NICOLA Sturgeon said yesterday she “did not think the case for air strikes” on Syria had been made, and insisted it was “incumbent” on David Cameron to make the case before any such military intervention.
But in the wake of Friday’s terrorist attacks on Paris by Daesh, in which 129 people were killed, the First Minister suggested it would be “irresponsible” not to consider a case made by the Prime Minister.
She said: “Syria – and I know David Cameron understands this – is a horrendously complex situation and it is not a case of Isil against everybody else. We have a complicated, multi-layer civil war going on in Syria as well as the threat that is posed by Isil [Daesh], so I think there are some tests that require to be passed in order for the case for airstrikes to be made.”
She added: “I don’t think the case for air strikes [has been made]. There are airstrikes already by the United States, by France, by others... I’m talking more about the efficacy and whether they are making things better or otherwise.
“Now I’m prepared to listen. Given what’s happening, what has happened, it would be irresponsible not do do that. But I think it is incumbent on the Prime Minister, if he is going to bring forward a proposal for air strikes to the House of Commons, that he makes that case and addresses these key points that are not just being raised by the SNP but of course by the Foreign Affairs Committee in the House of Commons itself.”
Cameron has already signalled his determination to seek Commons support for extending RAF air strikes against Daesh – currently restricted to Iraq – into Syria in the wake of the terror attacks in the French capital.
The Tory leader insisted the question of how to dismantle the group’s bases in Syria “cannot be dodged forever’’.
He also dismissed suggestions the UK should only take military action if there was a UN Security Council resolution.
On Tuesday, Cameron pledged to publish a comprehensive strategy on Syria in the form of a written response to a report by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, which concluded that the Government had failed to make the case for extending air strikes.
He may reply next week upon his return from the opening of climate change talks in Paris on Tuesday, depending on the progress made in discussions between Russia and the West on the best approach to combating Daesh.
It has also emerged over the past few days that Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has begun talking to Labour MPs to try to get the vote through the Commons.
Downing Street says there is still no timetable for a vote on extending UK military action but it is thought it could happen before Christmas.
It is thought that 15 Labour MPs are determined to vote for air strikes, though more may be willing to defy the Labour whip, while 15 Tory MPs might vote against action.
The position of the SNP’s 55 MPs on the issue could therefore be crucial to the outcome of a vote in the Commons.
Labour’s former home secretary David Blunkett urged his party to change its position and back the extension of air strikes to Syria. He said: “I think it would be very wise, if they’ve got any statecraft at all, if the leadership of the Labour Party gave people a free vote.”
In August 2013 MPs rejected possible military action in Syria by 285 votes to 272 and Cameron has indicated he would not put the issue to the vote in the Commons again until he believed it would be passed. Yesterday, a ComRes poll found that 60 per cent of people support British air strikes in Syria, with 24 per cent opposed, while 50 per cent backed British troops being sent to Syria in a ground war against Daesh. Support increased to 59 per cent if military action was alongside other countries.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here