Chamber and committees

I attended a public meeting last week, where representatives of the SPS were able to hear directly from residents about their concerns. I am pleased that the SPS agreed to provide updates every fortnight to keep people informed of progress towards addressing the issues.

Over the past few days, however, I have received several emails about continued disturbances, and I have real concern over what my constituents feel is a lack of urgency on the various mitigation measures discussed at the public meeting, with most of those measures appearing unlikely to happen until well into the new year. The situation is clearly having a significant impact on the lives of my constituents. For example, one constituent has explained that his eight-year-old daughter sits with headphones on, crying, because she is so upset by the noise that she is hearing. Does the cabinet secretary agree that that is not acceptable, and that the SPS must expedite its plans to address the situation as a matter of urgency?

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on progress towards addressing the reported concerns raised by local residents about HMP Stirling. (S6O-02773)

If what Jackson Carlaw suggests is the case, why would that stop us calling for an immediate ceasefire? I understand the point that he makes. I think that Anas Sarwar made points about statements from Benjamin Netanyahu that cast doubt on whether he is keen on a ceasefire, as well. That should not stop us from saying that this is wrong, that the people who are being killed just now are innocent people and that it should stop. It should not be conditional—it should stop now. Of course, I also believe that the hostages should be returned immediately: that is only right.

There is not a war in history that I can bring to mind that has not ended with a treaty.

If I can just finish making this point, I will give way to Jackson Carlaw.

When both sides agree to a ceasefire, it can often be the case that one side gains an advantage. I understand that point, but in this case we are talking about civilians—innocent people—being caught between two military forces. That is why there should be an immediate ceasefire.

I associate myself with many remarks that have been made by members from across the chamber. I agree with many of the points that have been made and will try not to repeat too many.

Of course, I agree with the terms of the First Minister’s motion. I also agree with the amendment that has been lodged by the Labour Party. Pauline McNeill, in particular, spoke very forcefully. I pay testament to her long experience in these matters—as I pay tribute to our former colleague, Sandra White, who is sitting in the gallery.

One thing that I must repeat is that the attacks that were carried out on 7 October were beyond words and should be condemned. I am confident that all members of the Scottish Parliament will join together to condemn those horrific attacks. There is nothing that could justify the brutality that we paid witness to on that day.

I also want to say that I think that it is entirely right that members of this Parliament are discussing the issue. That decision has been attacked, as have the demonstrations and various activities around the country, based on the assumption that we are not going to make any difference anyway. That is a counsel of despair. It is extremely important that demonstrations have been held and that people have been writing letters and making their voices known. I do not believe that diplomats and the people around the world who have the ability to change the situation are immune to hearing from populations about how abhorrent we believe what is currently happening actually is. It is entirely right that the Scottish Parliament discuss, debate and decide on the motion.

It is currently believed that between 11,000 and—as Kaukab Stewart said—13,000 Gazans have been killed since 7 October. That is according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health. I appreciate that sources are very difficult to verify, but those statistics have been independently verified by the UN, which at present has not cast any significant doubt on either of those figures.

We can also look to specific attacks as examples of what has been referred to by some members as the “disproportionate” nature of the response, such as the successive attacks on the Jabalia refugee camp in the north of the Gaza strip. There has been a wide range of reports on the exact number of casualties from the attacks on that camp over the past few weeks, but we know for certain that the number of Palestinian refugees who have been injured is in the hundreds and that dozens—possibly far more than that—have been killed.

I am told that those attacks have been justified by it being said that the attacks were targeting one particular Hamas commander. One cannot justify the murder of dozens, maybe hundreds, of people in order to attack one person. As the First Minister said, and as international law upholds, collateral damage is not an acceptable way of dealing with such things.

There is a vital distinction between those of us on one side of the chamber, who largely agree, and the Conservative position—although I agree with all the areas of concern that Donald Cameron listed towards the end of his speech. However, the main point of disagreement is on an immediate ceasefire. I think that I heard Sandesh Gulhane say that he could not call for a ceasefire, but thinks that there should be a ceasefire that everyone should adhere to. The reason, as I understand it, that is now being given for not calling for a ceasefire is that Hamas said it would not observe it. Why should we be intimidated by terrorists into not calling for a ceasefire? If Edward Mountain was here, I am sure that he would agree that it is quite often the case that, when two military forces oppose each other, it can be in people’s interests to have a ceasefire—

I agree with that point. It would be very powerful if this Parliament were to agree and say with one voice that, regardless of our doubts about the good faith of either side, we think that there should be an immediate ceasefire to save the lives that Monica Lennon talked about.

I can tell that much of my time has gone. I want to make one more point in particular, which is that one thing that can come out of this situation is a genuine attempt to achieve a two-state solution, so that both Israel and Palestine can live in peace and security. The failures to do that over many years have been laid out by Pauline McNeill and others. The current situation has to be a prompt to renew, with real vigour and serious intent, the efforts to achieve that solution.

One thing that I will say is that we can, if we support the motion and stand united, make a very powerful statement today. We stand for peace. I am quite fond of quoting Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the French philosopher, who said that peace

“is found also in dungeons”.

It is also true that peace is found in graveyards.

The point is that we cannot have a peaceful solution until Palestine is both free and secure, and is not a dungeon, not an imprisoned place and not an occupied place, and the people there—as for the people in Israel—can be free from the threat of being attacked by bombs, rockets and bullets.

We can unite around the fact that we want that to happen and to be made the focus beyond the ceasefire, which will, if we can achieve it—I know that this Parliament cannot—save countless lives and prevent countless injuries.

We have heard horrendous anecdotes about people without parents, without limbs and so on. We can stop that, and then agree to move on and encourage all those involved to move towards a real peace for the people of Palestine and the people of Israel.

I support the motion in the name of the First Minister.

I listened to the exchange between you and Kate Forbes, in which there was mention of common sense. I wonder whether that makes you the Scottish Government’s minister for common sense. It seems to be the fashion, these days, to appoint such ministers.

I have two points. First, you mentioned accession. Accession is often portrayed as solidifying alignment. However, it also solidifies divergence, as happened with Maastricht—for example, with Danish second homes or the UK opt-out from the social chapter. If the EU proceeded with gene editing, I would be happy to see an opt-out on that. I just make that point because we sometimes get the wrong impression of what alignment actually means.

Given what you said about the volume of work in the UK Parliament and the resources devoted to scrutiny—including four legal advisers—and what I think is a fairly common academic assumption that there is a real lack of genuine scrutiny of European legislation beyond, perhaps, the House of Lords, are we not setting ourselves up to try to do far too much? You mentioned looking across the whole scope of things. I am fairly new to the committee, and maybe this has already been done, but might it be better for the Government and the committee to agree what was relevant and thereby make activity much more focused, as long as the committee or individual members could ask for information about areas that were not covered? Would it not be better to be more proportionate and focus on the areas that are more likely to be of interest to both Scotland and the committee? That would make it easier on officials, given the breadth of the stuff that they could be doing.

Thinking back to the Brexit debate, two scenarios were set out: one was that we would reach sunny uplands, full of opportunity, with no or very little regulation. On the other side, it was said that Brexit would be an enormous act of self-harm. I am getting a distinct impression from the sector about which of those two scenarios you feel is being played out. Perhaps this sector, more than any other, shows the folly of cutting ourselves off from a huge market right on our doorstep. It is depressing to hear some of the stories about people who have stopped working in their profession or stopped performing or touring.

I have two quick questions. The first is the extent to which the things that we have been discussing were predicted or predictable. Was it possible to know that those things were going to happen, or have some of them become apparent subsequently? What proportion of things does that apply to—if you can make a guesstimate of that? That question is for any member of the panel.

My second question is specifically for Lisa Whytock. I was quite surprised at this, but I am new to the committee, so this might be something that everyone else knows. You said that Scotland was too small a country to sustain full-time musicians. If that is the case, is there a cut-off in country sizes for the ability to sustain full-time musicians? Do you have an idea of what size of country would be able to do that?

I invite any member of the panel to comment on the things that have had a big effect that have become apparent since Brexit that were perhaps not predicted or predictable beforehand.

I suppose that there is a distinction to be drawn with regard to the Government’s obligation to look across the whole scope of things, but if the Government and the committee can agree a position where what we receive has more relevance and less volume, that will be good.

In response to Mark Ruskell, you mentioned talking to the EU ourselves. Obviously, the EU is the source of much of the legislation, but you might be aware that this Parliament and this committee have the ability to nominate to CALRE—the Conference of Regional Legislative Assemblies—which I have been nominated to, or the proximity group or whatever it is called to the Committee of the Regions. However, we will not have a member on that for many months to come, which I think undermines the ability of this committee and this Parliament to have those direct conversations. I do not know whether it is proper to do this—I know that the committee clerks are working on it—but could the Government prevail upon the UK Government to speed the process up as quickly as possible?