Chamber and committees

Just last Monday, all of Scotland’s political leaders took part in a powerful and moving ceremony at Edinburgh castle to mark three years since the start of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. We stood together with members of the Ukrainian community living here in Scotland to commemorate the time that has passed since the start of that invasion but also to reaffirm our support for the people of Ukraine. Although we disagree on points of policy and politics in this chamber—which is right and proper in a parliamentary democracy—when it comes to upholding the values and principles of modern democracy, the Scottish Parliament stands behind Ukraine, resolute and unwavering. [Applause.]

Regardless of our political views, everyone in this chamber understands that democracy is hard fought for and must never be taken for granted. Democracy must be cherished, defended and enhanced. That is the lesson of the 20th century and it is the lesson that the people of Ukraine live, struggle and fight to teach us every day.

The courage demonstrated by President Zelenskyy and by all Ukrainians since the first day of Russia’s illegal full-scale invasion reaches far beyond the protection and preservation of their own homeland. Ukrainians struggle and fight for all of Europe and for the protection and preservation of all democratic nations. It is a struggle for the rule of law, for human rights and to uphold the international norms that once ensured that Europe knew guaranteed peace. The Ukrainian people are fighting for their homeland and their future, but for our future, too.

Three years ago, Russia expected to flatten Ukrainian resistance within days but, despite a war that has caused years of unnecessary misery in a peaceful, sovereign and democratic nation, the power of the fight for democracy and all its freedoms has given the Ukrainian people their purpose as well as their most potent advantage. Ukraine’s people are fighting to defend her independence, her territorial integrity and her security in the face of appalling, unprovoked violence—violence that has destroyed lives, separated families, wounded hundreds of thousands of citizens and razed cities to the ground—yet President Zelenskyy has not wavered in strength or dignity. His people have not laid down arms and Russia has not succeeded in reaching its war aims, despite sending hundreds of thousands of troops to their deaths, or to be wounded, on the front lines.

Now, as a result of all that unnecessary carnage, millions of Ukrainian children have never known peace, while western democracy has never been under such relentless attack from within. Misinformation, propaganda, malicious interpretations of history, arrogance, ignorance, prejudice and hate are being used to divide us. Only yesterday, after Russia launched a drone attack on a civilian building in Kharkiv, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said:

“We see that the collective West has started to become less collective. A fragmentation of the collective West has begun.”

That is precisely what Russia wants its people and the world to believe and it is precisely what Putin wants us to believe. We must be ever vigilant to the threat of disinformation, which takes the shape of the Kremlin’s talking points.

Russia was not provoked to invade Ukraine, in 2014 or in 2022. No credence should be given to deflection tactics that blame NATO expansion for Russian aggression. Each and every country in NATO is a democracy that has made its own sovereign choice to become a member, and many of the countries on NATO’s eastern flank have recent experience of living under Russian threat.

The strong international solidarity and dedication to achieving peace in Ukraine was evident for all to see at the security summit in London this weekend. The vast majority of European leaders have only one message—their unreserved condemnation of illegal Russian aggression.

Therefore, Ukraine’s allies should all have one aim and one aim only—to support Ukraine’s independence, her territorial integrity and her security. I whole-heartedly welcome the Prime Minister’s “coalition of the willing” initiative to provide Ukraine with security guarantees after a ceasefire agreement, as well as the £1.6 billion missile deal for Ukraine. I also accept the case for peacekeeping forces to avert further conflict, subject to proper scrutiny and a vote in the House of Commons, and I understand the delicate balance of diplomacy that the Prime Minister and the United Kingdom Government must navigate in this matter.

I make clear my commitment and the commitment of my Government to a united front and to doing all that I can to support Ukraine to succeed. However—like the many European leaders who expressed their solidarity with President Zelenskyy this weekend, I am sure—I am very disturbed by how his meeting with the US President and Vice President played out last week. I agree with President Zelenskyy’s statement that Ukraine wants its partners

“to remember who the aggressor is in this war.”

We must see unwavering unity across the political spectrum in full solidarity with Ukraine on that essential point. The events at the Oval office meeting with President Zelenskyy and the announcement that was made this morning of a pause in US military aid to Ukraine can only run the risk of emboldening Russia—the aggressor. As I said this weekend, if that were to remain the posture of the US Government, a second state visit for US President Donald Trump would become unthinkable. I know that there are people in this chamber and across this country who will disagree—people who will say that we should not contemplate this stance or who will say that President Trump should not be invited under any circumstances. I understand and respect those points of view but I cannot share them.

Right now, today, as we stand here, men, women and children in Ukraine are putting their lives and their freedom on the line to defend their country and all our democracies. We say that we support them, and we do, but that means being willing to do things that are hard—things that we would rather not do. So, if a state visit could help to solidify US support for Ukraine—if that is part of what supporting Ukraine means in practice—it is a possibility. For that to be true, however, the US would have to sustain the steadfast support of Ukraine, her independence and her territorial integrity.

As we think through all these issues, the important questions are the hard-headed, clear-eyed consideration of what is best for Ukraine and for European security today. For my Government, that means standing steadfast behind Ukraine and alongside the United Kingdom Government and our European allies, and that is exactly what Scotland will do.

My hope is that US and European leaders can once again find a way to speak with one voice on the matter of this conflict. There are no grey areas when one country chooses to send troops and tanks into the peaceful territory of another. My Government supports the approach of the United Kingdom Government in committing to secure international solidarity in support of Ukraine’s long-term future. We welcome the 100-year partnership that was recently agreed by the United Kingdom and Ukraine, and Scotland will play our part, whether as part of the United Kingdom or as an independent nation in the future, in helping to deliver it.

I also welcome the approach of the Prime Minister and the proposed four-point plan to end the war and defend Ukraine from Russia. As I have already stated, Scotland accepts the case for the deployment of any peacekeeping forces to avert future conflict, subject to scrutiny and a vote by members of Parliament in the House of Commons. My Government remains committed to supporting Ukraine until a just peace is secured—not a peace at any cost, which strips Ukraine of her sovereignty in wartime.

Let me once again make clear that there can be no truly sincere or constructive peace talks about the future of Ukraine without Ukraine being present at the negotiating table and that securing the future of Ukraine is utterly vital to securing the peace that we have enjoyed in Europe for so long. Ukraine’s future and her fate is our future and our fate, so we must aspire to be as courageous as the people of Ukraine and stand by them, always, in their hour of need.

We must maintain unity with our partners across Europe and the western world—unity like that demonstrated in London this weekend and at Edinburgh castle last week—because events in Ukraine are having, and will continue to have, a direct negative impact on Scotland’s economy, security and society. Scotland’s approach internationally will continue to be led and guided by our compassion for Ukraine. I know that members in the chamber will continue to work together on these matters and to put any differences aside in respect of our common efforts to uphold justice.

Now, 25 years into the life of this modern Parliament, Scotland chooses to stand for democracy, for human rights and the rule of law, at home and among our courageous allies such as Ukraine. Those are the underpinnings of democracy, of prosperity, and of every freedom that democracy provides. That is the solidarity among allies that will deliver Ukraine from Russia’s barbaric aggression, while protecting her heritage, her culture and her social and economic future.

We have, across Scotland, been honoured that thousands of Ukrainians have made their home in our country. My message to people from Ukraine who are living here in Scotland, is that you are, and always will be, very welcome here. Providing support and sanctuary for Ukrainian people who have been displaced by Russia’s brutal war continues to be a priority for the Scottish Government. I want Ukrainians everywhere to know that they also have Scotland’s fullest support; I know that many of them will be deeply concerned by what has unfolded over the past few days. It is for those brave Ukrainians, and every person who is protected by democracy, that Scotland will never be silent. Here in Scotland, we will, forever, stand with Ukraine. [Applause.]

What I said at the weekend on this question is that we have to have an honest and open discussion about the public expenditure priorities of the United Kingdom. I tried to have that discussion during the general election campaign, when I pointed out that our public services were under enormous fiscal pressure and that we had to improve the finance that is available for our public services. The issues that we are now confronting affect our defence and security and they merit a response in that respect. We have to have an honest discussion about our priorities. I do not view the question as an either/or—it is not the case that either we can afford defence expenditure or we can afford public services.

Equally, I take the view that John Mason is marshalling today that reductions in overseas aid expenditure can be short-sighted, because we have to change the nature of inequality and address the inequalities in our world, and overseas aid is fundamental to doing that. That has been a shared priority of many Governments for many years, and it is important that we address such priorities. However, we can do so only with an honest discussion about public finances and the choices that are available in relation to taxation. We need to have that discussion.

The support for Ukrainian families in Scotland will come from a combination of the community support that Mr MacGregor’s constituency will have offered, the support that Emma Harper has just mentioned in her question and the work that is being undertaken by the Scottish Government and our partners. That support has always been important, but it is ever more important, given the uncertainties that the people of Ukraine feel at the moment.

In short, yes. I welcome the role that the Prime Minister has taken in recent months, weeks and days—particularly intensively in recent days—to try to establish a way through the very challenging situation that we now face. The engagement with European leaders and the leaders of other countries, including the Prime Minister of Canada, has been particularly effective in drawing together a body of opinion that can help to create some of the cohesion that is required to support Ukraine at this particular moment. Those discussions are fundamental to assembling the correct approach, and I have publicly made it very clear that we support the Prime Minister in his endeavours.

There will, of course, be difficult issues that flow from the plans that the Prime Minister has set out, not least the possibility of armed personnel from this country being deployed in Ukraine. That is some way off, as we all know, but it is important that we contemplate and discuss those issues properly, fully and openly as a society with democratic scrutiny, so that we can come to the right conclusions.

I fundamentally agree with Mr Sarwar that the future of European democracy is very much in play at this moment. What happens in the course of the next few days, weeks and months will shape much of the future that lies ahead of us, and we have to make sure that we take actions that will protect the democratic values that we have all experienced during our lives and which are so precious in our society today.

First, what I said about the state visit in my statement is what I have been saying all weekend. There is nothing different about what I said to Parliament today compared with that.

The member asked about the withdrawal of US aid and the implications in relation to financial support for Ukraine from frozen Russian assets. There is a very real difference between using the interest on frozen assets and using those frozen assets themselves. The Cabinet discussed that this morning, and it is the subject of discussion among European partners.

Given the basis on which Russia has invaded Ukraine, I think that it should be contemplated whether those frozen assets should be used to support Ukraine in its time of need. European leaders must consider those issues, and I am aware that those questions are being debated. However, it is reasonable to consider Mr Cole-Hamilton’s point at a time when Russia has disregarded the rule of law. That merits a response that enables us to protect the rule of law and democracy, and those issues should therefore be considered.

A number of companies in Scotland are involved in the manufacture of military equipment. Some of that military equipment is manufactured for our use here, and a lot of it is exported to other countries. Those companies make an important economic contribution to Scotland. In the conflict environment in Ukraine, they play a pivotal role in ensuring that people in Ukraine can properly defend themselves from Russian aggression. We welcome their participation in our economy, and they will be able to pursue their dialogue with the United Kingdom Government, which has responsibility for defence procurement.

As I said in my response to Russell Findlay, I have a long-standing view that we should not possess nuclear weapons, and nothing in the current environment persuades me to change that view.

I do not think that I could have been clearer about the Scottish Government’s support for the Prime Minister’s efforts. That is expressed openly and genuinely to Parliament, and I wish the Prime Minister well in what he is trying to achieve. I do not underestimate the scale of the challenge that he faces, but I wish him well in that effort. We will take whatever steps we can to support him in that dialogue, to ensure that there is cohesion and resolution, and to ensure that the security guarantees that I mentioned to Kenneth Gibson can be delivered for the people of Ukraine and that their sovereignty can be protected.

I agree with that point. The threat to our democracy and to the values that have underpinned our society is real if we are not able to address and defeat Russia’s aggression. That is the very real issue that we face as a society today, and it is so important and fundamental to the choices that we face.

I am afraid that Mr Sarwar will have to learn to adapt his questions based on the information that I put on the record. Let me repeat that information—[Interruption.]

The overall poverty-related attainment gap has reduced by 60 per cent since 2009-10 in the face of unremitting austerity from the United Kingdom Government. Progress is being made, and there has been improvement in the outcomes for young people over that period.

Mr Sarwar talked about the outcomes for young people leaving school. The percentage of young people in a positive destination three months after leaving school is 95.7 per cent, which is the second-highest level since records began.

I accept that there is work to be done, but Mr Sarwar has to accept the evidence that I am putting on the record. As a consequence of the investment that this Government has made, we are making progress in improving outcomes for young people and in closing the attainment gap. The Parliament should support that endeavour.