures, individuals who face shame and many difficulties in the pursuit of peace? Through the tribunal courts, around 16,000 men, as has been mentioned by Alison Johnson, appealed as conscientious objectures from 1916 to 1918. Many of those men joined the army in non-combatant roles and many others went to prison and labour camps. The opposing war memorial's goal of creating a memorial in Princes Street Gardens is an excellent way of recognising this wide-ranging group of people. It brings to our attention another side of history from World War I, one that is not taught widely or is in the public eye. It echoes, for example, the feeling of 200,000 who demonstrated in Trafalgar Square following the extension of conscription to include married men. Aside from the opposing war memorial, collections of primary sources and personal testimonies of conscientious objectures are also important in helping us to understand the decision to object to the objectionable. In October, the BBC ran an illuminating article detailing the plight of conscientious objectures. In this, a letter recently gifted to Glasgow Caledonian University was highlighted. Robert Cleimie from Kilmarnock, the author of the letter, wrote to his baby daughter, Cathy, in November of 1917. Robert was originally granted exemption from service on the grounds of conscientious objection. However, the ruling was overturned at a later point. Robert was arrested, court-martialed, sent to prison, and in the spring of 1917 he was sent to a Labour camp at Cruich in Argyll near Lochaw to work in forestry. In the letter, he tried to explain to his daughter why he had been imprisoned. That moving letter has now caught the attention of many Scots who otherwise were unaware of stories such as his. Other primary sources tell the stories of those who contributed to the First World War in non-combatant military service. That included running stretchers to wounded soldiers on the front in an effort to save lives, and many lost their own lives in doing so. Others volunteered to help civilians caught within the conflict on the continent. Websites such as White Further Diaries and other online sources provide examples of doctors travelling to France and remote parts of Russia to help civilians with scant medical resources and no-trained medics amidst the throngs of war. History telling through sources, stories and memorials can recognise those whose hearts were turned to peace. That noble end is the common denominator of the wide-ranging testimonies of conscientious objectors who deserve to be remembered. I thank Alison Johnstone for bringing this moment's motion to debate this afternoon in the chamber. I am pleased to speak on the matter of remembering conscientious objectors. Even though we may have our differences of opinion on the need for war, I entirely believe that the memory of conscientious objectors should be honoured and respected accordingly. I welcome the upcoming memorial in Princess Street Gardens, proposed by the Edinburgh Peace and Justice Centre. That will create a space in which conscientious objectors and the value of international peacemakers should be remembered and reflected upon. Let me be clear. Conscientious objectors should have and always should do the right to not participate in war. Conscientious objector is now recognised human right by the United Nations and the European Court of Human Rights, which many countries support. In the First World War, as in any war, conscientious objectors acted by conviction. That could have been founded upon religious belief or political activism, and some disagreed with Government interventions while others believed that it was wrong to kill in any instance. They should always have had that freedom to do this, to purely follow their conscience regarding peace. Their resistance was not harmful or cowardly. It was principled. That is what the memorial in Princess Street seeks to represent, that every person should have the right to offer alternatives to war, such as through conflict resolution or peace building, even though sometimes it may be incredibly difficult. Conscription in Scotland, as well as internationally, would place heavy burdens on conscientious objectors. In the First World War, there were nearly 20,000 conscientious objectors with 235 men from Edinburgh refusing conscription. That figure tripled in the Second World War. Their unfair treatment by authorities and indeed by their own communities should never have happened. That has been referred to already by previous speakers. Tribunals were often unfair in their decision making and failed to make their personal stances seriously. In many cases, conscientious objectors were all still forced into war that they still did not want to be part of. Some were wrongly treated as deserters, which resulted in prison sentences. In total, 6,000 were sent to prison during the First World War, and here they faced harsh and degrading treatment with a minimal doubt. Some endured solitary confinement. Those who went on hunger strike risks the possibility of being false fed, but it is a psychological damage that seems to have had the most important effect on conscientious objectors. They risked a backlash of social isolation in their communities and accusations of betrayal from their own communities. That could foster feelings of shame and doubt in the face of suspicion and pressure. Conscientious objectors should not have been treated as lesser individuals, but valued members of society who serve the nation in other ways and on which they base their principles. Today, it is a relief to know that the conscientious objection is treated more respectfully as it should be. I am glad that in our nation this feeling is no longer the case, and I know that today conscientious objectors here are treated with the thought and care that they deserved years ago. For example, the fact that the armed forces recruitment today is entirely voluntary ensures that every individual within it is not forced to be there and is free to make that choice. We should be respectful of the motivation and belief of both those who choose to join our armed forces and those who do not. Conscientious objectors should not have been treated as lesser individuals but valued members of society and who could serve the nation in other ways. Rather than ignoring the stance of conscientious objection, the memorial will publicly represent their commitment and principles for peace. It is most definitely fitting that the memorial will hopefully be installed by August 2019, the centenary of the end of imprisonment for conscientious objectors during the First World War. I hope that the fundraising efforts will help the project to raise awareness for those individuals amidst the multiple memorials across the capital that remember those who fought in the war. It is right that a space should be created to remember international peacemakers as well as conscientious objectors who face risks based on their principles. To conclude, it is just as important to remember those who died in the war as to remember those who suffered from the opposing war. Despite the differences, as I say, as a veteran myself, the two should go hand in hand, both with sacrifices that point towards hope for peace. That is what I believe that the memorial will represent. Neil Findlay, followed by Patrick Harvie. Thanks, Presiding Officer. When a country goes to war, it is often on the back of a great deal of propaganda, pressure, media coverage and the state influence of public opinion. That is the nature of the build-up to any war, the might of the Government machine and persuasive forces allied to it, a rolled-out to bang the drum and build public support for conflict. The First World War, as Alison Johnstone referred to, is the prime example of that. It is where conscientious objectors came to public consciousness. Those people against that backdrop of impending war took a very brave and principled stance of opposing conflict on the grounds of their moral, religious or political views. They were neither cowards nor deserters nor unpatriotic. The people of great integrity, humanity and deeply held conviction, many of them lost their liberty as a result. Some, driven by strongly held Christian or Jewish or Islamic faith and for groups like the Quakers, the literal interpretation of thou shalt not kill informed their stance. Others, driven by deeply held political principles, and at the forefront of those was the independent Labour Party, one of the founding organisations of the modern Labour Party. Keir Hardy was of course one of the greatest critics of the march to war and played a very prominent role in the anti-war movement. The general secretary of the ILP at that time, Albert Inkpin, said, as a socialist and internationalist, I am strongly opposed to the war, which I regard as arising from the conflict of capitalist interests and as inimical to the welfare of the working class. Given the deaths of so many young working-class men and women, those words were indeed prophetic. The ILP newspaper, The Labour Leader, led opposition to the war, promoting the No Conscription Fellowship. A number of leading Labour movement activists ended up in prison as a result of their anti-war activity. Some are going on to become ILP MPs, people like Fenard Brockway, Emerson Hughes and James Maxson. They were driven by a class analysis of the conflict, a belief that war was about economics, resources and power and that it was always the wealth-owning capitalist class that always declared wars but the working class that were sent to fight them. Gillian Martin recognised that one of the founding members of the Scottish National Party, William Muirhead, was also, along with the people that he mentioned, involved in that effort. Delighted to be informed of that by Gillian Martin, every day is a school day. Their actions were also supported by the likes of Mary Barber, leading the rent strikes in Glasgow and John McLean and Willie Gallagher, leading opponents of the war. Indeed, this week, he sees the 100th anniversary of McLean's release from Peterhead prison, and he had initially been arrested under the defence of the realm act. His aeration from the dock is now famous or infamous, however you look at it. He stated that no human being on the face of the earth, no Government is going to take from me my right to speak, my right to protest against wrong, my right to everything that is for the benefit of my kind. I am not here then as the accuser of capitalism dripping with blood from head to foot. The role of conscientious objectors is a very important part of our social and political history. They should be remembered and acknowledged. The memorial in Princess Street Gardens would join many others, as Alison Johnstone has mentioned and I would refer again to the International Brigades memorial that sits in the gardens. That is why I made the point that it is not just pacifists who support us. It is right that we acknowledge our history and the people who have gone before us and that the memorial to those who stood by their principles and honourably opposed war—the war that was supposed to end all wars—is the right thing to do. I am grateful to have the chance to participate in the debate that is being brought by my colleague Alison Johnstone. The debate, as the memorial I hope will, gives us the opportunity to reflect on some difficult and complicated issues. I have felt conflicted in recent months as we have marked the 100th anniversary of the armistice. It is important to reflect on some of the complexities around that, rather than to have a simplistic commemoration of remembrance almost as though it becomes an unthinking ritual. It is always problematic to judge historical events through today's moral context. That context changes, but it is important when we remember those historical events that we discuss how the context has changed. The First World War was a time before the development of human rights law, before the development of much international law. It was a time in which racist imperialist Governments were absolutely the norm throughout Europe and almost unchallangible in terms of racism and imperialism and the state violence that they felt entitled to perpetrate on their own citizens and on those around the world. Governments felt that they had and were regarded as having the right to round up their own citizens, march them to war and see them sent to their deaths. While accepting that we are judging those historical events from a modern perspective, we have to, especially in moments of shared remembrance, reflect on what has changed as well. One of the first big political events just before I was elected here was, of course, the protests in relation to the Iraq war. I had the opportunity to speak in front of a crowd of 100,000 people taking to the streets in Glasgow marching against that war, a generation that viewed its inalienable right to express its view, its opposition to war and to weapons of mass destruction, as many of us still campaign against. We regarded and people have a right to regard the Government as their servant, not their master in those issues, but I know that it was easy for me to do that. It felt safe and easy. I do not know whether I would have had the courage if I had been born in a previous time, if I had been raised in the years before the First World War. I do not know whether I would have had the courage of what I now regard as my convictions. I do not know whether I would have had the insight to recognise that this was not a war between countries, this was a war being perpetrated by Governments against their citizens, by Governments on both sides against the citizens of both sides. I hope that I would have had that insight and I hope that I would have had that courage, but I cannot know. I can only empathise with those around the world who are still faced with being the subject of war and state violence perpetrated by those who are being armed by our country and others. Those issues are always in my mind when we think about the role of the red poppy and the white poppy, and I will continue to argue that there has to be a place for both in our acts of shared remembrance. Remembrance, yes, has to include a recognition and a reflection on the value and the lives and the memories of those who fought and who lost their lives, whether they regarded themselves as making a sacrifice or whether we regard them as having their lives sacrificed by their own Governments. I regret to say that, as Neil Findlay is probably right, as we see the rise of fascism in North and South America and in parts of Europe at the moment, there may be times again when people are forced to feel that they have no other option but to take up arms against that kind of Government. However, the bravery, the courage, the conviction, the sacrifice and the principle of those who oppose war are absolutely essential to be a part of our shared acts of remembrance just as those who participate in war. I commend the Peace and Justice Centre and all of its colleagues, including the University of Edinburgh, the Iona community, the Muslim Women's Association of Edinburgh and many others, for their work. This memorial, when it is in place, will offer everyone in Scotland the space to do what we are doing now, to reflect on difficult and contested issues in relation to our attitudes to war and to the value of those around the world who work for peace. Mark McDonald, followed by Gillian Martin. Can I congratulate Alison Johnstone on securing this debate? I signed her motion and I am fully supportive of the campaign. On 18 November this year, a play was performed at Dice Parish Church in my constituency. A play entitled This Evil Thing, a solo play written and performed by the award-winning actor Michael Mears, telling the story of Britain's World War I conscientious objectors. The play includes a scene set at the work camp that was established in Dice by the Government in 1916. Alison Johnstone alluded to it in her speech and I want to focus my contribution around the Dice work camp. The camp was established on 23 August 1916 and involved 250 men being transported to Dice to be put to work in the quarries, breaking up granite stones, if essentially to be used in the road building endeavours. The local authority was not informed about what was happening and the press did not find out about the camp's existence until 9 September. Alison Johnstone mentioned Walter Roberts, who died at the Dice camp. Like most workers, he developed a cold upon arrival and on 6 September he dictated a letter to his mother from the camp. I want to quote that from that letter. As I anticipated, it has only been a matter of time for the camp conditions to get the better of me. Bartle Wild is now writing to my dictation because I am now too weak to handle a pen myself. I do not want you to worry yourself because the doctor says that I have only got a severe chill but has reduced me very much. All those fellows here are exceedingly kind and are looking after me like bricks, so there is no reason why I should not be strong in a day or two when I will write more personally and more fully. He died on the Friday of pneumonia during the course of his illness. He had fallen from his bed and spent two hours on the cold floor of his tent, was not seen by a medical professional and therefore was not afforded medical attention in order to possibly save his life. The Aberdeen daily journal reported his death on 12 September but also carried an editorial on the next page about the conscious subjectors. That editorial was headlined Dice humbugs and contained the following passage. The conscious objector in wartime is a degenerate or worse who is out of harmony with the people of the nation which protects him in peacetime and safeguards him in wartime. The no conscription fellowship which champions the shirkers of their duty is under so deep a cloud of suspicion that no fewer than 27 raids by the police have been made within the past week or so on the houses of secretaries and members in the London area. It is interesting to note that rather than focusing on the conditions in which those men were being forced to endure at the camp, the focus was rather on why those men were deserving of the conditions in which they found themselves, and that was the focus that the press chose to take. Future Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald visited the Dice camp himself and reported in Parliament on 19 October 2016 regarding what he had seen. He said, Then take the men at work. You go up to the end and you see 20 or 30 men, the most extraordinary creatures you ever saw. First of all they looked as if every one of them had been 20 years on the road and yet behind it all you saw the intellectual class of the men. It is a strange sort of combination of the intellectual life and the tramp. The men felt it very keenly. One man I talked to about it almost broke down when I tried to joke about his personal appearance. He later said, There were these men about 100 doing work that they were not trained to do, doing what they could not do, doing work that they could not be trained to do, going under the impression that this is national service. The point was that this was dressed as national service but in reality was punishment of conscientious objectors. The camp closed on 25 October 1916 and had been open for only two months. I raised this in the chamber tonight alongside the motion that Alison Johnstone has raised because I grew up in Dice and until I was an adult I knew nothing of this part of our history in our community. It was not talked about. It was not something that we learned about. We learned about the RAF being stationed in Dice during World War II and it was almost as though we could only talk about the aspects of war that were considered to be glorious as part of our history rather than those that ought to give us pause for thought reflection and rightly a sense of shame for what these men had to endure. I support the campaign by Alison Johnstone. I hope that it will help to encourage greater awareness of what happened in relation to the work camp at Dice and in terms of the conscientious objectors movement more widely. Gillian Martin, followed by Daniel Johnson. I thank Alison Johnstone for bringing this important debate and it gives me the opportunity to recognise some of the people who were conscientious objectors. If pacifist movements can change the course of political action, conscientious objectors is a great war. With the genesis of the peace movement, as we know it today, a peace movement which is the bulwark against overzealous Governments and national conscious when ill-advised decisions on aggressive interventions are taken on wars that we have no business been involved in. Alison Johnstone has already outlined the examples of the type of war that I allowed to. It is only right that there is a memorial to those who stood up for peace at a time but that meant being attacked and ridiculed by members of the public and taking away from your family, being imprisoned, being put in labour camps and in some cases being tortured and abused. As we know in some cases, when they were forced into conscription shot and killed by their own Government for refusing to follow orders or suffering trauma. When we talk of bravery, we must not ignore the bravery of the conscientious objectors of the so-called great war. They were brave. They were brave too. They stood up for what they believed in, peace. Heroism takes many forms. Amongst the heroes who fought in the trenches must stand the heroes who fought to stop the senseless war in which so many young men died. In the name of something, we still cannot really put our finger on. We just have to look at the propaganda images and letters to the newspapers of the day portraying those men. The characterisation of them is appalling and offensive. How brave to stand up for your beliefs and face being punished and ostracised from society. Having your family ridiculed as a result as well, which a lot of people forget, it would impact on your whole family. As Mark McDonald's mentioned about the dice camps, just a melby on the board of my constituency, hundreds of English conscientious objectors were sent from prisons to live in horrific conditions. They spent their days breaking granite in a nearby quarry, sleeping a cold wet ground in ragged, damaged tents that had been used in the bore war. Conditions were so bad. We have already heard about 20-year-old man Walter Robert. He really struck me when I was reading about Walter Robert's. Whenever I read about the First World War, the ages of the men really get to me because my son is 20 years old and that is the thing that really sticks in my craw. That letter that he wrote to his mother nearly had me in tears because I am imagining opening that letter and then finding out that her son had died days later. Walter died because he had religious beliefs. He was a Christian and that is why he objected to war. He should have been exempted from conscription for that reason, but he was not. I want to close by quoting from a letter from another person who was mentioned in the debate by Bill Kidd, Robert Cleimie. Robert Cleimie had long-held pacifist beliefs and he was not exempted. He was exempted initially, but someone, an ex-army officer, took against the decision so bad that he campaigned to have his exemption overturned. He had been sent to Wyrmood Scrubs. He wrote to his baby daughter that she turned one years old and he missed her first year of life because of his imprisonment. I want to read what he said in his letter to his daughter, but she assumed that she would read later on her life. The first year of your life will in later years be known as one of the worst years in the history of the world, and the most fearful war is raging. The war just now is divided into nations, and the people of each nation believe themselves to be fighting on behalf of their own particular country. However, there are men and women who believe that all men and all women are brothers and sisters. Those people are known as pacifists. I urge everyone to listen to Robert Climie's full letter, which is read by the actor Gary Lewis, who has to go online to find it. It is heartbreaking, but it is heroic. In closing, I want to put on record my thanks to the Edinburgh Peace and Justice Centre for all the hard work that they have been campaigning to give those heroes for peace the recognition that they deserve and going some way, a small way, allowing us to make a small amount of amends for the heartbreak that they and their families endured, along with those who did go to war. The last of the open debate contributions is from Daniel Johnson. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I, too, would like to thank Alison Johnson for bringing forward this debate, because it is an important one for all the reasons that have been set out by members. It is important to remember not just those who died bearing arms for our country, but also those who fought for the principle of peace. I am very conscious standing here being someone who is of a generation who has had no immediate or even indirect contact with that mass mobilisation that wars in the 20th century brought. I am not my immediate family, nor my grandparents, nor my parents fought. As we reflect on the 100-year anniversary of World War I, I find it truly unimaginable. Much of the memorial and much of the thoughts and the things that have been said about the 100-year anniversary of the First World War have focused on the truly unimaginable experience of that war. That is truly unimaginable. Patrick Harvie set out very well that the industrial nature of that conflict was horrifying but equally as confounding was the rationale for that war. It is not just that I was a bad history student that I do not understand why that war came about. The very fact that it gets hung upon the assassination of an aristocrat in a far-off place explains the complicated, interwoven interests of imperial powers and treaties that brought about a truly horrifying slaughter of millions. I do not understand that and I do not want it to ever be the case that that could justify that situation again. That is why we must remember that. Although World War I did not end all wars, it certainly did bring into being a world order, a different sort of world that we live in today, so that those of us here today have not had to experience mass mobilisation. Conflict may not have been ended, but that sort of global conflict, hopefully, is unthinkable. That is why we must thank conscientious objectives. My politics is based on that fundamental principle of internationalism. I fundamentally believe in a global system of institutions that, hopefully, makes war far less likely, if not impossible, on the scale that we have seen in the 20th century. It is thanks to those individuals that had that courage to stand up for those principles of peace that we have those institutions. I, too, would like to reflect, as Neil Findlay did, on some of the contributions that people from my party made, particularly Arthur Woodburn, who was the Secretary of State for Scotland in the Clement Attlee Government from 1947 to 1950. He was exempt and had a kidney condition and had an occupation that meant that he did not need to serve. Nonetheless, he registered with the authorities as a conscious objector, was imprisoned from 1916 and, in the latter months of the war, went on hunger strike. That is true courage and true conviction to put yourself in that position. I remember him because he stood in Edinburgh South in 1929. That is, perhaps, the importance of the memorial, and it is those twin objectives to remember those who had that courage, who suffered for the courage of their convictions, but to honour that ideal of world peace and the fact that we all need to struggle and strive for it. I, too, would like to thank the Edinburgh Peace and Justice Centre for its work. I truly hope that, before long, we have that memorial in Prince Street Gardens because I think that it is an important one. I call Ben Macpherson to respond to the debate for around seven minutes, please, minister. First, I thank Alison Johnstone for putting forward this motion, allowing us to have this important debate. I think that it has been really an illuminating and interesting debate in terms of their quality, the sensitivity and the depth of contributions, and also the personal reflections. Particularly fitting, a week after St Andrew's Day, where, as Alasdair Macintosh emphasised in his St Andrew's Day lecture on Friday, our patron saint was, of course, an advocate for non-violence and somebody who put that forward. In terms of responding, I will in a moment, I would also like to reflect on some of the contributions from a personal perspective. I was there when Patrick Harvie addressed the protests against the Iraq War in 2003 and I remember that powerfully. I also think of my own family's journey within the building and peacemaking movements. They are some of my relatives' engagement in the Quaker movement and also my great-great-grandfather, Dr Walter Walsh, who was an anti-war campaigner and campaigned against the Boer War with a certain James Kee or Hardy in the 19th century, so I feel very much connected to this debate from a personal perspective, as others are. I am also heartened that there is consensus around the chamber with a shared appreciation for the Edinburgh Peace and Justice Centre and others involved in the project. I would like to pay my own respect and appreciation to the work that you have done, not just on the project but that you do more generally. I have often been inspired by the powerful messages that are portrayed on the outside of St John's. The last four years have seen a nationwide programme of commemorations to mark the centenary of World War I with hundreds of community groups and organisations involved in events, the length and breadth of Scotland to pay tribute to all those involved in the conflict. The Scottish Government commemorations panel, chaired by Professor Norman Drummond, recommended and produced commemorations to mark events and battles of World War I with particular significance for Scotland. Through the commemorations programme, the people of Scotland have learned about the effects of war and its lasting impact on life in Scotland today. It is right that we recognise the impact that this war and other wars had on the whole of Scottish society and the great sacrifices made by hundreds of thousands of military personnel and their families. However, there were also many other individuals and groups in society who were deeply affected by the Great War and others, as we are appreciating today. The sheer scale of those impacted is very hard for us to comprehend. Many of those injured suffered psychologically in a time that often did not fully recognise or support those with mental health needs. Some who suffered from shell shock and other mental health issues were subjected to inhumane treatment and were condemned by society on their return. We also recognise the deeply held views, as we are today, by those who chose not to fight on a range of reasons from religious, political and humanist grounds. Indeed, they also faced similar unfair condemnation by society. Although records are reportedly incomplete, it is estimated that around 16,000 people in the UK were conscious of subjectors in World War 1, and many thousands more in World War 2 until national service ended in the 1960s. The Scottish Government's World War 1 commemorative programme is remembering the broad impact that the Great War had on all parts of Scotland and beyond. Indeed, the Scottish commemorations panel has run several education days, each focusing on a different aspect of war, to accompany those events. To accompany those events, the panel produced booklets on the subject being covered. The first of those in November 2015 covered recruitment, conscription, tribunals and conscious objectors. For example, it told the story of John MacTaggart from Dundee, who claimed exemption from military service as he was politically opposed to the war. He ended up being sent to prison and went on to serve two years and seven months in prison before being released in April 1919. Many different events or groups of people may be commemorated on a memorial. Memorials can commemorate war, conflict, victory, peace, groups and individuals. Alison Johnstone It is clear that the memorial would aid reflection of many issues. It is envisaged that there will be an engagement programme for local schools and so on. I would be interested to learn how the Government might help to assist the realisation of the memorial. Obviously, crowdfunding is going well, but more could be done. I would be grateful if the minister could respond to that. Ben Macpherson Thank you, Alison Johnstone, for that point. In terms of the support for the opposing war memorial planned for Prince of the Street Gardens, as has been said, I am pleased to hear that there is already widespread support for this initiative, both at a local government and at a level and in terms of Edinburgh society and beyond. It has been a long-standing policy for both UK and Scottish Governments that the cost of maintaining memorials-associated products cannot be met from public funds. I am reassured that measures are already in place to raise the funds for its creation. If there are suggestions after the debate that Alison Johnstone wants to put to me and the Government, I would be very happy to receive those in writing and to consider them in due course. Neil Findlay I was listening carefully and he said that there is no finance to maintain, as that includes erect. Ben Macpherson The point is well made. In terms of, as I said, there has been a long tradition, both a policy rather, from the UK and the Scottish Governments around the costs. I cannot commit today to Scottish Government funding support for such a memorial, but, if Alison Johnstone wants to write to me in detail after this meeting, those points around us can be considered in due course and I would be happy to respond to her. Thank you, Neil Findlay, for that intervention. I would like to close by thanking all members for their contributions. The Scottish Government believes that people of all faiths and none must be supported to follow their way of life without fear or discrimination or mistreatment. Will the minister welcome the fact that, for many years now, on mobilisation, it is a clarify of reservists? They are the ones, technically, who are people within our community. Do not get me wrong, regular service personnel do come from our communities, but they are the ones who are very close to the reservists who get called up. We now have a system in which we have a fairly permanent call-up programme to support our various operations overseas and the armed forces. A lot of those operations are actually peacekeeping operations. Nowadays, will the minister agree with me that it is very good that reservists have to volunteer before they are called up? They are actually asked to volunteer before they allow their names to go forward to be called up. Therefore, there is an opportunity to express any reservations that they may have. I acknowledge those points. I think that the points are well made and on the record, and I am certainly sure that those points will be relayed to the relevant minister, Graham Day, for consideration. I would like to stick to the point on the memorial and the content of Alison Johnstone's motion. I would clarify the point earlier, but it covers both the erection and the maintenance. Unfortunately, there is a long-held policy that, at UK Government and Scottish Government level, the costs of erection of such a memorial would not be met from public funds. It is important that, as members have contributed today, people of all faiths and none are able to be supported to follow their way of life without fear or discrimination, and that we value and respect people's freedoms in important matters of consciousness, including peace. As quickly as I can get there, I will join with many others at St John's for a multilingual European Christmas carol service in solidarity with European friends and partners, and to remember that, among other things, the EU has played a very positive force as a force for peace. This evening, I will reflect, as we have today, on the Edinburgh Peace and Justice Centre and all that it does to encourage peace and has done for many years and to promote social justice in Scotland and around the world. In that spirit, I pay tribute to all involved in the Peace and Justice Centre and wish everyone involved—Alison Johnson, other members, and everyone in wider society—very well in the campaign to raise money for a memorial to all those who have been peacemakers, who have stood up so bravely and strongly in that endeavour and who have chosen to stand up for and promote non-violence. I look forward to hearing more about the progress of this very important cause. That concludes the debate, and this meeting is closed.