IT would be a “scandal” if Theresa May did not grant a full parliamentary debate and vote on UK military involvement in Syria, the SNP has insisted.
Pressure is building on the Prime Minister to ensure MPs have their say on the use of British military assistance or hardware in any US-led strike on the Assad regime over the suspected poison gas attack on Douma last weekend.
Mrs May appeared to pave the way for the UK’s involvement after stressing how "all the indications” were that President Bashir al-Assad’s Government was indeed responsible for the attack on Douma and she declared: “The continued use of chemical weapons cannot go unchallenged.”
But in a letter to her, Stewart McDonald, the SNP’s defence spokesman, urged extreme caution, stressing how his party could not support a strategy that did not bring the war to an end but only escalated the violence.
While condemning in the strongest terms the use of chemical weapons, the Glasgow MP said he was “not convinced” retaliatory airstrikes being proposed by Donald Trump was the way forward.
“The UK is only actively engaged in Syria because the UK Government carried a motion on December 2 2015 in which it asked Parliament to approve the 'exclusive' targeting of Daesh in that country. If the UK Government wishes to expand its involvement, then it would be a scandal if it did so without a full debate and vote in the House of Commons,” said Mr McDonald.
Jeremy Corbyn also insisted there would have to be a Commons vote on any plan for the use of the UK’s military.
During a campaign visit to Plymouth, the Labour leader said: “Parliament should always be given a say on military action. That’s a case that I’ve made going back many, many years in Parliament.
"Obviously, the situation is very serious. Obviously, there has to be, now, a demand for a political process to end the war in Syria. We cannot risk an escalation even further than it’s gone already," he added.
In 2013, David Cameron failed in his bid to get parliamentary backing for military action against the Assad regime following a chemical attack on the Syrian people.
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel