Chamber and committees

Is there anything that you can say about that?

For many years, I have advocated that, when somebody joins the armed forces, they should immediately put their name down for housing for when they leave the armed forces, as they are entitled to do. As the minister said, there should be an obligation on the armed forces to look after people, and it could be useful to have a wee discussion at the start of somebody’s armed forces career about what they might want to do in relation to further and higher education. Perhaps the UK Government could respond to that point.

Thank you for answering my question.

I understand the point about data that is already held, but my objection regarding how we share it remains. Let us be honest—private companies seem to be able to overcome such obstacles, sometimes scrupulously and sometimes not.

There seems to be a consensus that the target should be renewed and refined. If we still remain, after having done that, with a blanket target of 18 or 20 per cent, whatever its basis, is not there a risk that we could achieve or exceed the target but still have pockets—as we heard last week, the situation is very uneven across the country—where people who would really benefit from widened access do not, which the blanket target would obscure?

Implicit in that, is the idea simply that moving to the free school meals measure would not necessarily give you enough refinement?

I thank Colin Beattie for bringing the debate to the chamber. As the deputy leader of my party, I am proud that more than 40 of his colleagues have joined him for the debate, which, to my recollection, is a record for a members’ business debate. That shows the interest in and the gravity of what we are discussing.

It is also very good to see the consul once again. As Clare Adamson mentioned, we met the consul last week at committee, when he revealed that he is a Hibs fan. That is not because it is a fantastic football team or because of Sunday’s result, but because he is aware of Hibs fans having visited Ukraine in about 2004 and of their work with orphans in Ukraine since then, as well as the work that was done for Dnipro Kids. Hibs also has a very good Ukrainian player playing for the team just now, which helps.

I am not going to deliver the speech that I had intended to deliver, because much of it has been said already. I will just pick out a few points, perhaps a little bit at random. First of all, in relation to the Ukrainians who have come to this country, members will know that I hosted a Ukrainian family for a number of months. We must acknowledge that their presence here has enriched our country in many ways.

It is important to Ukraine that many of those people go back when, hopefully, we get the just peace that we all want. Many Ukrainians will want to go back, but anybody who wants to stay should be allowed to. They add to our country—their country has added to our country. I would hope that that would happen and that they are not forced to have to apply for visas continually as time goes on, because that can be very disruptive. The family that I had had school-age children, and trying to plan a future while waiting for the next tranche of visas is not sensible.

We have talked about the armed forces in Ukraine, but we must remember that many in its armed forces were nurses, doctors and plumbers shortly before they were forced to take up arms. What they have done is utterly remarkable given that they were not trained soldiers.

As for helping Ukraine, we have to look at what the EU and Ursula von der Leyen have said. They are talking about a potential £600 billion of borrowing being brought to bear on rearmament and other defence aspects. I should say that I am not necessarily speaking for either the Government or my party when I say that, before we get into all the stuff about budgets, borrowing is perfectly legitimate when the security of one’s country is at stake. Whether it be for production lines for armaments or whatever, it is perfectly legitimate for Governments to borrow for those purposes.

We cannot access those funds, because they are EU funds, but I hope that we will do something similar in the UK to ensure that we can bring the maximum possible support and the maximum possible deterrence to bear. It should be about deterring Russian aggression.

What we are seeing from the United States is something akin to a protection racket. It is saying, “We will defend you from a bully if you give us money.” It is absolutely appalling. There has not been a counterpart to that in international relations that I can remember.

This, too, is true: given all the stuff that has been demanded of the Ukrainians, where is the demand on the Russians—that is, the aggressors? The US has told Russia that it will no longer be subject to cyber activity from the US. It has been rewarded for its behaviour. It is unbelievable how the world has changed.

I agree with the spirit of what Edward Mountain says. Liam McArthur made a point about the need to distinguish between Putin and the Russian people. We have learned the lessons of applying overly punitive sanctions, given what happened after the first world war, so I would be careful about that. However, the principle that Russia should pay is a very good one.

It is not true to say that JD Vance was a Royal Marine—that would be a bit of a stretch of the imagination. He was apparently a marine, but I am not sure that he would have completed the course at Lympstone had he tried to do so.

We have to bear in mind that we are still grappling with the significance of what is actually happening. Today, we have heard China say that it is ready for any kind of war. We are seeing a war in Europe. Article 5 of the NATO treaty has been completely undermined. If we think through the consequences, it should be clear how urgent and huge the task in front of us is. It is for those reasons that I agree with the comments made by all the other members who have said that we have to treat this situation extremely seriously. We have to be deal with it urgently.

The pax Americana, as it has been called, is coming to an end. The world is being upended. Australia and New Zealand are concerned for their security because of the changes that we have seen.

Given all of that, we have to concentrate on what we can do. The one thing that we must do is acknowledge that the fight of the Ukrainians is the fight of all Europeans, as the consul told us last week. We are in this fight and we have to play our part in it.

I am very supportive of all the comments that have been made by members. I am also pleased that we had a statement on the issue yesterday and are having this debate today, and I hope that we continue to do that sort of thing. I should also say that, prior to the leader of the Conservative Party asking whether the President of Ukraine could come, I mentioned the same thing last week in committee. I hope that we can do that. Such a request would rightly come from the Presiding Officer, but I hope that it can happen. In the meantime, we certainly stand with Ukraine.

I welcome the First Minister’s strong support for the principle of Ukrainian territorial integrity, its independence and the principle of self-determination.

The First Minister has acknowledged that personnel and other resources from Scotland may be deployed in any coalition of the willing as part of democratic Europe’s response to Russian aggression. Does he agree that the decades-long depletion of armed forces personnel and equipment in the UK armed forces means that we require rearmament, whether with European Union partners or non-EU partners? Does he agree that that should contribute to more effective recruitment of armed forces personnel, driven by improved pay, greatly improved equipment in relation to individual conventional weapons and cyber-resources, and the provision of relevant training opportunities, rather than squandering any resources on the immoral, utterly ineffective and increasingly irrelevant nuclear arsenal?

Thank you. It is encouraging to hear that you are as fun and optimistic as the people of Scotland. We take a lot of comfort from that.

I move on to the situation of Ukrainian refugees in Scotland. I hosted a Ukrainian family for a number of months, and they all—apart from the dog—took English classes as well as Scots classes. The mother asked me the meaning of the words “Nae bother”, which was interesting. It is a Scottish colloquialism. The mother, father and one of the sons have managed to get jobs, while the other son is still at school, and they have found a house for themselves in Argyll.

My question is about the extension. I understand that Ukraine will want people to return to help to rebuild, but there will be people who will want to stay here. That family in particular—I will not mention their names, apart from the dog’s, which is Uji—includes children who have been going through the state education system here for two years, and they might want to think about a future in Scotland.

As you said, it is hard for people to make decisions if they do not know what their future is beyond the next six months, 12 months or a year. From Scotland’s point of view, many of those people bring important skills. Are you picking up on the same worry or anxiety because people cannot look further into the future to make plans in Scotland? The family that I hosted comes from Mykolaiv and their house was destroyed. They are keen to make longer-term plans, whatever going back to Ukraine might hold for the children. Are you still picking up some anxiety about the 18-month extension? I understand that applications have to be made in the final two weeks before the deadline, which seems absurd to me. I am interested in hearing your views on that.

Thanks very much for your answers. Your final point is very interesting.

You mentioned Dnipro Kids. My football team, Hibernian Football Club, won 3-1 last night—

That is good. You will know that Hibs had an association with Dnipro Kids before the war to help orphanages in Dnipro.

It is not really for me to say, but I very much hope that we as a Parliament will be able to see your President, if that is at all possible. I know that he is a very busy man, but it would be good to solidify all these relationships. Thank you very much, and thank you for what you are doing in your country.