Chamber and committees

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 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 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?

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests.

Today, we have heard what MSPs think of the budget, but, in due course, we will hear what people think of it. It is probably useful to look beyond the details of the budget—which we have heard a great deal about this afternoon—to some of the broader themes.

Many people will form a judgment on the budget based on the issue of trust. The SNP has balanced its budget for 17 years. It built the new Queensferry crossing with £400 million less than was budgeted for it. It built the Aberdeen western peripheral route, which previous Administrations had just talked about. It built in the Borders the longest piece of new rail infrastructure in the UK for 100 years. It built many new primary and secondary schools across Scotland, and it provided the child payment, free tuition fees and free prescriptions.

We also abolished the bedroom tax. We used to hear a lot about issues with the bedroom tax from Labour, but we do not hear about them any more, given that the bedroom tax has been left untouched in England.

As for the Tories, they brought us the highest tax burden since world war two, with the country more than £2 trillion in debt. It is the party of financial incompetence on a grand scale. The Tories also gutted the armed forces in terms of both personnel and equipment. Sandesh Gulhane said that the SNP spends beyond its means, but his party left us £2 trillion in debt and with the highest tax burden since the second world war. Where are the bankrupt councils in the UK? They are not in Scotland—they are in England and Wales.

What about Labour? It is the party that started by saying, “There’s no money left,” and, by abstaining on the budget, it is now the party with no conviction left. In the words of the dictionary, it has decided to refrain from performing a public duty. That says it all about the Labour Party—it has absolutely no conviction whatsoever. Since Labour was elected in the UK, it cannot be trusted on finance. It has already changed the fiscal rules, and the headroom that it talked about has already gone. On trust, the SNP Government comes out well ahead.

There are two very big issues underlining the budget of which the public will certainly take note. The first relates to the tax on jobs through ENICs. I will give a local example of the detrimental impact of that policy. Scottish Autism, an organisation that is anchored in my Clackmannanshire and Dunblane constituency, provides indispensable services across communities, but it is now confronted with an unsustainable financial burden. It has forecast an annual increase in costs of up to £850,000 due to the policy. That £850,000 should be channelled into improving lives and enhancing services in communities; it should not be wasted on mitigating the fall-out from an ill-conceived policy decision.

The jeopardy that organisations such as Scottish Autism face underscores a profound policy failure that threatens the very fabric of our community support systems. We cannot and must not allow that to continue. The Labour Party’s choice to stay silent and abstain from this historic budget vote speaks volumes, not least in relation to the impact on the fabric of our communities.

The other major issue that casts a huge shadow over the budget relates to Ukraine. The budget is perhaps not directly affected, but it has to be formulated against the backdrop of the threat of future major public spending cuts. I speak for myself when I say that there is no option other than that we will have to contemplate a substantial increase in defence expenditure in relation to personnel and equipment. That means rearmament, recruitment and research. We will do that because we want to defend not just Ukraine but Europe. However, in my view, this Parliament cannot be asked to subsidise nuclear weapons or an even more obscene nuclear weapons system such as the one that might replace Trident. That cannot be demanded of us.

Nor should we be subsidising the complete failure of successive UK Governments, which have gutted the armed forces to the extent that they are now 20,000 below what they were in Napoleonic times. That has now been admitted by previous Labour and Conservative secretaries of state. The equipment and the training are not there.

Nobody can deny that Russia poses an existential threat, especially given the fact that the guarantees that we have taken for granted since the second world war are now absent. The idea that we protect countries only if we can extort their mineral resources is the geopolitics of protectionism, and we should have no truck with it. We should protect Europe because we want to protect Europe.

In summary, we have to make that contribution, but we should not give carte blanche to a UK Government that has not shown itself to be capable of properly building a defence infrastructure. The response should be European-led—I say “European” rather than EU, because I do not know how Romania and Hungary will respond. We should be willing to back a European-led response.

I will make one final point. Some big issues have been touched on in the debate, such as social care and reform of local government finance. It would be ideal if, before the election, the parties could show that they have the maturity to get together to agree some common ground. That would squeeze out room for manoeuvre for whoever is successful in forming the Government, but the long-standing issues of local government finance reform and social care have to be addressed if we are to improve the quality of life of people in Scotland.

There is no question but that there are difficult times ahead, but I am delighted to support what is an excellent budget.

The First Minister will be aware that the United Kingdom Treasury has forecast that energy bills could soar by more than £100 in April. It is the third rise since Labour came to power, despite Labour’s election promise that it would cut household energy bills by £300. Does the First Minister share my concern about what appears to be yet another broken election promise from Anas Sarwar’s Westminster bosses? Will the First Minister join me in calling on the UK Government to take urgent action to support families across Scotland with energy costs ahead of the next energy cap announcement, which is expected next week?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I could not connect; I would have voted yes.

It is vital that the voices of the workforce, many of whom live in my constituency, are listened to closely when options for the site’s future are considered. We cannot simply sit back and watch another economic crisis unfold in central Scotland due to apparent inaction from Westminster, particularly in relation to carbon capture. Can the First Minister say any more about the Scottish Government’s latest engagement, specifically with regard to trade unions?

If Ms Smith can be brief, I will give way.

Why can the Labour Party not support something that will address the horrendous decision to cut the winter fuel allowance? You would think that it would jump at the opportunity to do that.

We have heard a great deal from the Conservatives and the Labour Party. They are very much in favour of reform, even to the extent that they are willing to give their votes away to the Reform party, as we can see. I read today that Anas Sarwar is willing to work with Nigel Farage on a case-by-case basis. That gives the game away as to what kind of Labour Party we currently have in this Parliament.

This is a very good budget but, of course, it should be open to influence and amendment if members have any decent ideas and they can say where they would make cuts. The Tories have been asked a number of times where they would get their tax cuts from. Is it local government? Is it transport? Is it health? They will not say because they cannot say. This is a good budget, and I urge the Parliament to support it.

I refer members to my entry in the register of members’ interests. I also say well done to the cabinet secretary for the work that she has put in so far—it has not been an easy process—as well as to her civil servants and colleagues in the Scottish Government. I also include within that the Greens and the Lib Dems, who have taken a positive and constructive approach to the very serious business of ensuring that funds are available for public services in Scotland.

It is worth mentioning that there are some very good things in this budget bill, the general principles of which we are being asked to support. I am very pleased about the uplift for local government. Whatever our party, we can all acknowledge the fact that it has been a difficult few years for local government because of budget settlements from elsewhere. It is a great relief to see a real uplift for local government services.

In relation to health, I note that I currently have cause to interact with the health service a great deal, and my experience is that people are fed up with the work that they are doing being denigrated in this place on a weekly basis. They know that they are better paid and that there is more money coming to the health service. Of course there are challenges, but they provide an excellent service. It is good to see the uplift that is being allocated to health as well.

Similarly, it is a tough time for our police force, but, at every level in Scotland, they are paid more than their counterparts elsewhere in the UK, and we should not let the budget pass without saying that we are grateful that that will continue.

A couple of members have mentioned free prescriptions, and we sometimes forget how important they are to people across the country, as are free tuition fees. There are horror stories down south just now because people face tuition fee debts of hundreds of thousands of pounds. Apart from being a disincentive to other people to go on to further and higher education, that is a crippling start to people’s working lives, and we will not have that in Scotland, just as we will not have the bedroom tax once again. We used to hear a great deal about that, but we do not hear so much about it these days.

We should also recognise that, in this country, we have a publicly owned train company that is deemed to be the best train operating company in the UK, and it is great to see that continuing under this budget.

I very much welcome the proposal to have a cap on bus fares for a trial period. At some point in the future—although I would not propose it for this parliamentary session—we might have to consider a completely free bus service, because of the benefits that that could provide for the environment and for people across the country. The trial is a great initiative to see whether we can start that process.

Over and above that, two things should be mentioned. One is the action on the two-child cap—which we have heard little about from Labour or the Tories, but which is so important to many people—and the other is the action on the winter fuel allowance.

It seems absolutely astonishing that all the benefits that I have just mentioned will be opposed by the Tory party and not supported by the Labour Party.

Let us look at the Tories. The Tories will vote against the budget and Labour will not support it, but I could not believe it when I heard Pam Gosal accuse the Scottish Government of financial incompetence. The Government of Liz Truss is the very acme of Tory financial incompetence.

Let us look in more detail at the Tories’ track record. People in England now pay higher tax than the majority of people in Scotland. The Tories do not like that fact, but it is simply a fact. The majority of people in Scotland pay less tax than people in the rest of the UK. The Tories brought in the highest tax burden since the second world war.