Official Report 437KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S7M-01178, in the name of Gillian Mackay, on the middle east—boycott, divestment and sanctions.
16:25
Since the grotesque violence of 7 October 2023, more than 20,000 children have been killed in Gaza and 45,000 have been injured. That seems an unimaginable number. To put it in a Scottish context, that is the equivalent of every primary school pupil in Edinburgh and Falkirk combined. That horrific figure does not even begin to capture the children who have lost their parents or their brothers and sisters. It does not include those who have been displaced or traumatised and those who remain at risk. None of it has been done in secret. It has been broadcast to the world, with some of the most senior Israeli Cabinet ministers gloating at the pain that they have inflicted. When we see horrors on the scale of those that have been inflicted on Gaza, when we see genocide, we are obliged to act.
This is a genocide that has been armed, supported and even denied by some of the most powerful Governments in the world. When two United Nations expert panels, all of the world’s leading human rights organisations and the International Association of Genocide Scholars say that we have witnessed a genocide, we should take them seriously. When the International Court of Justice is investigating for genocide—the crime of all crimes—we should be listening.
Instead, the United Kingdom Government has looked the other way. The response from both Labour and Tory Governments has been truly shameful. Keir Starmer may have been a human rights lawyer, but that did not prevent him from defending Israeli forces when they threatened to cut off water and electricity. It did not prevent his Government from fighting multiple court cases in order to continue arming Israeli forces. It did not prevent it from hosting Israel’s President, a man who has said that there are “no innocent civilians” in Gaza, in Downing Street. It has been one of the most appalling and immoral UK foreign policy decisions since Tony Blair lined up with George Bush to invade Iraq.
I really hope that Andy Burnham will take a different approach and that we will see his words and promises turned into robust action. The fact that the Labour Government has switched from arming a genocide to finally opposing it is significant. It did not come easily, and it is a huge tribute to the strength of public feeling—and those I know in Scottish Labour who have been working on this—and the huge movement for solidarity with the people of Palestine. The promise to end trade with companies that profit from exploiting the occupied territories is an important step in the right direction, and it is one that we hope will be delivered in full and built upon.
Here, we do not have to wait for Westminster to do the right thing and introduce a full arms embargo. We can and must take action ourselves. A year ago, this Parliament took the historic step of voting to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel over its war crimes against the people of Palestine. Thousands of children have been killed and thousands of homes have been destroyed. Schools, hospitals and livelihoods have been turned into rubble. Horror upon horror has been inflicted upon a people who had already been forced to endure decades of violence and apartheid. The boycott, divestment and sanctions movement comes from Palestinian civil society. It is a rallying call for the world to take action. It is a simple and humane statement of solidarity, and it is the least that we can do.
I declare my interest as a councillor on Glasgow City Council.
I believe that local councils also want to do the right thing. Right now, through its procurement of information and communications technology services, Glasgow City Council procures from Israeli surveillance companies such as Neptune Intelligence Computer Engineering—NICE systems—which provides closed-circuit television across Glasgow. Does Gillian Mackay agree that we must empower our local councils with clearer guidance and that we must urgently reform the legal basis for councils to implement ethical procurement?
Holly Bruce’s intervention gets to the heart of what we are trying to do today. I will come on to the procurement guidance in just a second.
Last year, this Parliament stepped up. Ours was the first in the world to say that enough is enough and to vote to turn the principles of BDS into action. We were the first to say that, if a company is profiting from genocide and repression, it should not be able to profit in Scotland. That was a vital precedent that we should be proud of. However, the reality is that, 12 months later, not enough has been done to implement that. We need to go further and faster. The motion is short and simple, but it could make a big difference. By making a change to the Scottish Government’s procurement guidance, we can close a loophole that is allowing some companies to escape scrutiny and we can replicate the steps that the Scottish Government took against Russia and Belarus.
Could you wind up, please?
The Scottish Government’s guidance says that the United Nations database of companies that are involved in illegal activities in the occupied Palestinian territory should be used by public bodies when they are considering companies for public contracts. The companies on that list are some of the biggest in the world, and some of their parent and subsidiary companies are being awarded contracts.
I think that we have got the point. Thank you very much. We are well over time.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I believe that I should have had six minutes.
No—my understanding is that you should have had four minutes, plus—[Interruption.] Sorry—it is five minutes. My apologies. You have another minute.
Thanks, Presiding Officer.
Many of those companies on the list have been found by the UN to be involved in activities that include building and expanding illegal settlements. A procurement note that was published earlier this year says that activity in occupied territories could constitute grave professional misconduct and justify a company’s exclusion from public contracts. However, we believe that that does not go far enough. Research by the Scottish Greens has identified at least one company that holds a national NHS contract whose parent company appears on the UN database. That is one of the loopholes that our motion seeks to close.
Meanwhile, councils are calling for the powers to implement boycotts but without the support or legislation that would allow them to do so. Barclays, an institution that has bankrolled Israel’s war machine, has been named as a partner in the Scottish Government’s own bond scheme. This afternoon, we can do the very least and move BDS on. Scotland should not be funding or supporting companies if they, their parent companies or their subsidiaries are profiting from illegal settlements. That is something the whole chamber should be able to agree on.
I move,
That the Parliament believes that a company's involvement in illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian Territories constitutes grave professional misconduct and should, as a result, automatically disqualify that company, together with any parent company or subsidiary, from eligibility for public procurement and all forms of support from the Scottish Government.
There are five members who have requested to speak in the debate who have not pressed their button. Members should press their button if they want to participate in the debate.
16:32
I thank the Green Party and Ms Mackay for bringing the debate to the chamber. A minority in the chamber do not think that we should be debating international affairs, but I sincerely disagree. It tells us about the kind of country that we are and it is the kind of issue that the Parliament should be debating.
It was almost exactly a year ago that the First Minister made a statement to the Parliament about the appalling situation in Gaza. We are also approaching the third anniversary of the Hamas terrorist attacks on 7 October, which Ms Mackay referenced and which the Scottish Government has consistently and unequivocally condemned. We have also consistently called for an immediate and sustained ceasefire, the unrestricted flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza and meaningful progress towards a two-state solution that guarantees security, dignity and self-determination for both Palestinians and Israelis. The conflict has cost the lives of tens of thousands and, as with appalling conflicts elsewhere, we cannot and should not stand idly by.
I take the opportunity to mark the leadership that was shown on the issue in the House of Commons by my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Tourism and Transport, Stephen Flynn. I am pleased that he will be summing up the debate, as I know that the issue is close to his heart, as it is for many in the chamber.
I reiterate my respect and support for the Jewish community. Nobody in our society should ever be subjected to antisemitism, nor should they live in fear because of who they are or what they believe. Our concerns, shared by many, about the actions of the Government of Israel and the reiteration of the need for a lasting peace do not detract in any way from our ongoing support for any community in Scotland.
Last week, we welcomed the British Government’s announcement to prohibit the import of goods that have been produced in illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine. With that in mind, I will support the Labour and Liberal Democrat amendments as we work through the issues. However, I say gently to my Liberal Democrat colleague—I appreciate the way that David Green has approached it—that the Parliament was updated by the Deputy First Minister on 11 December last year. That is for the record more than anything else.
On the Greens’ motion, we agree that companies that have exploited assets in illegal settlements should not profit from public contracts in Scotland.
I am a fan of the international rules-based system. The International Court of Justice has said that there is a prima facie case of genocide in Gaza, and that is why we announced a comprehensive package of economic and humanitarian measures, within the limits of our devolved powers. We have advised public bodies, including Scottish Enterprise, to take into account the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights database of companies believed to be active in the listed activities in the occupied Palestinian territory. That was last reiterated in a letter from the Minister for Business and Fair Work to public bodies in March. We set out our view that a company’s involvement in the exploitation of assets in illegal settlements would likely be regarded as “grave professional misconduct”, one of the grounds on which public bodies can exclude bidders from procurement exercises.
The agreement that I believe the cabinet secretary is relying on is the World Trade Organization agreement on Government procurement. Some of the companies that we are talking about, which have subsidiaries on that list, are registered in countries other than Israel, and the WTO GPA might not apply in some of those countries. Can the cabinet secretary reflect on that and tell us whether we can exclude some of those companies?
I thank Ms Mackay for that comment. She will understand that I wish that this Parliament had the full range of powers on the matter—I know that she does, too. We cannot interfere with the WTO agreement, but I take her point and I am happy to write to her on that.
We have stopped activities that proactively supported trade with Israel, and we have stopped offering new business grants to, and investing in, companies that are involved in the supply of military goods or services to countries where there is plausible evidence of genocide, including Israel. I am keen to hear colleagues’ ideas on how we can take the matter forward, given our restricted powers. I believe in the rule of law and the international rules-based system, and I must apply that whether I like it or not.
[Made a request to intervene.]
This is an important point, so I will continue.
Unfortunately, trade sanctions, foreign policy, export controls and economic sanctions remain reserved to the UK Government, but we will continue to act where we can. Public procurement decisions must comply with procurement law and international obligations, and grave professional misconduct is not automatically a ground for exclusion in law. Ministers cannot impose measures that exceed devolved powers or conflict with our legal duty, and we cannot lawfully exclude companies solely on the basis of the UN database. However, I am keen to work with colleagues on that and to make progress where we can. We agree with the principle that companies that have exploited assets in illegal settlements should not profit from public contracts in Scotland—something that I think Ms Mackay commented on. As I have explained, we can take action on specific companies when the full facts, not just the UN database, justify that.
Our focus remains clear: unfettered humanitarian access, accountability for breaches of international law, recognition of Palestine and a lasting political settlement based on the two-state solution. All the actions that we take must be robust, lawful and capable of withstanding challenge. The horrors that are taking place in the middle east are tragically also seen in conflicts across the world, as I have experienced myself in Ukraine, including in Sudan, where there is the worst humanitarian crisis on earth. The International Criminal Court—an organisation that I wholeheartedly support—has 13 situations under investigation in countries across the world, and we must ensure that there is consistency in our approach internationally and uphold the law, be it domestic or international.
I thank the Greens for lodging the motion. I am determined that Scotland will continue to speak out for international law, human rights and the protection of civilian life.
Thank you, minister. Could you please move your amendment?
I beg your pardon, Presiding Officer.
I move amendment S7M-01178.5, to insert at end:
“recognises, however, that any such decisions must be taken in accordance with the current legal framework, noting that trade sanctions, foreign policy, export controls and economic sanctions remain reserved to the UK Government; urges the Scottish Government to continue to engage with the UK Government on the recently announced package of measures, including sanctions; reiterates its call on the UK Government to place an immediate ban on licenced arms exports from the UK to Israel; reaffirms its support for humanitarian access as well as lasting peace through a two-state solution, and also reaffirms its commitment to the international rules-based system and international humanitarian law.”
I call Neil Bibby to speak to and move amendment S7M-01178.3. You have four minutes.
16:39
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate on the motion lodged by Gillian Mackay.
It is important that we have this debate. Thousands of people continue to die in Palestine. It would be wrong for us to ignore the situation there, which amounts to a moral emergency.
As I have said previously, the attack by Hamas on 7 October 2023 was an attack not only on Israel but on humanity. The vengeance that Netanyahu meted out to the people of Gaza in subsequent years was similarly an act directed towards all of humanity. An atrocity met with genocide is not proportionate and it is not justice.
There is increasing evidence that war crimes appear to have been committed, and we are witnessing unprecedented violence, including settler terrorism and ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, perpetrated by settler terrorists.
However, it would also be wrong if we did not discuss the actions we believe the Scottish Government should take that would be effective, justified and lawful in bringing about a lasting peace, as well as those of the UK Government. We might disagree on the best course of action, but doing nothing is not an option, because warm words are cold comfort without action. The amendment in my name makes it clear that we want both the Scottish and UK Governments to consider the actions that they can take to stand up for what is right. We need to do so effectively, along with our international partners such as France.
Each Government has different powers and responsibilities, and we need to separate out reserved and devolved responsibilities in relation to this issue. The focus today is on whether, and how, we can use Scottish procurement law to bring about a lasting peace. For the aforementioned reasons, we will support the motion in the name of Gillian Mackay.
The two-state solution cannot be just a hope or a dream; it must be made a reality if we are to have peace. We cannot be spectators when we see so many atrocities, so much violence and such genocide. We cannot be commentators and wring our hands—we need to act. It is for those reasons that we support the actions being progressed by Ed Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, that recognise that Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful, in line with the finding of the International Court of Justice. Those actions include banning the trading of goods from illegal Israeli settlements; banning the advertising and promotion of land and property in illegal settlements; strengthening the UK’s existing global human rights sanctions regime to go after those who defy international humanitarian law in Palestine and around the world; sanctioning extremist settlers who have supported or incited acts of violence against Palestinian communities; and reimposing major economic sanctions on Iran and bearing down on its network of proxy groups, including Hezbollah.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, but I do not wish interventions to take up the limited time that I have.
Some have doubted whether the sanctions will work. We will see in time whether those points are well made. Some will also understandably say that they have been a long time coming. If the actions being progressed need to be developed or extended, the UK Government should do that, and the Scottish Government should also do what it can. This is not a full stop. Things will perhaps need to be adjusted. However, what will not change is our stance and our belief in the two-state solution.
Justice is blind. It does not consider colour, race or faith. The actions that the Foreign Secretary has taken on the illegally occupied West Bank settlements are just, regardless of people’s colour, race or faith. To argue for justice for the Palestinian people, denied to them for decades, is not to argue against justice for Israel. To argue for justice for the Palestinian people is not to argue against the interests of Israel. It is to argue for peace.
I move amendment S7M-01178.3, to insert at end:
“notes the actions being progressed by the UK Government in relation to illegal settlements, including an import ban on settlement goods, sanctions against individuals, an advertising ban and arms export restrictions, and calls on the Scottish and UK governments to consider what further actions they can take to secure a lasting peace between the two states of Israel and Palestine and to uphold international law.”
I call Russell Findlay to speak to and to move amendment S7M-01178.4.
16:43
Earlier today I was on a building site in North Lanarkshire. With Scotland currently in the grip of a housing emergency, while I was on the site I heard about the broken planning system, the huge cost of new net zero regulations and how uncertainty about local council reform risks making house building even harder than it already is. The people building those much-needed new homes, and the people moving into them, would rather that the Scottish Parliament focused on issues relevant to them and their families. They do not want Holyrood talking about things that are happening thousands of miles away—but here we are.
This is the Scottish Parliament at its worst—left-wing politicians using it to parade their supposedly progressive credentials and indulging in their favourite subject: the hatred of Israel. I wondered whether our party should even take part in this debate. However, I decided that, on behalf of Scotland’s valued Jewish community, it was important for us to do so. For far too long, they have had their safety compromised by a pervasive and growing anti-Israel movement. That movement holds Scotland’s Jews responsible for the actions of a foreign Government in Israel.
I will concede that not all the useful idiot flag wavers on Scotland’s streets are antisemitic, but antisemitism fuels this movement, whose people’s belief in the destruction of the state of Israel is explicit—just listen to their poisonous chants about the river to the sea.
On Saturday, I spent time with the Glasgow friends of Israel group—
[Made a request to intervene.]
Fulton MacGregor(Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP)rose—
Will the member take an intervention?
I will take Kate Nevens’s intervention.
Emili Stevenson, a British Jewish woman, was interviewed on Sky News recently and said that, if anything, refusing to align British Jews with the actions of a violent ethno-nationalist Government in the middle east makes us safer. The conflation of antisemitism with criticism of the Israeli Government is making Jewish populations in the UK and around the world less safe. Jewish populations should not be held to account for the actions of the Israeli Government.
The grass-roots organisation, Glasgow friends of Israel, supports the right of the state of Israel to democratic self-determination and works hard to counter antisemitism while advocating for peace. Let me tell Ms Nevens what its members told me: that Jewish families in Scotland feel afraid and unsafe—indeed, Scotland’s only Jewish school in my area requires security measures that you will not find at any other school.
Last year, John Swinney foolishly and wrongly accused Israel of committing genocide and raised the Palestinian flag above the Scottish Government’s headquarters—
Will the member take an intervention?
Yes.
Does the member agree with the president of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities and the former Prime Minister of Israel, who said that
“sanctions … against Jewish terrorists”
are
“not against the legitimacy of the state of Israel”
and that there is no basis to the Israeli Government’s response that the decision to impose sanctions against Jewish terrorists is an expression of antisemitism?
No, I do not, but what that illustrates is that Israel, as a democracy with freedom of speech, allows for a range of opinions, which you will not find in the countries that want to destroy Israel.
At the time of John Swinney’s flag-raising escapade, Timothy Lovat of the Jewish Council of Scotland described the First Minister’s position as
“undermining the safety, security and wellbeing of the Jewish community in Scotland.”
Two days ago, Campaign Against Antisemitism released a documentary about flourishing Jew hate in the NHS, with four in 10 Jewish patients saying they felt they must hide their religious identity when receiving treatment; and worshippers at synagogues and people at Jewish medical charities have already come under attack. Often, those attacks are linked to Iran, which has slaughtered tens of thousands of its own people.
The Iranian regime does not respect human rights: women are arrested, beaten, raped and killed there for not covering their faces; Iran exports terrorism around the world through its proxies Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis; and, on 7 October 2023, Hamas invaded Israel and slaughtered an estimated 1,200 people in cold blood, gang-raped women and took 251 hostages, including children and British nationals.
MI5 has just issued a fresh warning that Iran is plotting violence on our streets. According to MI5, we are in greater danger now than we were after 9/11. For four years, the terrorism threat level in the UK was classed as substantial; a few months ago, it was raised to severe, meaning that an attack is likely.
Untold numbers of lives in this country have been saved thanks to Israel. Israel is a trusted and important intelligence partner, but that is being put in jeopardy because left-wing politicians from Labour, the Scottish National Party and the Greens keep stoking anti-Israel sentiment. Just as John Swinney’s posturing last year was, Andy Burnham’s new sanctions are not only performative but dangerous and make the people of our country less safe. He is harming our national interest and increasing the terrorist threat to court Islamist and far-left votes.
We recognise that illegal settlements and settler violence undermine the prospects for peace, but we should distinguish clearly between action against unlawful settlement activity and the indiscriminate exclusion of Israeli-linked companies. We also believe that blanket boycotts will not advance a two-state solution that gives security to Israelis and Palestinians.
I want this Parliament to devote its time to addressing the huge range of problems that Scotland faces, and that is what my party will do. I also want Scotland’s Jewish community to know that we stand proudly with them and stand defiantly against our common enemies.
I move amendment S7M-01178.4, to leave out from “believes” to end and insert:
“condemns the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel on 7 October 2023, in which approximately 1,200 people were murdered, and 251 people were taken hostage, including children and British nationals; notes several reports, including findings by the United Nations, that rape and sexualised torture were committed during the attacks and against women and children held hostage in captivity; recognises Israel as a democratic state and a longstanding ally of the UK, and acknowledges the importance of UK-Israel intelligence sharing in tackling shared threats and protecting citizens; recognises Israel’s right to defend itself against Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which are terrorist organisations proscribed in the UK and receive support from Iran; notes that foreign policy is reserved matter to the UK Parliament; recognises that Israeli settlements and settler violence undermine the prospects for peace; considers, however, that blanket boycotts will not advance a two-state solution and risk deepening community tensions in the UK, and supports a two-state solution that guarantees security for Israelis and Palestinians.”
16:50
I begin by warmly welcoming the debate and thanking Gillian Mackay for bringing it to the chamber. The Greens have kept me in here all afternoon for two debates, so I thank them. I confirm to Gillian Mackay and to other members that we support the principle of Gillian Mackay’s motion, because it underpins a really important principle, which is that public money should never be used to sustain illegality, forced displacement or violence.
Let us all be clear that Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories are illegal under international law. They violate Palestinian rights—human rights—and chip away at the foundations not only of a viable Palestinian state but of a just and lasting peace, with, and I hope that Russell Findlay listens to this, Palestinians and Israelis being treated as equals.
Before my election, I was proud to work for the international development charity Christian Aid. My former colleague Katie Roxburgh is Christian Aid’s programme manager for Israel and the occupied Palestinian territory. She has recently returned from the West Bank. Despite having visited several times, she reports that what she saw on that visit shocked her to her core. She said:
“I am even more fearful that, with the world’s attention on the war in Iran and the escalating situation across the wider region, the situation facing Palestinians will reach new depths.”
Katie describes new illegal settlements and outposts, extensive construction and bulldozing, and escalating attacks by armed settlers. She recounts farming families being driven from their land, losing their homes and livelihoods. She says that entire villages “simply no longer exist”.
In one village near Jericho, Katie witnessed settlers dumping a truckload of rotten dates beside a Palestinian family, which attracted swarms of flies. The settlers subjected that family to noise throughout the night, flew drones overhead and drove their livestock on to the family’s pastures. Weeks later, the family’s home was demolished. This is not an abstract dispute over lines on a map; it is the systematic erosion of people’s safety, dignity, homes and livelihoods. As Katie warns,
“the West Bank is disappearing before our eyes”.
Let us be clear that the international community cannot continue to condemn those actions with words while sustaining them through trade and public investment. The UK Government’s announcement last week, which I note in the Labour amendment, of a ban on imports of goods from the West Bank is therefore welcome, albeit long overdue. The Liberal Democrats have called for action for years. However, a ban on goods is only half the job.
I note that the Government’s amendment references
“trade sanctions, foreign policy, export controls and economic sanctions”—
the lot. Yes, the Scottish Government must press the UK Government for stronger action. That should include a comprehensive ban on arms exports to Israel, including F-35 components, and wider sanctions on individuals and entities linked to settler violence. I also say gently to the minister that, while recognising where powers are reserved, we must not fall short when it comes to using the powers that Scotland has.
Our amendment asks public bodies to ensure that their human rights due diligence is up to date, rigorous and capable of—
Will the member give way?
I will give way.
I thank the member for his speech. I recognise his expertise in this area. I think that we must do everything that we can within the powers that we have. I lodged my amendment because the UK Government agreed to the measures last week, and I am keen that officials work with it constructively. Does he agree that we must work within that legal framework but that we must also push the UK Government to go further where we think that that is appropriate?
I recognise that we need to work within the legal framework and that the decision was made only last week and so is very recent. However, I hope that the Government can commit this evening to bringing a statement to Parliament or an opportunity to debate the issue in future. Despite what we hear from members on the other side of the chamber, it is fundamentally important that we stand up for who we are and for human rights, no matter where in the world we are talking about.
Returning to our amendment, the need is clear. Amnesty International’s analysis of Scottish Enterprise’s previous due diligence found unclear objectives, confused methodology and weak alignment. The Parliament has already pointed to the work that is needed. In February 2025, members called on Scottish Enterprise to review its human rights due diligence. In June of that year, the Government confirmed that a review was to take place. Our amendment simply asks Scottish Enterprise to update Parliament on its work, as called for by Oxfam, Quakers in Scotland and others.
You are looking at me, Presiding Officer, so I will close. Scottish Liberal Democrats strongly believe that a two-state solution remains the only credible route to peace, dignity and security for Israelis and Palestinians alike. Defending that dream demands more than words; it demands consequences for those who seek to profit from or enable the illegal settlements. I therefore hope that parties from across the chamber can unite behind those principles this evening.
I move amendment S7M-01178.1, to insert at end:
“; further believes that public bodies should ensure that all due diligence processes are up to date so that no companies with links to human rights abuses are provided with public funding; recalls that Parliament passed motion S6M-16571 on 26 February 2025, calling on Scottish Enterprise to review its human rights due diligence checks; notes that, since confirming in a GIQ on 25 June 2025 that the review had taken place and that, steps would be taken to implement its findings during 2025-26, no further information has been published, and calls, therefore, on Scottish Enterprise, to update Parliament on progress and whether any new human rights due diligence process has been created as a result of this review.”
16:56
I begin by saying that I, and Reform UK, want peace in the middle east. We want people from Israel and Palestine to be able to live securely and freely, without terrorism, violence and armed groups pursuing endless conflict. However, we must not forget that the terrorist organisation Hamas, which executed a murderous pogrom on 7 October 2023, is not willing to engage in the peace process with Israel, which is the only democracy in the middle east and a country that recognises legal gay marriage and has gender recognition.
The motion is not a serious contribution to achieving peace; it is merely an attempt to turn Scottish public procurement into a weapon, and the Scottish Greens know that. Making this a debate about procurement is simply a Trojan horse for the far left’s obsession with Israel, and the Greens’ mask will slip.
The motion proposes that a company that is involved in “illegal Israeli settlements”—although we would dispute that—should automatically be excluded, along with any parent companies and subsidiaries, from Scottish Government procurement and support. Let us put aside for a moment the wider and highly contested political arguments surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict and focus on that misguided proposal. Procurement should be based on quality, value and the conduct of the supplier, and not on a biased policy that is inspired by left-wing hatred for Israel.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thank you.
Why does the motion demand an automatic ban? What happens when a multinational has thousands of subsidiaries around the world; when the parent company has no involvement whatsoever in the activity in question; or when the alleged connection is historical, indirect, disputed or commercially remote? What happens when excluding a company means that Scottish taxpayers receive worse value for money, fewer bidders and less competition? The job of members in this chamber is to legislate for the benefit of the people of Scotland.
Those are not abstract questions; they are precisely the questions that responsible procurement policy must answer, and the questions that the Scottish people will want answered. If the Parliament establishes the principle that political disagreement with a foreign Government is sufficient reason to blacklist companies from public contracts, I wonder where that principle will end. Do we apply it consistently to every country whose Government we disapprove of? Do we include companies operating in China, Saudi Arabia and Turkey? I know that the Scottish Greens have spoken about their dislike for Trump, so do we blacklist all United States-related companies, too? Alternatively, will the Parliament create one procurement standard for Israel and another for everyone else?
The motion is ridiculous and is inspired simply by a hatred for Israel rather than by a genuine aim to create sound and positive policy. It should therefore be rejected.
We move to speeches from members in the chamber who are not either opening or closing.
17:00
I am grateful to Gillian Mackay for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I will focus on the motion, because I think that we have been looking beyond that. The motion that is before us focuses on
“illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian Territories”
and, rightly, asks us to consider how Scotland’s public procurement and support mechanisms should respond to the clear breaches of international humanitarian law.
The SNP has a long and consistent record of support for Palestinian rights, for a just and lasting peace that is based on a two-state solution, and for the principles of international humanitarian law. The Scottish Government has also placed on record its anger and disgust at the Hamas attack on 7 October.
I will touch on the point that Stephen Gethins made about support for our Jewish community in Scotland. I have met the Jewish community in the Parliament on a number of occasions; I attended the synagogue civic service just a month ago or so in Edinburgh; and I will continue to engage with the Jewish community in Scotland and recognise the issues that it has.
However, let us be clear: settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories are illegal under international law. We need a two-state solution. The strategic placing of settlements by the Israeli Government undermines that, deliberately. That is not a matter of political opinion but the settled position of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice and successive Scottish Governments.
Involvement in such settlements cannot be treated as ordinary commercial activity. Where there is credible evidence of such involvement, it is right that public bodies treat it with the seriousness that it deserves. Scotland has taken significant steps, as the minister said. We previously backed a package of boycott, divestment and sanction measures that were targeted at the state of Israel and companies that were complicit in its military operations and occupation. It is an illegal occupation; I reiterate that point.
The Scottish Government has, rightly, moved to end public funding and support for arms companies that are linked to the conflict in Gaza. It has restricted the use of publicly owned infrastructure. As the minister said, it has repeatedly called on the UK Government to take far stronger action, including meaningful sanctions and an end to exports of arms that risk being used in violation of international law. Those are not empty words. They reflect a genuine determination that Scotland should not be complicit in injustice.
At the same time, we operate within the reality of devolution. Foreign policy, international sanctions and many aspects of trade and company law remain reserved. I wish that that was not the case but, unfortunately, it is.
Procurement decisions must also comply with existing legal frameworks, including those that are designed to ensure fairness, value for money and due process. Automatic disqualification is a powerful tool, but it must be robust, based on evidence and legally sustainable. Using as a clear reference point the United Nations database of companies that are linked to settlement activity is a sensible and practical starting point. There was some disagreement about that from Gillian Mackay. Where companies, their parents or subsidiaries are involved in activity that constitutes grave professional misconduct that is linked to illegal settlements, they should not benefit from Scottish public contracts or support. The Parliament has already endorsed that principle in spirit, and the Scottish Government can work to put it into practice within the powers that are available to us here and now. However, we must be honest about the limits of what Holyrood can achieve alone. Real leverage over the broader conflict lies with the UK Government and the international community.
Scotland’s voice is strongest when we speak with moral clarity and consistency: condemning the suffering in Gaza, demanding unrestricted humanitarian access, calling for the release of all hostages and insisting on accountability for violations of international law, on all sides. That is, from both sides: the terrorist side—Hamas was mentioned—and the Israeli Government.
We can and should continue to use every lever that we have—procurement policy, public investment decisions and diplomatic pressure—to uphold those values. The people of Scotland expect their Parliament to stand for human rights and international law as a bare minimum, and that is what we are doing. They expect us to ensure that public money is not used in ways that undermine those principles. The Government’s amendment sharpens the focus on illegal settlements and the companies that are involved in them. I welcome that focus.
The Scottish Government has already committed to the broader direction of travel. What matters now is continued practical progress, as the minister outlined; careful implementation that stands up to legal scrutiny; and sustained pressure on reserved matters where the real power still rests at Westminster. I will support measures that close genuine gaps and strengthen Scotland’s contribution to upholding international law, while recognising the constraints under which we operate.
Solidarity with the Palestinian people, respect for international law, and a determination that Scotland plays no part in enabling illegality—those remain the guiding principles for those on this side of the chamber. Let us continue that work with clarity, consistency and purpose.
17:05
Earlier this year, in April, 14-year-old Aws al-Naasan was shot dead by a settler outside his school gates in al-Mughayyir. In July, around 30 Israeli settlers attacked the town of Tal and opened fire on residents. This month, in Arraba, the al-Fari family’s olive grove has been razed—bulldozed to the ground by the Israeli military.
Those examples are not isolated incidents, but a pattern of intensifying state-sponsored violence in the West Bank. They form part of a deliberate campaign by the Israeli Government to dismantle Palestinian society and displace its people. As Ed Miliband has rightly said, that is “ethnic cleansing” in the occupied Palestinian territories.
Muntasir from the West Bank says:
“what is happening right now is … erasure of humans, trees and stones, and anything that is Palestinian, by settlers under the support of the military.”
When I spent time in Palestine, it was not just the violence that shocked me, but the normalisation of the occupation. It was the ways in which I could see and feel how violent military control and illegal settlement expansion were being embedded into the daily lives of people in the West Bank. It is both the violence and that normalisation in which our Governments are currently complicit.
We need to make sure that the Scottish Government is taking every step possible to ensure that Scottish funds are not supporting companies involved in any of Israel’s human rights abuses or violations of international law. While some matters may be reserved to the UK Government, there is still a lot that the Scottish Government can and should be doing. Unlike the UK Government, we must recognise that it is impossible to disentangle the economic activity in the settlements from the rest of Israel and bring in a comprehensive boycott in Scotland
Part of that is ensuring that we have clear and transparent processes for decision making. I am really disappointed that Scottish Enterprise has still not published its revised human rights due diligence policy or explained how the safeguards are being applied in practice, and I very much support David Green’s amendment on that subject.
We also need to look close to home, in Parliament. Why are we using HP and Microsoft—two companies that are well known to be the main providers of technology to the Israeli authorities?
Why are we using Barclaycard for MSP credit cards, when Barclays holds billions—
Will the member give way?
I will.
The First Minister has said that
“in the face of genocide there can be no business as usual.”—[Official Report, 3 September 2025; c 27.]
However, as Kate Nevens rightly pointed out, we are seeing continued partnership with Barclays, which is a primary dealer of Israeli Government bonds and provides £1.5 billion in credit—
Excuse me—this is not a speech within a speech; it is an intervention on your colleague. Please intervene on your colleague.
On the Barclays point, does Kate Nevens agree that the First Minister has to stand by his word? We must see a stringent human rights due diligence process that does not allow complicit companies such as Barclays to benefit from Scottish money?
I very much agree with Holly Bruce—thank you, Holly. Barclays holds billions in shares, loans and underwriting for defence companies that supply the Israel military.
We also need to look closely enough at where our parliamentary pensions are invested, which security software we are using and what products we are selling in the canteen.
I remain really proud that we were the first nation in the world to commit to a package of boycotts, divestments and sanctions on Israel. We know that it is the right thing to do, and that it is part of our nation’s wider commitment to global human rights and justice, and a feminist approach to our international affairs.
We also know that boycotts, divestments and sanctions work. As we have seen in South Africa, where the apartheid regime was isolated—
Can you wind up, please.
—and ultimately brought down. Now we must act on that and start implementing the boycott across all of Scotland’s public procurement and funding.
17:09
Today’s debate is about how the Scottish Government uses public money, the conduct of companies that seek Scottish public contracts and support and the position that Scotland takes on the occupation of Palestinian territory. The motion states that a business’s
“involvement in illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian Territories”
is
“grave professional misconduct”,
and that companies that are involved in that activity should be excluded from Scottish public procurement and from support provided by the Scottish Government. That principle has my full support.
The Scottish Government accepts that it has a responsibility to act within the powers that are available to it. Last September, the Government introduced a pause in new awards of public money to defence companies whose products or services are provided to countries where there is plausible evidence of genocide, and that measure remains in place.
The same principle applies to companies that are involved in illegal settlements as part of the wider occupation of Palestinian territory. A company that chooses to become involved in settlement activity is making a commercial decision, which must have consequences. Put simply, one of the consequences should be that the company is not eligible for Scottish public money.
More and more countries are coming to their senses and announcing sanctions on the illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Ireland, our neighbour, is one nation that has recently taken action in that regard. In July, President Catherine Connolly—who, incidentally, I hope to meet in my constituency tomorrow—signed into law the Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Prohibition of Importation of Goods) Bill. The legislation prohibits the importation of goods from Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory. Canada, France, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden are just some of the other countries that have recently announced similar measures.
Some of the amendments acknowledge that, ultimately, trade sanctions, foreign policy, export controls and economic sanctions are reserved to the UK Government. The UK Government has now concluded that Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful, and it has announced plans to ban imports from illegal Israeli settlements and create new powers to sanction individuals and companies that support, facilitate or profit from settlement activity. That is long overdue.
The expansion of settlements has been taking place for decades, and the international community has ample evidence of the consequences. The UK Government acknowledges that settlement expansion threatens the prospects of a two-state solution. I welcome the change, and I hope that the UK Government moves quickly, following its announcement, to implementation.
As I said in an intervention on Russell Findlay, it is important to note that the sanctions were welcomed by the president of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, a former Israeli Prime Minister, an ex-head of the Israeli army and several former ministers and diplomats. In a joint statement, they said that sanctions are being imposed
“against Jewish terrorists, and not against the legitimacy of the state of Israel … There is no basis to the”—
Israeli—
“government’s response that the decision to impose sanctions against Jewish terrorists is an expression of antisemitism.”
Although the UK Government’s measures are welcome, I must acknowledge that, yesterday, more than 130 legal experts, including 18 KCs, wrote to Andy Burnham saying that the sanctions on Israeli settlements “fall far short” of Britain’s obligations under the International Court of Justice’s finding that the occupation is unlawful. The Prime Minister must reflect on that.
Scotland has said that it stands with the people of Palestine. The Scottish Government has called for a sustained ceasefire in Gaza and an end to licensed arms exports to Israel. It also has a track record of providing humanitarian aid and assistance to Gaza and the West Bank. In July, we announced a further £0.5 million, on top of our previous contribution of £600,000, for the occupied Palestinian territory humanitarian fund. As one of the first Governments to call for a ceasefire, the SNP Government is clear that the international community must use all its energy to persuade and put pressure on Israel to end the violence, including through sanctions and trade restrictions.
To bring the issue closer to home, I note that the Scottish Government should know who it is doing business with. It should know what businesses are involved in and, if they are clearly involved in illegal settlement activity, that involvement should result in consequences for their eligibility for public contracts and Government support. While we talk in this chamber and in chambers around the world, women and children in Gaza continue to die every day. Just today, there are reports that 21 people, including eight children, have died as a result of a war-damaged building collapsing. The fact that the onslaught continues without any real consequences is a stain on all our humanity, which we will all need to live with for generations. A two-state solution must be found. Every country and every democracy has a role in applying pressure to allow that to happen.
17:14
Scotland has long been a supporter of those facing the worst of oppression and violence across the globe. In living memory, our largest city became the first city in the world to grant Nelson Mandela freedom of the city while he was still imprisoned for campaigning against apartheid in South Africa. Moreover, in 1975—when the Scottish Parliament did not yet exist—Strathclyde Regional Council banned goods from apartheid South Africa.
That sort of action from our political structures reflects something core to the people who call Scotland their home. We can see that in the action that was taken by the workers at the Rolls-Royce factory in East Kilbride in 1973. Upon discovering that they were working on engines that would be used by Pinochet’s junta, which had overthrown the Government in Chile, they decided to strike, and in the process grounded much of the Chilean air force on the other side of the world.
The people of Scotland have been at the forefront of raising our voices against the absolutely horrific scenes that we have seen in Gaza and the West Bank. The Scottish Government has taken action, pausing new awards of public money to defence companies with links to the Israeli Defense Forces. Unfortunately, we are not yet an independent nation, which means that arms licences and exports are a reserved matter, but I am glad that the Scottish Government is continuing to press the UK Government to end those exports as a matter of urgency.
As the national secretary for the Scottish National Party, I had the privilege of helping to facilitate the opportunity for the Palestinian ambassador, Dr Husam Zomlot, to speak at my party’s annual conference in 2025. His speech will stay with me for many years. Its raw emotion, showing the real impact that support from people living across our nation had made to those facing unimaginable horrors, was enough to nail any cynicism about the power that our words can have.
Dr Zomlot talked about how, under John Swinney’s leadership, we were among the first to call for a ceasefire in Gaza; among the first to demand sanctions on the illegal settlements in the occupied territories; and among the first to call for the inalienable right to statehood and self-determination of the Palestinian people to be respected. Thanks to the pressure placed on Westminster by Scotland, Dr Zomlot was able to address our conference as the ambassador of the state of Palestine, following the recognition of the state of Palestine in the face of extreme opposition across Westminster.
The argument, thankfully, has continued to move on, and I welcome the moves by the UK Government to ban the import of goods from illegal settlements. Like the Kerr clan motto, it is late, but in earnest.
It is important to consider the SNP amendment in that context. That is why I will be supporting the amendment lodged by my colleague Stephen Gethins. We are not yet an independent nation with full control of the sorts of powers that are enjoyed by perfectly normal countries the world over. With any luck, that will not remain the case for much longer, but the amendment recognises the reality and puts the call for action where action must be taken. Although we remain shackled to Westminster, we are not powerless. As we have seen time and again, when things seem most hopeless, our words have power beyond what we believe.
I think that it is right to end my speech with the ambassador’s own reflection of what the voices in Scotland meant to his people. He said:
“When the genocide raged in Gaza, you raised your voices to carry our pain. You brought our students to study here, our wounded to heal here. And you reminded us again and again that we were never alone, that our struggle was also yours. And that is the struggle for freedom that all people and all nations cherish. My friends, this is Scotland. This is a nation of lions, roaring lions, a people of conscience and a moral force for good. It is that—it is that why we love Scotland.”
The people of Scotland—our people—expect us to act as a nation of lions today.
We move to winding-up speeches.
17:18
I thank Gillian Mackay for bringing the debate to the chamber, and I agree with the cabinet secretary that it is absolutely right that we discuss international affairs. After all, they affect us, and it is why the Scotland Act 1998 was written in the way that it was.
I point out that Kit Malthouse, the Conservative MP for North West Hampshire, has been one of the most vocal critics of Israel’s actions, saying that British foreign policy implies that Palestinian lives matter less than anyone else’s. Therefore, far from being a cause that is left wing in nature, it is actually widespread, given the number of people who see this injustice for what it is.
I believe that justice for Palestinian people is the moral question of our time, and there are millions of Scots who believe that, too. This is the longest and most brutal occupation in history. It is, in international law, an illegal occupation; indeed, that is not contested—except by Israel, obviously.
In 1993, the Palestine Liberation Organization accepted the existence of Israel and accepted that a Palestinian homeland would be formed on 22 per cent of former Palestinian land. We can understand why the Palestinians would say that there could be no further concessions on land to form a second viable state, but that could not be further away.
There is systematic violence, the displacement of families, the forced demolition of houses, economic restrictions, strangulation deliberately blocking Palestinian produce from leaving the country and political detention to lock up young men in underground Israeli prisons without trial while their families do not know where they are. Children are shot in the street—it happened last week on the West Bank—and the rule of law is not applied.
There are viewing platforms on the Gaza border where Israelis are invited to witness the ongoing genocide in Gaza. In Gaza, 95 per cent of children expect to die, because there have been 223,000 tonnes of explosives and ammunition deployed in the past three years.
I want to be on the right side of history, and I know that many people in the chamber do. I do not want to be a bystander; I want to do what I can. The merciless bombing of innocent children and hospitals is humanity’s darkest moment.
Pope Francis broke with diplomatic tradition and denounced Israeli policies in Palestinian territories. He said that the conflict was one of the great failures of humanity and he stated that the arrogance of the occupiers undermined the dialogue.
The levels of violence in the West Bank are unprecedented and are primarily driven by a surge in large-scale Israeli military operations. In 2026 alone, 3,500 families have been driven from their homes due to settler violence, and more than half of them have included children. Soldiers are free to do whatever they want. They have killed and they have maimed. Palestinians get no justice, and there do not seem to be any consequences.
Israel is emboldened by the fact that the world does very little to stop it. There is some resistance from European countries such as Spain, Belgium, Ireland, the Netherlands, the UK and France, as well as from Canada, but their purpose is not to provide Israel with the impunity that it has been used to.
I condemn all violence, and I am on record condemning the atrocities of 7 October. I want to see peace in the Middle East. I have campaigned for it for 30 years, but we know that there will not be peace for Israelis or Palestinians unless there is a viable Palestinian state.
There are those in Israel who truly care about their country. A good friend of mine, Dr Alon Liel, who was a former adviser to Ariel Sharon and other prime ministers, has been demonstrating in the streets of Tel Aviv about Israeli policies and for Palestinians. He told me that what offends him most is that the Israel that he fought for, and the Israel that he wants to serve, is not the Israel that he is living in right now, and he says that it is not helping the state of Israel that it is allowed to behave like this. The world must act, and Britain has a great deal of responsibility.
The Scottish Government has been criticised by Amnesty International for not being transparent enough about the actions that it can take on public procurement, so I want the cabinet secretary to set that out in his closing speech. Scotland has devolved powers, so it can act, but we have not seen enough evidence of that in the Government’s data.
In his closing speech, will the cabinet secretary be transparent and clear about what action he has taken since a similar motion was last lodged in Parliament, so that Scotland can do its part and ensure that we have actually done something and not been only bystanders?
17:23
Since my election in May, I have witnessed some extraordinary wastes of time in the chamber. There have been pointless debates, nodding dogs and no big ideas, but I will give the Greens credit where credit is due—this has to be the biggest waste of time so far, and that says a lot. They are wasting our time with a ridiculous debate that is cover for their anti-Israel hate. It is as simple as that.
The Greens could have used their time to talk about the horrific programme for international student assessment results last week, the housing emergency, local government restructuring or mass migration. Heck, they could have been really controversial for the Scottish Greens and had a debate on the environment. But nope—they have said nothing on those issues. Instead, before us is a clickbait motion that has been created to grab headlines and social media hits. It is extremist far-left political posturing and will spread fear and alarm across Scotland’s Jewish communities. Shame on the Greens.
Let me be clear from the beginning that I am pro-Israel. That means that I support Israel’s right to exist as a sovereign state, I support the right of Israeli citizens to live safely and I believe that Israel has a legitimate right to defend itself against terrorism and attacks, such as the terrorist action that was carried out by Hamas on 7 October 2023.
However, being pro-Israel does not mean that I believe that the Israeli Government is always right. I can support Israel while disagreeing with particular decisions made by its Government—those positions are not contradictory. In fact, I would argue that supporting a country should never mean blindly supporting every Government that happens to lead it.
Members might therefore ask why I oppose the motion. I do not believe that isolating Israel is the right answer. Israel is not simply a Government; it is a country of millions of ordinary people. When we call for broad boycotts and economic isolation, we are not only putting pressure on politicians—
Will the member give way?
No, I am not interested. We have heard enough from the far left, thanks.
We are affecting universities, businesses, workers and ordinary citizens.
What about an intervention from the centre left?
I will pass.
I question whether punishing ordinary Israelis will bring peace closer.
Israel is also a democracy with a diverse population and a political system in which Governments can be challenged, protested against and replaced, which we may see in just a month’s time. Israelis regularly disagree fiercely with their Governments. A blanket approach towards Israel risks turning a complicated political conflict into a simple story in which one side is entirely guilty and the other is entirely innocent.
The reality is much more complicated. Israel has faced repeated wars, terrorist attacks and threats to its existence throughout its history. Israeli civilians have been targeted by organisations that explicitly reject Israel’s existence. That security concern cannot simply be dismissed. Imagine telling any other country that it must simply accept attacks against its civilian population and give up its right to defend itself. We would not expect that in Britain, France, Ukraine or any other sovereign state. Israel should not be held to a completely different standard.
Peace cannot mean security for one population at the expense of another. Israelis have a right to security, so we can criticise Governments, but we should not dehumanise an entire population. If we genuinely want peace, we should be looking for ways to encourage co-operation rather than permanently entrenching hostility.
Yes, I am pro-Israel. I believe that Israel has a right to exist. I believe that Israeli citizens have a right to live without terrorism. I reject the idea that Israel should be uniquely singled out for isolation. I will continue to defend Israel’s fundamental right to exist, to protect its citizens and to determine its own future. I will always stand with Scotland’s resilient Jewish community. I will let the extremists on the other side of the chamber continue to pander to the most nasty, antisemitic sentiments in society.
17:27
In the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attacks on 7 October 2023, I was asked to attend a committee room in the House of Commons to watch footage of what had unfolded at a music festival, in houses, in parks and in communities in Israel. I saw footage of quite traumatic things happening to civilians through absolutely no fault of their own. It is something that I have not been able to shake from my mind since that day.
However, the horror, the terror and the suffering that I watched on that screen that day should not have been followed by ever more horror, terror and suffering inflicted on the Palestinian people. That is why, on 16 October 2023, the first occasion on which the House of Commons sat subsequent to those appalling terrorist attacks, I recited the famous Burns quote about man’s inhumanity to man and the countless thousands who mourn. I said to the then Prime Minister that history would judge us on how we chose to respond.
Within a single week, I stood across from that Prime Minister and told him that the Israeli Government’s decision to withdraw water, aid and energy from civilians was collective punishment of the Palestinian people, and that we must be clear in our opposition to it. The Prime Minister told me that Israel had the right to defend itself. Immediately, he was on the wrong side of history, but, of course, he was not alone. Over the months that followed, numerous members of the House of Commons were on the wrong side of history, in denying the reality of collective punishment, denying the need for a ceasefire and denying that a genocide was taking place, as some of them do up to this very day.
I am proud that I am a member of a political party that chose to stand on the right side of history, to stand up for—
Will the minister take an intervention?
I have listened to more than enough Tories on this issue, ones with far greater status than Mr Findlay will ever have, so I would encourage him to sit down and to perhaps listen to my comments in this regard.
Coward.
The only cowards are the individuals who take to the air to bomb civilians—men, women and children. Maybe Mr Findlay should reflect on those very points.
Just as I am privileged to be part of a party that has stood on the right side of history, I am now proud to be part of a Government that has used every lever at its disposal to stand up against the inhumanity that is being perpetrated by the current Israeli Government, both in Gaza and in the West Bank. It is for that reason that we agree entirely with the motion that has been put forward by the Green Party. However, we cannot escape the legal realities of our situation and the issue of where responsibilities sit within the United Kingdom. That is exactly why we have put forward our amendment.
However, cross-party consensus is important, and I can give a firm commitment to members in other parties that we will continue to work with them to do more in the best interests of the people of the middle east and of the people of Scotland, who care so deeply about this issue.
I am very conscious of time, but I made a commitment to Pauline McNeill to address the issue in relation to Scottish Enterprise. With your forbearance, Presiding Officer, I will do that briefly.
Very briefly.
It is important for the Parliament to hear loud and clear that every measure that the First Minister set out has been acted on. Just in the past week or so, I met Amnesty International and Scottish Enterprise to put forward my clear views to Scottish Enterprise in respect of the publication of the human rights due diligence work. I expect and hope that it will act on that. I cannot instruct it to do so, but I expect it to respond to that.
Thank you, cabinet secretary. You are well over your time.
I call Maggie Chapman to wind up the debate.
17:33
I was 13 when Chris Hani was assassinated outside his home in Boksburg. At the time, we—my mum, my dad, my sister and I—were in South Africa, visiting family. I remember that the mood of our trip changed. The adults were more on edge and they held us closer when we were out and about. There was talk of an eruption of violence. Violence was nothing new for many South Africans. Black South Africans were accustomed to violence—violence by individuals and violence by the state.
I knew that South Africa was segregated. I knew that some people had privileges that others did not—not that I saw much of that as a child. Our parents worked hard to protect us, and we did not spend much time in segregated places. My favourite place was Pumula, a little fishing village on the KwaZulu-Natal south coast, where there were no rules about who could and who could not swim in the sea. So, I did not often think about segregation or why it existed.
Chris Hani’s assassination changed that. Looking back, I see that that April moment was part of my political awakening. It forced me to understand the systems around me. Apartheid was not simply something that happened to South Africans. It was a system of oppression and the abuse of political power that was deliberately maintained through laws, institutions, state violence and economic power. It was also a system that was challenged by resistance from within South Africa and by solidarity from people across the world.
That solidarity mattered. The global boycott, divestment and sanctions movement against apartheid helped to isolate the regime economically, culturally, academically and politically. Students campaigned. Workers organised. Artists refused to perform. South African sports teams were shunned, much to my dad’s consternation. Consumers refused to buy South African goods. Universities divested.
Governments eventually acted, too. In 1986, the United States Congress overrode President Reagan’s veto of the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act, imposing significant economic sanctions on the apartheid Government. Those sanctions helped to bring about reforms and to facilitate the transition to non-racialised democracy.
None of that happened in isolation. Sanctions did not defeat apartheid on their own. The liberation struggle belongs first and foremost to South Africans. However, international solidarity helped to change the political and economic cost of maintaining apartheid. That is why I believe so strongly in BDS today.
I have been to the West Bank. I have seen with my own eyes the reality that Palestinians live with: infrastructure that privileges Israeli occupiers, checkpoints controlling Palestinian movement, walls, barriers, surveillance, soldiers determining who can pass and when, who can grow what crops where, who can go to school, and who will face beatings or bullets. I have seen how often different systems of rights and freedoms operate in the same land, and I recognise that architecture.
I grew up in the shadow of apartheid. I know exactly what it means when discrimination is not simply an individual prejudice but something that is embedded in infrastructure, law and power. I know, too, what international solidarity can mean.
Palestinians are not asking us to save them; they are asking us to stop enabling their oppression. The Scottish Green motion is modest. It says that companies involved in Israeli settlements should not receive public contracts or public support. If a company profits from, facilitates or sustains an illegal and brutal system of occupation, dispossession, violence and genocide, why should Scottish taxpayers subsidise it?
We have a choice. We can look away, we can say, “It’s complicated,” we can say that someone else should act first, or we can remember what solidarity meant to those of us who grew up under apartheid. The global BDS movement told South Africans fighting for liberation: you are not alone. Today, we must tell Palestinians the same.
Our actions matter. They can matter as peaceful, democratic tools of solidarity, making injustice impossible to ignore and liberation possible to achieve. Support the motion.
That concludes the debate on the middle east—boycott, divestment and sanctions.
It has just been pointed out to me that someone is in breach of this. I should remind members that they are not to wear anything in the chamber that is considered a prop, or overtly political, or campaigning in nature. Please desist in future—or that individual will not be allowed to participate in the debate.
Previous
Hyperscale AI Data CentresNext
Business Motion