Chamber and committees

—and without freedom of movement.

Does the First Minister agree that Scotland needs not a change of Government at Westminster, but the change that only independence can bring?

To ask the First Minister what impact the Scottish Government considers this month’s changes to United Kingdom migration rules will have on the seasonal workforce in Scotland, as the soft fruit sector begins to prepare for the summer season. (S6F-03030)

As the minister will be aware, a significant amount of innovative work is under way in the Clackmannanshire part of my constituency, including the growing partnership between NHS Forth Valley, the University of Stirling and Forth Valley College, as well as the sector-leading work on sustainable ageing, which is planned as part of the Stirling and Clackmannanshire city region deal. The minister will also be aware of how central and fantastic the locations of Clackmannanshire and Stirling are.

Does the minister agree that locating the headquarters of Scotland’s national care service alongside that centre of innovation would align with its goal of future proofing the social care sector for generations to come, and will she meet me to discuss potential opportunities further?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I wonder if it is possible for you to clarify, given the terms of the motion that we are about to discuss, which is on repeal of the 2021 act, that the actual effect of a majority vote for the motion—which I do not expect to happen—would have no impact on the 2021 act or on the law as it currently stands.

I will repeat a quote that Audrey Nicoll mentioned. She said that the senior law lecturer Andrew Tickell stated the following:

“Can it really be Scottish Tory policy that harassing the disabled, assaulting ethnic minorities and daubing antisemitic abuse on synagogues should not be treated in Scots Law as aggravated by prejudice? Because that’s a big part of what repealing the Hate Crime Act would achieve.”

Those were his words. However, during the debate, we heard the Tory spokesperson, when invited to do so, refuse to condemn hate crimes or even to acknowledge the existence of hate crimes in Scotland. Given that the Tory motion proposes no replacement for the act, we have to ask a different question: what is it about the absence of effective legislation on hatred against the vulnerable groups that are mentioned in the act that the Tories find so attractive?

The motion is performative. As I noted in my point of order at the start of the debate, it would have no effect on the law as it stands, so what underlies the Tory motive behind the motion? I think that Stuart McMillan was right—it is the latest iteration of the toxic elements of the Tory group trying to attack everything about this institution. There have been attacks on the police, on the judiciary, on the courts and on this Parliament. Of course, they could do what they usually do—they could go to big brother down south and say, “Why don’t you strike down this act of the Scottish Parliament?” I wonder whether any Tory MSP has asked the Tory Government or Alister Jack whether they would consider striking it down.

The trouble for the Tories is that, in a few months’ time, we will see the most venal Government that we have had in living memory thrown out. Who will they plead to then to beat down the Scottish Government?

I heard one Tory member refer to hiding behind the numbers. He was talking about the majority of this Parliament voting for the bill. That reveals the true nature of the Tories’ attitude towards democracy in Scotland. Of course, they have had a campaign with their usual friends. The reason why the Tories sometimes seem so certain of their case in the chamber is that every single word of it is parroted by their friends in the right-wing media.

On the point about responsible drinking, would the member acknowledge the efforts that Diageo has made in that regard? In addition, as we are talking about facts and figures, would he acknowledge that whisky is produced not only in rural and island communities? There is more whisky production in my constituency than anywhere else in the world, and we had the first ever industrial-scale production of whisky in Scotland. The whisky industry stretches across the whole of Scotland.

To ask the Scottish Government what consideration it has given to the location of the headquarters of the proposed national care service. (S6O-03304)

Will the member take an intervention?

I can answer that very briefly by saying no. I do not agree with Lord Hope.

Over time, we will see, as we are starting to see, that if people act in good faith, the act can be effective in protecting the people that it seeks to protect. The reality is that the premise of today’s debate is the Tories’ objection to the policy. The level of misinformation about and mischaracterisation of the act that has, I am afraid to say, permeated the public discussion is really nothing to do with tackling hate crime but is actually a sad indictment of the political, media and online climate that we are living in today, in which outrage increasingly takes precedence over facts. As the cabinet secretary said yesterday, it therefore falls on all of us in the chamber to have a debate that is at least rooted in reality, respect and facts.

The climate that has been created has consequences, and the thousands of false complaints that have been made against people who obviously did not commit hate crimes are not only a huge waste of police time but a sad indictment of the misunderstanding of the act that has been peddled for all the wrong reasons. The fact that nothing has come out of many of the thousands of complaints proves that the fact that a person has discussed or criticised aspects of the protected characteristics and someone has been offended, shocked or disturbed does not make it a hate crime and that that is therefore—quite rightly—not criminalised by the law.

I was here during the passage of the bill. As we heard during that time, people of course have the right to be offensive to other people, including those in the protected groups. However, they do not have to do that; there is no obligation to be offensive to those people. Let us have a thought for the people in those groups, such as those who are suffering from antisemitism or Islamophobia. People are suffering if they are part of the groups that are characterised in the act because of the constant attacks on them, which are encouraged by the climate that we are now seeing. As has been said, they are very often fearful in their own homes, and that is largely to do with the public discourse around the legislation. Although we have the right to be offensive to people in those groups, we do not have an obligation to be so.

I, too, absolutely defend the right to be offensive. If that is what people want to do, they can, as part of free speech. However, the misplaced anger and frustration that have been generated by the reaction to the act is far too often channelled, not least online, towards the groups that the act seeks to protect.

Stuart McMillan mentioned the effect on many members. Like many members, I have had death threats—I think that I have had six now. I have had attacks in my constituency. My office manager was in the court all day yesterday trying to take forward a case against somebody who wanted to kill me. The abuse is constant. We all know that that is happening, but let us accept some responsibility when we feed that atmosphere, because it has real consequences. We have seen those consequences impact those down at Westminster; we do not want to see that happen here.

I apologise, but I am in my last 30 seconds.

We have two different visions of Scotland, in my view. One is that we have a law that challenges hate and has the effect of protecting vulnerable communities. The other is the Tory vision for Scotland, in which such protections are no longer in place and there is no legal framework. Under that vision, we would not have the new provisions that the 2021 act has brought in, previous provisions would be removed and we would be the least protected part of the UK. That is the vision that the Tories have for Scotland, and we should reject it at decision time.