Plenary, 16 Jan 2003

Meeting date: Thursday, January 16, 2003

Official Report 739KB pdf

---

International Situation

This morning's debate is on motion S1M-3760, in the name of John Swinney, on the current international situation. There are three amendments to the motion and an amendment to one of the amendments. I invite all those who want to take part in the debate to indicate now that they wish to do so, but I warn members at the outset that there are more people wanting to speak than can be accommodated. Accordingly, the Presiding Officers will be very strict on timing this morning.

Our debate this morning gives our national Parliament the opportunity to express its opinion on the greatest immediate issue confronting world peace and security today. Our deliberations and the conclusions that we, the elected representatives of the people, reach today can tell us much about Scotland's view of the prospect of war in Iraq and about the conduct of international relations.

The debate will do more than illuminate Scotland's view of the current international crisis. Nearly four years into this new age of Scottish democracy, the debate will also shed light on how we see ourselves, on our confidence as a nation and on our appropriate role in global affairs. For my party, that role is clear. Scotland never has been, and never will be, a parochial nation. For my party, it is not just the Parliament's right but the Parliament's duty to reflect Scotland's long and honourable history of internationalism.

If John Swinney thinks that it is the Scottish Parliament's duty to discuss Iraq, does he think that it is the right and the duty of the Westminster Parliament to discuss Scottish education and health services and the Scottish legal system? If not, what are his party's Westminster members for?

Rhona Brankin will know that the Scotland Act 1998 puts no bar on the ability of this Parliament to debate whatever issues it chooses. I respectfully encourage her to go back to her constituency and ask her constituents whether they think that we should be debating this issue. I have with me numerous messages of support for our holding this debate. That support has been expressed to me by many people from the religious community and from non-faith communities in many constituencies. Some of the messages have been copied to the members of the Parliament who represent the individuals concerned—those members will know who they are. It is important that this national Parliament has a debate on issues of such significance.

Two months ago, speaking about global security and international terrorism, President Bush told the General Assembly of the United Nations:

"Every nation has a stake in this cause."

He is right. That is why I think our nation should have her say in the debate.

Some people, including Rhona Brankin, will say that these matters should be left to Westminster. Those individuals should reflect on the fact that, at Westminster, no debate has been held on a substantive motion from the Government that tests the essential question of the need for a second UN resolution on Iraq. Indeed, the father of the House of Commons—someone who was far from keen on the establishment of this Parliament—commented yesterday:

"It is ironic that the Scottish Parliament can find the means of having a meaningful debate on Iraq while the House of Commons is refused."

The British Prime Minister could take this country to war tomorrow, without having sought the approval of the House of Commons. Westminster has left a democratic void; our Scottish Parliament can today help to fill that void.

I begin the core of my remarks by reaffirming my admiration for the collective courage shown by the people of the United States in the aftermath of 11 September. In this chamber on the anniversary of that horrific attack, MSPs from all parties spoke warmly of the historic and enduring ties between our two countries. We share common values of humanity, democracy and respect for the rule of law. Everything that I say this morning is anchored in the spirit of those common values. However, those values demand robust democratic debate, the airing of honest disagreement and the expression of genuine concern. A survey of the actions of the United States and United Kingdom Governments shows that there is much to be concerned about.

The strategy over the past few months has been clear. The rhetoric has become more aggressive, the dossiers have been published and the talk of the threat posed by Iraq has grown louder. Some commentators call that the softening-up of the public to prepare us all for war. We are now in a new, critical phase: a massive military build-up of United States and United Kingdom forces is well under way.

The sight of the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal on the west coast of Scotland this week brought home the scale of that build-up. In addition to Ark Royal, the UK Government is deploying three destroyers, four auxiliary vessels, three landing ships, a mine countermeasures group, a frigate, a helicopter carrier and a nuclear-powered submarine—the biggest Royal Navy task force since the Falklands. Royal Marines are to be deployed, reservists are being called up, field hospitals and battlefield ambulances are being upgraded and shipping companies are being contacted to transport equipment and personnel.

Large though it is, the UK's deployment is dwarfed by that of the United States. By the end of the month, about 125,000 US troops will be stationed in the Persian gulf, to be joined by perhaps 125,000 more. All serving US marines have been issued with orders banning them from leaving the service. Defence experts say that a full invasion force will be in place by early February.

We have heard the rhetoric and we have had the public relations offensive; now we have the military build-up. Like many others in Scotland today, I fear that there can be only one conclusion: the US and UK Governments are pursuing an inevitable path to war. I believe that it is our duty to steer the Government away from that inappropriate approach.

I hear Mr Swinney's remarks about the inevitability of war and the build-up of United Kingdom and United States forces. I refer him to a quote from Kofi Annan, who, speaking about Iraq, said:

"We have learned that sensitive diplomacy must be backed by the threat of military force if it is to succeed."

With reference to Kofi Annan's remark, would Mr Swinney care to reconsider the comments that he has just made?

I think that Mr McCabe accurately quotes Kofi Annan. The problem with Mr McCabe's view of that quote is that he ignores the difficult and dangerous climate that is created when a massive military force is sent in. That process leads to an inevitability of using that military force without proper recourse to the United Nations, which is exactly where my comments are leading and where the issue should be resolved.

Does the member honestly believe, and is he honestly telling the Parliament, that the weapons inspectors would be in Iraq today if there had not been a threat of military action against that country?

The weapons inspectors should be in Iraq because all countries should observe and follow the dictation of the United Nations. That is the way in which to resolve these issues.

Will Mr Swinney give way?

If Mr Gallie would let me make some progress, I will certainly give way in a moment.

If war is to take place, troops based in Scotland will be in the front line. Scotland-based troops are already carrying out duties in the gulf. As ever, we commend their professionalism and their bravery, but, however important that commendation, the higher and greater duty of politicians is to ensure that the troops have clear military objectives and that those objectives have overwhelming support in our national community and in the international community. Such a consensus does not exist today.

Some of our forces are currently deployed to enforce the no-fly zone protecting the Kurds in northern Iraq from the barbarity of Saddam Hussein. Saddam's treatment of the Kurds in the town of Halabjah 15 years ago marked what was perhaps the most despicable act of his brutal reign of terror. Five thousand people were killed in an appalling chemical weapons attack. That outrage exposed the evil at the heart of Saddam's regime and the absolute necessity of depriving him of the ability to develop and use weapons of mass destruction ever again.

Does the member agree that the tragedy of that sort of behaviour on the part of Saddam Hussein is compounded by the evil of a Tory Government that continued to arm that regime after that disaster?

If Mr Sheridan is looking for consistency in the actions of the British and United States Governments as to the regimes that they support and arm, he will not find it in the practice of numerous former British Governments or the current one.

Action against Saddam, of whatever nature, must be taken only in accordance with international law. In particular, we must allow the trained weapons inspectors to complete the task that they have been asked to perform. If they confirm the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, they must publish clear and compelling evidence of their research. If military action must be taken to disarm Saddam, a specific mandate must be given in a new United Nations Security Council resolution following the publication of the inspectors' clear and compelling evidence. That is the test that we must apply to ensure that our steps are securely founded.

Does Mr Swinney agree that the Security Council is not always consistent in its enforcement of UN resolutions? It has failed to enforce resolution 242, concerning the Palestinians, and to enter the city of Jenin to uncover the massacre that took place there. Is Mr Swinney saying that he has faith in the Security Council? Is he saying that he will support a war in Iraq if there is a UN mandate for it?

The member has been very generous in giving way, but he is now halfway through his time.

I am aware that I am halfway through my time. I have been generous in giving way because I am interested in having a debate on this subject in Scotland's national Parliament.

The United Nations is not a perfect organisation. It is not able to command universal and unreserved support for its actions from all member states. However, the failure to implement the resolution to which Pauline McNeill referred—and many other resolutions that relate to the Israeli and Palestinian situation—should not be used as an excuse for ignoring the actions and stance of the United Nations on the very difficult international issue that we are debating.

Will the member take an intervention?

With the greatest respect, I must make some progress.

More than 40 years ago, at his inauguration, President John F Kennedy called the United Nations

"our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace".

Today, despite having a sometimes battered reputation—to which Pauline McNeill referred—the UN is still the world's best hope. That hope is to be found in the UN charter, under which member states resolve to

"reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained".

As I said to Pauline McNeill, many UN countries fall short of some of those ideals. However, for those of us who believe in freedom, peace and security, they provide the best foundation for the world in which we long to live. The UN and its founding principles should not be brushed aside casually.

Does the member believe that there is ever an occasion on which Britain should act unilaterally to protect its interests?

If the United Kingdom were the subject of an attack from another party, it would be entitled under international law to take such action. My point is that we should respect international law and judgments.

There was a moment of some hope on that point during the Prime Minister's briefing on Monday, when Tony Blair said that the authority of the UN must be upheld. However, just minutes later, he reserved the right to take unilateral action against Iraq. The Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, reinforced the Prime Minister's view on Tuesday. We are now told that a specific UN mandate is only a preference. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made it clear that, if a mandate cannot be achieved, they reserve the right to go ahead with military action in any case.

That is the fundamental issue at stake in this debate. It is the point that divides my position from that of Tom McCabe and that creates common ground between Tavish Scott and me. If there must be military action, I believe—as Tavish Scott's amendment states—that there must be a further UN resolution to create a specific mandate for action. To support Tom McCabe's amendment is to leave open the possibility of unilateral or bilateral action that ignores the views of the UN. Threatening to take unilateral action does not uphold the UN's authority but helps to destroy it. We in this Parliament should have none of that.

Will the member give way?

Will the member give way?

I will give way to Mr Gallie. This is the last intervention that I will take.

Does the member accept that Security Council resolution 1441 insists that that resolution is a final warning to Iraq and that any deviation from it would constitute reason for vigorous action against Iraq—in other words, war?

I will read to Mr Gallie from paragraphs 12 and 13 of resolution 1441. Paragraph 12 states that, when the inspectors' conclusions emerge, the Security Council should meet

"to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions".

Paragraph 13 makes it clear

"that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations".

I accept that that text contains an implicit warning to Iraq. However, it does not authorise the entitlement to undertake military action. That is the central point at the heart of my motion. It is the point that Mr Scott makes in his amendment and that his colleagues have made in the House of Commons.

The UN route is not a soft option; it is the right option. In 1991, in response to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, a global coalition of countries, including many Muslim states, committed itself to support UN action. That coalition, acting under UN authority, gave considerable strength and legitimacy to the military campaign. The SNP supported that campaign in 1991 because it was conducted under UN authority. However, as things stand—with no UN mandate for military action and no compelling, published evidence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq—the SNP cannot and will not support a military strike against Iraq.

Throughout this crisis, we have stressed the need for evidence and the supremacy of the UN in collecting that evidence. That is why we fully back UN Security Council resolution 1441, which was passed in November last year. The resolution is designed precisely to seek evidence that Saddam Hussein still possesses weapons of mass destruction. It calls for Iraq to meet its obligations on disarmament and for weapons inspectors to be given unrestricted access. It warns that Iraq

"will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations".

However, it does not authorise military action by the US, the UK or any other member state.

Since the resolution was passed, inspectors have visited more than 100 sites across Iraq. Last week, the Security Council's representative, the chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, reported to the Security Council. He said that inspectors were getting prompt access to the sites that they wanted to examine and were covering ever wider and ever more sites. Crucially, Mr Blix said that, in the course of the inspectors' work,

"we have not found any smoking gun".

In other words, no evidence of weapons of mass destruction has yet been found and no material breach of resolution 1441 has been proved.

Washington's response to those comments was both instructive and alarming. The White House press spokesman said:

"The problem with guns that are hidden is that you can't see their smoke. We know for a fact that there are weapons there."

That remark is chilling. It implies that the US—and, by extension, the UK—has made up its mind regardless of the evidence. It implies that the US and UK are set on a course for war and will not be diverted from that path, regardless of what the inspectors report.

Some in the Bush Administration are characterising the date for the next inspectors' report, 27 January, as some sort of deadline after which military action may be launched. This week, we have been told that the inspectors may take many months to complete their task. So be it. The process is of such significance and could have such terrifying consequences that it must be conducted thoroughly. A report must be made to the UN to allow it and its Security Council to agree a second resolution that defines the position.

It is difficult to overstate exactly what is at stake. If there is to be military action, it will be no mere bombing mission—the Bush Administration is highly critical of previous US military operations that relied primarily on cruise missiles and bombing raids. There will be a full-scale invasion, which will lead to many civilian casualties—an issue that my colleague George Reid will raise in his contribution—and there will be consequences for the middle east peace process. However welcome the Prime Minister's intervention this week and the talks in London, I cannot help but feel that those efforts will be rendered futile if the Iraq crisis leads to war. Many in the Islamic world and elsewhere view with dismay the concentration of economic and political power in the hands of very few wealthy countries and are increasingly isolated from the aggressive attitude of the UK and the US Governments. A unilateral strike could confirm their view that the west uses international institutions when it suits it, but ignores them when it does not. That would be a dangerous political environment.

In all this, the opinion of people in Scotland has remained firm. There has been a clear and consistent majority against action that is undertaken outwith the authority of the UN. This Parliament has the opportunity to reinforce our belief in the founding values of the UN and the supremacy of international law. We can express our concern today that the UK Government is pursuing an inevitable path to war and urge the Prime Minister, who is visiting Scotland today, to pull back. Most of all, we can give voice to the views of the people who I believe sent us here not just to deal with the day-to-day concerns at home, but to let the world know where Scotland stands on this and every other vital issue that affects the people of our communities.

I move,

That the Parliament endorses United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 on the basis that it provides a mandate for weapons inspection in Iraq; welcomes the legal opinion of Matrix Chambers on behalf of CND which concluded that Resolution 1441 does not provide an authorisation for military action in Iraq and that any such use of force would breach international law; believes that UN weapons inspectors must be afforded total freedom of access in Iraq and to all evidence in the possession of other states, together with sufficient time in order to produce a comprehensive report for the consideration of the Security Council on the state of Iraqi compliance with the resolution; believes that no commitment of UK forces should be made without a specific mandate for military action in Iraq in the form of a further Security Council resolution based on clear, published and compelling evidence provided by the UN inspectorate of a material breach of Resolution 1441, and expresses its deep and serious concern that Her Majesty's Government is currently pursuing an inevitable path to war

I remind members that, if they want to speak, they must press their buttons, because some have not done so yet.

In moving amendment S1M-3760.3 on behalf of the Labour party, I will concentrate on four critical areas. First, I will acknowledge the understandable principled anxieties and differences that exist among colleagues in every party over an issue of the utmost seriousness. However, it is important to remind ourselves that this Parliament does not have responsibility for international affairs or defence. Those issues lie with the Westminster Parliament and the Prime Minister and his ministers therefore quite rightly take responsibility for them. Although the Executive shares the concerns about the international situation, it recognises that the authority to deal with these matters rests with Westminster and therefore that the proper approach in this Parliament is to allow individual parties to respond to the SNP motion.

Secondly, I will talk about our constitutional position here in Scotland, particularly in relation to this Parliament. Thirdly, I will talk about the dangers and the consequences of any hint of opportunism at a time of considerable international tension when the young women and men who serve in our armed forces might face the ultimate sacrifice. Finally, I will settle some of the myths contained in the SNP motion and explain to colleagues what they will and will not be supporting if they vote for our amendment.

I begin by acknowledging unequivocally the views of the men and women throughout the Parliament and beyond who abhor the atrocities that they have witnessed around the world, including in America, Bali and the middle east. I recognise how that moral revulsion would prevent the same people from endorsing a rush to war or a war that would see one young woman or man who serves in the British armed forces make the ultimate sacrifice without just cause.

Does the member agree that, although the United Kingdom has responsibility at present for pursuing foreign and defence policy, this Parliament, as the most representative forum in Scotland, has a moral obligation to express opinion in Scotland?

I agree that the constitutional settlement in this country devolves certain powers to this Parliament and reserves certain powers to the Westminster Parliament. That is what the people in Scotland voted for and that is what they expect. They expect the representatives whom they send to the Westminster Parliament to deal with the matters under their control.

There are differences of opinion and reservations that wait to be assuaged. Responsible politicians and responsible people will always take time to consider and weigh up the justification and the consequences of a decision to go to war. All that is right and I give an unambiguous assurance to colleagues in this Parliament and to wider society in Scotland that Labour's amendment acknowledges and respects different views and that, in a developing situation of such magnitude, people rightly require time and facts before they come to a final conclusion.

There used to be an honourable tradition in various political parties that on matters of life and death, including matters of war and peace, members should be free to vote according to their conscience. The member used to be the chief whip of his party in the Parliament. Will he assure us that, after this important debate, members of his party will be free to vote according to their conscience, without any disciplinary action being taken against them?

I assure Mr Canavan that honourable traditions are upheld within the Labour party. Any speculation, through any organ, that the situation is in any way different from that is unfortunate. The organ that makes such a suggestion has unfortunately been misled.

When people's minds are focused on the international situation, it is right and proper that these matters should be discussed and that any potential courses of action should be justified. It is right and proper that Her Majesty's Government, led by our Prime Minister, Tony Blair, should pursue a path of securing international consensus if we are to deal with threats to peace, safety and security in an increasingly complex world. It is right that we should examine the role of the Prime Minister in securing that international consensus, for we should be in no doubt that his role is a positive one.

It is right that the Prime Minister should make clear the action that he proposes to take in the event of a breach of UN resolution 1441—he has made it clear that we should return to the UN and discuss how to handle such a breach. It is important that he has also made it perfectly clear that he reserves the right to protect British national interests if he believes this country to be under threat. I believe that the people of Scotland and the entire United Kingdom would expect no less.

All that provides considerably more clarity than Mr Swinney was able to provide on television earlier this week when he was asked about his position on military action should it be shown that Iraq holds weapons of mass destruction and the UN proposes action. He tried to have the best of both worlds and in so doing demonstrated that, when critical decisions are required, he does not have the necessary leadership qualities.

This Parliament exists because a large majority of people in Scotland, over a long period, expressed a desire for a constitutional settlement that allows for government that is closer to the people and enables public policy and the delivery of services to better reflect the unique requirements of our situation in Scotland. Critically, people expressed a desire for a settlement that preserves the United Kingdom and endorses its institutions, including the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament. They expressed a desire for a settlement that is content with the division of responsibility that comes from certain matters being reserved to Westminster and a very long list of areas being devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

When Mr McCabe was Minister for Parliament, he allowed a debate on pardons for men who were executed in the first world war, which is a reserved subject, so does he accept that there is a lack of consistency in his perspective? Does he agree that it would be anomalous for the Parliament not to debate issues such as the one that we are discussing, given that, when I was a member of Glasgow City Council, I participated in debates on Chechnya, Bosnia, trade union rights and the minimum wage? Surely if Scotland's local authorities are free to debate such important issues, Scotland's Parliament should be no less free to do so.

Local authorities are free to debate the issues, as we are free to debate them, but we should never mislead the people of Scotland about our power to influence. The issue is reserved to the Westminster Parliament. We discussed pardons for soldiers in the first world war during a members' business debate, as Mr Gibson will recall.

Neither John Swinney nor his nationalist party is happy with the fact that international affairs, defence and other matters are reserved to the Westminster Parliament. The SNP is so unhappy that for years it has been telling the Scottish people that that should not be the case. For years, the Scottish people have answered, "We disagree." Repeatedly, the Scottish people have said that, when matters are to be resolved in the United Kingdom, those matters should be the responsibility of the UK Government and the Westminster Parliament. To ensure that Scottish people have a voice in those matters, the Scottish people will continue to send elected representatives from every corner of Scotland to Westminster to speak on their behalf so that they have influence with the UK Government.

Will the member give way?

Not at the moment.

Mr Swinney and the Scottish National Party are fundamentally at fault for lodging the motion in this Parliament at this time. In a democracy, the SNP is entitled to pursue policies that are its reasons for existence—an independent Scotland, the break-up of the United Kingdom and the destruction of the history and traditions of which so many of our people are rightly proud. However, whether SNP members like it or not and whether they intend it or not, in lodging the motion, the SNP has opened itself to the charge of using a tense and worrying international situation—a time when the brave young men and women of our armed forces may find themselves in deadly conflict—to illuminate its views on the constitution. The question is not whether the SNP is entitled to pursue its aims, but how and when it should do so and whether it should be able, without being open to the charge of opportunism, to raise issues for which this Parliament has no responsibility.

The SNP is in danger of making the same mistake as its former leader, Mr Salmond, who described action to stop the horrors of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans as "unpardonable folly".

He was right.

That is an interesting comment.

When Mr Swinney sanctions the groundless allegation that Her Majesty's Government is pursuing an inevitable path to war, he is in danger of endorsing Mr Salmond's mistake.

As we know, the legality of the situation is that certain matters are reserved to Westminster. However, can the member give us his views on the vulnerability of Scotland and explain why all Britain's nuclear weapons are dumped on Scotland?

We are here this morning to discuss a motion that has been lodged by the SNP. Unfortunately, Dorothy-Grace Elder does not always speak in accordance with the subject that is under discussion and now she is in danger of veering off into another subject altogether.

This is a time for unity. This is a time to put political opportunism to one side and to allow the appropriate institutions designated by the people of Scotland, who are within the United Kingdom, to address and resolve matters of the utmost importance.

Will the member give way?

Not at the moment.

The young women and men who serve our country are entitled to clear leadership. They are entitled to much more than wild statements about the inevitability of war, which cruelly misrepresent the actual position.

Given Mr McCabe's response to the constitutional issue, does he accept that, if men and women of the United Kingdom, including those of Scotland, have to go to war, they should be entitled to hear a debate in the House of Commons to which the UK Government should be accountable? There is a difference between accountability and influence.

Perhaps Mr Brown should take that up with his representatives in Westminster. If Westminster representatives were to be so bold as to dictate to this Parliament what we should discuss and when, we would rightly be upset. They, too, would be upset if we tried to dictate the same to them.

If the SNP were ever to be worthy of government, it would know, without having to be told, that this is the wrong moment to raise this subject.

I shall now deal with some of the myths that are expressed and implied in the SNP motion. Since the terrible events of 11 September 2001, no one has worked harder than our British Prime Minister to find the key that unlocks peace in the middle east, to effect a measured response in the United States to those events and to be an agent of reason in the international community as it considers its reaction to a series of tragedies. I do not believe for a second that Tony Blair would commit one British soldier without extensively considering the gravity of such a decision.

We should not forget that the international community through the UN has called on Iraq to disarm. Compliance with UN resolution 1441 eliminates the possibility of war. That is why the SNP's accusation that

"Her Majesty's Government is … pursuing an inevitable path to war"

is as opportunistic as it is repugnant. Moreover, when the nationalists demand a second UN resolution or a breach by Iraq before any action is taken and then refuse to confirm that they would support that action if it was agreed to, they call into question their entire motivation for discussing the issue.

Will the member give way?

No, he is in his last minute.

I assure every member in the chamber that in supporting our amendment they will be saying loudly and clearly that we are not endorsing war and that there is no inevitability about war. Fundamentally, they will be endorsing the reality that the proper place for the discussion and resolution of these matters is in the Westminster Parliament with Scottish representatives playing a full and influential part.

I move amendment S1M-3760.3, to leave out from "endorses" to end and insert:

"notes the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 as unanimously adopted by the Security Council; agrees that the Government of Iraq must comply fully with all the provisions of that resolution and that, if it fails to do so, the Security Council should meet in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance; notes that a further material breach of Iraq's obligations under resolution 1441 will be reported to the Security Council for assessment; further notes that responsibility for policy on this matter lies with Her Majesty's Government, and also notes the current support given to the Middle East peace process by Her Majesty's Government."

The decision to go to war is, without argument, the most serious of all decisions that an elected leader has to make. Sending our troops into conflict and putting their lives at stake is the ultimate responsibility, which few would care to take on. The effect on others, particularly civilians in a situation such as that in Iraq, and on the world and domestic economic and social order carries massive moral and practical burdens.

In speaking in this debate, we might be tempted to lambast the SNP for deviating from the Scottish Parliament's area of responsibility. That is particularly the case when our economy, our health service and law and order issues—to name but a few—provide such fertile areas of debate and so many opportunities for Opposition parties to present their ideas. However, the Presiding Officer has quite rightly accepted the SNP motion and, on that basis, I will make comments in line with the seriousness of the situation that the UK faces.

In a democracy such as ours, all are free to express their thoughts and to live without fear of persecution. Indeed, that is a reason why thousands of asylum seekers—many of whom come from Iraq—have sought shelter on our shores. Oh, if only the situation were the same in their homelands.

My platform is based on an acceptance that no democratically elected leader of our nation would act in any way that was detrimental to the principles and objectives of the democracy that we enjoy in the UK and to the overall well-being of our people. Furthermore, I do not believe that such a leader would act against what he considers to be the wider international interest.

Although Tony Blair is not my choice as leader of our nation, he is still our Prime Minister. On this prime issue, we are all obliged to put faith in his judgment and should acknowledge that he has access to an array of information that necessarily carries a high security rating. Mr Blair has said that he is

"faced with intelligence information every day about the proliferation and trade of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons".

Does Mr Gallie accept that one of the concerns that many people have is the seemingly inconsistent approach to the matter? For example, other nations such as North Korea are in a similar or worse situation than Iraq as far as the possession of weapons of mass destruction is concerned. Indeed, officials in Pakistan said last week that, in the recent crisis, they would have been prepared to use nuclear weapons had the Indians crossed the line of control.

I accept that there are problems elsewhere, but we are debating the SNP motion, which centres on Iraq. I base my arguments on the SNP motion and I am sticking, I suspect, to the Presiding Officer's wishes to keep to the basis of that motion.

If the reports I referred to suggest danger building up for this generation or the next, the Prime Minister would be failing in his duty if he were simply to wring his hands and do nothing.

Something has already been achieved. The weapons inspectors are back in Iraq on terms agreed by the United Nations. Let us not kid ourselves: without the threat of force made by the USA and the UK towards the end of last year, that would not have been the case. Certain members deplored such threats last year, but now talk about Security Council resolution 1441 in glowing terms. The SNP motion refers to that resolution in such terms. I noted that John Swinney did not answer Karen Gillon's question about whether he believes that the threat of force induced Saddam Hussein to take the weapons inspectors into Iraq.

The SNP motion includes a reference to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. I contend that, had previous British Governments listened to the advice of CND, we would be debating here today under the shadow of the Berlin wall or worse still.

A principal aim of the motion seems to be to ensure that the weapons inspectors have sufficient time to do their job and to prevent any military action without the passing of a second Security Council resolution that countenances such action. We accept the first aim; we regard the second aim as a preference, but not as a block. As we have found in the past, factors other than the central tenet of the objectives can be used to have such a resolution vetoed.

We emphasise that, irrespective of the findings of the weapons inspectors, Iraq must demonstrate clearly where stocks of weapons of mass destruction—which it acknowledged it had—have been dispersed. All in the chamber are well aware that those stocks existed in the past. David Winnick MP, a Labour member of the House of Commons who is best known, perhaps, for his old Labour credentials, reminded us of that yesterday. I suspect that no such reminders were necessary for Iranians and for Saddam Hussein's Kurdish and Shi'ite Muslim countrymen.

What was the member doing when his party's Government was selling arms to the Iraqi regime that was persecuting the Kurds? The SNP raised concerns about what Saddam Hussein was doing; what was the member's view at that time?

At that time, the Government of the day had a block on arms sales to Iraq. That is a fact. Since then, the previous and the present Governments have attempted to protect the Kurdish communities in Iraq at all times.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am sorry; my time is limited and I cannot give way again. [Interruption.]

Order. The member said that he would not give way.

Although we stress our support for the Prime Minister, we express concern that members of his Cabinet seem to lack the faith that we demonstrate. We accept that, in government, it is inevitable that there are differing views on a range of topics. It would be a poor Cabinet, or Executive, if that were not the case. However, the place for airing those views and debating them lies behind the closed doors of the Cabinet room. When the nation is faced with a war situation, our troops in particular deserve a united Government and preferably a united country behind them.

I recognise the impracticality of the latter, given the contents of Tommy Sheridan's amendment. I fear that, under a regime such as Saddam Hussein's, Tommy, with his habit of breaking even our comparatively lenient laws, would not have lasted the course to reach the prominence that he enjoys today.

I turn to issues that concern me about facing up to our involvement in armed conflict. Just before Christmas, I asked a puzzled First Minister about the effect on Scottish rail services of calling up Territorial Army soldiers and reservists. My question was opportunistic, latching on to the subject matter of a question on railways. It was raised in the hope that the First Minister would take on board the wider implications for Scottish business and the economy. I wonder whether subsequently the First Minister has acknowledged the likely effects and whether any analysis has been carried out.

The impact of war will perhaps be greatest on public services, with the health service being required to part with key staff for the duration of any conflict. Last July, the Army had a shortfall of 220 general practitioners and had only 195 in post. It had only 23 anaesthetists when 120 were needed and only 29 surgeons when 71 were needed. Those figures take account only of normal operational activity. What demands will be made of our national health service trusts and what will the effect be? I accept that if we send our troops to the gulf, there will have to be full medical cover for them.

I acknowledge that the manning of the armed services is a matter for Westminster, but I believe that the knock-on effect of calling up reservists will have an adverse effect on the Scottish economy. In April 1997, our armed services complement stood at 215,000. In October last year, it was down to 206,000. Our areas of deployment extend from the Balkans to Africa, to the middle east to the Mediterranean, to the American continents. The pressure on our service personnel is immense, as is the pressure on their families.

The member must wind up.

I accept the Presiding Officer's judgment. We will support Tom McCabe's amendment irrespective of whether the Labour party accepts my amendment to his amendment. My colleagues and I want to avoid war. We hope that war will not take place, but if it does, it is necessary to place my amendment next to that of Mr McCabe.

I move, as an amendment to amendment S1M-3760.3, amendment S1M-3760.3.1, to insert at end:

"and extends its full support to our armed forces if, as a consequence of an Iraqi failure to comply, military action should prove necessary."

It is a difficult time to confront international affairs. Today, the Scottish Parliament can express a view, and I commend the Liberal Democrat amendment to colleagues throughout the chamber. The same amendment received all-party support in the House of Commons in November and I encourage that consensus in Scotland today.

Iraq is the primary focus of international attention at this time, but it is important to recognise the parallels and links to so many of the world's pinchpoints, whether in North Korea, Afghanistan or Palestine. If only that international attention—particularly from the Americans—were trained on resolving the huge, seminal conflict in the middle east. If Israelis and Palestinians were at peace, surely much would flow from that.

The links illustrate the difficulties of divorcing one international crisis from the deeply disturbing developments elsewhere. I cannot conceive that no repercussions would result from military activity in the gulf. That is why the United Nations is so important. The debate is not simply about Saddam Hussein's evil regime and the nature of the threat that it poses to world peace, but about how the world in general and the United Kingdom in particular confront the threat posed by those who flout international law.

I will set out the core principles that Liberal Democrats believe should underpin the United Kingdom's consideration of the issues. No country should ever exclude the use of military force to protect the safety and security of its citizens, but any military action must be consistent with the principles of international law and be considered as a last resort. Any decision to commit British forces to armed conflict should be subject to a debate in the House of Commons on a substantive motion.

Recent days have been dominated by the interim report of the chief United Nations weapons inspector, Hans Blix. The activities of the weapons inspectors in Iraq were given authority by the unanimous Security Council resolution of 8 November. The Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, the British Government and the British United Nations mission deserve credit for that achievement.

Yesterday, the inspectors entered Saddam Hussein's Al-jamhory presidential palace in Baghdad. Iraq is a country the size of France; it will take time to examine the locations thoroughly and to follow the intelligence leads. That time needs to be taken. That is why I welcome the comments of the Prime Minister's spokesman last Thursday that the 27 January deadline, when inspectors are due to report their findings, should be seen as a staging post and not a deadline.

The US Secretary of State Colin Powell has said in recent days that 27 January is not "D-Day for decision making". This week, Kofi Annan stated that the weapons inspectors must be allowed to complete their job in Iraq. On Tuesday, President Bush ratcheted up the rhetoric against Iraq, illustrating frustration and impatience, but even he did not set a definitive timetable for the work of the inspectors. As John Swinney said, the smoking gun has yet to be found, but Mr Blix said yesterday that Iraq's declaration, submitted in December, did not contain any new evidence to verify its claim of disarmament. Mr Blix said—and I am sure that his view is shared by all—that he was concerned that Iraq had been smuggling weapons in contravention of United Nations resolutions.

The United Nations weapons inspectors are pursuing their task. Mr Blix demonstrates the dangers of the Iraqi regime, but he does so by operating within the United Nations resolution that gives him his powers. It is for Mr Blix and his colleagues to produce evidence to the Security Council, and for the United Nations then to assess and act on that evidence. That is why the comments of the Prime Minister, the United Nations Secretary-General and the United States Secretary of State about the inspectors having time to complete their work are so important.

The core argument, especially against the background of a vast military build-up—HMS Ark Royal is leaving Loch Long this week—is that the United Nations, and not the threat of war, must drive the process. There must be no doubt that the senior inspectors, rather than the intelligence agencies of certain countries, will determine whether or not a breach has occurred. When the inspectors report, it must be the entire United Nations Council that determines whether a breach is material, and what action must be taken.

For the purposes of clarity, will Mr Scott repeat what he has just said? He made the same point that I raised in an earlier debate on Iraq—that there is a difference between the Security Council of the United Nations and the entire body of the United Nations. Is that the point that he is making?

The Security Council of the United Nations has the responsibilities. That is how the resolutions are drafted and, as I understand it, that is the process that will be followed.

I shall touch briefly on the United States, which has a foreign policy that is now based on a doctrine of pre-emptive action against any country that threatens world peace. President Bush committed his country to that doctrine in a speech at the West Point Military Academy in June last year. That strikes me as profoundly dangerous, and threatens to undermine the role of international law. Quite where such a doctrine begins and ends is highly questionable. Such a doctrine can and is being copied. Ariel Sharon cites such an approach in defence of Israel's actions in Palestine. The Indian foreign minister claimed, over Kashmir, that

"pre-emption is the right of every nation to prevent injury to itself".

Vladimir Putin's actions against the Chechens are accepted on the basis of exactly the same principle. What has been unlocked by such a doctrine other than greater international insecurity?

The Bush doctrine is backed by the Administration's conscious rejection of multilateral approaches on everything from nuclear missiles to handguns. Against that belligerent background, there is a need for sane pressure to be applied. If the special relationship is powerful, the British Prime Minister must, as happened in the autumn, seek to ensure that President Bush and the White House hawks operate under the auspices of the United Nations. As Charles Kennedy has put it:

"It is disingenuous to argue that we want to work through the UN, but only if the UN does what we want."

If the inspectors found weapons of mass destruction, and if the UN Security Council said that we should act, what does Tavish Scott believe Saddam Hussein would be doing with those weapons in the time that it takes us to have a motion and a vote in the House of Commons?

It strikes me as profoundly important that the House of Commons, about whose powers members of Karen Gillon's party have talked in relation to the constitutional settlement in this country, must have the right to debate the matter on a substantive motion. If it does not, should we sit constantly in a position in which all we do is trust, against the word of the many Labour back benchers who supported the Liberal Democrat amendment in the Commons on 27 December? Are we to follow that route, or are we to accept in principle that it is important that the House of Commons should have a vote on a substantive motion? I believe, and my party believes, that that is the route that should be followed.

It is wrong to declare that the Government is pursuing an inevitable path to war. Supporting the SNP motion would mean opposing war in all circumstances. That would mean failing to fulfil Britain's obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty to go to the aid of Turkey, as a fellow member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, if Iraq were to attack. No country can ever conclude that it will never in any circumstances go to war if such a war is necessary for the protection of its citizens. However, the Parliament should not send out a message that war is inevitable, as the SNP wishes. The SNP may believe that war is inevitable but Liberal Democrats do not.

I want to clarify and confirm for Mr Scott what I said in my speech earlier this morning. I believe that the military build-up, with the sailing of the Ark Royal and the sending of the fleet, creates an inevitability of war, because it is difficult to put such action into reverse. My point is that, if there is to be a military strike, it must be based on compelling evidence that is put before the United Nations and which the United Nations believes is sufficient for military action. That is the common ground that exists between my position and that of Mr Scott.

I can accept Mr Swinney's remarks about the role of the United Nations, but I can read his motion as well. I believe that the last sentence of that motion is entirely inappropriate, and I have said why I will not support it.

The Liberal Democrat amendment, unlike the motion in Mr Swinney's name, stresses the importance of the House of Commons having a debate and a vote on a substantive motion before British forces are committed to any action against Iraq. I reiterate my party's position: the UN must be at the centre of all efforts to resolve the international situation. We opposed, and continue to oppose, the threats against Baghdad of unilateral action. Liberal Democrats have raised, when others would not, the questions, difficult issues and serious international consequences of unilateral military conflict. It is an approach based on ensuring and insisting that Saddam Hussein complies with the unanimous UN resolution, but it is also about recognising that the British national interest may require the Prime Minister to say no to a US demand for a unilateral attack on Iraq without United Nations authorisation.

Liberal Democrats are asking of Government the questions that the people of Scotland and Britain want asked and answered. We reflect the scepticism of many. In supporting our amendment, Parliament can say that those issues must be resolved before any action involving Britain is taken. The Liberal Democrat position is clear. There should be no military action against Iraq without a UN mandate, and there should be a debate on a substantive motion in the House of Commons before British forces are committed. That is the right position and I encourage Parliament to support it.

I move amendment S1M-3760.2, to leave out from "endorses" to end and insert:

"recognises the reserved nature of issues relating to the current international situation and the public concerns that exist and therefore agrees to support UN Security Resolution 1441 as unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council; agrees that the Government of Iraq must fully comply with all the provisions of the resolution; agrees that, if it fails to do so, the UN Security Council should meet in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance; believes that any decision that Iraq is in "material breach" of Resolution 1441 is for the UN Security Council as a whole to determine and that no military action to enforce Resolution 1441 should be taken against Iraq without a mandate from the UN Security Council, and further believes that no British forces should be committed to any military action against Iraq without a debate in the House of Commons and a substantive motion in favour."

This morning's debate is crucial. Human destruction and the horrible loss of innocent children's lives are much more important than constitutional etiquette. When they criticised the SNP for sponsoring today's debate, some Labour members said that the matter has got nothing to do with us and that we have no remit—according to Mr McCabe, we do not even have any influence. I knew that we did not have any power, but the thought that we do not have any influence is a bit worrying. Those comments remind me of the heady days of the 1980s, when all those members would have been in the front line in attacking the Tories, who were criticising Labour councils throughout the country that dared to discuss apartheid in South Africa or to give the freedom of their city—as Glasgow did—to Nelson Mandela. They were told then that they had no remit, no power and no influence, but when people in elected positions of power throughout Britain and across the world discussed such matters, a change in world opinion resulted.

With matters of such importance, it would be complete and utter nonsense if the Parliament did not discuss what is being discussed in households, communities, workplaces and public houses throughout this country. It is important that we discuss the impending war on Iraq. As elected politicians, we have comfort and security and therefore can deliberate on such matters. It is important to discuss whether unleashing a new hell on the people of Iraq is right or wrong, just or unjust, legal or illegal and moral or immoral. We should discuss such matters today.

Tommy Sheridan has made strong points about the responsibilities of elected representatives. As a person who is responsible for legislation, does he believe that it is right to encourage others to break the law?

Bad laws deserve to be broken. That is what civil disobedience is about; it is also how, throughout history, progressive change has been delivered. The member should read about the chartists and the US civil rights movement, from which he would learn about breaking bad laws.

My amendment attempts to articulate the views of MSPs who believe that America's plan to bombard, invade and effect regime change in Iraq is motivated by a desire to control Iraq's vast oil reserves and has nothing to do with justice, weapons of mass destruction or the war against terrorism. That is what we believe, regardless of the opinions of the UN Security Council, particularly those of its five permanent members, which largely ignore the opinions of the other countries in the UN. Some of those members—China, Russia and the United States of America—have questionable human rights records. We believe that that body is susceptible to bribes and blackmail and therefore does not have the right to decide whether a war is right or wrong, or moral or immoral.

I want to proceed. We are told that the war will be about weapons of mass destruction and the need to disarm, but what a nuisance North Korea has become to that hoary old chestnut.

Will the member give way?

The member should let me develop my point—then I will give way.

Iraq has been subjected to 12 years of horrible medical and supply sanctions. It has allowed weapons inspectors into the country for the past seven weeks and has invited the Central Intelligence Agency to join them. The weapons inspectors have reported that they cannot find anything, but Bush's response is to send in troops and prepare for war. North Korea has decided to expel weapons inspectors and has told the world that it is developing a nuclear weapons programme. It has decided to withdraw from the non-proliferation treaty and warns that it will turn America into a sea of fire. The US's response is to send diplomats, promise aid and try to deal with matters diplomatically. People should wake up and smell the oil. Oil is the difference between North Korea and Iraq.

Does Tommy Sheridan agree that the troubling lesson from North Korea lies in the dangers that result when a nation has developed a nuclear capacity? The lesson that we should take from the North Korean situation is that we must act against Saddam Hussein now if he has weapons of mass destruction, as a time will come when Iraq's having such weapons will create a danger for the entire international community.

Weapons inspectors operated in Iraq until four years ago. Scott Ritter, who was the leader of the weapons inspection team, is an ex-marine who voted for George Bush and calls himself a Republican. He said that 95 per cent of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have been destroyed and that Iraq no longer has nuclear technology or the ability to propel nuclear weapons. I say to Johann Lamont that that is why there is no proof that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction.

Will the member give way?

No, thanks.

The treatment of public opinion in this country and throughout the world has been offensive. We are told that the mobilisation in the gulf of up to 300,000 troops from America and up to 50,000 from the UK is simply for exercises. People should stop telling lies and start telling the truth. War is being prepared for, regardless of whether or not weapons of mass destruction are discovered. North Korea is being treated differently from Iraq as it does not have oil—that is the reality of the situation.

It is time for disarmament. Members have spoken about the need for disarmament and the members who signed my amendment and I agree with them. We hope that our amendment will be accepted.

Will the member give way?

I am sorry, but I want to develop the point that I am making.

Our amendment does not say that we are against weapons inspectors—on the contrary, we are in favour of them. However, why should they be restricted to Iraq? Why do they not go to Pakistan, India or Israel? We believe in disarming Saddam Hussein, but we also believe in disarming Ariel Sharon, who is the military butcher of Shatila and Sabra. We are opposed to the inconsistency that is shown by Labour members who want to try to bask in the USA's limelight, as if that gives us influence on the world stage. Most of the rest of the world believes that we are becoming no more than a poodle of the USA and that we are its 51st state.

Does Tommy Sheridan accept that, following the defection of Saddam Hussein's son-in-law—the former director of the Military Industrialisation Commission—Iraq released more than 2 million documents relating to its weapons of mass destruction programmes, which it acknowledged it had? A friend of mine in the European Space Agency in Brussels told me that a satellite has shown that those facilities have now been rebuilt. I have the dossier, which has been published and is on the web for any member of the public who wants to read it.

Giving way to such spontaneous interventions in debates is marvellous. If such information is so accessible on the web, we might wonder what the hell the UN weapons inspectors are doing, given that they have not found anything yet. The member should get real and stop kidding the people.

We should know that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, as we—or rather the Tory Government—supplied them. The Tories come to the chamber and wring their hands about the butcher of Baghdad, but they armed him and should be ashamed of having done so.

Those who support my amendment are clear that there is no justification on moral or political grounds for waging war on Iraq. This is not about a war on terrorism. If it was, why has the CIA not discovered that al-Qa'ida is active in Iraq, despite its best and most hopeful efforts and despite its having discovered that al-Qa'ida is active in 60 countries? Of course, it has now discovered that al-Qa'ida despises the Iraqi regime because of the secular nature of that regime. This is not about a war on terrorism—it is about shoring up cheap oil supplies for the USA. It is time that we told the truth to the people of our country.

I will finish by making a point loud and clear, in case some members do not hear me. George Bush has told us that we must choose a side. Whose side are we on? Are we on the side of America or the terrorists? I want to make it abundantly clear that we are neither on the side of individual terrorists nor on the side of state terrorists—we are on the side of peace. To deliver peace, a war on poverty and inequality is needed, and justice in Israel and a withdrawal from Palestine will be needed. Members who are against war should be in Glasgow on 15 February to join thousands of Scots who will proudly stand against war in Iraq and for justice and peace throughout the world.

I move amendment S1M-3760.1, to leave out from second "believes" to end and insert:

"considers the Iraq inspections should be the first stage in comprehensive investigations of weapons of mass destruction possessed and being pursued by states throughout the world, including the USA, UK, Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea, Russia and any others who must be persuaded to allow full and comprehensive assessments of nuclear, chemical, biological and other weapons of mass destruction, with a view of pursuing genuine and all-encompassing disarmament of such weapons throughout the world; believes that there is no moral, humanitarian or military reason to go to war with Iraq whether or not the UN gives its approval, and therefore calls on all MSPs to oppose the coming war by all means possible including civil disobedience."

When Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait on 2 August 1990, I had been working in conflict zones for some time as director of the world campaign for the victims of war. The campaign, which was set up by the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and humanitarian agencies, had two basic objectives. The first was to make it clear to presidents and prime ministers that when they go to war they are not free agents. They are bound by a whole corpus of international law: the international law of war—the Hague and UN conventions on war; international humanitarian law—the Geneva conventions and their protocols; and the international law on human rights. The second objective was to bring impartial protection and assistance to those caught in the crossfire: the bombed and bombed out Iraqi peasant; the western hostage; the disappeared journalist; and the bailed-out British flier.

As the clouds of war collect again in the middle east, I want again to stress the key principles of law, protection and assistance. Four fundamental questions must be addressed before a country goes to war. Question 1: is the threat so immediate that it can be answered only by military action? That was the case in 1990. Today, Saddam Hussein runs an evil and murderous regime, but I see no immediate threat or obvious linkage to terrorism. In terms of danger, the North Korean regime and al-Qa'ida pose the immediate threat.

Question 2: have all alternatives to military action been tried? So long as the UN inspectors are in Iraq, the answer is no. Tavish Scott is quite right to say that their interim report is a staging post, not a deadline.

Do Mr Reid and the SNP believe that Saddam Hussein would be allowing the inspectors unfettered access without the credible threat of force that is provided by the preparations that are being made? Saddam Hussein has already accused the inspectors of spying and he has already acquired weapons, against the terms of the embargo. Does Mr Reid believe that without a credible threat of force Saddam Hussein would allow the access that we all want?

That access has been brought about by United Nations action and by Russia, China and other states, including our European allies, bringing pressure to bear. As John Swinney said, that is where the focus must lie.

Question 3: is there a higher sanction for military action? The answer is, "Not as yet." Resolution 1441 says only that non-compliance will be a "further material breach" of obligations. As our European allies have made clear, the words that trigger action are "all necessary means". The Liberal Democrats are right that that means a second resolution is necessary.

Question 4: will military action make a bad situation better or worse? Until questions 1 to 3 are resolved, military action will make the situation worse. There is no evidence of an exit strategy. If the American objective is to replace Saddam Hussein with a more compliant thug—I know some of the opposition—what will military action resolve? The middle east is the key.

I have here a document marked "highly restricted" and "highly confidential". It contains reports to the UN Secretary-General about the UN agencies' humanitarian contingency planning and makes frightening reading.

In the event of war, the World Health Organisation anticipates that there will be 500,000 casualties, the majority of whom will be civilians—100,000 will suffer direct injuries and 400,000 will suffer indirect injuries. The United Nations Children's Fund—UNICEF—estimates that 3 million people will require immediate feeding on the outbreak of war: 2 million malnourished children under five and a million pregnant women. A further 13 million will need supplementary feeding.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees recognises that 1.5 million people will need emergency shelter straight away. There will be at least a million refugees and millions more internally displaced people will spill about the country. The country's capacity to generate electricity will be destroyed. Sewage will seep into the water and some 13 million people will need clean water.

I am not a pacifist. There are times when evil can be addressed only by a just war, but without proof and without a mandate I cannot believe that what is being planned at present is just. The Red Cross in Geneva is a stark memorial to the 200 million people—men, women and children—who have lost their lives in conflict in the past 100 years. Tom McCabe is right to say that this Parliament does not have the power, but it can have the influence; it can be the conscience of Scotland. Above the doors of the Red Cross in Geneva, there is a phrase from Dostoevsky, which we should remember in time of war. It states that, in war,

"Everyone is responsible to everyone for everything."

As citizens of the United Kingdom, we are all entitled to express our opinions on British foreign policy. I am happy to contribute to the debate as an individual British citizen—albeit as one who has the benefit of some experience of the House of Commons Select Committee on Defence.

I well remember visiting British forces, including a number of my own constituents, in Saudi Arabia before the gulf war and in Kuwait immediately after that conflict. I will never forget the mayhem that had been wrought by the Iraqi invasion on its small neighbour. The burning oil wells were eventually extinguished, but many Kuwaitis had disappeared without trace.

The Government of Iraq is an abomination. We know what it has done to many of its own citizens and, if it has nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, it is a menace to the wider world. I suggest that it is no bad thing for the international community to confront dangerous and oppressive regimes, wherever they may be.

Is not it absurd that we are sending a cricket team to entertain people in Zimbabwe and a task force to destroy people in Iraq, given that they both have despotic leaders and starving populations?

With great respect, I say to the member that it is silly to trivialise a debate of this nature by talking about cricket.

Our colleagues at Westminster, including ministers and, importantly, members of the Select Committee on Defence and the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, will be able to judge the evidence. We have to accept that some of that material cannot be published. I have had to vote to send British forces into combat on three occasions, and everyone in the chamber should understand that that is the most difficult responsibility for members of Parliament at Westminster.

Our colleagues at Westminster will ask a lot of important questions. In particular, they will ask what mission our ground forces will have and what exit strategies will follow any deployment of ground forces. I am sure that those questions are being addressed.

Will the member give way?

No. I am sorry, but we are all constrained by time.

We can take a lot of pride in the fact that the British Government has prevailed on the United States to ensure that any action against the Iraqi regime be taken under the auspices of the United Nations, just as action to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo was taken by NATO with the qualified authority of the UN. The Americans were right to stop unilateral action by Britain at Suez in 1955 and we are doing them a favour by insisting on due respect for the UN now.

Someone mentioned that a former MSP described the action to protect the Albanians in Kosovo as "unpardonable folly". I happened to do some relief work in Kosovo with Edinburgh Direct Aid in 2000. The victims of ethnic cleansing there were very grateful to the NATO forces who had done what was necessary. Happily, they had never heard of Alex Salmond.

If the UN inspectors find evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, there would be an overwhelming case for the UN to sanction appropriate action to deal with that threat. If one of the nastiest regimes in the world were to fall as a consequence of such action, I think that most people would see that as a collateral blessing.

Other members have already made the point that Iraq is not the only country in the world with a rogue Government and illegal weapons. We should be concerned about the fact that dispossessed and internationally excluded people around the world can be tempted to support such totalitarian tyrants in the face of perceived western arrogance. There can never be any justification for terrorism, but there can be explanations for its causes.

We should advise our American friends that the resolution of serious international injustices must be an essential part of the strategy of the war against terrorism. Specifically, our American friends must understand that a fair and secure settlement for Palestine would remove one of the fundamental injustices that lie at the root of the despair that leads to terrorism. That is why I welcome the initiative of this week's London conference on the renewal of Palestine, which is the clearest possible demonstration of Britain working for peace.

Nobody in their right mind wants a war, but likewise, nobody in their right mind should ignore the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a known criminal. It is right to trust the United Nations and our colleagues in the United Kingdom Government and Parliament. I support Tom McCabe's amendment.

The debate is an important occasion for the Parliament because it provides an opportunity for us to speak for Scotland in different voices, giving different points of view. The debate provides us with an opportunity to speak for different strands of opinion in Scotland on a deeply serious matter. Some members have risen well to that challenge. I compliment Tavish Scott, who did not once question the Parliament's right to debate the matter. Even Phil Gallie raised that point only in passing. However, it was deeply depressing to listen to Tom McCabe's speech. It seems that the only valid argument that he can put is that we should not be talking about the issues. That is the weakest possible argument.

Labour has a valid argument, which almost emerged in John Home Robertson's speech, although I profoundly disagree with it. As Karen Gillon said in her remarkable intervention during Tavish Scott's speech, Labour's argument is anti-democratic, but there is an argument to be put.

Democracy consists of tolerance, dialogue and leadership. There has been scant tolerance from Labour members for any other point of view. They have refused to listen and take part in dialogue. I was particularly shocked by the attacks of two Labour members on Alex Salmond's views on Kosovo. Those attacks were accompanied by grins, pointing and jeering from Labour members. Whatever members think of Alex Salmond's contribution on that issue, he spoke strongly and passionately about his principles on war and the problems of war. I respect people who have such views, even though I do not always agree with them, which is why I respect Tommy Sheridan's powerful comments.

I respect members' right to make comments, but, in the light of the evidence, does Michael Russell accept that Alex Salmond was wrong?

I do not accept that in any sense. [Interruption.] Labour members are at it again. Most of the evidence on Kosovo that has emerged has indicated that the success of NATO's strategy is highly questionable. I respect Alex Salmond's right to make such comments and I will not condemn him.

The key issue in the debate is simple, although it sometimes seems confused because of the complexities of United Nations resolutions and other matters. The simple issue is whether the solution to world problems at the start of the 21st century is for the strongest to act without reference to the weakest. Is it right simply to send a gunboat, or should we listen to what the rest of the world says? The real problem is the old-fashioned concept of acting according to what one believes without reference to others. Tavish Scott introduced an important additional element when he talked about the reliance of modern states not only on saying, "We know best," but on pre-emption, which means saying, "We know best, no matter what the evidence is, and therefore we will act."

The issue is whether in the 21st century we have advanced sufficiently to recognise that, as citizens of the world, which could be destroyed by the actions of a single state, we must be protected from the actions of such single states by collective decision making. We must be protected from individual action by collective agreement. If any nation departs from that position, the whole world will be put in danger. The debate is about the contrast between the collective security of the UN and individual actions that might lead to dangerous anarchy; it is about the contrast between having the rule of law and having no rule of law. Choosing to have no rule of law will put the whole world in danger.

I speak in support of Tom McCabe's amendment. In common with people all over the world, I have never felt more afraid of the possibility of war. I was born not long after the second world war. My memories are flooding back and the insecurity about the enormity of the situation that I felt then is with me again. My imaginings as a child are becoming more vivid and frightening as, daily, I learn more about Saddam Hussein's brutality. Mike Russell speaks of democracy; I wish that the people of Iraq enjoyed a democracy, as we do. I do not want war; I want peace with all of my being. I want to know that my children's future is secure. Later this month, I will join with others in prayers and meditation at an event in Edinburgh.

Saddam's regime in Iraq poses a unique threat to our world. His record of internal repression and external aggression gives rise to unique concerns about the threat that he poses, not only to his region, but to the world. Politicians from throughout the chamber have, over the decades, championed the cause of disarmament. Some have championed the cause of unilateral disarmament, others the cause of multilateral disarmament. Over the years, there have been many resolutions on disarmament at Labour party policy-making conferences and my colleagues at Westminster have been at the forefront of those campaigns.

I was a stern critic of Tony Blair when I thought that he did not go to war soon enough to stop the abhorrent ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. At the end of January, a Holocaust remembrance ceremony will take place in Edinburgh. I urge all members to reflect on the words of Pastor Niemoeller, who was a victim of the Nazis. He said:

"First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me."

We must speak out for the hundreds of thousands of children, men and women who are being murdered, raped and tortured in Iraq. A million lives were lost in the war between Iran and Iraq. That war was about oil and was a result of Saddam Hussein's desire to get more money by pushing up oil prices.

Will the member give way?

I will come back to Tommy Sheridan.

Saddam has used his weapons against his own people. Some of his weapons are deployable within 45 minutes of an order to use them. He has the capability to send missiles that can reach Cyprus and all Iraq's gulf neighbours. The United Nations Security Council record to date, and resolution 1441, have demonstrated potently the international community's collective will. Kofi Annan has said:

"If Iraq's defiance continues, the Security Council must face its responsibilities."

In a debate on Iraq in the House of Commons on 25 November, Jack Straw said:

"I should make it clear, as I did on 7 November, that the preference of the Government in the event of any material breach is that there should be a second Security Council resolution authorising military action."

Mr Swinney's motion advises the Scottish Parliament that legal opinion has concluded that resolution 1441 does not provide an authorisation for military action in Iraq and that any such use of force would breach international law. During that same debate, in response to a question, Jack Straw said:

"The United Nations charter on international law is not that precise. I have already said what our intentions are. As for humanitarian action, exactly this issue arose in 1999 in respect of Kosovo. Could there be military action against Milosevic, whom we now know to have been a brutal dictator, in the absence of a clear United Nations Security Council resolution, and given also that the Russian Federation, a member of the P5, moved an unacceptable resolution that we had to veto? The judgment was that the international community could take action, and that has never been challenged … had we not taken that reservation in 1999, no military action against Milosevic would have been possible in respect of Kosovo, and that tyrannical dictator would still be ruining the lives of millions of people in the Balkans."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 25 November 2002; Vol 395, c 53-4.]

I am sorry that I do not have time to list all the atrocities against the people of Iraq. We should support Tom McCabe's amendment.

I welcome the opportunity to debate the current international situation. Since our previous debate on international affairs, the United Nations weapons inspectors have gone into Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction. Hans Blix tells us that they have not found any "smoking gun", but George Bush and Tony Blair still seem hell-bent on war, with or without the approval of the United Nations. I maintain that any such action would be morally unjustifiable and, without the explicit approval of the United Nations, illegal. Bush and Blair claim that the war is necessary to combat terrorism. None of us can forget the terrible events of 11 September 2001; however, the response of the international community must be based on reason rather than revenge. The dogma of an eye for an eye could blind us all.

Saddam Hussein is, without doubt, a despicable dictator who, not so long ago, was aided and abetted by western powers including Britain and America. However, there is no apparent link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qa'ida, and no one seriously believes that Britain or the United States is under threat of attack by Iraq. Iraq is not the only state—or the only so-called rogue state—in the world that is alleged to have weapons of mass destruction, and there is a widespread suspicion that the war on Iraq has more to do with oil supplies than a genuine desire to get rid of weapons of mass destruction.

There is also an element of hypocrisy on the part of the warmongers. What kind of example would Britain and the United States of America set the rest of the world by attacking Iraq with weapons of mass destruction that would inevitably kill hundreds of thousands of men, women and children, many of whom are the innocent victims of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime? Attacking Iraq could also, ironically, enhance the status of Saddam Hussein, who is already perceived by many young people in the Arab world as a great hero because he is prepared to stand up to the military might of America.

No wonder that opposition to the war is growing. All the indications are that the majority of the people of this country are opposed to the war. Strong reservations and, in some cases, absolute opposition have been expressed by our European partners, church leaders of various denominations and politicians of various complexions, including members of Tony Blair's Cabinet. I hope that the Scottish Parliament today will send out a strong message to Tony Blair that he should stop acting as George Bush's message-boy and instead persuade the American President to follow the path of peace rather than war.

To recoin an old phrase of the Prime Minister's: of course we must be tough on terrorism, but we must also be tough on the causes of terrorism. Sometimes, terrorism thrives on poverty, injustice and the violation of human rights. The most precious and fundamental of all human rights is the right to life. War in Iraq would destroy too many innocent lives, and that is why we must increase our efforts to stop this senseless war and redouble our efforts to work for peace and justice, especially in the middle east.

I congratulate John Swinney on securing this debate. It is the right—and possibly the duty—of the Parliament to comment on these issues. We have no control over them, but we have the right to comment on them. The accusation of opportunism that has been made against John Swinney is unfounded. If I have any criticism of John Swinney, it is that he should have secured the debate earlier; however, that is not to say that it is wrong that we are discussing the issue today. There is huge public concern.

I shall concentrate on persuading members—or trying to persuade members, as it is a hard task—that, apart from maintaining their tribal loyalties and supporting their party amendment or motion, they should examine the Liberal Democrat amendment seriously and, if they agree with it, consider voting for it. We stress three points in our amendment: the first is the public concern on the issue; the second is the need for a new, clear mandate from the United Nations; and the third is the need for a parliamentary vote at Westminster.

It is clear that the Prime Minister has failed to convince a huge section of the British people that it would be right for us to go along with America in attacking Iraq without a full United Nations mandate. The church leaders who support the Christian concept of a just war do not support a pre-emptive, unilateral attack on Iraq. A huge number of the public do not support that. The United States has also failed to convince most other countries of its case. In particular, it has failed to establish any connection between Iraq and the terrorists. The British and US Governments are open to the criticism that, in concentrating on Iraq, they have taken their eye off the ball regarding the terrorists. The terrorists are a serious threat, and we should be combating them in every way.

Will the member take an intervention?

No. Honestly, we have heard enough from Helen Eadie today.

The terrorists are a threat to us, but I and others do not see that Iraq is a threat to us. What is the threat of Iraq attacking us and going to war with us? That is simply not realistic.

There is concern that we built up Iraq in the past and created much of the problem. There is also the issue of the risk to peace in the middle east, which could be seriously fractured with huge consequences if an attack is made that is not accepted as a good action by Iraq's neighbours and the people in the middle east. We should be using our influence on Mr Bush to help to sort out the Palestine situation rather than going along with him in Iraq. There is also a suspicion that the US action is related to oil supply rather than to principle.

Will the member give way?

No, the member is in his last minute.

It is clear to most people that unilateral action by the United States and the United Kingdom is not acceptable. We must stick to the rule of law. As members have said, the United Nations has failures; however, the argument that because it does not sort out Israel properly we should ignore it on Iraq is very foolish. The UN is the only organisation that we have, and we must stick to it.

Finally, members who stress the importance of the constitutional settlement and the existence of reserved issues should also stress the fact that Westminster must vote on a war before it happens. That is a clear part of the constitutional settlement. If a war is begun without that, it will be a serious affront to democracy.

It is now 16 months since the atrocity of 11 September 2001, the subsequent military action in Afghanistan and the launch by the US and UK Governments of a war against terrorism. I shall focus on international terrorism, because people have doubts about how we deal with that.

International terrorism knows no state boundaries. It is a 21st century, worldwide concern, so why are we fighting back by concentrating on deploying 20th century nation-state solutions? At what point, and for what reason that can be justified in international law, did the US and UK switch from a focus on al-Qa'ida and international terrorism to a path to a war that, if it is embarked upon, will lead to hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths?

Tony Blair has gone directly from A to C, but the public is not convinced that there is evidence that the leap from international terrorism to war on Iraq can be made.

Only this morning, Tony Blair was quoted as saying:

"I believe that it is only a matter of time before it"—

that is, Iraq—

"is linked with international terrorism."

He says that as of now there is no link. I agree with Tom McCabe that there must be time and there must be facts. As of now, however, there is no link and, if that is the case, Tony Blair cannot justify a military build-up that is juggernauting to war.

Only two days ago—and I talk about the momentum—Hans Blix expressed his concern. He said:

"There is a certain momentum in the … build-up and that worries a great many people including myself."

I know that the Liberal Democrats in Westminster have expressed their concern about a drift to war.

The public are not convinced that there is a link with al-Qa'ida. If the UK and US Governments want to go to war for any other reason, they must comply with international law. The United Nations charter gives a member nation the right to respond to armed aggression with force, although evidence and justification must be presented. The struggle was meant to be one against terrorism. I can think of no other way of increasing international terrorism and the danger to Britain than to bomb Iraq.

I am sure that Fiona Hyslop and many other members in the chamber are concerned about the loss of innocent lives in any war. Will she tell the chamber what her track record on international issues has been? What has it been on the lifting of sanctions against the Iraqi Government, which has starved and caused the death of many Iraqis? What contribution has her party made to the Palestinian process? As convener of the cross-party group on Palestine, I invite her to become active in that group.

I am sure that the member will be happy to note that my next comment was going to be that, if the purpose is the pursuit of peace, then the road to peace must go through Israel and Palestine. There can be no peace until there is justice in Palestine.

It is fundamental that the rule of international law applies. Many serious concerns and doubts have been expressed about the United Nations. We know that there is hypocrisy and the arbitrary implementation of resolutions, but without it we would have nothing. We would have a world that we would not want to know.

Despite concerns that people may have, we need to remember that three of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—China, Russia and France—issued a statement to the effect that resolution 1441 excluded the automatic use of force and that only the United Nations Security Council could authorise force as a riposte to the action or inaction of Iraq.

Let us be clear about the vote tonight—members will have a clear, polarised choice. A vote for Tom McCabe's amendment is a vote to simply record a matter of fact; that amendment does not include the key issue of a second resolution. A vote for the SNP motion is a vote that international law must prevail and a statement of the absolute imperative for a second resolution before any military action. Members must look to their consciences and their constituencies and ask whether their vote tonight will encourage or discourage Tony Blair from embarking on bilateral or unilateral action on a war in Iraq. Will members give succour to that position, or not?

Contrary to some views, the SNP did not lodge the motion to embarrass the Labour party. We lodged the motion because we think that it is right to do so. It is right that we should speak out on the issue and that our democratic views are expressed. The people of Scotland did not vote for democracy only for it to be silenced. The vote tonight is important. Members must not let their silence on the issue give consent to a path to war that is not firmly grounded in international law.

I very much hope that there will not be a war in the middle east or anywhere else. I hope that we will all look for a 21st century that builds a future in peace and justice out of the debris left from the 20th century.

From speaking with our constituents and sharing their concerns and anxieties, it is clear that people across the country are keenly aware of the gravity of the world's situation and are deeply concerned about it. Many people are discussing the situation, some are debating it and others are demonstrating or may demonstrate. I know that many are praying and that many stand ready to serve. I know of no one, and certainly no one in my own party, who is calling for war, still less

"pursuing an inevitable path to war",

which is the allegation that John Swinney makes against the Government. That would be a disgraceful allegation at any time, but the offence is compounded when one considers the gravity of the international situation and the exhaustive efforts that are being made by better men than John Swinney in support of peace and security.

So: no scope for diplomacy and no effort for peace. It is all a charade. It is all a sham. There is no recognition of the weight of responsibility on those who have the terrible burden of looking service women and men in the face. John Swinney may say in his motion that the Government is

"pursuing an inevitable path to war"

but, in their consideration of the motion, people will notice that not a single church leader in the United Kingdom supports Mr Swinney in that charge.

Mr Swinney's claim is a disgraceful and unfounded libel. One might have hoped that it would have been departed from and recanted in the course of the debate, but instead it was reinforced. It will therefore not be a surprise that I will not support Mr Swinney. That is not on the basis of hiding behind some technicality or of looking for some legal loophole by which to escape, it is on the basis of the terms of the motion. When members consider how to vote, we must consider what John Swinney says in the motion.

Does Mr Fitzpatrick believe that there is a requirement for a second, specific United Nations Security Council resolution to authorise the use of military force in the current conflict? That point divides the motion from Mr McCabe's amendment.

We should not pretend that the issue is some kind of game. Serious issues are involved. [Members: "Yes or no?"] This is not a yes or no situation. Had the same position been taken in the case of Kosovo and had we waited for the Russians to agree to what we would do, what would have happened to the children of Kosovo? [Interruption.] SNP members may groan, but their constituents do not. People remember the seriousness of that issue.

Will the member give way?

No, I am sorry, but I will have to make progress.

I seek not to hide behind some kind of technicality, but to speak about the constitution of the country. Tom McCabe made an important constitutional point and it should not be dismissed.

I agree that we can debate the issue and that we can choose to discuss the subject. The regrettable aspect of John Swinney's contribution was that we had to wait until George Reid spoke before the defect of John Swinney's not mentioning what members of the Scottish Parliament could properly do in respect of the matters that reside under our jurisdiction was remedied. That was a telling omission; one that shows where the real intent and purpose of Mr Swinney's motion lies.

As was the case in the gulf war, the likelihood is that around one third of the front-line troops will be from Scottish regiments. As far as our citizens are concerned, we have to remember that it is those troops and their families who will bear the brunt of any war in Iraq.

As a military wife of many years standing, I am of course aware that going to war is the ultimate expectation of all military personnel. Our armed forces are entirely volunteer. Indeed, to put it in crude sergeant-major terms, they knew what they were getting into when they joined.

However, those men and women are also sons and daughters, husbands and wives and fathers and mothers. I agree that it is their duty to answer the call, but what if the call does not have the support of their fellow citizens? We need to imagine what it is like to put your life on the line in a war that is rejected by many of your friends and neighbours.

I can tell members what it is like because I have been in those circumstances. I was present when a young mother was told that her husband had been killed in action. Not for her the comfort of the condolences of a grateful nation. Not for her children the pride of having a father who died to help protect his country. It is dreadful for someone to lose someone close to them and to feel in their heart that it was a sacrifice made in a war that simply should never have happened.

I worked with family services on a United States Air Force base during the Vietnam war and I met bereaved families and men who came home having been wounded in action. Of course, the majority of people accepted the situation with the knowledge that they had done their duty well. However, many people experienced such feelings of bitterness and anger that they were unable to move on and accept their loss. At whom was that anger directed? At the politicians who had decided that there should be a war, who had not debated the issues with the people before committing their country to war and who, month after month, had wrung their hands at what was or was not an acceptable body count. Make no mistake: it is our military personnel and their families who will pay the blood price. We politicians had better be darned sure that we get the decision right.

There can be absolutely no question of unilateral action in Iraq. Any military action must have the backing of a specific resolution of the full United Nations Security Council that is based on clear and published evidence. There must be no bypassing of a UN decision. In short, there must be proof. To date, however, we have had no such proof. In the absence of proof, we cannot send young men and women into action for the spurious reasons that have been presented so far. I am a politician who does not want precious blood on my hands because of daddy's unfinished business. At the back of my mind there is a nagging doubt, caused by the fact that daddy Bush is Texan and we all know that in Texas the number 1 business is oil, oil and more oil.

Regardless of the constitutional niceties surrounding the staging of this debate, I take it as a valuable opportunity to express views that have been expressed to me and to my Westminster colleague, Michael Moore, at local meetings and surgeries and in correspondence. Since it was announced that this debate would take place, I have been contacted by letter, phone, fax and e-mail by constituents who are dismayed by the prospect of military action being taken against Iraq. My correspondents have included the student body of Heriot-Watt University's Borders campus, local clergymen, neighbours, friends and former pupils, a group that holds vigils on the steps of a Peebles church demonstrating that a war against Iraq would not have their support and American citizens living in my constituency. Those voices should be heard and I think that it is appropriate that I can acknowledge and raise their concerns in this forum.

Some of the groups and individuals are implacably opposed to war in principle and would not support military action in any circumstance. Others, closer to my position, accept that there might be circumstances in which armed action in this area could be justified. The problem is that many of us feel that those circumstances have not yet been established and we remain to be convinced. I am a lover of peace, but I am not a pacifist. I do not like imperialism, but I am not anti-American. I simply do not think that the threat to peace that is posed by Saddam Hussein has been demonstrated clearly enough to justify the conflagration and the disastrous consequences that would result from military action on the scale that seems to be envisaged.

If we go to war, we must believe that the result of war would be better than the situation that existed before. I am not convinced that that is true in this case. As George Reid detailed in his powerful and impressive speech, a military campaign against Iraq would do massive injury to a civilian population that has already suffered cruelly. Casualties among our troops might be severe and, on a wide scale, the knock-on effects on security in the middle east would be incalculable. It is inevitable that anti-western feeling and further terrorist action by fundamentalist groups across the world would be engendered.

Before we take such a step, we must be convinced of the substantial nature of the threat from Saddam Hussein and the immediacy of that threat. We must be convinced that all alternative steps have been taken to confront and emasculate the threat. The weapons inspectors must be given time to complete their job and material breaches of the UN resolution, if found, must be clearly and unequivocally established and recognised by the UN. There must be a mandate for action from the UN and there should be a debate in the House of Commons in which the Prime Minister comes before the democratically elected representatives of the people of the UK to reinforce his democratic mandate to take us into war.

If the member believes that the Scottish Parliament should be able to tell the House of Commons what to do, does he also believe that the House of Commons should be able to tell us what to do?

I do not think that we should tell the House of Commons what to do. We should have an influence on its thinking and we should be able to express the views of our constituents in a democratic forum. I have indicated that I might not always support a debate on matters that are reserved to Westminster, but, in this case, I want to say what my constituents want me to say and what I believe myself.

Without the conditions that I have outlined being fulfilled, I would find it impossible to support military action. In the meantime, however, I cannot accept that war is inevitable. We must not cease trying to convince all concerned that a more peaceful way must be found.

The pursuit of peace and the avoidance of war are the most serious of issues that a Parliament can debate. It is perfectly reasonable that this chamber should discuss Iraq and the delicate international situation in a temperate, reasoned and constructive fashion. Equally, we have to realise that our deliberations in Edinburgh today will not decide the matter of Iraq and related concerns. That burden lies with Westminster. I believe that a rational debate that avoids petty point scoring is essential. Only that sort of discussion will directly influence our Westminster counterparts whose grave responsibility it is to make such decisions.

I believe emphatically that there is only one way in which to deal with Iraq: rationally and diplomatically. As Jack Straw said in an article in the 18 November 2002 edition of the New Statesman, the point of UN resolution 1441 is to provide

"a pathway to a peaceful solution".

I agree with my comrade the Foreign Secretary. I am certain that an intemperate approach that holds that unilateral military action is either desirable or inevitable will not succeed in lessening the threat of terror. On the contrary, it will heighten international tension and increase the possibility of terrorist attack. We must support the decision to send in UN weapons inspectors and cautiously welcome the Iraqi regime's acceptance of unrestricted access. Of course, that could all unravel, but we need to make the effort.

I take that view not because I am a pacifist—I am not one, although I genuinely respect those who are. I believe that, unfortunately, wars are sometimes inevitable and also that they are sometimes just. In support of that view, I cite the Spanish civil war, the war against fascism from 1939 to 1945 and the war waged by the African National Congress against the racist apartheid regime. Neither do I take the view that I am outlining because I am naive or soft on terrorism—the opposite is the case. To propose military action to remove Saddam Hussein before exhausting the United Nations option would be disastrous. It would solidify support around the tyrant Saddam, lead to a rapid deterioration in the middle east situation, risk war and conflict spilling over into surrounding states, and act as a recruiting sergeant for terrorist organisations and a justification for their bloody actions. Unilateral action is not a means to secure regional stability. Rather, it would mean a lurch towards worldwide instability, not to mention the fact that thousands of civilians would be killed.

Of course, there is no guaranteed path to peace. Resolution 1441 provides part of a possible way forward. Nevertheless, there is more to the equation than resolution 1441. It is common knowledge that the UK Government has been pushing for the final status talks between Israel and the Palestinians to resume. I agree with the Foreign Secretary's call for a new focus on the unlawful settlements and his support for the message that they will have to be dismantled.

The plain fact is that in order to deal with terror, an even-handed approach must be shown in the application of UN resolutions. In particular, there must be progress on the implementation of UN resolution 242, which establishes the right of the state of Palestine to exist within secure, viable borders. Justice for Palestine is inextricably linked to peace and the end of terror. In my view, terror will not be ended by bombing Baghdad into dust.

I began my speech by advocating the rational, diplomatic course. I make no apology for doing so. The possibility of war means that the situation is too grave for us merely to indulge in the language of the dramatic and to employ simplistic, sweeping and, frankly, inaccurate phrases such as

"an inevitable path to war".

In all sincerity, I say that that is an unfortunate phrase. Life and politics are not like that. It is more difficult, more complex and less certain. The Labour amendment recognises that complexity and the centrality of the middle east peace process to any lasting solution.

Will the member give way?

The member is finishing.

On that basis, and at this stage, the Labour amendment is worthy of support.

I call Colin Campbell to be followed by Elaine Smith.

I will talk about the "inevitable path to war". I understand that we all have varying opinions on how to interpret the facts and I hope that members will listen to my opinion.

In Germany, the 7th Armoured Brigade is awaiting chartered vessels to move its armour to the middle east. In that brigade are the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards and the Black Watch, which make up more than 30 per cent of the brigade. They are part of our concerns, as are all forces in all armies that are likely to be engaged in what may or may not happen. The Ark Royal, which is leaving today, is the flagship, as John Swinney said, for the largest task force to leave here since the Falklands. Of course, it is taking part in an exercise that was designed and laid down in November.

Reserves are being mobilised. An advert placed in The Herald on Monday by SaBRE—Supporting Britain's Reservists and Employers—stated:

"Now that Britain's armed forces are preparing for conflict, the mobilisation of members of the Reserve Forces … will begin immediately."

More than 1,000 reservists have been mobilised in the United Kingdom. To put that into perspective, I note that by 9 January the United States had mobilised 56,695 reservists.

I understand that war cannot be launched on a whim. Preparation is necessary if one is moving to war. I also understand that war may not take place. It could all be mere sabre-rattling to back the diplomatic efforts to make Saddam conform. It could end without a shot but, equally, it might tempt Saddam into a Hitlerian Götterdämmerung, provoking conflict in the entire area.

Why do we state that there is an inevitability about that, which Brian Fitzpatrick finds so offensive? I do not think that there is a deliberate inevitability about it, but there could be an accidental inevitability about it as a result of the path that the United Kingdom is on. First, US and UK forces have patrolled the no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq since 1999, and have retaliated when Iraqi radar has locked on to them. Since January, 80 sorties have been flown in the southern no-fly zone to bomb missile sites and command-and-control centres. Retired United States Air Force Colonel John Warden, a key 1991 gulf war air planner, said:

"Anything that would need to be knocked out that is knocked out now saves some sorties once the war starts".

Secondly, the rhetoric is far from empty. On Tuesday, President Bush said that he was

"sick and tired of games and deception"

by Saddam Hussein. Are not we all? President Bush told reporters at the start of his meeting with the Polish President, "Time is running out." His State Department spokesperson Richard Boucher said:

"I think it's obvious from the military deployments, and obvious from the President's own statements, that he's prepared to go the alternate course".

Although we may think that the United States has infinite military resources, the US Army's key divisions are all there or on the way, so they cannot be rotated home if there is no swift resolution. They cannot be left to stagnate indefinitely in Kuwait and they cannot go back to the USA without a clear outcome, otherwise Mr Bush's tough image will be in shreds. There is also a limited weather window of opportunity in which a war can take place, and it will not be long before it closes.

Mr Bush has little room to manoeuvre in wanting an Iraqi regime change. He has boxed himself into a corner from which he cannot escape without political damage. Mr Blair shadows Mr Bush so closely that he, too, has little scope for manoeuvre. It is a measure of Mr Blair's closeness to Mr Bush that on Monday Mr Blair said that if what he described as "justified" military action were to be blocked by one member of the Security Council, he would be free to commit the United Kingdom to war. That is Mr Blair talking in Mr Bush's language, and duplicating Mr Bush's attitude to the United Nations. Mr Bush is in the driving seat and Mr Blair is in the rear passenger seat. Mr Bush is eager for a resolution at all costs, even at the cost of war.

The SNP motion being agreed to today may oblige Mr Blair to think again and may persuade him that the inspectors' evidence must be compelling and that he must abide by a fresh UN decision on the matter of war. The troops deserve that.

I call Robin Harper, to be followed by Elaine Smith.

Elaine Smith had been called first, Presiding Officer.

Is there a problem? I am calling Robin Harper.

No, there is not a problem, it is just a surprise.

It is not compulsory, if you do not want to speak.

I very much want to speak.

I start by thanking Mike Russell for the introduction to his speech. It is very important for the people of Scotland to know how every party stands on this incredibly important issue, and how people within those parties stand. I thank the Presiding Officer and his team for granting us the opportunity to have this debate.

I signed Tommy Sheridan's amendment because it is the best of the amendments that are before us, as it confronts resolutely the realities of the situation that faces us. We have an American Government that is pursuing its own policies on oil and using the United Nations and spurious excuses to drum up support for an attack on Iraq. One of the accusations against Saddam Hussein that is constantly repeated is that he has bombed and gassed his own people. I remind the chamber that, to our shame, the British Government was the first Government to bomb the Kurds and to plan to gas them, when it controlled the area after the first world war. We are not free of guilt in this area.

We may believe that the half century since the last great war of 1939 to 1945 has been a period of relative peace in the world. However, there have been more than 100 conflicts, in which more than 50 million people have died either directly as a result of the wars or because of starvation, disease and the appalling mines that have been left behind and which have destroyed people.

Donald Gorrie raised the Christian notion of a just war. In my party, there are many people who are pacifists. In fact, I suggest that there is a larger proportion in my party than in any other party in the chamber. I must put it to the Parliament that there are people who believe that they should follow the example that was set when the Christian religion developed in its first 300 years. People who converted to Christianity were advised to leave the Roman army and not to become magistrates in the Roman empire, in case they were placed in a position in which, under Roman law, they had to sentence someone to death.

Although there are church people and leaders of small churches who have spoken out against war as war, over the past century we have faced an endemic failure to employ negotiation, persuasion, communication and co-operation to prevent war and conflict throughout the world. The United Nations has failed us repeatedly in that respect. I suggest that that is because the small light that the concept of pacifism holds up to us—that war in itself is wrong—is not yet a guiding light. It is not yet regarded as a principle that we should move towards.

I am not a pacifist; I was brought up in a military family and I cannot yet move to that position. However, I must keep that guiding light in front of me. As Tommy Sheridan said, if we must have war, let us have war on poverty and inequality, not against people.

Although the issue is ultimately a matter for Westminster, I welcome the opportunity to debate it, given that it has immense implications for the people of Scotland and for the Parliament.

Like other members, I am disappointed that some members are suggesting that we are on

"an inevitable path to war".

I do not want to be so defeatist at this stage. Every person in Britain has a responsibility to continue to do everything that they can to ensure that all diplomatic and peaceful avenues are examined and exhausted before engagement in military action is even considered.

Although I respect the member's views, I want to refer to the actual wording of the motion, as it has been misunderstood by a number of members. The SNP is not saying that war is inevitable; it is saying that the UK Government is

"currently pursuing an inevitable path to war."

It is important to make that distinction.

I am afraid that I must differ with the member on the semantics of the word "inevitable".

I welcome the comments that the Prime Minister made on Monday. He said that no speculative or arbitrary time frames were to be placed on the work that was being carried out by the UN weapons inspectors. I also want to voice my support for the British Government's recent conference with Palestinian officials to discuss reform in Palestine. I encourage the Government to continue to engage in such proactive and autonomous actions in the pursuit of peace.

Does the member agree that the fact that the Palestinian delegation was not allowed to travel to London makes it clear that the British Government is subservient to the Americans? The Americans had the power to instruct Israel to release the elected Palestinian representatives to allow them to attend that conference.

That was most regrettable, but the fact that the British Government held such a conference at all sent out an extremely strong message, which I welcome. The Palestinian issue is central to terrorism and the anti-western sentiments throughout the Arab world.

I hope that the debate will assist in informing the Government of the feeling in Scotland and that it will encourage people to make known their views to their representatives at Westminster. People will be able to express their opinions at an anti-war conference on Saturday 18 January and at a march and rally to stop war on Iraq on Saturday 15 February. If they feel strongly about the issue, people can take part in those events.

I hope that all is not lost and that the potential war can be averted. However, I am not so naive as to have failed to notice the deployment of considerable military resources in the region, which indicates that conflict is a genuine possibility. Given that that is the case, I want to consider what such a war might mean for the Iraqi people. Previous atrocities have been mentioned, but let us assess what would be the implications for those people of a war now.

Forty-two per cent of the population of Iraq is made up of children under the age of 15. That amounts to 9.6 million children. UNICEF's 1996 report on the state of the world's children states:

"It is the singular characteristic of warfare in our time that children suffer most."

It is also known that about 90 per cent of those who are killed in modern wars are civilians. Ordinary people are rarely made aware of that fact.

In the past, those who have been killed and maimed have been given the dehumanising description of collateral damage. Of course there will be collateral damage when weapons include cluster bombs, land mines and daisy cutters, which kill people indiscriminately and in large numbers.

The member must close now.

I thought that I had extra time for interventions. I apologise.

I am sorry—we must be very strict.

I do not have time to mention how malnourished the Iraqi children are and how they would suffer in the event of a new war.

On its informative website, Operation Desert Rescue pointed out that, in 2002, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution entitled "A World Fit for Children", which pledged to

"protect children from the horrors of armed conflict".

Operation Desert Rescue asks the UN and all the Governments that are involved to announce how they intend to honour that pledge. I echo that call.

As I am not comfortable with the motion or with the amendments to it, I am not sure how I intend to vote on the issue. I will listen to the summing-up speeches.

I concur with Elaine Smith's final remarks. Although the debate has been excellent, its main interest has been that opposition to the SNP's motion began as outright objection to the Scottish Parliament discussing the matter at all. That opposition now appears to consist of taking exception to the final sentence of the SNP's motion. I suggest that, under standing orders, it might be possible to release some Labour party members from supporting an amendment with which they are not comfortable by having a textual amendment of the motion, even at this stage, given the importance of the matter that we are discussing.

Like all other members, I look to the UN to give a lead in relation to our conscience, our information and our knowledge and in setting down what will amount to international law. Under its charter, if the United Nations Security Council succeeds in getting nine votes for the position of the United States—it will be the United States that takes the lead in that body—that position will be recognised internationally as being legal. However, it will not necessarily be right.

We are determining the correct way in which we should proceed. We are considering how we can express opinion in Scotland in a consistent, decent and humane way. Once the issue moves into the hands of the Security Council, after Hans Blix has reported, we would be foolish to imagine that the same politicking that persuaded Russia to support resolution 1441 will not go on.

Since resolution 1441 was passed, the membership of the Security Council has changed. Angola, Chile, Germany, Pakistan and Spain have joined the Security Council. It is possible that Angola, Germany and Pakistan—never mind Chile—would find it difficult to support a resolution in the United Nations that created an international precedent for it to be legally correct to wage war on a state, rather than on a regime.

The Parliament has not answered the question whether the proposed military action is against the state of Iraq or against the regime of Saddam Hussein. Let us consider what would happen if the former were true. Let us assume that there is a war, that Saddam Hussein is deposed, that a popular president or leader of the country is elected in Iraq and that he decides to pursue the same sort of weapons policy that the independent state of Israel is pursuing. Would the United Nations feel that it could again move in to remove such an arsenal from Iraq? As we can see from North Korea today, the one does not necessarily follow the other.

If we do not exercise our own judgment on whether the decisions taken by the Security Council are correct, the result in the middle east will certainly be to spread and deepen the hatred of western countries that is already being expressed. Young Arabs, who simply want to be like young people all over the world, now refuse to buy American goods and tell their parents not to co-operate with American companies. That will soon extend to United Kingdom companies, because the United Kingdom is seen as an adjunct to America.

I have one final question, which I hope someone from the Labour benches will answer. Tom McCabe said that today was not the time for us to debate this matter. When would that time be?

I should mention that I previously served with the Territorial Army for just on 10 years. I am also an honorary air commodore with 603 City of Edinburgh squadron. I have had some military training, but that only brings home an awareness of the consequences of war. War should be entered into very much as a last resort.

When issues of potential life and death are being considered, there is no need to make party points. Our main consideration should be what is in the national interest. There is undoubtedly an extremely powerful national interest in seeing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction removed. That interest is not restricted to the western democracies.

There is not the slightest doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime has previously launched wars of aggression against Iran and Kuwait. He has used weapons of mass destruction against thousands of Kurdish civilians—men, women and children—in the town of Halabjah in his own country.

Our clear preference is that there should be a second United Nations resolution to authorise military action if Iraq does not comply with its UN obligations. That has been our position and it is our position today. We take our stand from the wording of UN resolution 1441, paragraph 13 of which states that the UN

"has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations."

Paragraph 2 states that the resolution is

"a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations".

In our view, in the circumstances that there was conclusive evidence that the resolution had been breached and that one of the five permanent members of the Security Council chose to veto follow-up action, the passing of resolution 1441 would give sufficient scope for the necessary disarming of the weapons of mass destruction.

Assuming that those conditions were met, does Lord James take the view that Britain's decision should be taken by Mr Blair and his Cabinet or by resolution approved by the House of Commons?

If the conditions of the resolution were met, there would not be grounds for military action. That is fundamental. Everyone accepts that.

If the member meant to ask a different question, I would put to him the point made by Brian Fitzpatrick and John Home Robertson about Kosovo. Russia would have vetoed any action against Kosovo, but we know that the action saved many lives that would otherwise have been ethnically cleansed.

However, prudent military preparation should be accompanied by a much higher priority for the humanitarian consequences of military action if such action is found to be necessary. Putting contingency arrangements in place is very important.

The Prime Minister has said:

"It is a matter of time, unless we act and take a stand, before terrorism and weapons of mass destruction come together."

However, the Prime Minister should not take our cautious support as the signing of a blank cheque, which it certainly is not. Military action should be undertaken only as a last resort. It follows that conclusive evidence must be made available—John Swinney demanded "clear and compelling" evidence, but I say conclusive evidence—as to breaches of the resolution before military action could be sanctioned. I repeat that it remains our position that we would prefer a second UN resolution before such action.

I invite the Prime Minister not to underestimate the United Nations, which is as powerful as its members allow it to be. He might usefully reflect on the words of Tennyson's "Locksley Hall":

"Till the war-drum throbb'd no longer, and the battle-flags were furl'd
In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world.

There the common sense of most shall hold a fretful realm in awe,
And the kindly earth shall slumber, lapt in universal law."

Winding up speeches should begin now, but as four members still wish to speak, each will be given three minutes. That means that the suspension of this sitting will take place nearer a quarter to 1 than half-past 12.

There has been much comment this morning on whether the Parliament should be discussing war against Iraq. My colleagues and I certainly wish that we did not have to do so. We wish that there was no threat of war on the horizon, but that threat exists. We must therefore discuss the issue because we owe it to everyone in this country who is seriously concerned about the situation. People see our nation being swept into a war without the backing of international agreement or of firm evidence that war is the required last resort.

George Reid highlighted the effect that war against Iraq would have on the Iraqi people and on the infrastructure of that country. It is worth noting and reminding ourselves of the current state of that country and the effect of the sanctions that were first imposed back in 1990. Sanctions have been in place for more than 12 years, but it is apparent that they have failed to achieve what they set out to do, which was to secure peace in the region. The sanctions have had an effect; for example, they have ensured that Iraq's health care system has broken down. They have ensured that Iraq has had no chlorine for its water supplies for many years. They have ensured that Iraq now has one of the highest infant mortality rates on the planet—the rate has doubled over the past 10 years—and that one quarter of all Iraqi children are underweight while one fifth are malnourished.

That is the state of the country with which we might end up at war. It is a country in which, UNICEF estimates, 250 people die every day. In 1996, it was reported that 4,500 children under the age of five die each month from hunger and disease in Iraq. The people also have to face the effect of depleted uranium. That is the state of the country that we are in danger of combating, with neither published and compelling clear evidence, nor a specific UN mandate.

Some people in Iraq would say that we are already at war. Those who live within the no-fly zones have seen their friends and families killed by western bombs. The USA and the UK say that UN resolution 688 allows them to enforce the no-fly zones, but it does not, which was confirmed in 1992 by the then UN Secretary-General. Similarly, the resolution that is currently on the table—resolution 1441—provides no automatic right to take military action.

Reuters news agency reports that seven bombing raids have been carried out against Iraq already this month. Although we are told that no final decision has been taken about the war, American and British bombing of Iraq has increased by some 300 per cent, according to commentators. The Washington Post reports that, back in August, Secretary Rumsfeld ordered that the target list be widened. According to answers to parliamentary questions at Westminster, the Royal Air Force dropped more than 124 tonnes of bombs between March and November. What do we call that type of operation? It seems pretty warlike to me.

I agree with my party's motion that there is a "deep and serious concern" that we are

"currently pursuing an inevitable path to war."

We must try to block that inevitable path. Any decision further to escalate action must be taken properly through the United Nations Security Council in the form laid down in the SNP motion.

Talk of war is never an easy thing for many of my constituents who—having lived through at least one world war—know the cold reality of the situation. I respect them deeply and am indebted to them for the peace that we now enjoy.

Many of our military personnel have paid the ultimate price in conflicts throughout the world. Many innocent men, women and children have also paid that price; therefore, any decision to go to war is extremely serious and must not be used as a political football by anyone on any side. I have looked very closely at the motion and at the amendments. Because of the nature of today's debate, I will vote according to my conscience and not according to the name of the person who lodged the motion or amendment.

I am not a pacifist but I desire peace, as my colleague Ian Jenkins said he did. Although I do not agree with all that he or George Reid said, their thoughtful speeches were a credit to the Parliament, as was Bill Butler's.

I will not support the SNP's motion because I do not believe that

"Her Majesty's Government is currently pursuing an inevitable path to war."

I know that HMS Ark Royal has left Loch Long, but ships can change course and I pray to God that it will. I believe that our Prime Minister's actions have ensured that we are still operating within the UN framework. I accept that diplomacy and discussion contributed to the readmission of the weapons inspectors to Iraq, but so did the threat of military action.

The weapons inspectors are now in Iraq and they must be allowed to do their job. We know that Saddam Hussein has had weapons of mass destruction because he has used them against his people, but we need to find out from the weapons inspectors whether those weapons of mass destruction have been destroyed. I do not believe that the January date that has been mentioned is a deadline; I hope that it is a staging post for further debate and discussion. However, I believe passionately that if Iraq fails to comply with UN resolution 1441, we should return to the Security Council for a further resolution.

I cannot support the Liberal Democrat amendment because if the UN makes the decision and we decide to commit troops, those troops will be going to risk their lives; I do not want to hand the banner of hope to the enemy and to put our troops' lives at greater risk by going back to the House of Commons for a debate. That has never happened before.

Will the member give way?

The member is winding up.

People are risking their lives and we cannot be expected to put them in further jeopardy. We might not like it, but that is the constitutional situation in which we find ourselves. I hope and pray that we will not go to war, but that decision is in the hands of Saddam Hussein. It is for him to comply with the UN. I hope that he will do so.

I want to add to something that Karen Gillon said. The normal rules of engagement of war have been suspended—a country has to invade another before anyone should seriously consider going to war, but Iraq has not done that, no matter how bad Saddam is.

As a Glasgow MSP, I could not in conscience contribute to the drumbeats of war that are being stirred up in Westminster by those Dukes of Plaza-Toro who, as usual, will be 4,000 or 5,000 miles behind the front line. That is the same situation as in the first and second world wars, even if those wars are now looked back on as just wars.

The other month I was on a train when a 19-year-old man recognised me as being one of the MSPs who work in his area. He was going to Glencorse barracks, but he was not enlisting because he wanted war; rather, he was doing so because the Army would give him a home and he wanted to learn a trade. I saw him go off into the morning mist and I thought, "Aye—same as in the first and second world wars. Scots troops in first." Anyone who backs this war in any way should think of the young lads and women who might suffer.

A member referred to Zimbabwe, which is also run by a murderous dictator, but when rogue states do not have oil, America and Britain do not think of attacking them and those rogue states' murderous dictators are allowed to continue to rule.

Will the member give way?

No, I do not have enough time. The member has spoken already and will undoubtedly get another chance.

This is a phoney war that is being whipped up by President Bush, by the oil industry and by the arms traders. The situation is the same as has prevailed for decades.

To those who have said today that the issue is reserved and that the Scottish Parliament should not even be discussing it I say, "Feel free to send in Scottish troops. Feel free to make Scotland the most vulnerable country in the British islands by having all of Britain's weapons stored at Faslane and buried in Glen Douglas." I would like the UN inspectors to inspect Scotland after they have finished in Iraq. That is the only way that we in the Scottish Parliament will find out what is stored there, because we will not be told anything about that reserved issue.

The truth is that the vast majority of members of the Scottish Parliament are opposed to the war.

That is rubbish.

If whipping was not being used, very few members would be standing to speak apart from Major Ben, Phil Gallie and, of course, Brian Fitzpatrick. That would be the true count if the whips were not out. They should not be out.

I am grateful that John Swinney has won today's debate, but a key question hovers over his motion, which is why I am backing Mr Sheridan's amendment. What will the SNP do if a second UN resolution is passed, perhaps after some heavy arm twisting? Will the SNP be prepared to back a war?

I will finish by repeating an old saw: war is caused when politics fail. We dare not fail.

I want to say simply that we have to remember what war means. As George Reid pointed out, within the theatre of operations in Iraq, we are looking at possible casualties of at least half a million. That does not take into account the possible knock-on effect in the occupied territories of Palestine, where the current brutal military regime runs a state that has nuclear weapons and uses gas on its people—I was tear-gassed by the Israeli army—and where there will be further casualties. The Israelis will use the situation in Iraq to approve General Sharon's position, which is that the west bank should be cleared of Palestinians and Jordan should accept refugees.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has a shameful record of involvement in conflict during the 19th and 20th centuries. In the 19th century, there was not one month of any year during which a British soldier or a foreign civilian did not die in British military action. In the 20th century there was only one year—1968—when British servicemen did not die on active duty.

If we enter this war unilaterally, or bilaterally with the United States, we will reinforce the belief that ours is a country of hypocrisy and hypocrites. We took no action in Rwanda, Chile or Argentina, but we helped to provide both Chile and Argentina with the possibility of developing intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Will the member give way?

No, I will not.

The destabilisation that will occur because of a bilateral attack on Iraq will lead to more terrorist attacks. When people believe that they are not listened to, they take desperate action. We know that that is true from experience within the boundaries of the UK. There will be more such attacks.

I have said it many times before, but I will say it again: the passport in my hand is a badge of shame at the moment. Bilateral action against Iraq without the support of the UN Security Council makes this passport a mark of brutality. I urge members to support John Swinney's motion.

I begin by welcoming John Swinney's decision to lodge his motion and to make possible an excellent debate in the Parliament. In moving his motion, John Swinney spoke about the innate internationalism of the Scottish people, which is a source of pride to Scots of every political persuasion. In itself, I believe that that would have been justification enough for holding today's debate. We also have to be conscious of the fact that in 21st century Scotland, three different elected Parliaments co-exist in a multilayered democracy—the European, the United Kingdom and the Scottish Parliaments.

However, only one of those Parliaments is elected solely by the Scottish people, only one is answerable solely to the Scottish people, and only one speaks for the Scottish people and no one else. That is this Parliament.

At a time of grave international crisis when the peace and security of every nation is at risk, it is not opportunist for Parliament to debate the crisis; rather, it is unthinkable for this Parliament to stay silent in the face of that crisis. It is important that that is said because, like many other members, I believe that the Parliament can have an influence if it stands up for its rights and makes clear its views on international issues.

There are two roads that I believe can lead to war against the people of Iraq. The first of those is reflected in the SNP motion and the Liberal Democrat amendment: that the US and UK Governments go back to the UN Security Council and are successful in persuading it to agree to a second resolution that would authorise an attack on Iraq. There is a real possibility that those Governments will be successful in achieving precisely that. That is not because there is incontrovertible evidence that Iraq is in material breach of Security Council resolution 1441 and presents a clear threat to other nations; it is purely for reasons of realpolitik—a share in Iraqi oil for some Security Council members after the attack, or a free hand for other members to sort out their alleged terrorist problems in Chechnya or Tibet, for example. Therefore, I could support neither the motion nor the Liberal Democrat amendment, which envisage a war that I believe to be unjustified.

The other possible road to war would involve the US and UK Governments going to the Security Council and failing to secure the second resolution that they seek. It is clear from what both President Bush and Prime Minister Blair have said that, under those circumstances, they would seek to use the new US doctrine that was first developed under President Clinton, and which has been greatly strengthened under President Bush. That doctrine says that the United States is free to take pre-emptive action against any country that it perceives to be a threat to its national security.

Unlike the motion and the Liberal Democrat amendment, the amendment in Tom McCabe's name studiously avoids dealing with the possibility that I have just described. Therefore, it leaves open the option for the US and UK Governments to take pre-emptive action on their own, without Security Council authorisation. If Tom McCabe's amendment were to be agreed to this afternoon and were to become the Parliament's position, the Parliament would be telling the British Prime Minister that we do not take a view on whether there should be a barrier to pre-emptive action. For that reason, I could not possibly support Tom McCabe's amendment. I thought that Bill Butler spoiled what was otherwise an excellent speech by saying that he would support that amendment.

I turn to the only amendment that is opposed unambiguously to any attack on the people of Iraq. That is the amendment that was lodged in the name of Tommy Sheridan. The most important part of that amendment highlights the fact that there is no moral, humanitarian or military case for such an attack on the people of Iraq.

I will stick mainly to the humanitarian case against such a war. We are not dealing with the unknown; we already know what such a war is likely to entail, because we saw the first gulf war back in 1991. I remind members of the bunker in Baghdad where between 300 and 400 innocent women and children were incinerated by one of the United States' so-called smart bombs. I remind them of the turkey shoot on the road to Basra, when thousands of fleeing conscripts and foreign workers were slaughtered by unopposed American fire. I remind them of the two days before the final cease-fire of the gulf war, when thousands of Iraqi conscripts were buried—many of them buried alive—in their own trenches by American bulldozers. I remind them that, at the end of that war, even General Schwarzkopf reckoned that there were about 300,000 Iraqi military dead, while other sources said that there were 200,000 civilian dead.

That is what we are debating today. That is why there can be no justification for an attack against Iraq. The last time, Saddam Hussein was under a limited attack. This time, the attack would be unlimited—it would be about regime change. Saddam has everything to lose, but yet he has nothing to lose and because of that, he is infinitely more dangerous. There would be many more civilian casualties if we were to authorise a war, so I hope that the Parliament has the courage to support Tommy Sheridan's amendment and to send a clear message to the Government at Westminster that Scotland does not back the deaths of innocents in any part of the world.

I welcome the opportunity to sum up on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.

There is no doubt that a grave and serious international situation faces the United Kingdom. That fact has been highlighted by many members in this morning's debate. I reiterate that the Liberal Democrats take the clear view that no British forces should be committed to military action against Iraq without a debate in the House of Commons and before a substantive motion in favour of such action has been carried. Military action of whatever kind cannot be entered into lightly and must be contemplated only as a last resort, when all other options have failed. Although it is clear that under our constitution the Prime Minister has the authority to commit our military forces without consulting the UK Parliament, Liberal Democrat members believe that it would be both sensible and appropriate in this case for him to consult the House of Commons first.

Except in the most dire circumstances, when failure to take immediate action would imperil the security of the country, the United Kingdom Government must at all times act through the international framework of the Security Council of the United Nations. It is for the Security Council—not individual member states, no matter how powerful or influential they are—to decide whether Iraq is in material breach of UN resolutions. That is what is called the rule of international law.

Charles Kennedy has called on the Prime Minister to make it clear that he will not launch a military attack on Iraq without a clear mandate from the United Nations and approval from the House of Commons. We reiterate that call today.

International law sets out very clearly the circumstances in which a country may go to war. First, it may go to war in self-defence. Secondly, it may do so on humanitarian grounds. Will the member comment on that?

Helen Eadie has just read out the question that she rehearsed earlier, rather than listen to what I said. I repeat that, except in the direst circumstances, when failure to take immediate action would imperil the security of the country, the United Kingdom Government should act through the UN Security Council. If British troops are committed to an attack on Iraq without the clear authorisation of the UN and approval from MPs, the whole system of international law will break down and we will be left with the law of the jungle.

I want now to comment on three or four of the speeches that have been made, beginning with Tom McCabe's. Unfortunately, Tom was not quite correct to say that this Parliament does not have the power to influence events. I think that he meant to say that this Parliament does not have authority over defence, which belongs to the House of Commons. However, this is an important debate, especially because the House of Commons has not had an opportunity to express itself on the matter. We can influence events, and it is entirely appropriate that we should do so by our debate today—that is what this is about.

Phil Gallie took an authoritarian approach when examining the Prime Minister's powers in this area. As I thought through what he was saying, I wondered what had happened to the duty of the Opposition to hold the Government to account. Also, Phil Gallie's amendment is somewhat premature. As someone who served as a soldier for 15 years and who is currently a member of the regular Army reserve, I would be the first to ask all members to give their united support to our troops, if they were engaging an enemy on our behalf. However, we have not yet reached that point, thank God.

George Reid gave a powerful speech from the SNP benches in which he outlined the disaster of war for the innocent people of Iraq. He concluded that unilateral military action now would not meet the criteria for a just war.

From the Labour benches, Bill Butler—with whom I do not normally agree whole-heartedly—gave a powerful speech that was full of common sense. I congratulate him on that.

I do not want the Liberal party to misrepresent the views of Labour members, who say clearly that the matter should be debated. What is the principled position of the Liberal Democrats on the war? Do they believe that a UN mandate is required for military action, or are they opposed to the war per se?

I thought that I had made our position clear. Ming Campbell has done so, Charles Kennedy has done so in the House of Commons, and I am now doing so on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. We need a clear mandate from the United Nations. We need a clear debate on the matter where it should be debated, which is in the House of Commons. If we are to have the support of the British people, there must be a clear vote on a substantive motion in the House of Commons.

I am conscious of the time, so I turn to the amendment in Tom McCabe's name, which we cannot support, because it lacks an explicit call for a UN mandate and does not refer to the necessary consultation of the House of Commons. We cannot, however, support the motion unamended because we do not believe that the Government is

"pursuing an inevitable path to war."

That is the whole point of debates such as this. War is not inevitable. It is up to all members to send a clear message to the UK Government from the people of Scotland.

Will the member give way?

No, I am concluding. We must work within the framework of international law. We must work through the United Nations and the UK Parliament must be consulted, before we take military action in Iraq. Tavish Scott's amendment is identical to that which was tabled in the House of Commons back on 25 November and which was, I have to say, supported by 32 MPs. If we vote for Tavish Scott's amendment to the motion we will send that message clearly and forcefully.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it possible for you to give guidance on what amendments are likely to be voted on during the course of the afternoon? If the SNP motion is defeated and Tom McCabe's amendment is agreed to, would the Liberal Democrats' amendment fall?

I am sure that the member must be absolutely clear about that, because the taking of votes on amendments is now very well established. The first vote will be on the amendment to the amendment. The second vote will be on the amendment by Tom McCabe. If that amendment is agreed to, that is the substantive matter resolved and the other amendment is pre-empted. I think that that is quite clear.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. With the greatest respect, this is not an ordinary debate. This is a debate in which there are a number of distinct options; members might prefer one amendment to another. It would be an unacceptable erosion of the power of the Parliament if votes were to be taken at the end of the day in the fashion that you have outlined. I seriously urge the Presiding Officers to reconsider the issue.

The Presiding Officers are bound by the standing orders, which are approved by the Parliament. It is not possible for the Presiding Officers to erode unilaterally and arbitrarily the standing orders that the Parliament has put in place.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. There is no doubt that you are 100 per cent correct about that, but there is a possibility of the Presiding Officers' accepting a manuscript amendment to the Liberal Democrats' amendment, which would still allow it to be taken. I think that a manuscript amendment of only a single word would be required to allow the amendment to be taken. Surely, on the point that Robert Brown has raised, and given the gravity of the situation, it would be within the competence of the Presiding Officer to accept that very small manuscript amendment.

As Mr Russell is aware, the Presiding Officer does not rule on hypothetical points of order and, as things stand, that is a hypothetical point of order. I would like to move the debate on now.

On a further point of order, Presiding Officer. I appreciate that you cannot rule on hypothetical motions, but you have in the past, as have your colleagues, talked about the spirit of the Parliament, of which you are the main custodians. In that vein, do you agree to consider allowing the mechanism to be in place that would allow each amendment to be voted on? It would be completely and utterly against the spirit of the Parliament if they were not voted on and if a procedure was used to ensure that the very strongly held views of members were not allowed to be expressed.

I have to say that the expression "a procedure was used" is very difficult to accept. The procedure is set out in the standing orders. Amendments are pre-empted routinely in the chamber and it is a matter for members who lodge amendments to do so in such a manner as will secure them a vote. The responsibility for that lay with the mover of each amendment in this debate.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. May I propose a suspension of the standing orders at 5 o'clock this afternoon?

I suggest that you propose that at 5 o'clock.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I think that I heard you say that these matters are addressed in the standing orders. My understanding is that they could be dealt with by the conventions and practices of Parliament. Perhaps it would be sensible to review the situation in the next few hours before decision time. I seek the Presiding Officer's assurance on that.

My understanding is that the order in which amendments are taken is a matter for standing orders, but since the point has been raised, it would be discourteous and unwise of me not to have the matter clarified before decision time this afternoon.

On a further point of order, Presiding Officer. I should like to pursue the question of the way in which amendments are dealt with. I understand the logic by which one amendment defeats another because of a difference in view. In this instance, however, there are a number of nuances in the different amendments; agreement to one amendment does not automatically or logically rule out other amendments, whether they have been lodged by the Liberal Democrats or Tommy Sheridan. On this particular and important issue, the Parliament should be able to express a view that has unanimous support, having been through the proper procedures and having exhausted all the possibilities.

I understand the member's point of view. I am not entitled to rule on points of view, only on the interpretation of standing orders. I have undertaken for the matter that was raised by Mr Robson to be considered. If there is anything further to report, the Presiding Officer will do so at 5 o'clock.

I should like to request that, in seeking clarification, the Presiding Officers establish why it is necessary to accept the McCabe amendment, instead of the Liberal Democrat amendment. What are the criteria for selecting amendments?

This matter has been one for the Presiding Officer in the past and is not something on which I feel entitled to rule from the chair. I suggest that you raise the matter with the Presiding Officer at 5 o'clock, although you might very well find that he will feel that it is inappropriate to respond.

I begin by declaring my interest as an active military reservist in the Army.

As the only member in the chamber to have been a combat soldier, it falls to me to sum up on behalf of the Conservative party. As a unionist, my position is that the Parliament does not have competence over foreign policy—

Will the member give way?

No. I am afraid that being in the education corps has never qualified as a combative front-line job. Firing chalk in anger is not quite the same thing. I shall press on with my speech.

As a junior officer—

No, no.

Of course, it is natural for me as a unionist to say that the Parliament—

Mr Rumbles outranks Ben Wallace.

Order.

I never listened to my bosses, I have to say.

As unionists, we recognise that the Parliament does not have any competence over foreign policy or defence. Every time that the Parliament echoes what the 72 Scottish MPs at Westminster say, it only undermines public opinion in Scotland, where people think that perhaps our priorities are wrong and that we should be getting on with issues such as health and education.

I will come to the loonies in a minute.

Order. Mr Wallace, that is not an appropriate term to use about other members in this chamber.

Nevertheless, we are forced to respond to the ridiculous and loony motion and amendment from the SNP and the Scottish Socialist Party.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I ask that you make your comments a little firmer. The member should be asked to withdraw his reference to "loonies".

I think that the member implicitly did so by applying the word to the motion and amendment, although I am still contemplating whether that was appropriate. Better words could be used and I think that it is unnecessary to provoke members in such a way.

I take your guidance, Presiding Officer.

Nevertheless, we are forced to respond to the ridiculous motion and amendment from the SNP and the SSP.

The collective military experience within the SNP and the SSP is probably no greater than that within the girl guides, and their actual experience of combat probably comes down to watching "Braveheart".

Let us consider the motion and the amendments. Mr Swinney—[Interruption.]

Order.

Mr Swinney's motion sets great store by the legal opinion of Matrix Chambers, the lawyers for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. According to the lawyers' interpretation of the UN resolution, the UK needs another UN Security Council resolution in order to use force. Could that be the same legal team that advised protestors that it was legal to inflict criminal damage on Faslane, only to have that advice thrown out at the High Court? I would not set much store by that legal advice.

The SNP plays dangerous games with so-called legal opinions and the right to debate. In reality, the SNP misleads the public by telling them that there is some higher level of appeal beyond the UK Parliament and Her Majesty's Government. Perhaps that is the SNP's point.

Let us look back at the SNP's defence and foreign policy, which is where we discover what is really behind its motion. The SNP is the party that wanted to pull out of NATO when the Soviet Union was bearing down on us. It is the party that wants to pull out of the UK and collective defence. It wanted to pull out of taking action on Serbia. The SNP is becoming the pull-out party.

Who can forget Colonel Stuart Crawford, one of the SNP's defence advisers and a candidate in 1999?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Can you remind the member that he should be talking about the terms of the motion and the amendments and that he is straying far from those terms?

That is not really a point of order. This morning there have been lots of wide references, on lots of different issues, that were not necessarily addressed directly to the motion and amendments.

I am merely trying to point out the motive behind the SNP's motion. It is therefore important that we examine the many contradictions in foreign policy and defence. The situation in Iraq sums up the SNP's position well.

Mr Swinney is opposed to military build-up. We have every right to prepare and train our soldiers to ensure that, if conflict comes, we are in the best position and are best prepared. To gamble with that and to deny that right would result only in more casualties and deaths of Scottish soldiers should action be taken. We must prepare and be trained at all times for all defence throughout the world.

I resent Dorothy-Grace Elder's allegation that I and a few others in the chamber want war. Unlike Dorothy-Grace Elder, I have seen war. I have been there and I have witnessed it and I do not want war. Unlike her, as a reservist I have something to lose. I could be deployed next week or the week after and I want to ensure that any action is well thought out.

Will the member give way?

No, I will not give way; I have only a minute and half in which to finish.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Like many members of Scottish society, I have had part of two generations of my family wiped out by war. I take the member's comment as an insult.

That is not a point of order. Members must not abuse the point-of-order procedure to make interventions.

Mr Sheridan's amendment for the SSP proposes civil disobedience. Let us remember that civil disobedience in Iraq does not get anyone very far. In fact, many people who try to express their freedom and their opposition to the current regime in Iraq do not last for long.

I do not want to hear the member in silence because I want to reply to him. The member is absolutely right: civil disobedience is not allowed in Iraq, so why did his Government supply Iraq with arms of mass destruction?

I do not think that we have the time to go into that question.

That says it all.

Order, Mr Swinney.

I will not take lectures from the party whose military adviser proposed chemical weapons to replace Trident.

Mr Sheridan's speech discredits the UN. He said that the UN is open to bribes and counts for nothing. In other words, he is saying that he is in favour of unilateral action because he does not believe that the UN resolution is worth the paper that it is printed on. I do, and I hope that we can build consensus to prevent war. That will not get in the way of protecting British interests and putting them first. Perhaps that is behind the SNP's motion—it does not like the fact that the decision will be made by the UK Parliament and not by the Scottish National Party.

We have heard the conspiracy theory about Iraq's oil.

It is time to wind up, Mr Wallace.

Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Serbia and Bosnia do not have oil, but we went to war to try to protect their people. That conspiracy theory falls flat on its face.

Let us remember the sanctions argument. The members who say that sanctions hurt the poor people who live under those regimes are the very same people who condemned Margaret Thatcher's Government in the 1980s for not imposing sanctions on South Africa. Perhaps they should consider the arguments that were made by Margaret Thatcher then, which said that sanctions would hurt only the poor. Let us remember that there are double standards on all sides of the chamber.

Mr Wallace, I have allowed for the disruption of your speech by points of order, but you must begin to close.

I do not want war and nor does my party. My party wants to build a consensus in the United Nations, but we will not put that before British interests. We believe that members of Her Majesty's Government in Westminster are the right people to make that decision, and we will continue to back Her Majesty's Government on that issue as long as it answers the questions and continues to try to persuade the public.

I am privileged to sum up on behalf of the Labour party, and I confirm on behalf of members of my party that we are anxious for the Presiding Officer to deal with the question of which amendments will be voted on. It is important that we have the opportunity to express our views clearly on the amendments that have been lodged.

No one in the chamber underestimates the seriousness of the position that our world is in or the hard issues that we are all confronting. I recognise that, across the chamber and far beyond it, people are debating and wrestling with all the elements of concern that make the situation so difficult. In a world where we all want certainty and straightforward answers, we are confirmed when we consider the current situation in the view that there are no easy answers or quick fixes. I find myself troubled by the degree of certainty that some people have expressed on the motives of other people in relation to those matters.

It is almost impossible to encapsulate in one motion the conflicting feelings and views that we all have on the matter. My view of the Liberal amendment is that it is far too prescriptive in setting down in clear detail what should happen in a very difficult and fluid situation.

I will deal with the constitutional issue, because that is important. Our constitutional settlement is one in which power is shared. In the Labour party, like everywhere else, I have sat on committees and been in places where we have had debates, and everyone has thought that where they are is the most important place and that everything that matters must therefore be debated in that place. The reality of power sharing is that we must accept that some debates are for some places and that other debates are for other places. It is important to understand that and not to hide behind the constitutional argument. We should not accept the nationalists' view that only this chamber can speak for Scotland on everything to do with Scotland.

We cannot create the impression that, unless we have a debate, the people of Scotland will not have a voice. The SNP may wish to retreat from Westminster, but we do not. I have to say frankly to John McAllion that his argument is an argument for independence and not for a devolved settlement. It is in the interests of nationalists to argue that this Parliament is the only place where Scotland's voice is heard, but we know that there is a significant reproach to that argument. If one listens to the voices on all sides of the debate at Westminster—whether it is Tam Dalyell or George Galloway, Helen Liddell or John Reid—one cannot say that Scotland's representatives are not being heard.

I may wish to ask, "Where are the SNP voices in Westminster, arguing for Scotland?" I have to tell George Reid that, in a contribution that was thoughtful, serious and challenging, I found offensive the suggestion that only we can act as the conscience of Scotland. Westminster is where the decision will be taken and where decisions will be interrogated. I have confidence that those who represent Scotland will ensure that that interrogation takes place.

Is Johann Lamont seriously suggesting that, if there is to be no House of Commons debate and vote on the issue, Westminster, as opposed to Whitehall, is in fact taking the decision?

I have spoken to my colleague in Westminster about the matter and I understand that Westminster MPs are in the position to make that decision. Any such decision is obviously so serious that the place where the decision is taken is where the decision must be interrogated. My colleague told me that, if demand for a debate would actually put our forces under threat, a decision would obviously have to be considered.

If the SNP had been serious about seeking a serious debate, it would have chosen words that would allow members to reflect on the issues and support it. The SNP's motion is gratuitous in its assertion that the Westminster Government is driving an inevitable path to war. Donald Gorrie's argument that we should act only if we are under threat would preclude taking action on a humanitarian basis; indeed, one of the most serious criticisms of American Governments through the ages has been their willingness to act only in their own interests.

In Britain and Scotland, there is a long and honourable tradition of pacifism. I respect that tradition and understand that many people in this country do not believe that war is ever justifiable. However, I do not agree with them. In certain circumstances, military action is necessary. It is not comfortable to believe that, but if I was ever in doubt about that belief, the upheavals in central Europe in the 1990s confirmed it.

A criticism that has been made of the American Government is that its motives are cynical. We are told that if it had been serious, it would have dealt with Saddam Hussein last time. During the gulf war, I remember arguing hard against military intervention, as sanctions had not been given time to have effect. Later, I was struck by a contradiction in my position in that, once the forces were there, we condemned the fact that Saddam Hussein was not acted against. We must be honest about our positions and reflect on their consequences.

John Swinney would not acknowledge that the threat of force got the UN inspectors into Iraq. There is a serious lesson in respect of North Korea—it is much more difficult to deal with a country when it has nuclear capacity.

For those who accept that military intervention can be justified, we need to ensure that the case is made and that no alternative is possible.

I respect the member's position, but I am unsure about what she would consider to be a just war. What rationale must there be before she would consider a war to be just?

That is such a serious question that it is impossible to answer it in 30 seconds. However, I will try to encapsulate my position in one sentence. I think that what happened in Kosovo was justified.

The issue that we are debating is serious and troubling. We must be honest and recognise that much of the outcome hinges on the UN. I recognise the important role of the UN. The UN is not perfect, but we have a responsibility to bolster and uphold the role of our international institutions, which are our best hope. The Government has made a clear-cut commitment to work through the UN and has worked hard to hold the US to doing so. If members were honest with themselves, they would have to ask themselves whether we ever thought that an American Government would be willing to work through the UN after 11 September.

Those who attack the Government as unwilling to go through the UN reserve their position should a second resolution at the UN be passed. Tommy Sheridan's amendment is explicit on that matter, whereas John Swinney is at best equivocal.

I welcome the Government's action on international issues, not just in respect of Iraq, and welcome its commitment to dealing with the international situation, particularly in the middle east. The Government is also addressing issues relating to third-world debt. I welcome its commitment to international development and to discussion and dialogue throughout the international community. I know that my Labour colleagues in Westminster who are charged with the responsibility of speaking on behalf of Scotland will put Scotland's case. Our people have the right to campaign and argue for positions in which they believe and our Labour colleagues and other colleagues in Westminster are responsible for taking serious decisions at the appropriate time.

This has been rather a mixed debate. Some MSPs have risen to the occasion, but some have stooped to their usual standard—then there was Ben Wallace. It is just as well that David McLetchie and Annabel Goldie were absent for Ben Wallace's speech, as they would have been red-faced with embarrassment. If I thought that Ben Wallace was in any way representative of the Army, I would be in despair, but luckily, I know that he is not. Labour members should be concerned that he will vote for the Labour amendment.

The Labour stance, as expressed by the party's spokespeople this morning, is astonishing. They have said that the matter can be debated in the pubs, living rooms, churches and cafes of Scotland but that the one gathering that should not have the debate is the Scottish Parliament. That is barely credible. The Scottish Parliament is nothing if it is not the voice of the Scottish people. That does not mean to say that it is the only voice, but it is the voice of the Scottish people. Labour's position today, as articulated by Tom McCabe and some others, does him and his party no favours.

There have been honourable exceptions. I note in particular the contributions made by Elaine Smith, and by Bill Butler, who made an admirable speech. In effect, his was a speech against the Labour position, even if he is voting for it, and it must be commended. However, other Labour members—the usual suspects—have lined up to whinge about the SNP making this poor old Parliament debate matters over which it has no control. What on earth are they afraid of? The Scottish people want the Scottish Parliament to debate the matter. The SNP believes that it is to the Scottish people that members of this Parliament owe allegiance—our oaths made that clear in 1999. I strongly believe that, individually and collectively, we cannot absolve ourselves of moral responsibility. In that regard, I commend George Reid's speech.

We know from polling evidence that the people of Scotland want this debate and they want it to take place in Scotland. The vast majority are opposed to Britain and America acting alone and 68 per cent of the people of Scotland believe that Westminster should consult the Scottish Parliament before launching an attack on Iraq. Fat chance—Blair is not even going to consult the House of Commons, much less the Scottish Parliament. That is, unfortunately, what Johann Lamont and her colleagues have to accept. I wish that my Westminster colleagues had had the opportunity to vote on the matter at Westminster, but thus far they have not. So much for democracy. However, that is all the more reason for us to tell Blair what we and the Scottish people think about the prospects of war against Iraq and, in particular, about military action being taken without further reference to the United Nations.

Will Roseanna Cunningham take an intervention?

No.

It is a pity that Tony Blair could not turn up today, given that he is in Scotland, to hear the debate for himself.

Like all other members, I have had e-mails about today's debate. One constituent, who put it very well, stated:

"I think the most frustrating thing is a feeling of disenfranchisement, a feeling that decisions have been made and there is nothing that can be done and that the views of the electorate are being dismissed and ignored. I hope the Scottish Parliament backs Mr Swinney's motion and at least we may have had some voice against the Government's seemingly ‘inevitable path to war'."

Scotland's voice must be heard in this important international debate.

Will the member take an intervention?

No.

Am I not good enough?

If the member wishes to take that view, she can.

As Tony Blair is in town this morning, what better way could there be to ensure that he hears Scotland's voice?

It seems likely that the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, the 1st Black Watch armoured infantry, HMS Argyll and other Clyde-based ships, as well as military aircraft from RAF Lossiemouth, will all be involved if an attack on Iraq is ordered. If Scotland's troops are to be involved in a war, we—as Scotland's Parliament—must assert a position and we must be confident that the war is legal and just.

Things in the United States are not as members might think. Polling in America has found that although the Bush Administration, with Blair as back-up, continues to assert that it could act without additional UN approval, the American people are less convinced. Let us not be conned into thinking that caution will let down America. It may let down Bush, but that is not the same thing and we should not confuse the two.

I say to one or two of the Labour members who have spoken that a litany of religious anxiety has been expressed about what is currently happening and to pretend that such anxiety does not exist is to fly in the face of what everybody knows is the reality.

I turn to an issue that has caused much concern this morning. Despite the opposition that a great many people throughout the country, including various church leaders, have expressed, there is an undeniable military build-up, the scale and manner of which puts us on an inevitable path to war. There has been much comment about the word "inevitable". To use an analogy, if one sets out on a road with no exits, reaching the road's destination is inevitable, unless one comes to a grinding halt or hacks out a new road. I can hope, but right now, neither of those options seems to be on the mind of Blair or Bush.

The clear message is that it does not matter what the UN weapons inspectors find because Bush knows that Saddam deserves a kicking and Tony is going to help him do it. That macho posturing would be pathetic if it were not so dangerous. I think that I heard a reporter on BBC News 24 describing HMS Ocean's departure from port as issuing to Saddam Hussein the challenge: "Come and have a go, if you think you're hard enough." Great stuff. Perhaps the plan is to provoke Iraq into doing something.

A letter in today's edition of The Scotsman from somebody who describes himself as Colonel Dunlop states:

"If Saddam adopts the same logic we are using to justify pre-emptive war, he will have better reason than we do to start it, for we have the capability to attack Iraq and have declared our intent to use it."

While HMS Ark Royal is steaming off with other ships, reservists are being put on notice and the US is amassing forces for possible military action in the gulf, US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has this week signed an order to send a further 62,000 troops to the gulf region, which will nearly double the size of the American forces there. Military analysts say that the expected deployment of 150,000 personnel in and around the gulf by the second half of February would be enough to launch what the Pentagon calls a rolling-start attack. In the face of that, some of the optimism that has been expressed in the debate seems unwarranted.

If somebody would like to intervene, they may do so now.

I am glad that Roseanna Cunningham has taken an intervention after 8 minutes 20 seconds of her speech. Will she clarify whether, after a second vote by the UN Security Council, the SNP would support the UK Government in taking our troops to war?

We are debating the motion that is before us and the important word in that motion is "currently". If Karen Gillon listens to the rest of my speech, she will hear what we believe is necessary before we are to go to war.

As has been stated repeatedly, resolution 1441 gives a clear mandate to the weapons inspectors and puts a clear responsibility on Iraq to comply. The resolution also makes it perfectly clear that the UN Security Council is to convene on receipt of a report from the inspectors. It does not mention attacking Iraq, but states that the Security Council will meet to consider the situation.

The UK ambassador to the UN seemed to understand that point when he stated:

"If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council".

That seems clear and straightforward. Labour members are nodding their heads, but that is not the position for which they have argued in the debate. The UK ambassador's statement makes it all the more puzzling that Bush and Blair think that they can ride roughshod over international opinion and that is why Tom McCabe's amendment should fail.

We must be clear about something that might easily be overlooked among the preparations for war that are going on around us. The weapons inspectors, who were appointed by the UN, have to date found no evidence to provoke the serious consequences that are threatened in resolution 1441. The chief UN arms inspector, Hans Blix, expressed that position clearly when he said:

"We have now been there for some two months and been covering the country in ever wider sweeps and we haven't found any smoking guns".

Mr Blix suggested that there are unanswered questions, and that is precisely why he and his team must be given the time and space that they need to complete the job that we have asked them to do, without the constant threat hanging over their heads that their work could be interrupted by war.

I ask the member for clarification. If the situation changes and, because of a report from the inspectors, the UN considers a second resolution and sanctions action, will the SNP support it?

I will tell members the circumstances in which we will support the war, but first I will finish with what Hans Blix has said. Yesterday, he said that his team might have to stay in Iraq until March. That is a bit out of line with Bush's February timetable.

There are several amendments to the motion, and I await 5 o'clock to find out how members will vote on them. I hope that members in other parties will not follow the usual patterns of voting. In particular, I remind all members who share our concerns that the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has urged support for the SNP motion. It is not enough to say that we should leave it to Westminster because, frankly, Westminster is so far stifling debate. Even that arch opponent of the Scottish Parliament's existence, Tam Dalyell, thinks that it is ironic that the Scottish Parliament can find the means of having this debate while the House of Commons is refused it. Labour members will be well aware that there is far from a unanimous view on the issue even in the UK Cabinet, far less in the wider party.

I believe that the First Minister has behaved very discourteously this morning by coming in to listen to the Labour front-bench speech and then leaving. His silence is short sighted and parochial. It lets his party down; it lets the Parliament down; and, more to the point, it lets Scotland down.

I commend George Reid's eloquence on the humanitarian aspect of what we are debating. I suspect that I am not a pacifist any more than most people in this chamber. However, the SNP is committed to the principles of international law and the primacy of the United Nations. We cannot and will not support military action against Iraq unless three clear conditions have been met.

Here we go.

It is called a conclusion.

The first condition is that the UN inspectors must have been given sufficient time to produce a comprehensive report for consideration by the UN Security Council. The second condition is that the UN Security Council must have received and published clear and compelling evidence proving that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. The third condition is that a new mandate for military action must have been agreed by the UN Security Council, containing clear terms on which such action should be taken and a clear objective for any such action.

The Parliament must be the voice of the Scottish people and send the message to the Prime Minister that he must take the UK off the path to war that he has set us on and root all his actions in relation to this matter in the legitimacy of international law and the United Nations. I urge members to support the SNP motion.

Before we move to the next item of business, to allow the points of order that were raised during the debate to be given a more substantive response than I have so far been able to give, I suspend the meeting briefly.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—

I listened carefully to the points of order that were put to the Deputy Presiding Officer when I was in my room. I reiterate one point that he made, which is that members who draft amendments must accept responsibility for their amendments. The fact that we are prepared to make some adjustments today is not to be taken as a precedent.

I recognise that there is a wish throughout the chamber that every point of view should be put to the vote. Thanks to the skill of the clerks, we have devised a means of doing that which, simply, is this: the text that members have from Tavish Scott and Tommy Sheridan will, instead of being amendments to the SNP motion, be redrafted as amendments to Tom McCabe's amendment. In that way, each can be put in turn and, at the end, we will be left with Tom McCabe's amendment in whatever form results from the votes, which will be put against the SNP motion. That is what will happen at 5 o'clock.

I need Tavish Scott and Tommy Sheridan formally to seek leave to withdraw their amendments, in order to allow the manuscript amendments to be taken.

I seek leave to withdraw amendment S1M-3760.2 in my name.

Amendment, by agreement, withdrawn.

I seek leave to withdraw amendment S1M-3760.1 in my name.

Amendment, by agreement, withdrawn.

Thank you. That shows that we can all be servants of the Parliament and everybody will have their say at 5 o'clock.