DAVID CAMERON, faced with a potential Commons defeat on Syria tonight, has caved in to Labour demands to wait for a report by UN inspectors.
The Prime Minister is promising a further parliamentary vote before "any direct British involvement" in military action.
As a result, if the US Government goes ahead this weekend with military strikes on Syria then UK forces will not be part of them.
Westminster sources suggested political pressure on Labour leader Ed Miliband from party colleagues to qualify his support for possible military action, coupled with rumbles of rebellion among Tory backbenchers, led Mr Cameron to realise he could face a humiliating defeat.
A Labour source declared a political victory, saying: "Ed was determined to do the right thing. It has taken Labour forcing a vote to force the Government to do the right thing."
Number 10 insisted Mr Cameron, who had earlier chaired a meeting of the National Security Council, wanted to move on a "consensual basis" and the promise of a second vote reflected his "respect for the UN process".
Among those opposing swift military action was Alex Salmond.
The First Minister insisted that the necessary criteria of clear evidence within a legal framework and full consideration of the aims, objectives and consequences of any action had "not been met and therefore the case for military action in Syria - or the UK's participation in it - has not yet been made".
Earlier, the UK Government tabled a fresh UN resolution, saying the body should consider "what is necessary" to deter another chemical attack.
Expecting a Russian veto, William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, made it clear that Western allies could bypass the Security Council, saying: "We and other nations still have a responsibility."
Wael al Halqi, Syria's Prime Minister, warned that his country may become a "graveyard of invaders".
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article