At this time last week no one had ever heard of Aylan Kurdi. Of course, this time last week the toddler was still alive.
The haunting image of the three-year-old washed up dead, face down in the waves of a Turkish beach, turned public opinion on the issue of refugees. Seldom has a single picture had such a dramatic general impact.
Tabloid papers that had previously published totally vile material on the depiction of these desperate people did a rapid about turn. They were soon followed by a Prime Minister whose conduct throughout this crisis has been to desperately follow his perception of public opinion rather than provide any semblance of leadership.
It took a shocking image to remind us that our fellow human beings are in dire circumstances and in need of our assistance. The reason that the picture of young Aylan was so tragically powerful is that it personalised this ongoing tragedy. It is difficult to weep for millions in refugee centres across the Middle East however, the image of a single tragic innocent child strikes a different chord.
When we allow ourselves to forget our humanity then it is usually because we allow a crisis to be depersonalised, for people to be depicted as “a threat” or “a tide” or “a swarm”. We allow refugees who are people fleeing death and terror to be described loosely as “migrants”. They are not. They are refugees.
We had a period when too many of us were prepared to accept politicians deny refugees the assistance to which they are not just morally but legally entitled. At the end of the Second World War and the mass movements of people that resulted, a code was drawn up governing how refugees were to be treated. That code formulated in 1951 is what we have basically adhered to ever since.
For that reason Edward Heath, a Conservative Prime Minister, took in 30,000 Ugandan Asians in 1972. For the same reason the western world collectively accepted the fleeing boat people from Vietnam. To break this convention now and pass by on the other side while our fellow human beings are in extremity would be a stain on the reputation of this country from which it would never recover and which we would come to regret soon and for ever.
The contrast between the warm welcome received by refugees in Austria and Germany with the cold shoulder of the UK Government is a shaming one. In tiny Iceland the people are demanding that their Government step up to the plate.
It will not be possible to create a coherent European response to this crisis unless the UK is prepared to do its bit.
That means the UK should be prepared to accept 10% of the refugees arriving in Europe and Scotland 1%.
This coming Wednesday the SNP will force this matter on to the agenda of the Westminster Parliament.
We will argue three points.
First, that the UK should be part of the refugee solution and accept our fair share. The reason that people have embarked on the often fatal journey towards southern Europe is precisely because all other routes of refuge have been closed off. We should not allow Cameron to claim that now taking a number of people direct from Syrian refugee camps can be our only contribution to the issues being faced by all of Europe.
Second, that the crisis should not be used as a cover for military intervention by the UK in Syria. Air strikes are already taking place on a daily basis by a US-led alliance, and since their advent the refugee crisis has intensified not diminished. To bomb both Daesh and Assad-controlled areas, as Chancellor George Osborne has suggested, would not leave much of that benighted country unbombed!
Third, that we should sponsor a renewed United Nations initiative to secure and support the safe corridors and camps throughout the Middle East. If we base a response on humanitarian necessity as opposed to military intervention then we might help rather than hinder in facing the greatest refugee crisis afflicting our fellow human beings since the Second World War.