Official Report 387KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S7M-00446, in the name of Malcolm Offord, on Scotland needs Reform: five years to 2031. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now.
15:06
We have had six weeks of debates on a variety of topics on which the Scottish National Party, as the largest party in the chamber, has set out its vision for Scotland for the next five years. The purpose of this debate is to state clearly that Reform Scotland does not share the SNP’s vision of mediocrity and to make clear that Reform Scotland is far more ambitious for Scotland than has been set out by the SNP in the past six weeks.
The first debate in the new session of Parliament was a very half-hearted attempt by the SNP to put independence back on the table, even though the constitution is a matter that is reserved to Westminster and despite the fact that there is no appetite for separation in Scotland. That is mainly because the SNP still cannot answer basic questions on currency, pensions, borders and defence, and how on earth Scotland would ever join the European Union with a structural annual deficit of £30 billion versus a Maastricht maximum requirement of £10 billion. If the SNP were serious about independence, it would have spent the past 12 years since the independence referendum in 2014 preparing Scotland for separation, so that debate was purely performative. Reform Scotland is firmly of the view that, unless and until the SNP is able to answer the big questions of separation, the issue should be put firmly on the back burner and all our focus should be on making Scotland the most prosperous part of the UK.
We then heard several statements on the economy, where the SNP got into competition with the Greens about how many public services can be given away for free, as if that is the correct basis to judge any strong economy. Scots are too canny to be fooled by that. Nothing is for free. If it is not paid for by you, it is paid for by somebody else. With 1 per cent of Scots already paying 30 per cent of income tax and 10 per cent paying 50 per cent, it is pretty clear that we need more high earners to pay for all the freebies, so why on earth impose wealth taxes that drive away the highest earners? It is bonkers.
Meanwhile, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland has confirmed that Scottish taxes are too high and the six bands act as a barrier to productivity, the Scottish Fiscal Commission has warned of a £5 billion black hole because welfare spending is out of control and the new Cabinet Secretary for Public Service Reform has stated that his plans do not envisage any cuts. Reform Scotland rejects that la-la land.
Instead, our vision of a prosperous Scotland is one where our citizens are incentivised to work, by allowing them to keep more of their own money through lower taxes; where welfare will always be available to those in need, but we put maximum effort into helping half a million Scots back into the workplace to allow them dignity and pride and the means to look after their families; and where we reduce state spending by cutting duplication and waste.
We know that, after excessive taxation, the second reason that is causing low growth in our economy is that we have the most expensive energy in the developed world. However, in yesterday’s debate on energy, this place was literally an echo chamber, with all parties regurgitating the same old tropes of climate crisis and climate emergency. Meanwhile, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has quietly dropped those two emotive words from its lexicon because of the science.
Reform Scotland is clear that ideological net zero policies are causing disproportionate harm to the United Kingdom, given that the UK accounts for less than 1 per cent of global emissions, and that the fastest way to get our energy prices down is to pump our own North Sea gas onshore for domestic use only. There will be a complementary role for renewables, but only if they are commercially viable instead of relying on 50 years of subsidies, which has been the biggest transfer of money, from poor people to rich people, since Robin Hood.
If we truly want a growing economy to provide prosperity for everyone, which is the only sustainable way to combat rising costs of living, we need to get back to properly educating our young people. In the past 20 years, the SNP has presided over the collapse of our once gold-standard education from outstanding to average, but it does not call a debate on that subject—how cowardly. Reform Scotland would make education an urgent priority, to ensure that our young people can get real jobs in the real economy, with technical jobs that will not be taken away by artificial intelligence, for which skills and training are provided through tertiary colleges and apprenticeships, and universities that are focused on degree courses that will lead to high-value employment.
Finally, as well as a wealthy Scotland, we want a healthy Scotland—a society where our local communities feel valued and prioritised; where we will always welcome newcomers, so long as they contribute economically, respect our values and do not jump the queue for public services; and where a kinder Scotland is not defined by allowing men into women’s spaces, and our children are allowed to grow up as normal girls and boys.
Those are the topics and policies that Reform Scotland’s 17 newly elected MSPs have debated, in the first six weeks of the new session of Parliament, without fear or favour, but with knowledge, common sense and passion. Our group has real-life experience as well as significant technical expertise in all areas of policy, and we will be a strong voice for the silent majority.
The chamber should be chastened by the fact that, on May 7, 2 million Scots chose not to vote—a record low turnout, which proves that this chamber has lost its relevance to the Scottish people. When we come back in September, I ask that we have no more groupthink, please. Why? It is because, to paraphrase what General Patton once said, when everyone is thinking the same thing, no one is thinking. Reform Scotland is so ambitious for Scotland, and the status quo will not cut it. Our 17 MSPs will do the thinking, even if other members do not, and that is why Scotland needs Reform.
I move,
That the Parliament believes that strong and sustained economic growth is the foundation of a successful nation, where everyone can feel hope that effort will be rewarded, with opportunities and high-quality services for all; recognises that the Scottish Government’s policy choices are constraining economic growth, including Scotland becoming the highest-taxed part of the UK, which risks disincentivising work and investment and undermining confidence in the economy; further recognises that high quality jobs and opportunities provide more than just tax for the Government, as the loss of purpose experienced through unemployment or not being able to use their skills in work is a major factor behind the reported rising mental health crisis; further recognises that economic growth depends on a diverse range of pathways into employment, not solely through university, and calls for greater emphasis on apprenticeships that provide real skills and faster entry into the workforce, alongside a broader subject offer in schools, including targeted action to be directed at core literacy due to one in four primary school aged children still not reaching expected levels of literacy; acknowledges that net zero will come to describe the level of economic growth should current environmental policy continue on its current trajectory; considers that economic growth also relies on secure, affordable and reliable energy, and that increasing North Sea production is essential for price stability and security of supply as part of a broad, market-driven energy mix; believes that too many net zero policies such as low emission zones are a regressive tax for those on lower incomes, which only further harms individual opportunities and economic growth; further believes that sustainable economic growth requires public policy that commands broad confidence and is grounded in evidence, and notes concerns that recent policy approaches, including on gender, have alienated a majority of people, and failed some of those they were intended to benefit; considers that Lady Ross’s landmark legal ruling on transgender prison guidance is a condemnation of the deviation from evidence backed policy and must be swiftly complied with; recognises that population policy and migration must support economic sustainability and public services, and calls, therefore, for the use of devolved powers to reduce incentives for illegal migration, such as through not allowing non-citizens access to social housing or Scottish welfare, and to ensure that limited public resources are focused on supporting economic participation and long-term growth.
15:13
First, I welcome colleagues across the chamber who join me in condemning the violence, xenophobia and racism that were experienced right here in the streets of our capital on Friday last week. There is no place for violence in the streets, homes, or communities of Scotland—whether it be race based, faith based or otherwise. My thoughts are with everyone who has been impacted by that appalling act—not just the victims who are directly affected but the communities who are now anxious and worried that they could be next to experience hatred by virtue of who they are, where they were born or the faith that they practise.
I thank and recognise Police Scotland for all the hard work that it does every day, and, in response to recent events, to make the people of Scotland feel safe and supported. Scotland is a place that values hope, tolerance and solidarity—values that are shared both by people who were born here and by those who have privileged us by choosing to make Scotland their home.
I hope that those values are shared by those who are fortunate enough to be in the chamber. We must all come together to ensure that our values as a welcoming, tolerant and hopeful Scotland are protected. The Government will lead from the front to tackle all forms of violence, division, and prejudice.
I welcome the minister’s remarks about the Edinburgh attacks. Does he recognise, as do members on these benches, that as well as expressing solidarity with the Muslim community of Scotland, we owe them a debt of gratitude that there was no call for activism and action on the streets of Scotland by the Muslim community? There were no mass protests, violence, or police officer assaults, which shows a tremendous amount of restraint from a faith that is absolutely rooted in peace, tolerance and openness.
I welcome Mr Cole-Hamilton’s remarks and associate myself with them entirely.
We want Scotland to be more than just a welcoming country. We want it to be a place that people actively want to live or locate in. That is why the Government is prioritising an economy with a strength that is felt by people, businesses and communities across Scotland. Scotland is a great place and, collectively, we are making it even greater. Delivering more jobs and higher wages and a progressive taxation system that funds high-quality public services will improve the lives of our people and support our businesses.
The minister talks about being a welcoming nation. Does he also recognise that we must be a functioning nation? Can he explain how the SNP intends to accommodate the growing population pressure? When we face such things as a housing shortage, general practitioner appointments that no one can get, and school places that are under pressure, how do we cope with increasing pressure on our resources?
The member may wish to dress it up in moderated tones, but let me call it out for the dog-whistle politics that it is. It is utterly transparent. We see it, we will not tolerate it and we will call it out.
Fair and progressive taxation creates the foundations of a productive economy. It allows us to invest in our people through measures such as our tuition free university system or our national health service that is free at the point of need. It helps to create the stability that our businesses need to invest, grow, and thrive. It makes Scotland an attractive place to live in, move to, start a family in, and start and grow a business in. The approach that is taken by the Government is contributing towards that. The newly released EY “UK Attractiveness Survey 2026” has found that Scotland remains the United Kingdom’s top destination for foreign direct investment outside London for the eleventh consecutive year. Recent investment successes demonstrate the impact of the approach, including the investments by Ryanair at Prestwick and Center Parcs in the Scottish Borders.
Scotland is in an enviable position: we have great talent, institutions and opportunities. We do not lack in economic assets or ambition. A strong wellbeing economy is foundational to everything that the Parliament seeks to achieve, from eradicating child poverty to tackling the climate crisis and delivering quality public services. Economic growth must be felt by people, places, and businesses: felt as we eradicate child poverty through sustainable employment and support for families; felt as we deliver a just transition to net zero, creating industries of the future and protecting our climate; and felt as we sustain the public services that make Scotland the great place that it is to live in. Maintaining Scotland’s reputation as a world-class place to live and make a home in is key to our current and future success.
There is no place for xenophobia in Scotland. Those who choose to make Scotland their home and to contribute to our culture, economy and communities should be welcomed, not demonised or frightened.
[Made a request to intervene.]
No, thanks.
We have the welcome challenge of an ageing population, and the demographic challenge of imbalances in how our population is spread across the country. Some parts of Scotland are depopulating, while others are growing at a breakneck pace.
[Made a request to intervene.]
No, thank you.
The positive impact of migration must be embraced if we are to succeed in our ambitions for this country. The Scottish Government recognises the critical importance of migration to secure our economic future and strengthen our communities right across the country. This Government is creating the conditions where all the people of Scotland can contribute to and benefit from the opportunities before us. Both the Scots born here in Scotland and the new Scots who have chosen to make this their home are critical to a strong wellbeing economy that is felt, and communities that thrive.
To deliver more jobs, higher wages and stronger communities, we need to seize the opportunities before us. To do that requires fast action now, deploying people and skills immediately to capture those opportunities. That means helping to attract some of the skills, talent and people from outside of Scotland and apply them here to seize the initiative and capture the benefits of our nation.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No, thank you.
If we get this right, we will build a foundation for the future, locking in investment, jobs and industries that will provide opportunities over the long term. However, we cannot do that alone.
Energy is at the heart of our economy and will remain our largest economic opportunity into the future, delivering more investment, more good jobs and lower costs for households and businesses. Our priority is to secure maximum economic advantage and employment from that spend by capturing supply change and high-value jobs in Scotland, giving investors confidence that projects can move at pace and will benefit communities.
In relation to the much-vaunted jobs in Scotland, how does the minister respond to the fact that, among all the turbines around our country, there is not a single blade made in Scotland?
I want Scotland to be able to fully benefit from all the economic opportunities, and that is what this Government is committed to doing. This is a devolved Government. It does not have the full range and suite of powers of some of our near neighbours, such as Denmark or Norway. However, we work constructively to attract investment and create local supply chains to benefit our economy. The biggest threat to that is the anti-net zero policies of Reform.
Let me be clear that delivering a just transition is a challenge. However, the Scottish Government will not retreat in the face of a challenge, especially when it is accompanied by opportunity—and the scale of that opportunity is massive. Scotland’s energy networks alone plan to invest about £40 billion over the next five years to strengthen our electricity grid and make full use of our renewable energy. That £40 billion investment in the grid will create real opportunities for the people and businesses of Scotland. It is expected that between 10,000 and 20,000 jobs will be created in the short term, and those jobs will put real money into people’s pockets.
Will the minister give way?
You do not have time to take an intervention, minister.
My sincere apologies, Liam Kerr.
However, this is not the full story. Over and above the build-out of our energy grid, Scotland can secure billions more in investment across onshore and offshore wind, battery storage and hydro schemes, as well as new sectors such as heat networks, hydrogen and carbon capture and storage. Over the long term, forecasts estimate that up to almost 80,000 jobs could be supported by low-carbon energy sectors. We have the potential to harness that investment to make Scotland a leading exporter of renewable energy skills and innovative new technologies, and competitive in the global renewable supply chain. However, again—this is the crucial point—we need the skills, people and talent now if we are to seize this opportunity and build the foundations of our future economy and turn opportunity into jobs, wage growth and vibrant local economies.
That is why I am asking the Parliament to work together to create the conditions to deliver growth, and to back the Government’s amendment.
I move amendment S7M-00446.2 to leave out from first “believes” to end and insert:
“condemns xenophobia, racism and hatred in society, including recent instances of intimidation, violence and disorder; further condemns the actions and language of those who seek to stoke such sentiments and division; agrees that such beliefs and actions do not reflect those of the vast majority of people living in Scotland, who value being a welcoming nation; welcomes the valuable contribution that migrants make to Scotland’s communities and economy; reaffirms the Scottish Parliament's commitment to human rights and equality for all; supports an economy that gives opportunities and helps to deliver investment through progressive taxation to sustain the public services on which everyone relies, and recognises the economic opportunity that a just transition can offer to Scotland through investment and innovation.”
I call Daniel Johnson to speak to and move amendment S7M-00446.1.
15:23
Malcolm Offord opened the debate by saying that, through its motion, Reform rejects the SNP’s version of mediocrity. What was clear from the rest of his speech was that that is because he has his own very special version of mediocrity.
The whole of Reform’s approach to the debate is summed up by the motion. Somebody should really have told Reform members that this will not be the only Opposition debate that they will get, because they tried to put absolutely everything in the motion. I am sorry to poke fun, but they came to the Parliament saying that they were going to change things up. Let me say this to them: being inflammatory is not challenging consensus; being controversial is not the same thing as offering critique; and being chaotic is not delivering change.
We could forgive the Reform members for being inexperienced, but they have made this debate about them, so let us talk about them. I do not think that they do themselves any favours whatsoever. There is a place to talk about difficult issues and perhaps to challenge the consensus, but let us look at some of the things that they are talking about. We need to reform our public services, but scrapping 132 public bodies is not credible. That would include all the health boards, in one go, and it would include Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. Are we really saying that those should be run directly by the Government?
Will Daniel Johnson give way?
In a moment.
The proposal would also include things that the Government absolutely should not be running, such as the courts service. That is not credible.
Likewise, on energy—we need to talk about what a sensible mix looks like, but, if you wrap yourself up in climate denialism, you absolutely delegitimise your argument.
We do need to talk about migration. Did my party get it right when we opened up so quickly to accession countries? That should be debated. Was a net inward migration figure of 900,000 sustainable? I do not think that it was. We have to talk about the consequences, but, if you wrap yourselves up in the rhetoric of racism and intolerance, you totally devalue your arguments and you make it impossible to talk about the nuance that we must tackle.
Would you not accept that when we talk about Scottish people, we mean people of all colours and faiths who are in Scotland?
Were it only about the terminology that Reform is using, it would be one thing, but it is not. Let us look at some of the words used by Reform politicians, both here and in other places: calling for “cold rage”, describing our justice system as being “two tier” and describing recent migrants as being of “fighting age”. Those words constitute incitement and they are deeply problematic.
Let us go through why. First of all, those words are alienating. They actively and deliberately place divisions between fellow citizens and fellow residents of this country. They inspire a sense of conspiracy in the system itself. Ultimately, what they are deliberately designed to do—I think that members across the chamber know this—is instil a sense of threat among many people in our country.
When people feel threatened, they resort to violence. That is why I absolutely associate myself with the minister’s words. We must all take responsibility for our words and reflect on the current circumstances and situations. Whether or not there is a direct causal link is one thing, but, in the context of recent violence, both in Scotland and elsewhere, it is certainly deeply irresponsible to use such rhetoric and language.
I understand and recognise that, in the new Reform group in the Parliament, there are many different members from many different backgrounds. I have got to know many of you and I have had conversations with you. I understand that some of you come from public service backgrounds and that most of you are here to do a job and to make a difference. However, I say this to you: is this the party that you want to be? Are these the politics that you want to enable and represent? [Interruption.]
Thomas Kerr is laughing. If he thinks that violence in this city is funny, I am outraged—deeply outraged. He should think very carefully, because people in this city were injured. There was a clear incitement and the words that he and others in his party have used do not help that situation.
Will the member give way?
I will give way to Malcolm Offord.
Before that, I remind everyone that they should be talking through the chair and not directly to individuals or groups.
I say to the member that the only incitement going on is coming from him as he raises his voice in this manner. [Interruption.] I said on the record last week, and I say it again now, that violence is never an answer to any problem. I will say it again: violence is never the answer to any problem, but that is not to ignore the problem. We need a cohesive society. Right now, we do not have that, and Reform is for cohesion in our communities.
If Malcolm Offord does not believe that violence is the answer, why does he use rhetoric about people being of fighting age? What does rhetoric about fighting invoke? It directly and explicitly invokes violence. That intervention was not credible, and Malcolm Offord should think again.
Will the member take an intervention?
On a point of order, Presiding Officer.
I am afraid that I do not have time for another intervention—
Mr Johnson, there is a point of order.
Forgive me, Presiding Officer—I do not have the rule number in front of me, but I believe that my point of order comes under the rule on decency and courtesy. Pointing fingers in the chamber is disrespectful. We talked about respectful politics last week, but I cannot see much of that today.
Thank you for the point of order. I remind all members about the standing orders on dignity and respect in the chamber.
I invite Mr Johnson to conclude his remarks.
I am sorry if my finger offended anyone.
This is the 10th anniversary of Jo Cox’s death. Only six members of Parliament have lost their lives while serving in office. Jo Cox’s death in 2016 was at the hands of a right-wing extremist, and Sir David Amess’s death in 2021 was at the hands of an Islamic extremist. In the past 10 years, our politics has become more filled with hate, which we should reflect on. We must confront difficult issues, but we must reject the politics of hate and violence. It is up to members to choose which path they want to pursue.
I move amendment S7M-00446.1, to leave out from
“strong and sustained economic growth”
to end and insert:
“only by fundamentally reducing inequality and creating an economy that works for everyone will Scotland be able to tackle division and hatred; condemns racism in all its forms and rejects a politics that aims to pit people against each other, exaggerating differences and exploiting disillusionment for personal political gain; agrees that building a fairer and more prosperous Scotland will depend on delivering economic growth that creates wealth and opportunities across the country and uses progressive taxation to fund strong public services; rejects the wasteful and short-sighted approach of the Scottish Government, which leaves working people in Scotland paying more but feeling like they are getting less in return, and believes that a better future for Scotland is possible but will depend on the Scottish Government finally unblocking housebuilding, reforming the skills system to support industry and workers and creating the energy jobs of the future so that the next generation continues to be better off than the last.”
15:31
This has been quite a lively debate so far. I might take a slightly more sympathetic approach to Reform than other colleagues who have spoken. To be fair to Reform members, they have been on a steep learning curve in relation to how they approach debates in the Parliament.
The kindest thing that I can say about the Reform motion is that it is an amateur production. I do not think that I have ever seen such a shambolic and convoluted conflation of so many different issues in a motion as I have today in Malcolm Offord’s motion. The motion ranges from the economy and taxation to skills, apprenticeships, education, net zero, oil and gas, low-emission zones, transgender prisoners, immigration, housing and welfare. As far as I can see, the only things that have been left out—
Will the member take an intervention?
I will give way in a second. The only things that have been left out are the NHS and justice. Virtually every topic in the remit of the Parliament is covered in the motion, as are some topics that are not in the remit of the Parliament. It is almost as if a troop of monkeys with typewriters has been given the job of writing a motion to cover as many policy areas as possible.
Does Murdo Fraser not think that all the topics that we cover in our motion are important for our voters and the public? Does he not think that those topics are worth a debate in the Parliament?
I appreciate that Angela Ross and her colleagues are new to the Parliament. I will make what I hope is a constructive suggestion, which is that it would be more helpful to have a debate on any one of those topics to allow us time to discuss the issues in detail. We will all be here for another five years, so Angela Ross should not fire all her bullets at once. There will be plenty of opportunities in the next five years to come back and discuss the topics in detail, instead of pushing everything together at the start of the session.
I gently say to my Reform colleagues that they have some experience on their benches, and they might want to make use of it. Graham Simpson is an experienced parliamentarian who knows how to write a comprehensible motion, so they should perhaps turn to him for his talents.
We should perhaps not be surprised that Reform is in a state of confusion. After all the promises that were made about Reform members coming in to shake this place up, they cannot even get the basics right. If these are the foxes in the hen house, the chickens will be sleeping pretty safely tonight.
That seems reflected in Reform’s most recent electoral performances. In last week’s by-elections, Reform failed to deliver on expectations. In Makerfield, to the delight, I suspect, of colleagues on the Labour benches—or some of them, at least—there was an overwhelming victory for Andy Burnham in a seat in which Reform had originally been expected to do well. Closer to home, in Arbroath and Broughty Ferry, Reform trailed in third place behind our excellent Conservative candidate, Jack Cruickshanks, who managed to not only finish in second place but increase the Conservative percentage of the vote.
Most significantly of all, we had a superb Conservative victory in the Aberdeen South constituency, with my good friend Douglas Lumsden winning just shy of 50 per cent of the vote—a massive swing from the SNP. Reform received just 2,478 votes, or 8.6 per cent of the total. To put that in perspective, in the equivalent seat of Aberdeen Deeside and North Kincardine just last month, Reform managed to secure 17.7 per cent. Their vote is down by more than half in the course of a month.
[Made a request to intervene.]
Perhaps Mr Simpson has an explanation for that.
I have personally congratulated Douglas Lumsden for winning that by-election.
However, the only reason for the by-election was that I managed to get double jobbing banned. Is it not ironic that Mr Fraser’s party leader, Russell Findlay, opposed that move? Would he care to condemn Mr Findlay for that now?
I thank Mr Simpson for that. That just shows what a wasted talent Mr Simpson is on the back benches, when he should be down the front, leading the charge for Reform.
We can reasonably conclude from recent elections that peak Reform has already come and gone, and Scottish politics will be all the better for that.
On the issue of electoral performances, will the member remind us where he currently sits in the chamber and how many members are on the Tory back benches? He might get the leadership role at some point, but that would be quite irrelevant at this point.
Oh, Mr Kerr! I do not think that it is my leadership ambitions that people in his party need to worry about.
Let me turn, if I can, Presiding Officer, to the substance of the motion. There is much in Mr Offord’s motion that we would agree with. Time does not permit me to deal with every policy issue.
Will the member take an intervention?
Yes, Mr Bannerman.
Although I am enjoying Mr Fraser’s performance as the grandest of grandees in this Parliament as he gives us all a lecture on proper parliamentary procedure, will he offer an analysis of why, after 10 years as the Opposition in the Parliament, his party has been reduced to a rump of 12 seats and we are now sitting where he used to sit?
I do not think that I could ever be as grand as Mr Bannerman. I am afraid that he is out of date. He is referring to results from a month ago; I am referring to results from just last week. The tide has turned already. It is the Scottish Conservatives that are on the way up, and it is Reform that is on the way down. [Interruption.] I will happily give way again, Presiding Officer.
We have to move on. Perhaps we could speak to the content of the motion that is front of us.
I will go on all afternoon, if members wish me to.
Let me talk a little bit about the motion, because Malcom Offord makes a significant point that I agree with: the need for
“strong and sustained economic growth”
as the starting point for getting everything right in our society.
The first duty of Government should be to support that economic growth. Despite what Tom Arthur said earlier, Scotland has been badly let down over the past 19 years. Over the past decade, Scottish economic growth has lagged behind the rest of the UK. Even UK growth has not been great during that period, but Scottish growth has averaged only half of the UK rate. If only we had matched average UK growth rates over that period, we would have had billions more to spend on public services.
As part of the economic backdrop, we need constitutional stability, which is why the SNP talking continually about independence does not help the situation. It does not help investment.
Let us remember that the rest of the UK export market for goods and services from Scotland is worth three times what the EU single market is worth to Scottish businesses. However, the SNP’s bright idea is to take Scotland out of the United Kingdom so that we can forge closer links with Europe, which clearly would be to the detriment of our business community.
We know that there are members on the Reform benches who are ambivalent about our place in the United Kingdom. Malcolm Offord has suggested that Scotland could have another referendum within 10 years. There are others, such as David Kirkwood, who has openly supported independence and said that he would vote for it once more.
It is clear that Reform cannot be trusted when it comes to Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom. If people across Scotland want a party on the centre-right—
[Made a request to intervene.]
I am afraid that Mr Fraser must conclude and move his amendment.
I will get to that at the end of the sentence, Presiding Officer.
If people across Scotland want a party on the centre-right that has grown-up policy solutions, that knows how to write motions in Parliament and that puts forward a credible platform to reduce taxes and improve economic growth, that party is not Reform, but the Scottish Conservatives. That point is made in my amendment, which I am very pleased to move.
I move amendment S7M-446.4, to leave out from “believes” to end and insert:
“agrees that strong economic growth is essential to raising living standards, creating jobs and funding high-quality public services; notes with concern that, after nearly two decades of a Scottish National Party administration, Scotland continues to suffer from weak growth, low business confidence and poor productivity; further notes that Scotland has become the highest-taxed part of the UK, leaving workers paying more and making Scotland less competitive for investment, jobs and enterprise; recognises that Scotland’s economic prospects are strengthened by its place in the UK, which remains Scotland’s largest market and provides the stability, scale and security that businesses need to invest; believes that the Scottish Government should use the powers of the Scottish Parliament to grow the economy, lower the tax burden and support business, rather than pursue constitutional division, and calls on the Scottish Government to focus on making Scotland more competitive, more productive and more attractive as a place to work, invest and do business.”
I call Willie Rennie to speak to and move amendment S7M-00446.4.
15:40
Daniel Johnson’s remarks were powerful, and he identified an issue that is sometimes uncomfortable and that we need to address. The country faces difficult issues, and we do ourselves no favours by ignoring those issues. Some of the points that Daniel Johnson made about immigration were right, and we need to discuss them. We should not be called racists just because we raise such issues—Daniel Johnson was right on the mark with that.
Equally, we have a responsibility to address questions, whoever they come from and whichever party they come from, with dignity and respect, but with that comes a responsibility for those who ask the questions. We have been in politics for long enough, so we know about loaded language and the use of particular words in particular ways. Again, Daniel Johnson highlighted that when he talked about comments on “fighting-age men”, “strangers” and “two-tier policing”. We know what those terms mean and what they are appealing to.
Will the member take an intervention?
Yes, I will take an intervention from Mr Charmer himself.
I have been called a lot worse in this chamber.
On the point about watching our language, Mr Johnson forgot to mention the word “stranger”, which was interesting because, in May 2025, it was Keir Starmer who used the phrase “island of strangers”. Where was Mr Johnson’s faux outrage about that when he was banging on his desk? Is that outrage contingent on his comments being about Reform?
[Made a request to intervene.]
I am sorry, but I am not going to allow an intervention. The intervention was on Mr Rennie, not on Mr Johnson.
I do not want to speak for Mr Johnson, but I think that the Prime Minister corrected that and said that he regretted using that language. I just wish that Mr Kerr would reflect a bit more on the language that he uses, because it does him no favours. We all make mistakes—I have made plenty of mistakes in my life—but the important thing is that we understand when we get something wrong.
We need a society that is cohesive and that pulls together, because we can achieve the society that we want only by pulling together and by working together in partnership rather than by pitting one part of the community against another. We have some wonderful people in our country. No matter where they come from, who they are or who they identify as, they are wonderful people whom we should cherish and support.
Members will have heard me talk about my deep concern that so many people are economically inactive and that growing numbers of young people are unemployed and unable to find a job. I am concerned about the significant growth in issues around neurodivergence and mental health, and the fact that, in schools, more than 40 per cent of young people have an identified additional support need. That is a huge loss of talent and of good people, and we should look to provide the support that they deserve. That is not just good for them; it is good for us as well, because our greatest asset in our economy is our people. That is why companies come from all over the world to base themselves here—to access the talent that comes from our colleges and universities and from our excellent schools. All of that comes together, which is why companies come here.
I agree with Mr Rennie, and I have been on the record many times talking about the 750,000 Scots of adult age who are not working. What is so wrong with us, in this chamber, recognising that and prioritising getting our own people back to work in good jobs in our community rather than bringing people in from outside the country? We have our own base of talent that we are not maximising. Why is it so controversial to say that we should get our own people back to work?
There is another one of those terms—“our own people”. Who are “our own people”? The carers I met at Balnacarron care home in St Andrews on Saturday, who had come from Nigeria, are wonderful people who do a fantastic job. If people come here and contribute, that is wonderful. Why use the term “our own people”? Let us ditch that language.
Will the member give way?
Not just now—I am trying to address Mr Offord’s point.
I do not disagree with the fundamental point that too many people are not economically active and are held back for a variety of reasons. However, rather than dividing those people from others, let us focus on what they need. Let us come up with the good solutions that can get them back to work.
Malcolm Offord is nodding away, so why do Reform members not ditch the crap? They should ditch the language that divides, which does not help us at all.
The good solutions—it is about goodness—are what we should strive for. I want good, warm homes. I want to ensure that we have good and decently paid jobs. I want to have good, sustainable energy sources that are affordable for people.
Will the member give way?
Not just now.
I want good early intervention in education and mental health. I want a good, enlightened society that is internationalist, tolerant and open minded—good people who look for goodness in society. That might sound all gooey, but it is what our Parliament should strive for: the goodness in our society that brings out the best in our people.
To deliver some of that—
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I will not take an intervention just now. I have taken several interventions.
Mr Rennie, you will have to come to a conclusion.
Rather than seek division, I want us to seek unity. We will not do that by dividing; we will only do it by uniting together to make a difference. Let us go for that. Let us achieve some goodness in this world.
I move amendment S7M-00446.4, to leave out from first “recognises” to end and insert:
“; further believes that Scottish Government policy should work for every region of Scotland, with adequate public transport links, infrastructure and housing to meet the needs of communities and both traditional and emerging sectors of the economy; recognises the need for a dynamic and skilled workforce, as well as significant and targeted investment in Scotland’s world-class colleges and universities; further recognises that skilled inward migration is vital to sustaining key sectors of the economy; understands that the crisis in the NHS will only be addressed when considered alongside the crisis in the social care sector, and that migration is a key aspect of addressing those challenges; believes that Scotland has a proud history of offering safe harbour to refugees from across the world, and resolves to strive for a Scotland that protects the rights and interests of all, regardless of who they are or where they come from.”
I call Patrick Harvie to make the last of the opening speeches.
15:46
To be honest, I was tempted to ignore this debate altogether. I can think of a dozen better things I could do with a few hours than debate one of the most incoherent motions that I have seen in 23 years in this Parliament. Goodness knows what shape it was in when the chamber desk first got its hands on it and tried to sort it out. I saw little point in writing an amendment. I thought that, as long as there was at least one “delete all and replace” amendment, it would inevitably be an improvement, so I will vote for the Government’s amendment.
However, dangerous and toxic arguments are being deployed here and they need to be challenged. That challenge is important because, when other politicians and the media choose to ignore the arguments of far-right populism or, worse still, excuse them under the guise of “legitimate concerns”, they gradually legitimise them. We need to take the arguments on and set out clearly—not only here, in Parliament, but around the country—why they are wrong.
Let us start with the economic arguments. The motion repeats that tired old canard of Scotland being the
“highest-taxed part of the UK”,
which is a claim that ignores the higher council tax rate in England, costs such as tuition fees and prescription charges and the progressive nature of income tax, which taxes the highest earners a bit more. If you earn a little bit above average, the difference in your income tax bill is tiny; if you earn a lot more, you start to pay your fair share. That is how we build, to quote the motion,
“a successful nation, where everyone can feel hope”.
It is how we pay to protect public services, tackle poverty and more. However, how could we expect a political party that is run by millionaires and funded by billionaires to understand that or even to care? It will always serve the interests of the super-rich.
The motion talks about incentivising work, but that mindset says that, to motivate the wealthiest to contribute to society, they must be offered ever greater wealth and, to motivate the poor, they must be threatened with ever deeper poverty. The idea of collective solutions for our shared social welfare is anathema to Reform, which is why its priority is massive tax cuts for the rich, massive welfare cuts for the poor and even more austerity for public services.
On net zero, which yesterday’s debate showed most political parties understand to be a necessity and an opportunity, Reform members repeatedly said that they support the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change position even as they appealed for ever more fossil fuels while the mercury rises outside.
Let me tell the chamber what the IPCC chair said only last month. He said:
“At current levels of warming, we can already see the effects of extreme events, including intense heat, wildfires, flooding, heavy rainfall and tropical cyclones. These cause disruption and devastation, highlighting the vulnerability of our globally interconnected societies.”
As Brian Hoskins, the chair of the Grantham research institute on climate change and the environment, has said,
“the discourse around net zero is increasingly decoupled from that science and our changing weather. While it is right to debate costs and implementation, public and political discussion increasingly overlooks the fundamental ‘why’. Net zero is not an arbitrary slogan, rather it is dictated by the laws of physics. To halt warming, net greenhouse gas emissions must stop. Pretending we can safely slow the transition ignores the certainty of escalating climate costs, which will fall most heavily on vulnerable, lower-income households.”
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I will not be taking interventions.
Those are the voices that we should be listening to, not Nigel Farage’s hand-picked politicians.
The anti-environment parts of today’s sprawling motion are followed by a brief but deeply ironic call for evidence-based policy, before it moves on to its other major theme: the culture war agenda. Whether it is transphobia or the immigrant bashing that we have heard for the past few weeks, it is all about encouraging people to blame some of the least powerful people in society for the problems that we face—problems that are, in truth, caused by austerity and the hoarding of wealth by the super-rich.
In just one line, the motion moves seamlessly from singling out so-called “illegal migration” to calling for measures against what it calls “non-citizens”—people who are, overwhelmingly, here legally. However, we all know that, just as we all know the effect—in my view, the intended effect—of such rhetoric. We saw it in the racist riots of 2024, and we have seen it this year in Belfast, in Glasgow and, most recently, in Edinburgh. It is not accidental. Those who use divisive and racist rhetoric are culpable.
I thank Patrick Harvie for his generosity in taking an intervention. Like him, I condemn the violence that we have seen in Edinburgh and elsewhere. He might be aware that, in my constituency, fascist and far-right racist disinformation led to a riot on the streets of Arbroath, with police officers being targeted with violence. I am sure that he condemns that, as I do. Does he agree that everyone in the chamber needs to stand up against that type of disinformation?
I very strongly agree. I was not going to try to list every place where there have been riots, but I recognise the importance of the experience of Lloyd Melville’s community. I have urged the Government to develop a disinformation strategy.
To be honest, the main thing that has surprised me about Reform since the election is how low key it has been. I think that Reform members expected to arrive here full of drama, as an anti-establishment force to shake things up, but not a word of Reform’s motion would have been out of place in any Conservative Party motion in the past six years, and not a word of it would be out of place in a Times or Telegraph column. It is as establishment as it gets.
Being a low-energy populist is a bit like being a vegetarian vampire—it scares nobody and it will not even keep the audience entertained. I do not want Reform to succeed as a political party, because I think that its values are toxic, so I probably should not be in the business of offering it advice, but here it is anyway. If it wants to play the far-right populist card, it will need to do so with a bit of vim and verve—a bit of personality—which has been entirely lacking so far.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I will not give way.
I do not think that Reform itself is the true threat that our politics faces. Despite its economic irresponsibility, anti-environment ideology and instinctive desire to punch down on minorities, I do not think—to be frank—that Reform members are good enough at the job to be a real threat in their own right. The real danger is if the Government comes to feel that that is the standard against which it will be judged—that all that it needs to do is say that climate change is real and that racism is bad, and that it will then look progressive by comparison. That must not happen. The Government should not be judged in contrast with the incoherent agenda that Reform has to offer. Instead, it must be judged against its promises to accelerate climate action, eliminate child poverty and truly build a more equal and sustainable Scotland.
We now move to the open debate.
15:54
It is my intention to stay as positive as I possibly can during the debate. I have seen people I have worked with on a cross-party basis—people I have respected for years—get extremely angry about some of the language that has been used in here. I feel their pain. It is easy for us to get to that stage. The people sitting on the other side of the chamber do not seem to see that. They do not seem to understand that their words actually mean something in the real world.
Before I turn to the motion, which Malcolm Offord did not actually do, I want to say something about Scotland today—the Scotland that I know. Today, in the United States, thousands of our citizens have once again shown what Scotland is all about, and they are doing our country proud. The tartan army have travelled in numbers, as they always do, and they have shown the world exactly what Scotland is all about. Scotland is good humoured, looks for friendship and shows respect to others and their culture—and is a wee bit gallus. With a determination to enjoy themselves while making friends wherever they go, the tartan army have been fantastic ambassadors for our country. They remind people that Scotland is a confident, generous and welcoming nation—a nation that is comfortable in its own skin and happy to open its arms to others. In a world where too many seek to divide people, the tartan army have once again shown the very best of who we are.
Tonight, Scotland face five-time world champions Brazil. People often say, “It’s the hope that kills you.” The sporting legend Muhammad Ali put it differently. He said:
“If my mind can conceive it and my heart can believe it, then I can achieve it.”
That is what hope does. Hope is not a weakness; hope drives people forward. It is what makes Scotland fans believe that Scotland can beat Brazil, it is what makes communities believe that they can build better futures, and it is what makes nations believe that they can achieve more than others tell them is possible. It is hope that makes us want to win. It is hope that makes us want to overcome obstacles in front of us. It is hope that makes communities pull together, families support one another and nations strive for something better. Most of all, it is hope that makes us want to build a better future and become better people.
The spirit of hope, optimism and belief has always been part of Scotland’s heart and Scotland’s story, which is why the motion feels so out of place in our chamber. Where Scotland sees hope, Reform sees grievance. Where Scotland sees opportunity, Reform sees division. Where Scotland sees people coming together, Reform sees somebody else to blame. I have to confess that, when I first read the motion, I wondered whether it had been written in various stages during a very long night in the pub.
We know the type of motion. At first, it sounds reasonable enough: there is a discussion about economic growth, which is fair enough—we can all agree that we want a stronger economy that is good for jobs and opportunities for our young people. Then, however, paragraph by paragraph—or pint by pint—it becomes something else entirely. By the end, it reads like the ramblings of a very angry man sitting on his own in the corner of the pub, complaining about immigrants, about net zero, about equality, about young people and about Scotland—and eventually falling out with absolutely everyone else in the pub. It is less an economic strategy or a political vision; it is more “Last orders, please.”
That is the problem with Reform. For all the noise, shouting and social media outrage, what is being offered here? Division, grievance and a constant search for somebody else to blame. The motion refers to growth, but it spends most of its time talking about migrants, gender issues and culture wars. It is as if somebody started writing an economic plan and, halfway through, they decided to go on to Twitter and saw what the latest ramblings were there.
Reform members would have us believe that they are the outsiders, the anti-establishment rebels and the voice of ordinary people, but let us consider who has produced the motion. It is millionaires lecturing working-class communities about hardship. The architects of Brexit are now turning up to explain why the economy is not working—you couldn’t make it up. That takes a level of brass neck that would make some people in Westminster blush. Let us be honest: the biggest act of economic self-harm in modern British history was not net zero, low-emission zones or devolution; it was Brexit. Who is standing front and centre, waving the flags and making the promises? It is Nigel Farage—the same Nigel Farage who promised prosperity and delivered labour shortages, higher costs, barriers to trade and years of economic uncertainty—
Will the member take an intervention?
—and now he is back, demanding that Scotland trusts him again.
Talking of trust, I ask Mr Offord: is he going to say anything that the people of Scotland can trust?
Does the member recognise the inconvenient truth of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development numbers that say that, in the 10 years since the UK left the European Union, growth in the UK was 13 per cent? That is not very good—in the USA, it was 26 per cent. However in France, it was 12 per cent; in Italy, 10 per cent; and in Germany, 6.4 per cent. What has been said is a fiction.
His lordship’s argument is that it is slightly better than it is for somebody else next door. That is complete and utter nonsense.
Presiding Officer, I used to be in the motor industry—if someone sold you a second-hand car that immediately burst into flames, you would not turn up and ask for a second one, would you? You would not trust them, and yet Reform expects Scotland to do exactly that.
The reality is that Scotland’s future has never been built on division; it has been built on community and solidarity and, yes, it has been built by people who came here from elsewhere and made Scotland their home. The SNP amendment, rightly, recognises the enormous contribution that migrants make to our economy, our public services and our communities. In Paisley, as in every part of Scotland, we know that: our NHS knows it, our care sector knows it and our businesses know it. The only people who seem to be confused about all of that are those in Reform UK.
While Reform talks Scotland down, I prefer to look at what Scotland has achieved: free prescriptions, the Scottish child payment, investment in childcare, action on child poverty and a health service protected from the privatisation agenda that those in Reform all want.
Things are not perfect—of course they are not. No Government would ever claim that things were perfect. However, the answer to every challenge is not to point the finger at the nearest migrant, environmental policy or minority group. That is not leadership; it is political laziness. What Scotland needs is confidence in ourselves—confidence to build our communities and confidence in our ability to build a fair economy that works for everyone.
We need confidence that our future is not bound up in the bitterness and division offered by Reform UK. When I look at Reform UK, I do not see a vision for Scotland’s future; I see a party that is permanently angry at the modern world, which mistakes outrage for policy and volume for wisdom, and which seems determined to fight yesterday’s arguments while Scotland is building for tomorrow.
I will continue to believe that Scotland’s future lies not in fear, division and blame but in fairness, opportunity, love and hope. That is the Scotland that I know and it will certainly long outlast Reform UK.
16:02
No one in this Parliament could argue that Scotland is where it needs to be. We have thousands of Scots waiting for NHS treatment and schools that are falling down the international league tables. As Willie Rennie rightly pointed out, across the UK, more than a million people aged 16 to 25 are not in employment, education or training. Millions more face the prospect of never owning their own home, while more than 10,000 children in Scotland do not have a home to call their own. There is the existential threat of climate crisis, as the mercury rises and yet more heat records are broken this very week. With war, genocide and threats to our national security, it is little wonder that people across our country feel let down, left out and worried about the future. They work hard and pay tax but feel as though the system is rigged against them. It is—but not for the reasons that Reform UK wants us to believe. There have been 14 years of Tory austerity, 19 years of SNP waste and incompetence, and a political class consumed by navel gazing and culture wars, which feels increasingly detached from the people it is supposed to serve.
However, when they shift blame, populists of all political stripes serve only themselves and their own political ends. They deceive people when they say that there are easy answers to the difficult problems that our country faces—answers such as a new constitutional settlement, freeing ourselves from the shackles of Brussels or Westminster, or blaming the other—be it an immigrant, a refugee or someone on benefits.
As others have said, Reform’s motion identifies some of the problems in our society—a flatlining economy, crisis in our public services and a lack of good, skilled jobs—but it is not interested in identifying who is really to blame or offering any genuine solutions.
There is underlying inequality in our society. For too many people, the die is cast from their earliest days. Structural problems—not least, the state of our education system and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few—leave people trapped in cycles and generations of poverty. That is why I am a member of the Labour Party and why I am in this Parliament to represent the interests of the people of my region.
Rather than hunt for the difficult, honest answers to the problems that our society faces, it is much easier for populists to point the finger at the outsider and the marginalised.
Last week, I led a members’ business debate to mark the 10th anniversary of the death of Jo Cox. Jo Cox was murdered by a white supremacist with links to a US-based neo-Nazi group. As the forces of populism and the far right seek to take hold of our country, they must recognise that there are those who will respond to their incendiary rhetoric—for that is what it is—with violence. The events in Leith last weekend, which others have rightly condemned—I wholly associate myself with those remarks—are a potent reminder of that fact. For a politician or a tech billionaire, such rhetoric might just be words, but to the radicalised, the marginalised and the isolated, it is a call to action.
Jo Cox was a highly political person who had strongly held convictions. She was someone who knew right from wrong and was not afraid to stand up and be counted. She has been very much in my thoughts of late.
Will the member take an intervention?
No.
I genuinely want to find common ground in the Parliament, to recognise the humanity of those across the chamber from us and to work together with them for the good of the country, but there are lines that I will not cross. I appeal to those who seek to divide us to recognise what they are unleashing on our country and the devastating consequences that their words and actions could have.
16:06
I want to start by saying that I had no intention of coming into politics, but I have spent a long time watching people in the Parliament, who are apparently our politicians, behaving in a somewhat similar way to the way that they are behaving today. I am disappointed. I entered Parliament because I was fed up. I came here to make a difference and to represent people out there who are completely fed up with how things are run in here. That is why half of them did not even bother voting. There are 17 Reform members in the Parliament because the other parties are failing.
I want to be a bit more constructive by turning to consider the particular area of education. I welcome the ability to speak on many different topics, because so many things are broken that that is necessary. Once our education system was the gold standard for the world, but over the past 20 years it has slipped from outstanding to merely average. With that decline has come the greatest period of uncertainty for Scotland’s young people, who deserve better.
For too long the Scottish Government has presided over an education system that has drifted from its core purpose. It has narrowed opportunity, elevated one, academic pathway above all others and left Scotland’s real economy crying out for the knowledge, skills, trades and technical expertise that our future depends on.
So, let me be clear. Today, Scotland stands at a crossroads. The path that we choose now will determine whether this nation rises to meet the future or resigns itself to decline. That is one of the many reasons that brought members of Reform into the Parliament. We must confront the most fundamental failure of all. One in four children in Scotland leave primary school without the appropriate level of literacy. Let us take a moment to consider that.
The member says that we are at a crossroads and that we could be resigning ourselves to decline, but does she not think that Brexit, which happened 10 years ago as a result of the actions of the forefather of her party, is the source of the decline that has been hanging over all of us for the past decade?
I strongly disagree. I think that we have had 20 years of a Government that has not delivered for the people of Scotland.
As I said, one in four children are suffering because they do not have the appropriate levels of literacy. That is unforgivable. As the Times Educational Supplement has warned, children who struggle to read at that stage of their development face a higher risk of lifelong difficulties, poorer health, unemployment and involvement with the criminal justice system, with disadvantaged children being the hardest hit. That is unacceptable.
Will the member give way?
I am going to continue, because I do not have enough energy.
What?
Deputy Presiding Officer, may I continue?
The member does not have to take an intervention, but if she does, she gets additional time.
I will continue.
Literacy is the foundation upon which opportunity is built in life. We need a knowledge-based curriculum. We have lost the excellent curriculum that we once had. We need to assess learning. For literacy purposes, we need a phonics-first approach, which does not mix with cueing or whole-language methods. Someone said that Reform does not offer solutions, but that is a solution that is used successfully in England, Australia and Canada, which have higher attainment levels than Scotland.
Reform’s ambition is to reinvigorate our education system so that every young Scot has early, clear and credible pathways into productive work and productive lives. That will benefit society, communities and our economy. Learning is not something that happens once at a single stage in life; it is a lifelong journey of acquiring skills and knowledge.
We must broaden the subjects on offer. Alongside science, technology, engineering and mathematics subjects, we must restore the arts, because creativity and critical thinking are not optional extras. They help young people analyse information, question assumptions, solve problems and make sound decisions in every area of life. They teach them how to think, not what to think. After our debate today, I am glad that we will be looking at doing that as part of our movement forward, because we need people who can scrutinise what is going on in the world around them. That is essential not only for innovation but for confidence, resilience and responsible citizenship.
The member should start to wind up.
In post-school education, we need to look more closely at apprenticeships and ensure that we offer additional options through partnering with industry. Engineering UK forecasts a shortfall of 20,000 engineers by 2030 unless apprenticeship numbers rise sharply. We should look at ensuring that apprenticeships are a resource that can help young people build skills, confidence and careers.
Scotland can rise again—
The member must draw her remarks to a close.
—but only if we build an education and skills system that is worthy of our history and essential to our future.
Scotland needs Reform.
16:12
I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests, which states that I am a nurse in NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and am an elected member of Renfrewshire Council.
I have agreed with many of the points that have been made by members, particularly those on this side of the chamber, which will come as no surprise. In particular, I associate myself strongly with the point that Willie Rennie made when he talked about his visit to a care home. It is important that we recognise that the issue that he identified is not just a fundamental issue now. Back in the 1960s, it was bus drivers that were needed. My papa came to the country and became a bus driver, because that is where we had a deficit at that time. Naebody wanted to do the job, we needed people to do the job, and we had people who were willing to do the work. That is a simple concept that needs to be digested right now.
At this time, it is also important that we recognise that our care industry relies on people having caring competencies. Not just anyone can do care work, and we should not be so disregarding of people who are doing such essential jobs. If we have people—highly skilled individuals—who we can entrust with the care of our vulnerable people, we should invest our time in that. We need to recognise the impact that Brexit has had in that regard. It has been devastating, because we had many people from across Europe who would do that job. We cannot recognise some parts of the issue and not recognise others.
Reform demonstrates nothing but contempt, disregard and ignorance towards this Parliament. Its own lack of understanding of good governance and parliamentary due processes sells the public an illusion that it cares for people in our communities who are finding it tough, when in fact all that it cares about is its multimillionaire funders and tax cuts for the highest earners, none of which best serves the people of Scotland. Reform would have our NHS decimated and in the hands of the highest private sector bidders without any hesitation.
Rather than pontificating and using inflammatory words, as has been pointed out by several members, Reform should consider what it stands for. It is weak on policy. It seems to think that it has everything wrapped in a bow in five policy areas and a couple of paragraphs. I may not agree with some of the policies and directions of the other parties, but at least they have them. That is what shapes debate and progresses the direction of decision making and the public duty that we have all been elected to serve.
The SNP has been in Government for 19 years in Scotland. The electorate chose to return the SNP as the biggest party in the Parliament. That was acknowledged and recognised only a few weeks ago in the SNP being returned to Government, without objection, in our democratic processes and with mutual respect and cross-party agreement in the chamber.
The political landscape has been volatile. The impacts of living through and recovering from the Covid-19 pandemic have been significant. We must recognise the cost in lives and wellbeing and to our society and economy. We could not have predicted the extent of that impact. As much as we all want to move on, that is not how recovery works. It takes time and requires focus and strong leadership—which we have under our First Minister, John Swinney.
Global conflicts impact not just our safety and security but our economy. However, sadly, the greatest cost of conflict is to the lives of those who are closest to the wars. In some dire circumstances, death is seen as peace, due to the inhumane torture that is inflicted. Gender-based violence is wielded as a weapon. Regardless of how much we have learned from past conflicts, the motivation of man and those with the deepest pockets and selfish endeavours cost us all the highest price—in human lives. Scotland will never sit quietly on the sidelines of injustice. Our international relationships and investments are for the betterment of our society and Scotland on an international platform. Our power, strength and growth are empowered by humanity, not just traditional economic drivers.
In the past few days, we have been reminded that,10 years ago, Scotland was dragged out of the EU against our will. Sixty-two per cent of our population who voted wanted to remain. Our vote was ignored and our requests for mitigations have been continually undermined and dismissed. When it comes to gross domestic product, there was a cut to public revenue of 2.5 per cent—£2.3 billion. That is not the action of a union of equals, and it is a restriction on our growth as a nation. Despite that, the SNP Government is promoting Scotland as the destination of choice for international investment, and it often outperforms all other areas outwith London.
Progressive taxation is the fairest approach to supporting growth and investment for the future of public services. It allows for our national performance framework to have focus in sustainable development and in the reforms that are required to achieve that. Delivering on the agenda of a wellbeing economy is a shift change in our values as a society and, fiscally, promotes growth through resilience and stability.
When it comes to economic growth, macroeconomic levers—such as interest rates, trade and immigration—are reserved matters. It is a falsehood for Reform to paint a picture of “SNP bad”. The SNP is mitigating the issues and best protecting our nation despite the constrictions of the current governance arrangements.
Ultimately, the Westminster system holds Scotland back. The full fiscal levers of Scottish independence are required for long-term planning and actions that would allow Scotland to flourish. If Reform truly wanted to support growth, it would support Scottish independence.
16:18
An interesting debate—shall we put it in that way? Reform has set out the issues and we are here to talk about those issues.
I have often wondered why the Parliament and, in particular, the Scottish Government have had such poor energy policies; why they have failed to grasp energy reality and not acknowledged that we have the highest energy costs in the world and that that fact is driving de-industrialisation and closing down some of our most important industrial sites, such as the Grangemouth refinery and Mossmorran; why we have a fragile grid, such that, if Torness or Peterhead power plants closed, we would have significant risks of blackouts; why the Scottish Government has a presumption against new oil and gas; why it refuses to fully back new, ready-to-go projects such as Jackdaw and Rosebank; and why it does not back new drilling and licences.
We heard the answer to some of that yesterday. It is due to an ideological adherence to the net zero agenda, the prioritisation of net zero above growth, jobs, the cost of living and, indeed, people’s wellbeing.
The Government ignores any trade-offs and takes a Pravda-like approach by telling everyone that its plans are working and a fingers-in-the-ear approach by ignoring the realities such as higher bills, deindustrialisation and an utter failure to reduce our globally insignificant emissions since 2020.
I will make one simple observation. Duncan Massey was talking about the realities of the net zero agenda and questioning why we have it, but does he recognise that France recorded its highest temperature on record yesterday and that that is a material consequence of the climate emergency?
I am not aware of the record or of whether yesterday’s was the highest temperature recorded in France. The temperature in Britain yesterday was the highest it has been since 1976. At one point, I was worried that it was going to be the highest temperature recorded since 1966, which might have been a bad omen. However, I acknowledge climate change; I acknowledged it very clearly yesterday.
France provides one of the best examples in Europe of an energy system that actually works. That is because its energy mainly comes from nuclear. France took that decision a long time ago, because it has a serious energy policy.
Let us be clear: our policies are not working and they are not proportionate. That needs to change. We need a far more pragmatic energy policy.
First, we need to revitalise our oil and gas industry. We need our oil and gas industry for price stability and for security of supply. We will need oil and gas for decades. Increasing our North Sea oil and gas production will reduce imports and emissions, because imports have higher emissions associated with them. We can do that; the North Sea has a strong and vital future.
If we choose to do that, we need to urgently remove the energy profits levy; provide unambiguous support for Jackdaw, Rosebank and all new projects, licences and drilling; and restore maximum economic recovery as our guiding principle.
Much of oil and gas policy is not within the competence—literally—of the Scottish Government, but the Government is good at challenging the UK Government when it suits. It called for an end to the energy profits levy, so why not call for changes to the law around planning regulation for oil and gas? It is not that hard.
The industry’s confidence is damaged because we have a devolved Administration that sits on the sidelines, sniping and jeering when we need the Scottish Government to be an unambiguous champion and supporter of our North Sea and oil and gas industry. What we have is the exact opposite, and we can see that in the petrochemical industry. The Government does not care about Grangemouth or Mossmorran. It certainly does not care enough to change its policies.
It was not the SNP that closed Grangemouth. Had we been independent, we could have protected that strategic resource, which would have been producing jet fuel when it was in short supply. Had we been independent, Scotland could have been protected by the Scottish Government. Closing Grangemouth was a Westminster decision and it had nothing to do with us.
Duncan Massey is already in additional time, so he should not take any more interventions.
What Alex Kerr said is fantasy. The SNP’s intervention was to try and turn Grangemouth into a beetroot refinery. Those people are out of their minds.
It is simple: if we want real economic growth, industry, jobs and cheaper energy bills, we need a pragmatic energy policy that focuses on cheap, abundant and reliable energy. That means that we have to acknowledge that we have a failing system with the highest industrial energy costs in the world. It also means that we need to maximise our oil and gas resources in the short and medium term, increase our use of nuclear power—just like successful France, which I mentioned—and have renewables in a complementary role.
We can secure cheap energy for everyone if we ensure that we protect and add to our industrial base. That is what will reduce bills for everyone, keep the lights on for Scotland’s future and reduce our carbon emissions in the long term.
16:25
Please excuse me if I do not respond to every point in the motion—it is a 400-word rambling mess, and I have only seven minutes to speak.
I will start—because it has especially irked me—with the motion’s reference to low-emission zones. That is not a net zero policy; it is a public health policy. The simple idea is that the folk who live in our city centres, and the children who go to city-centre schools, deserve to have clean air in their lungs to breathe. Who’d have thought it, eh?
I appreciate—
Will the member take an intervention?
Can I even get started? Mr Massey got six minutes, so I would like to use up my seven minutes after his huge ramble.
Anyway, I appreciate that the low-emission zones policy might inconvenience Baron Offord of Garvel, depending on which of his five cars he is driving at the time, but it will add years to the life expectancies of thousands of Scots. Two years on average, I believe, is the difference that reducing air pollution can make to life expectancy.
I will also respond to the motion title, which proclaims that “Scotland Needs Reform”. Scotland does not need—or want—Reform UK Ltd. The party’s politics are not welcome and its rhetoric about “strangers” is simply dangerous. I know that some of our Reform UK MSPs get upset when they are quoted, so instead I will use a quote from one of Reform’s MPs, reflecting on what voters in Makerfield thought of Reform:
“We were either too racist or not racist enough”.
At this point, I will take an intervention from any Reform MSP who wants to tell us whether they think that their party is too racist or not racist enough.
Oh—nothing!
Perhaps I will use some different quotes:
“I told you time and time again, I’m protecting the country”.
“Enough is enough. I have had enough”.
Those are some of the words that a topless Lewis Hawkes screamed as he was arrested in Edinburgh just last week. I am not going to repeat the rest of what he said, as it makes me feel physically sick to my stomach, but he also made a reference to “our daughters”. He has since been charged with five counts of attempted murder linked to terrorism.
I cannot help but think how familiar some of his words were, and how I seem to have heard them before. I wonder whether the MSPs who have been joining “street patrols” or the ones calling people “strangers” might see some similarities, too. I am not expecting them to stand up and hold their hands up, but those who are capable of quiet reflection may wish to try it.
I seem to be the sort of person that Reform UK members say that they care about. I am a woman, and they seem to think that I need protected. I had a working-class upbringing, living on the farms that my dad worked on. I did not go to university; I earned my living by working in petrol stations and supermarkets.
My partner and our daughter have both worked in the oil industry, and my dad and granda served proudly with the Gordon Highlanders. I do not believe for one second that Reform UK cares about people like me; it cares about division and power, and crypto donations from dodgy billionaires. Reform UK does not represent me—it disgusts me.
I am under no illusion that folk are frustrated at so much of what is happening, and not happening, in the world today. Across the past two decades, we have lurched from the financial crash to austerity, to having a Brexit vote thrust on us, to a pandemic, to a European war and a cost of living crisis. In Aberdeen, we can also throw in the added challenges with oil and gas jobs. Throughout that time, we have seen inequality grow. We have seen the world’s richest folk become even richer, and we now have our first trillionaire. While we have seen the economy grow, across the western world we have seen living standards decrease.
Some folk who have never struggled before are now struggling, and some folk who have struggled their whole lives now doubt that things will ever get better for them. They are seeing the consequences of austerity, of a lack of investment in jobs and of a lack of spending in their local communities. They are feeling the consequences of social security being stripped back. They are angry and rightfully so. They are being failed by a Westminster system that is not working in their best interests.
Today, we have the billionaire beneficiaries of that system and their pet politicians in Reform UK trying to tell us that the real reason for the state of society is immigrants, trans people and even wind turbines. If we got rid of all the migrants, we would not be any better off. Who would they blame next? Who would they target next? The same folk who were leading the fight against “benefit scroungers” a decade ago when they were in the Conservative Party are now in Reform UK saying that we should “look after our own”. Maybe I am just not seeing what Reform MSPs are believing. For example, Baron Offord of Garvel may know more about small boats than I do—he spent the last election campaign boasting that he owned a fleet of them.
Let me finish by talking about where I see the effects of migration in Aberdeen. Where there used to be empty shops and empty buildings, there are now Polish food shops, Romanian stores, Indian takeaways, African food shops, Chinese restaurants, Malaysian supermarkets, Buddhist temples and, two doors down from my constituency office, there is a Filipino supermarket. Churches are staying open due to new members, and charity shops have new volunteers. For centuries, Scotland has been a nation of emigrants, with its people travelling all over the world, and I am proud of that. I am delighted that, over the past few decades, the world is coming to Aberdeen and, quite frankly, we are all the better for it.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I will not take an intervention from a jack-in-the-box who can stand up and speak later.
The member cannot take an intervention, because she is coming to the end of her speech.
I do not get as much time as many others do.
Scotland does not need Reform; Scotland needs independence.
16:32
We have heard much in the chamber about the harm that gender ideology is doing to women and children, but the damage runs deeper. It is dividing our society in ways that we have not seen for generations. From nursery through to secondary school, children are being indoctrinated, often using materials from activist organisations such as LGBT Youth Scotland that is funded or endorsed by the Government. In classrooms across Scotland, resources such as the relationships, sexual health and parenthood curriculum introduce contested gender ideology to young pupils, while genuine safeguarding concerns that are raised by parents and teachers are, too often, dismissed as bigotry. That is not compassion—it is harming the very children that it claims to help, including those who are experiencing gender distress. Yet that is only part of a much larger problem: the ideology of DEI—diversity, equity and inclusion.
Does Amanda Lindsay recognise that the biggest threat to women and children in our society is not trans people, but predatory men?
I fear that the member is more interested in defending ideology than addressing the real-world consequences for our young people.
What began with noble intentions—to foster greater understanding and respect—has morphed into a rigid creed that celebrates every diversity except diversity of thought. Equity now means engineering equal outcomes and, too often, inclusion means excluding anyone who questions the orthodoxy. Our institutions have been captured. In universities such as those in Edinburgh and Glasgow, staff are pressured to submit diversity statements and to decolonise curricula. Employees across the Scottish public sector are sent on anti-racism training that promotes discrimination against white people, while students are told that they suffer from white privilege. Dissenters face silencing or cancellation. The result is groupthink, not genuine diversity.
Nowhere is that more damaging than in its effect on young men, particularly white working-class men. Positive action schemes and diversity targets in public bodies and higher education have, in too many cases, tipped into outright discrimination. That is not equality. It is racism. Martin Luther King dreamed of a society where people would be judged not by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character. When did we abandon that principle and decide that it was acceptable to discriminate once again?
Will the member take an intervention?
No. I am sorry, but I am going to make progress.
Martin Luther King would have taken an intervention.
The member has made it clear that she is not taking interventions.
I am not taking any more interventions.
Reform will end DEI initiatives across all Scottish public institutions, because, far from delivering fairness, they institutionalise division and discrimination. In our schools, we will withdraw materials produced by activist organisations, in order to protect children from an ideology that is causing real and lasting harm. And, while respecting people’s personal choices, we will champion genuine equality of opportunity, not quotas or targets that pit one group against another.
To build a truly equal and united society, Reform will speak unapologetically for men as well as women, for working-class boys as well as girls, and for a politics grounded in merit, fairness and shared identity, rather than grievance and division.
16:36
At the risk of my party colleagues falling off their seats, I will start on a point of agreement with the mover of the motion. It is indisputable that the foundation of any successful nation is strong and sustained economic growth. Without that growth, we will not have the ability to support the public services that our people deserve, and we will not be able to lift people out of poverty in the way that we strive to do. However, although the member and I agree on that much, we part ways there.
I do not agree with the motion’s claim that
“the Scottish Government’s policy choices are constraining economic growth.”
In that, as in so many things, Nigel Farage’s Reform Party is just plain wrong. They might want to disagree with me, but the numbers from the Office for National Statistics do not lie. Annual real growth in Scotland is outperforming that in Wales and England. If that is constraining economic growth, then can Reform explain what is happening in England and Wales? It seems to me that Westminster could be doing with taking some lessons from the Scottish Government when it comes to economic growth.
Further to that, the news from EY’s most recent report—that Scotland remains the leading destination for investment in the UK outside London—also puts paid to the argument that Scotland’s economy is not well stewarded by the Scottish Government. It might interest MSPs to know that Scotland has been the leading destination in the UK outside London for 11 years in a row. In all 11 of those years, the SNP has been in government in Scotland.
Scotland continuously punches well above our weight. We have around 8 per cent of the UK population, but, when it comes to attracting investment, we have captured 14.8 per cent of all foreign direct investment projects in 2025, which is well above our 10-year average share of 11.6 per cent. One third of those planning investments in the UK say that they will choose Scotland, which is up on 27 per cent last year.
Will the member give way?
In a moment.
Investors, with no axe to grind beyond making sound investments, cite Scotland’s highly skilled workforce, strong infrastructure and overall business environment. Does Malcolm Offord, or perhaps Angela Ross, think that those investors are wrong? I will take her intervention now.
Do you think it is correct that, in this country, one in five people is skipping meals because they cannot afford food, or that one in 10 of our young people is leaving education and going into unemployment?
No, of course I do not agree with that. However, do you understand that the only country in the UK where child poverty is falling—the only country—is Scotland? Again, that is due to policies such as the Scottish child payment. I do not know whether youse support it, but that policy is causing child poverty to fall in Scotland. Child poverty is not falling in any other nation in the UK. You can shake your head, but that is the reality of the situation.
All of those successes and continued growth come against a challenging global backdrop, which has included a pandemic, the shock of wars across the globe and other upheavals. We can see that in the number of projects across Europe, which fell by 7 per cent; the number of projects in the UK, the new economic sick man of Europe, fell by 14 per cent.
That brings me back to a point that I made earlier in the debate around the nations of the UK and their economic growth rates. Some members might have noticed that I mentioned only three of the nations that make up the UK—until now. The real-terms economic growth for Northern Ireland is far and away the strongest growth of the nations, coming in at 2.1 per cent. That is more than double the others. How exactly has Northern Ireland achieved that rate of growth? It has done so because when Scotland was dragged out of the EU against our will, the Boris Johnson Tory Government, in which Malcolm Offord eventually served as a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, allowed Northern Ireland to be in the unique position of maintaining access to the European single market, while Scotland was denied that access. That is crucial to that continued thriving and economic growth, and the UK’s loss of access to the European single market is why it has become the sick man of Europe.
Therefore, rather than coming here and questioning the SNP’s positive record on Scotland’s economy, Malcolm Offord should be coming here to apologise for the economic disaster that his boss Nigel Farage has brought upon this country and our neighbours in England and Wales.
A recent paper by a team of academics—
Will the member take an intervention?
In a moment.
A recent paper by a team of academics, including Eleonora Alabrese, assistant professor of economics at the University of Bath, found that Scotland has been made almost £30 billion a year worse off and is the worst hit of all the devolved nations.
The amendment praises progressive taxation. Can the member point to a single major public service that is performing better today than it was before Scotland became the highest-taxed part of the UK?
As has been mentioned earlier, that extra £1.8 billion that we raised through progressive taxation—which has not led to the sky falling in, as it was claimed that it would do—has allowed us to fund things such as the Scottish child payment, which means that child poverty in Scotland is falling, while in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, it is not falling. I assume members over there welcome that, but I would like to hear that in some of their speeches.
Malcolm Offord is not a stupid man—I know that. He has had a successful life in business outside politics, as his numerous homes, cars and boats can clearly attest to, which means that Malcolm Offord must see the reality of the continued damage that has been unleashed on the people of Scotland due to the Brexit obsession of his boss Nigel Farage. I know, though, that just like Anas Sarwar, who plays the role of branch manager for Labour, Mr Offord, for fear of his head office in London, will not be able to admit those facts today or during the rest of the parliamentary session.
The only route to further and faster economic growth is to rejoin the European Union, and the only way to escape broken Brexit Britain and make that a reality is through Scottish independence.
I call Jenni Minto.
16:43
Mòran taing, Oifigear Riaghlaidh. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer.
I want to start with the words of one of my constituents:
“I am not a politician, nor do I ever wish to become one. I am a leatherworker, a father and a business owner. I want to spend my life building my business, raising my children and living quietly in Scotland. However, I also believe that when ordinary people see a problem in society, they should not be afraid to speak up and propose solutions.”
My constituent wanted to talk to me because he wants to find a way for Scotland to become a normal, independent country. Angela Ross’s analogy of a crossroads is fair, but our decision as to which track we will follow is a different one. From my perspective, it is independence that we should choose.
On Monday, I met my constituent and his wife. He spoke about the impact that Brexit had had on his business and how, because of that vote, his order book collapsed. He had to find new ways of marketing and promoting his business to ensure that he and his family survived. He spoke about the support that he had received from the SNP to expand his business. He spoke about the support that he had received from the Scottish Government to employ apprentices. That support has allowed him to expand his business to a third workshop.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will finish my story first, if the member does not mind.
That support has meant that those people have remained in Argyll and Bute, working in good jobs, contributing to the community and reducing population decline.
Do you not think that the 2014 referendum would have taken you out of Europe in the same way that Brexit did—that you would have caused your own Brexit?
No, I do not. I believe that Scotland is a country that will be welcomed into the European Union. We have the most amazing resources, whether that is people, our landscape, the universities, the businesses or the energy. Moreover, from a strategic point of view, Scotland is incredibly important to Europe.
My constituent and I spoke about the benefits of living in Argyll and Bute and how Scotland will be the best independent country in the world. That is not the empty rhetoric that we have heard from Reform this afternoon; that is hope, dreams and someone who cares about Scotland. Like others, I had not intended to speak in the debate, because I do not do the dog-whistle politics that some people like in this chamber. However, having had that conversation on Monday, I was compelled to do so.
I politely suggest to Reform UK that its motion is an insult to hard-working Scots, whether they work in our schools, our hospitals or our small businesses. The utter negativity of the motion shows a complete lack of awareness of the amazing stuff that is happening across Scotland. I will touch on a couple of examples.
The Reform motion mixes up net zero policies, as my colleague Jackie Dunbar has talked about. It says that net zero
“harms individual opportunities and economic growth”.
If any of the Reform members had taken part in my colleague Maggie Chapman’s debate on university education, they would have heard me talk about the Scottish Association for Marine Science, which is in Oban, in my constituency. Scientists there are doing lots of things: examining the life cycle and behaviours of sea lice in order to tackle one of the main issues in fin-fish aquaculture; using underwater robotic vehicles to identify entanglement risks to aquatic mammals; restoring many of the bottlenecks in the emerging seaweed farming industry; providing crucial marine mammal data for marine renewables; and using net zero as a way to employ people and improve our businesses. That strengthens our communities, expands the economy and helps businesses to cope with climate change. Having a world-class marine science research centre such as SAMS has allowed Highlands and Islands Enterprise to develop its European marine science park, bringing specialist companies in high-growth sectors to the area and improving repopulation in my constituency.
Angela Ross talked a lot about education. I must say that I agree with her about one thing—although she is, in my opinion, contradicting one of her fellow party members—which is that art is not an optional extra. Art is one of the most important subjects, and we can all engage with it for many reasons, such as our mental wellbeing and the betterment of our country. I am interested to know whether Mr Kerr thinks that it is a pointless subject.
Yesterday, I met pupils at Sunnyside primary school in Glasgow, and we talked about climate change, the Celtic and Amazonian rainforests and the fact that Scotland is the proud host of a rainforest. In my constituency, Dunoon grammar school won the world’s best school prize for community collaboration. That is the kind of schooling and education—and those are the kind of pupils—that we should be presenting.
Duncan Massey talked about grid infrastructure. In Kintyre and Mid Argyll, in my constituency, £400 million has been invested in infrastructure upgrade in order to increase grid capacity; we also have investment in distribution enhancements for network resilience projects, because climate change means that we need to improve resilience. Therefore, that investment is happening in Scotland.
I would like to reflect on Willie Rennie’s comments. Bute welcomed families from Syria, who are now an integral part of the island. In Lochgilphead, Ukrainian families have settled and helped to revitalise the town’s main street with two new businesses. As the Proclaimers sing,
“They’re all Scotland’s story and they’re all the same.”
I would like to strongly associate myself with Willie Rennie’s remarks, and to recognise the amazing Nigerian and Baltic staff working at Balnacarron care home in St Andrews.
I agree with Labour’s amendment. The importance of reducing inequalities is so important, and I whole-heartedly agree with the sentiments that Jenny Young expressed in her speech in the members’ business debate on Jo Cox last week. That is where we should come together in this Parliament to improve things for everyone.
Oh no—I have lost the final page of my notes. I have never done that before.
The member should be bringing her remarks to a close.
I am about to.
That is how we improve things—not by the constant negativity that we hear from those on the benches to my left.
George Orwell wrote “1984” in Barnhill on the Isle of Jura in Argyll and Bute. I cannot help but think of his warning that language can be used to distort reality. My constituent reminded me why I came to this Parliament—
The member must wind up.
—not to tell people that Scotland cannot succeed, but to build a Scotland that does.
We move to closing speeches.
16:51
This was an opportunity for Reform to prove everybody wrong and to pepper the chamber this afternoon with speeches that were measured in tone and full of bright ideas to fix the things that are wrong in Scotland. We have heard none of that today. As Maya Angelou reminds us,
“When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.”
Language matters. I was struck by something that Jackie Dunbar said when she referenced the language that we have heard from Reform. Lord Offord often talks, in the same breath, about the idea of cohesion and of “strangers”, of “fighting-age men” and of “our people”. I reflect—I make no causal link between these things—that, in the attacks in Edinburgh at the weekend, we heard a half‑naked man who was wielding an axe shouting about protecting our country. Let that sink in, because the language of displacement and othering is the antithesis of the cohesion that Lord Offord speaks about so regularly.
Liberals believe in reform—of course we do. The Whig Government in 1832—
Will the member take an intervention?
I will give way to Amanda Bland.
It is interesting to hear the reference to language. I agree that we must be really careful with the language that we use. In this Parliament, members have said of other parties that “they disgust me” and have referred to an individual as a “jack-in-the-box”. Does the member agree that such language is inappropriate?
I fail to see a moral equivalence between the references that we have just heard and what is, in effect, the language of the Third Reich in some cases.
Liberals believe fundamentally in reform and in challenging the old order of things. We stand by that—cleaning up our politics, accountability and making Governments accountable to their people. Our approach to reform is about lifting people up.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Surely that language was unacceptable.
As the standing orders make clear, it is a matter of whether a comment is in relation to an individual or whether it is a point of debate. The point was not specifically aimed at an individual.
It is important to address that, Presiding Officer. The terms “displacement” and “othering” have associations with the language of the Third Reich. I make no suggestion or implication that Reform would adopt the policies of the Third Reich. However, we must be very careful when we talk about displacement, replacement theory and othering, which have become more widespread as the Overton window has shifted. I apologise if any offence has been taken.
Does the member agree with me that, although parties or individuals might not be fascist, they need to think about whether they might be enabling those who absolutely do proclaim and explicitly pursue fascism?
I absolutely agree with Daniel Johnson. The struggle for progress and equality is never truly won; we have to win it with every generation. We see in the rhetoric the measure of the challenge that falls to our generation.
Liberal Democrats believe in fixing what is broken, so let us talk about the things that we need to reform. One thing that absolutely is broken is our climate. I have heard several speakers from the Reform party talk about the climate emergency as if it is not a real thing. Net zero is part of how we fix our climate. It is not incompatible to support jobs in the North Sea and to recognise that we have a duty, as a nation, to play our part in driving towards net zero. Climate change is the final boss of the 21st century. If Reform members do not like the migration crisis that has been caused by war in continental Africa and other similar places, they are going to be horrified by the migration crisis that happens as a result of climate change making large parts of our world completely uninhabitable.
We also talk about aspects of our economy being broken. Of course that is true, and we need to reform things such as planning, skills and housing to ensure that it is easier to build things here and to invest in Scotland. We must ensure that we have the skills pipeline that we need and that there are places for people to live. We need to build things again, think things again and ensure that the founders who create businesses in Scotland are encouraged to keep them in Scotland, employ Scottish people and make sure that they are sustaining the economy that then funds our public services.
Our health service needs fixed—my goodness, it needs fixed. We have heard several times in excellent speeches from across the chamber about the waiting times for people who are waiting for treatment and care. We have said many times that that is not a deficiency of our hospitals but a deficiency of social care.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am afraid that I have given way enough now and I must make progress.
It is a short one.
I must make progress.
By investing in social care, we can get those 2,000 Scots out of hospital. They would much rather be at home or in a care home than taking up a hospital bed. We absolutely need to recognise that inward migration is a fundamental part of doing that. Actually, there are many care vacancies. It is not about getting “our people”, as Malcolm Offord says, into work. Lots of jobs are going unfilled by Scots right now, and people from other countries desperately want to provide care and support to people in our communities.
[Made a request to intervene.]
The member cannot take an intervention, as he is already in additional time.
We need immigration, but we also need to recognise that we are a home for refugees. Scotland has a proud history of offering safe harbour to those who are fleeing war, persecution and intolerance, and we should proudly remember and embrace that, because it is very much part of our tapestry and heritage.
The title of the motion refers to “Five Years to 2031” as if that is some kind of countdown. I ask Reform members to reflect on their use of language today and the attacks that they have levelled against communities and people in this chamber, and to recognise that it is going to be a very long five years if we have to endure many more debates like this.
I call Tim Eagle, who has up to five minutes.
16:58
I will try to keep to that, Presiding Officer.
It has certainly been an interesting debate to listen to. My colleague Murdo Fraser talked about the word salad of the motion. I was not quite sure what I should zone in on, but I will start with the title, which is “Scotland Needs Reform”. On that point, I think that there is broad agreement across the chamber. After 19 years of the SNP, I would certainly say that Scotland is in desperate need of change.
Reform seems to have arrived in the Scottish Parliament and in politics as some sort of revolutionary force. However, the reality, at least at the beginning, is far less impressive. The foxes in the hen house had barely unpacked their suitcases when they were putting the media in a pen outside, which I thought was pretty shocking. The truth is that being in opposition—[Interruption.] Thomas Kerr can shout from the sidelines all he likes, but he shouts enough online and nobody is listening any more.
The truth is that being in opposition is not about posting slogans on social media or unilaterally declaring yourself to be the voice of the people; it is about consistently holding Governments to account. That is exactly what the Scottish Conservatives have done, are doing and will do to take Scotland forward over the next five years. When businesses such as those who contacted me in Lossiemouth were crying out for support, it was the Scottish Conservatives who repeatedly challenged the SNP on non-domestic rates. We led the calls for a pause on NDR, but the SNP refused to listen.
Only this morning, I spoke, by chance, to a constituent whom I met outside the Parliament and who, having travelled more than 100 miles, was standing in the sun just to make the point that he is trapped in a cycle of despair because the empty property rates on a shop that he cannot sell and that he has had his entire life are taking his pension. Representatives of funeral parlours in Moray met me to say that hikes simply cannot be afforded, so they are being forced to increase the costs of a funeral. Yesterday’s statement on non-domestic rates was a non-event—yet another discussion, yet another delay and an act of inaction when our businesses need to hear when change will finally happen.
When others were afraid to discuss welfare reform, we were prepared to have that conversation, not because it is easy but because responsible government requires difficult conversations. When Scotland’s ferries descended into chaos, it was us—the Scottish Conservatives—who continued to relentlessly pursue answers. That situation is an ongoing tragedy and is to the massive detriment of my constituents who live on the west coast of Scotland. When will we see CalMac and Caledonian Maritime Assets Ltd brought together and local people put on the board so that they are truly empowered in decision making?
When promises on the A9, the A83, the A75 and the A96 were delayed, it was the Scottish Conservatives who stood up for the communities who were left continuously campaigning for the SNP to put the money in the pot. We still have no timeline for the Nairn, Elgin or Keith bypasses. When concerns were raised about the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill, we led the opposition. When concerns were raised about the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021, we fought the fight. When our fishing industry needed a voice, we were there for it. When our farmers needed certainty, we stood up for them, too, including against a new rural support plan that is less use than the proverbial chocolate teapot.
Reform members have mentioned immigration. In my Highlands and Islands region, communities have raised legitimate questions about pressures on housing, services and local capacity. The situation around Cameron barracks has been an example that has led people of all political persuasions to reasonably ask for clarity and reassurance. I do not approach immigration by seeking to divide communities or inflame tensions, as Reform appears to. I seek solutions even when they are difficult or unpopular in parts of this chamber.
Britain is a multiracial country, and people of all backgrounds call this their home. When we have uncontrolled, unmanaged migration, the additional numbers create pressures on our hospitals, in our schools and elsewhere that are felt by people of all backgrounds. Those are the people we are standing up for, and the only people talking about race are other parties, not Reform.
I think you have to inwardly reflect on what you just said. I do not want to back up any other party in the chamber, but the point is—we heard this from the Liberal Democrats and Labour today—that your language is different outside the chamber. What you say outside the chamber inflames tensions in a way that we do not need. The language that you use, that Thomas Kerr—who shouted at me a minute ago—uses online and that Nigel Farage, your leader down in London, uses is horrendous. [Interruption.] It is absolutely inappropriate language—just stop. You need to learn how to do this properly.
Speak through the chair, please.
The Scottish Conservatives recognise that a strong economy is not some optional extra but the foundation on which everything else depends. I actually agree with Reform, and others, that it is all about the economy. Good public services and jobs and rising living standards require a strong economy, which means that we must be prepared to think differently.
Scotland definitely does need reforming, but reform is not a slogan, a marketing exercise or a newly arrived party self-righteously declaring itself to be the answer to every question. Reform is in the hard, often unglamorous work of challenging failure, standing up for business, supporting communities and demanding better from the Government. That is what the Scottish Conservatives have done, it is what we are doing today and it is the common sense that we need if we want a brighter future for Scotland.
17:04
I would like to say that I am grateful to speak about the motion, but honestly I am just a bit bored. It is one that manages the considerable feat of somehow being simultaneously vague enough to mean nothing and specific enough to be so wrong. As the trans immigrant in the room—but, more importantly, as an educator—I almost feel that I have a moral or civic responsibility to speak about it.
As a writer, I believe in examining authorial intent. The motion’s likely author, Nigel Farage, is not in the room. Seeing as he is not here, I will settle for Malcolm Offord, the ex-Lord Offord of Garvel, who might take some time to adjust to the acoustics that do not come with upholstered red benches. He is the man who, during a cost of living crisis, told Scotland about his six homes, five cars and six boats, as though he was speaking at an estate inventory rather than at the political stump. I note that, for those in Inverclyde who refused to elect him and who cannot afford one home, let alone six, hobbies in the English Channel feel somewhat remote.
The motion—along with the standard, or lack thereof, that it sets—is simply sad. It calls for evidence-based policy that “commands broad confidence”, so let us apply that test. On net zero, the motion warns that environmental policies risk delivering net zero economic growth. That is a striking position from Malcolm Offord, who, in his maiden speech in the House of Lords, in January 2022, declared that
“COP 26 proves that our leadership still counts”,
as it shows that
“it is possible simultaneously to grow our economy while cutting our emissions.”
He said that the UK had
“the capital, the brains and the political will to meet the climate challenge.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 January 2022; Vol 817, c 273.]
During the election campaign, when he was challenged on those comments, he said that he was never “enthusiastic” about it and that he simply “read the lines” that he was given as a minister. He added, with infinite scientific precision, that
“The world heats up and cools down … so I don’t want to get into that argument about science.”
Members in this overheated and sweaty parliamentary chamber cannot afford to take that position. The world is heating up, and a man who disowns his own words the moment that they become inconvenient is not really a reliable guide to evidence-based policy.
On the immigration passage of the motion, the contradiction is just embarrassing and shows a degree of inefficiency and ineptitude that even the most hard-pressed migrant would not be guilty of. The motion begins by expressing concern about illegal immigration and calls for action to “reduce incentives” for illegal immigration. One line later, without a definition and without a distinction, the motion pivots to calling for “non-citizens” to be restricted from accessing social housing and Scottish welfare. Illegal immigrants and non-citizens are not the same people. They are not in the same legal category. They are not the same policy problem. Conflating them is not just an oversight; it is Reform’s entire political strategy.
The people who would be most affected by further restrictions would not only be those who arrived here illegally; they would be EU nationals with settled status, migrant NHS workers, care workers, teachers and skilled workers on a visa—the people whom, as Malcolm Offord’s own manifesto acknowledges, Scotland needs. No definition is offered. The motion just mentions “non-citizens”—a category so broad that it encompasses almost everyone in Scotland who was not born here, the overwhelming majority of whom are here entirely lawfully and are paying into the system from which they are being threatened with exclusion.
The motion talks about tackling illegal immigration. However, Reform’s proposals would actually affect legal and skilled migrants. It is not a policy for controlling borders; it is a policy for making Scotland hostile to foreign-born people in general, and members in this chamber should say so plainly.
On Malcolm Offord’s record on immigration, he says that he supports controlled immigration, but his own manifesto describes the Conservative years between 2021 and 2024 as the “Boriswave” of destructive mass immigration. He served as a minister throughout that entire period. He was appointed by Boris Johnson, reappointed by Liz Truss and reappointed by Rishi Sunak. If the “Boriswave” was a scandal, he was the minister who sailed on it—with all of his six boats, presumably.
On immigration statistics, when Malcolm Offord appeared on “Question Time” in December 2025, he claimed that only 1 million people came to the UK in the entire 20th century. The Ferret said that that was false. A few moments ago, he said that not a single turbine blade in Scotland was made in Scotland. That is false—23 per cent were made in Scotland.
Reform members say that they agree with controlled immigration, but they want me to be deported, apparently. They say that they want immigrants to work, but they do not want to give them the right to work. They say that they want to fix the care sector, but they want to cut health visas for skilled carers. They say that they want cohesion, but they will not support English as a second language courses for migrants.
On social cohesion, Malcolm Offord and his party cower in fear of trans people, who constitute 0.44 per cent of Scotland’s population. He made homophobic jokes about George Michael and his bereaved partner at a rugby club dinner while ignoring Reform’s Aberdeenshire by-election candidate who, reportedly, made social media posts about women’s jaws hurting two minutes into oral sex. That is shameful.
The motion calls for apprenticeships, literacy investment and diverse pathways into employment, but the Fraser of Allander Institute found that Reform’s tax proposals would turn Scotland’s income tax net position from a surplus to a deficit. There would be a recurring annual cost, not a one-off. No credible pathway is provided to fund better schools, better apprenticeships and better mental health services using those arithmetic acrobatics. Reform has no answers other than more task forces and bad economics.
The subtitle of the motion is “Five Years to 2031”. In 2014, Malcolm Offord founded a campaign called “Vote No Borders”, but he now campaigns to stop the boats. He championed net zero as a minister and then abandoned it as a leader. He talks about “non-citizens” when he means illegal immigrants and hopes that nobody reads the small print. He pledges his salary to a charity that he controls with his personal assistant with £12,000 in the bank. He boasted of having six homes on live television while standing in a constituency with a housing crisis. He even called his boat the Braveheart—after the story about Scottish independence—and he sailed it in the English Channel during an ongoing election campaign in Inverclyde. Hey—a man has to have hobbies.
Scotland does need reform, but many of Scotland’s MSPs, and many of Reform’s own MSPs, can do so much better than whatever this is. I will not be supporting the motion. I stand for a politics of care, not a whatever-it-is of Kerr.
17:10
On Saturday I attended a food festival in my constituency, as part of the inaugural Hebridean refugee week. Families from Ukraine, Syria and Afghanistan shared their food in a packed Stornoway town hall. It was a wonderful event that showed our community at its best—welcoming and open.
Now to the motion. There is no doubt that there is much in Scotland that could be better, and it must be better, but the populist approach that we have heard from Reform relies on simple solutions to complex issues and blames others for our problems. It is right that we debate where we can do better, but that should not be done through division.
One benefit of the Reform motion is that it covers so much ground that I can talk about just about anything in my speech. It will be no surprise that, as the member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, I approach a debate on what is not working in Scotland today by focusing on the issue that dominates daily life for many of my constituents: the ferry service, which we have already heard about from Tim Eagle.
For island communities, ferries are not a luxury but a lifeline service. Yet, since January 2023, more than 10,000 CalMac sailings have been cancelled because of technical faults. Families, patients, businesses and visitors have all paid the price for a system that has too often failed to provide the certainty and reliability that island communities deserve.
My colleague Daniel Johnson spoke about public bodies, and it is increasingly clear that the governance arrangements that sit behind our ferry service are not working. The tripartite model of Transport Scotland, CMAL and CalMac is failing islanders. A lack of clear lines of accountability, the organisations pointing the finger at one another when things go wrong and, ultimately, an unsatisfactory service being delivered all point to a need for reform of governance. Last week, at the Scottish Affairs Committee in Westminster, CalMac’s chief executive officer Duncan Mackison indicated that he thought that a merger of CalMac and CMAL would be possible. I urge Ivan McKee to look closely at ferry governance as he considers public service reform.
Now that I have got my need to talk about ferries out of the way, I will turn to some of the speeches that we have heard. I associate myself with the comments made earlier by the Minister for Business and Fair Work, and by others around the chamber, who have condemned recent violence on our streets. We must call that out for what it is.
I welcome the speech by Willie Rennie. He talked about migrant workers in our social care sector. It is important that, when we are talking about that, we value the contributions that those people make to our social care services.
I acknowledge the contribution from Jenny Young, who spoke powerfully about the need for political parties to work together and to reject the politics of hate, division and violence. That message is particularly important in an era when political discourse can too easily become toxic. Her remarks were a timely reminder that disagreement must never become dehumanisation.
Along with members from across the chamber, I joined Jenny Young in marking the 10th anniversary of the murder of Jo Cox. Jo Cox’s belief that there is more that unites us than divides us remains as relevant today as it was when she first said it. If there is a common thread running through the debate, it is that people expect better from us. They expect reliable infrastructure, effective public services and a politics that delivers solutions, rather than division.
For the people of our islands, that must begin with fixing our ferry service, but the wider challenges facing all of us are to ensure that Government works better, that public bodies work smarter and that politics works in the interests of those we represent. That is a responsibility that we share, and it is the challenge that we must all meet.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am done.
17:14
In the past few weeks I have spoken to people who are worried about going into certain parts of our towns and cities at certain times. Why? Because of the colour of their skin, their beliefs, their background or their way of life. That is not having an impact just on our largest cities; social media makes sure of that. This cannot and must not become normalised or excused in any way.
I start with that point because, in the debate, we have heard speeches that have stoked tensions and bred division. As many contributors have said, words do matter. In particular, words used in our national Parliament matter. I call out the members, particularly in Reform—in fact, only in Reform—who have used this debate and others since the election to sow further seeds of division in our society.
If history teaches us anything, it is that words have consequences, not only for how people feel about themselves and their place in society but because words can be seen as an encouragement for action, intimidation, attacks or further division. I will call out such language every time.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
I will in a moment. Let me make further progress.
I pay tribute to Daniel Johnson for his excellent, heartfelt contribution. He called out Reform’s language and the fact that, although Malcolm Offord and others stand up in the chamber and say that they condemn violence, that does not make up for everything else that is said by Reform members in here and outside. It does not make up for what is implied or for when they stay silent.
I draw attention to the contribution of Tim Eagle, who rightly called out Reform’s double standards in the Parliament and elsewhere. I also pay tribute to Jenny Young’s moving speech and her reminder, once again, that it has been 10 years since the death of Jo Cox. I did not have the opportunity to sit through Jenny Young’s members’ business debate, but I have listened back to some of the speeches—it was a powerful debate and I thank her for securing it. Today, she is right to point to the fact that, whatever politicians or tech giants say and see only as words, other people see as a call to action, and they must reflect on that.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
I will give way to Thomas Kerr.
The cabinet secretary is correct about some language. She said that she did not want to call out only Reform. Will she call out Alex Cole-Hamilton for mentioning the Third Reich or Daniel Johnson for making insinuations about fascism? Will she call out other members who have used the words “fascist” and “racist” in the Parliament about people who have genuine concerns about illegal migration? That is shameful. Surely double standards should be called out.
The members that Thomas Kerr mentions responded to those points during the debate. It is particularly rich and deeply ironic for members of Reform to come to this debate and, somehow, count themselves as the victims and as the people who are hard done by. The irony is not lost on me.
Willie Rennie was right that there are difficult issues that we need to discuss, in the Parliament and as a society. We also need to point out—we should not confuse the two aspects; I know that he does not—when people use deliberate disinformation to provide for fear and disharmony in our society.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
That is a good point at which to bring in Helen McDade.
I want to go back to the comment about Jo Cox and ask whether the cabinet secretary would extend that sympathy to David Amess’s family.
Of course I would.
Some of the disinformation in this debate has been truly astounding. The most ridiculous piece is that, apparently, there is some grand establishment plan to somehow indoctrinate our children in nursery.
There is also what is mentioned in the motion about housing. The motion would have us believe that people are queue jumping into social housing or being erroneously supported through the benefits system. I published a statement jointly with Shelter Scotland on 12 June that corrected inaccurate claims made in recent Reform Party commentary and highlighted that refugees do not receive priority for housing over other households facing homelessness. In Scotland, we have strong homelessness rights and I am proud of that. Our housing rights apply equally to all those who are homeless through no fault of their own. Shelter Scotland supports our position and noted:
“These rights protect us all, and any backwards step weakens rights for us all.”
I recognise that regulation of areas such as social media is outwith the control of the Scottish Government. However, does the cabinet secretary accept that there is a need for the Government to adopt, across a range of portfolios, a co-ordinated strategy to address disinformation? Individual bits of that are happening, but they are not yet joined up enough to be effective.
Patrick Harvie has pointed to an issue that the Government needs to reflect on. Indeed, we all need to reflect on how we deal with such disinformation. As a Government, we must work with third sector partners to do so, as we did with Shelter in the example that I gave. I know that other ministers are, as I am, reflecting very seriously on that.
George Adam and others talked about Brexit and the fact that it is 10 years since the Brexit referendum. A new analysis by the University of Warwick on the regional economic impacts of Brexit indicates that Scotland has been the hardest-hit devolved nation, having suffered a 9 per cent loss in gross value added by 2023. I find the irony of the architects of Brexit coming to the chamber and wringing their hands about the state of the economy deeply offensive.
Another thing that I find offensive is the discussion about migration. As Michelle Campbell, Jenni Minto and others have said, the fact is that Scotland needs people and migration. Migration is vital for supporting our sustainable communities, our economies and our public services.
Scotland should also be a nation that welcomes refugees and those who are seeking asylum. We have a long and proud history of offering safety and sanctuary to those who are fleeing war. It is an international and a moral obligation to offer such safety and sanctuary, and we are right to do so.
We need to think very carefully about how we conduct ourselves in the chamber. Every time I walk into the chamber, I remind myself not only what an honour and a privilege, but what a responsibility, it is to be here, and I hope that all other members feel that way, too.
Members of different parties will disagree—indeed, even members of the same party will sometimes disagree. That is evident in the amendments that other parties have lodged today, which include critiques of the Scottish Government on policy, delivery and ferries—Mr MacKinnon will be pleased that that issue was brought into the debate. That is democracy. That is how debate works. Willie Rennie and others challenged us to have such discussion. They challenged us to show dignity and respect for people’s questions, but they also challenged those asking questions to take some responsibility for how the question is framed. None of the amendments seeks to blame others. None of them seeks to blame minority groups. That is the type of debate that we should have.
I will close my remarks by quoting from a time for reflection that was led by Rabbi Rubin only a few weeks ago. He described an event that he went to at which children were, as he put it,
“simply being children—learning, celebrating and looking confidently towards the future.”
He closed by saying:
“However, I was left with a question: why should that feel extraordinary? Why should it feel remarkable that children can celebrate who they are without fear? … What can we do to make that spirit a reality not only for Jews but for everyone—people of every faith and of none, and people who simply seek to live their lives with meaning, dignity and happiness?
Perhaps that is the challenge that is before all of us.”—[Official Report, 9 June 2026; c 2.]
I think that, not for the first time, Rabbi Rubin was correct, and I hope that we all rise to that challenge.
I call Thomas Kerr to wind up the debate.
17:23
When I arrived in the Parliament, I used the phrase, “The fox is in the hen house.” Judging by the reaction of our opponents today, I would say that that saying is pretty true. Alex Cole-Hamilton compared us to the Third Reich. Daniel Johnson used the word “fascism”.
Will the member give way?
No, I will not.
The irrelevant lot sitting next to us—[Interruption.]
Excuse me, Mr Eagle.
How dare the irrelevant lot sitting next to us lecture us about how good an Opposition they were. They did that without a hint of irony, despite where they now sit and how far they have fallen in the polls. We were also lectured about grievance and division by the SNP—a party that is all about division. You could not make it up.
We are all here to serve Scotland. We have been elected by its people to do the job of delivering, but we can do so successfully only if the people buy into the process. Today, we have heard a lot of bravado from SNP MSPs, but let me roll out some cold, hard facts for them.
More than 2 million people did not vote in May’s election. The SNP won fewer than 900,000 votes, its result was down 10 per cent on its result in 2021 and it lost six seats. I am not saying that in a gleeful way—the SNP won—but I am saying it because there is a growing disillusionment with politics and politicians out there in the country.
Scotland is hurting. Inside our forgotten working-class communities, people feel abandoned by a political establishment that has ignored them. They see a First Minister who will not comment on police investigations such as the one into Peter Murrell or on the attack in the Calders in Edinburgh, but who will comment on another horrific attack because it suits a political narrative.
We have said it once and we will say it again: we in Reform condemn all acts of violence that take place in our streets, no matter what.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am up for a laugh—go for it.
I am glad that Mr Kerr is up for a laugh. We talk about respect in this chamber and he has just shown absolutely none whatsoever.
Mr Kerr talks about condemning violence and so on, but his language—his language in particular—is to blame for everything that happened across our country over the past weekend. Surely he must take responsibility for that, look himself in the mirror and own up to that.
I will tell you what shows respect, Presiding Officer: taking an intervention, which the member did not do when I tried to intervene on him. It is quite funny how that works.
I will not take the blame for what happened in our streets. It is utterly shocking, and any act of violence should be called out. Trying to put the blame for that at my door is utterly shameful and the member should hang his head in shame.
Think of the words you used. Be honest with yourself.
Mr Adam.
That brings me to this afternoon’s debate.
SNP members can delude themselves all they like by shouting that they won and that we lost, but John Swinney’s Government is built on sand and it will quickly sink. We have seen this show before, and members can ask Keir Starmer and the Labour Party where it gets them just a few years in.
This afternoon’s debate is titled “Scotland needs Reform: five years to 2031”. Why? Because this is the start of our party showing the country that Reform can and will win. In this debate, the chamber has heard real people with real expertise offering a real alternative. Reform’s 17 MSPs have sat in this chamber and used our time to evaluate our broken politics. Now we offer solutions.
Scotland is broken and Scotland needs reform. Nowhere is that truer than in Scotland’s broken housing system. Housing is one of the biggest issues facing Scotland today, not because politicians talk about it so often but because ordinary people are living with the consequences of SNP failure on housing. Successive Governments have failed to build enough homes, failed to plan for future demand and failed to put the interests of local communities first.
What is the result of that? A housing system that is under immense pressure. Waiting list numbers are high; temporary accommodation numbers are high; homelessness levels are high; private rents are high—the list goes on. Yet, too often, when those concerns are raised, politicians reach for excuses rather than solutions. Scots deserve better than that. The truth is that housing is governed by one unavoidable reality: supply and demand. If demand rises faster than supply, pressure increases. If more people require housing than there are homes available, waiting lists grow. That is just simple maths.
Will the member give way?
I will not; I am going to make some progress.
That is why Reform Scotland believes that we must have an honest conversation about local connection and housing allocation. People who have spent years contributing to a community should not feel like strangers in their own communities. People who were born in an area, who work there, who pay their taxes, who volunteer there and who raise families there should know that their connection matters. A local connection must carry weight. Unfortunately, too many people across Scotland feel that their concerns are dismissed the moment that they are raised, particularly when those concerns relate to migration and asylum.
Let me be clear that compassion and common sense are not mutually exclusive. A country can be compassionate while recognising political limits. For years, too many politicians in this chamber have refused to engage honestly with the housing issue, and now the public are feeling the consequences. People should not receive condemnation for asking perfectly reasonable questions.
The truth is that Scotland’s housing challenges cannot be solved by pretending that difficult issues do not exist. They can be solved only by action, and that means building significantly more homes—no more broken promises. It means recognising that every housing policy must begin with the people already here who are struggling to find a place to call home, because Government exists to serve its citizens. That should be the starting point of every decision that is made in this chamber. The interests of Scottish residents should come first.
Reform’s position is straightforward: build more homes; prioritise local connection; restore fairness to the housing allocation; recognise the pressures created by rising demand; and put the people of Scotland first rather than prioritising strangers who broke the rules and jumped the queue to get here.
Scotland is broken and Scotland needs reform. Reform has arrived in this chamber. I urge members to back our motion, and let us get to work.
That concludes the debate on Scotland needs Reform: five years to 2031.