Chamber and committees

To ask the Scottish Government, as part of the delivery of its hate crime strategy, what action it is taking to tackle online extreme right-wing radicalisation. (S6O-03634)

The far right is a growing threat across many European countries. It is in government in countries such as Italy and the Netherlands, and it is on the rise in France and Germany. In the United Kingdom, some Conservatives are now openly debating a merger with the far right after the current election.

Does the Scottish Government share the concern about the threat that is posed not only by extremist far-right rhetoric but by the homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, racism and anti-migrant rhetoric that comes with it, which is now a core part of the business model of a number of social media platforms? What is the Government’s view on the role of regulation of those social media platforms?

I share the frustration at those members who are happy that we are out of the European Union but pretend to be sad that we have lost European funding. However, I am still unclear about some of the DFM’s answers in response to media reports. Has she seen the report claiming that a paper was presented to the Scottish Government’s programme monitoring committee in June 2019 that referred to

“serious deficiencies in the [managing authority’s]”—

that is, the Scottish Government’s—

“management and control system for the [structural funds].”

Is that report accurate? What deficiencies were being referred to? Was anything done to correct them?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The member who asked the previous question is well aware that the SNP is the administration in Glasgow City Council. Is it in order for her to misrepresent that fact?

I will take one intervention if there is time.

Will the member take an intervention?

The member is right about some of those restrictions, but it is a matter of fact that, for many years, successive Scottish Governments have prioritised the building of high-carbon infrastructure such as roads instead of investing in low-carbon infrastructure.

Fifteen years ago, Scotland set legally binding climate targets. The goal was to achieve a step change in emission cuts and to become a world leader on climate policy. However, in truth, Scotland’s emissions were slowly coming down before the act, and they continued on pretty much the same trajectory. Apart from renewable electricity, in pretty much every other sector, we have seen emissions broadly flatlining or reducing so modestly that it made very little difference. How we use energy, as well as transport policy, land use policy and more, should have seen ambitious policy change to drive down emissions from other sectors. That did not happen. As a result, Scotland is now years behind where we should be.

Although we will support the Labour amendment, it is questionable to refer to “consistent cross-party support” for ambitious action. In fact, cross-party support has often been lacking for the policy change that is needed.

Road traffic emissions will not come down without price playing its part in demand management. Land-use emissions will not come down without fundamental changes to what food we produce and how we subsidise it. Heating emissions will not come down without an ambitious programme to get us off the gas grid and to face down the lobbyists for the status quo—as well as those in the Parliament who have seemed determined to water down the heat in buildings programme.

We are also being held back by the false but prevalent idea that the market must lead the transition, or indeed that the fossil fuel industry should itself be allowed to determine the timescale for action. Let us be clear about the fossil fuel industry’s track record. It has known about the harm that it was doing since the 1950s. There were decades of cover-up, followed by decades of deliberate propaganda to create a climate denial conspiracy movement. Nowadays, most oil and gas companies have moved away from denial toward delay: “We need a transition, but please make it slower.” It is like Augustine’s prayer: “Lord, grant me chastity but, please, Lord, not yet.”

There was a time when the world could have made the transition slowly, but that time was decades ago; we are long past that point now. By most estimates, around two thirds of oil and gas reserves must stay in the ground. That means that investment in fossil fuel supply must decline dramatically now and in the years ahead. What are the fossil fuel giants doing now, however? They have generated truly vast profits. BP’s profits were nearly $28 billion in 2022 and nearly $14 billion the year after. Shell raked in $40 billion and $28 billion in the same years. Yet both companies’ investment in clean energy has flatlined, and both have doubled down on new fossil fuel investment.

Indeed, Presiding Officer.

The First Minister is right about the additional revenue from income tax as a result of the work that the Greens did to show how that could be done, but he presented no plans at all for a wealth tax. As I said, the Greens worked out the detail on progressive income tax for Scotland, so maybe the First Minister is relying on us once again to do the work for him. He supports our proposals for a wealth tax on the richest 1 per cent, which would raise at least £70 billion. The real problem for the First Minister is that, whichever party forms the next UK Government, it will still be committed to Tory fiscal rules and will still refuse to rejoin the European Union, which will cut off both sources of extra revenue that the First Minister is relying on.

When a new Labour chancellor inevitably imposes more austerity to keep Labour’s new billionaire backers happy, what will the First Minister do with the taxes that he does control? Will he go further to raise the funds that we need to stop more cuts in Scotland, and will he finally scrap the broken council tax system to let our councils raise the revenue that they need to protect their services?

In precisely that vein, the First Minister tried this week to present the Scottish National Party as the only party that is committed to ending the cuts and reversing austerity. Apart from changes to income tax, which have already been done in Scotland, thanks to pressure from the Greens, the only actual change that he proposed was to devolve taxes and not increase them. Scotland should have control over oil and gas windfall taxes, other corporate taxes, national insurance, fuel duty and VAT, but only if we use those powers to raise revenue. The only change that the First Minister proposed was a VAT cut. Does he agree with the Greens that reversing the cuts and providing the investment that the country so clearly needs can be done only by raising significant revenue from the super-rich, who are hoarding the country’s wealth?