Chamber and committees

On a point of order, Presiding Officer, the member appears to be debating a business motion that was debated and voted on before the April recess, rather than debating the international situation. I know that Mr Ross does not always follow the standing orders of the Parliament, but I wonder whether the Presiding Officer could advise members on that point.

It is a pleasure to follow the closing speaker in the open debate, as she clearly understands the reason why we are having this debate. I am afraid that far too many members have questioned that and simply do not understand the relevance of the issue that has been brought to the chamber today. The First Minister said, in masterful understatement, that the debate would raise issues that have implications for our communities. It is clear that the implications of those issues are deep, widespread and extremely troubling.

I find it easy to see justification for the debate. I regret that, although this Parliament has never been restricted from debating reserved matters, and even local councils are not restricted from debating UK and global matters, some members of this Parliament seem to think that we should not be doing so. The opportunity to make contributions to debates on such matters is a privilege that everyone who serves in the Parliament has, but I fear that some Tory MSPs appear to treat that privilege with contempt.

I started by mentioning Karen Adam’s speech, which drew attention to the impact of far-right propaganda that is beginning to take root in her community. I see the same happening in Glasgow—first online and then, beyond that, out in the real world. I have no doubt that it is growing in many other parts of the country.

Emma Roddick took the opportunity, using the privilege of taking part in such debates, to introduce issues that no one else had raised. I think that she was the first speaker in the debate to talk about disinformation, misinformation, the growth of conspiracy theories and AI’s role in the creation and dissemination of such material. As we debated in Emma Roddick’s recent members’ business debate, AI has both positive and negative implications. However, the unregulated rush to the development of that technology and its unregulated, disruptive application is clearly operating in the interests of the few and seeking to sow division, as well as being projected to use an extraordinary amount of energy, which ties the issue back to the climate crisis.

It is clear from several members’ comments that people understand the critical choice that the UK now faces. I wish that Scotland was able to make that choice for itself, but, at the moment, the UK is faced with making it. Is it going to repair, rebuild and restore its relationship with the European Union—our wider political family of nations? That is our best path forward. It is the best path that Scotland could take, and it is the best path that the UK could take. However, that is not compatible with the continued delusion that kowtowing to Trump can, in some way, serve the country well. Fawning to a bully never works; it will only embolden him.

I was pleased that the First Minister drew attention to the Scottish Government’s continued support for international aid. That comes in the context of utterly indefensible—morally and economically indefensible—cuts to investment in international aid and development by the UK and other countries.

The First Minister said that, during his visit to the US, he did not take the time to meet climate scientists, who are on the receiving end of the Trump regime’s hostility and ideological purge. Did he meet migrant rights organisations? Those are the people who are standing up for those who are being disappeared on US streets and campuses and being deported—even those who have legal protection from deportation—to other countries and, in some cases, put into prison without a trial. Did he meet libraries, universities or independent media outlets, which are also on the receiving end of the ideological purge that is taking place in the US? Did he meet equality and human rights activists and workers, who face the same thing?

Any one of those people or interest groups, knowing the threats that they currently face, would have been privileged to have a meeting with a visiting First Minister. I hope that, in the future, the Scottish Government will place emphasis on the point that, if our relationship with the US is important, that relationship is with its people, particularly those who are in the most vulnerable position in the face of the Trump regime.

I will finish with the full version of a quote that I had to curtail in my opening speech. Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor finished their article, which I referred to, with a moment of hope. They ask:

“How do we break this apocalyptic fever? First, we help each other face the depth of the depravity that has gripped the hard right in all of our countries. To move forward with focus, we must ... understand this simple fact: we are up against an ideology that has given up not only on the premise and promise of liberal democracy but on the livability of our shared world—on its beauty, on its people, on our children, on other species. The forces we are up against have made peace with mass death. They are treasonous to this world and its human and non-human inhabitants.”

They finish by saying:

“we counter their apocalyptic narratives with a ... better story about how to survive the hard times ahead without leaving anyone behind.”

That is the challenge that really faces us if we want to address all the interconnected aspects of the international situation that we have debated today, both globally and here at home.

I am grateful to the First Minister for addressing the climate issue in the context of the international situation.

In the First Minister’s recent visit to the US—a country where a full-on ideological purge is under way against climate science, climate scientists and those who seek to bring about positive and rational climate action—did he take the time to meet any of the people in that area who are on the receiving end of the brutality of the Trump regime?

I support the continued existence of the GlobalScot network, which has positive value if we ensure that only people whom we are keen to work with are involved. Given the history of Donald Trump having been appointed to it and then, ultimately, having had to be removed from it, is the Government playing an active role in looking at who, historically, has been put into the network and who is still active in it, and ensuring that it includes exclusively people whom we are happy to have working with us in what is sometimes portrayed as a quasi-ambassadorial role?

That is very kind.

Thank you.

The point that I am making, though, is that Parliament needs to be able to do more than ask questions, and even more than get answers to questions. Although there is an agreement across the Parliament that the common frameworks architecture should be made to work, individual common frameworks are not put to Parliament for debate, scrutiny and amendment. Once common frameworks have been agreed between the Governments, that effectively constrains the ability of Parliament to legislate. Is there not a similar question to be asked about the common frameworks architecture and where parliamentary authority and the right to decide lie?

That is a little bit in the same sense that there is a massive unanswered question about the right of the devolved jurisdictions to decide in the context of the IMA.

I put on record my apologies for being a few minutes late and missing the cabinet secretary’s initial remarks.

It is probably not unknown for committee members to hear only the evidence that they want to hear. I am bracing myself for the sessions in which we agree a committee report, but I am confident that the majority of the committee will reflect the balance of the evidence that we have heard. I have heard people give evidence that supports the Scottish Government’s position and evidence that departs from it. We have heard a range of evidence, and I want to reflect on it all.

I want to ask two things: first, about the Scottish Government’s position, and then about your understanding of the UK Government’s position. I might regret saying this, but the latter is more likely to direct where we get to with the issue. You not only suggest that the internal market act itself is unnecessary—I am comfortable with that proposition—but that the common frameworks arrangements and architecture are adequate and that we should rest on those in order to ensure market access and so on.

I recognise that the internal market act constrains the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government’s power, but is it not equally arguable that common frameworks constrain the Scottish Parliament’s power, because they are subject to agreement between Governments? The internal market act might have offered a tolerable way forward if it had been co-legislated—if this Parliament had had an opportunity to debate and amend the bill and to decide whether it agreed to it. If that had been a joint piece of work between two jurisdictions, it might have been an agreeable way forward.

That has not happened with common frameworks, either. Do common frameworks not constrain the power of Parliament and give a little bit of unaccountable power to Governments? Is there a way in which you could see common frameworks evolving to ensure that the bulk of the authority and power rests with the Parliament, which is the body that the Scottish people ultimately gave that authority to when they created this place?

Thank you.

The minimum unit pricing example leads on quite well to my final question, which is on the UK Government’s position—or at least, cabinet secretary, your understanding of the UK Government’s position.

As a Green politician, I am well used to having to hold fast to the true vision of what I believe in, while at the same time recognising that there will not be a majority for it and that I will have to compromise and figure out how close I can get to it. I am not going to suggest that you should not advocate for what is in your paper—in fact, I would probably advocate for a lot of what is in it with regard to the architecture that ought to be in place. However, we know that, in reality, the current UK Government seems unlikely to scrap the IMA and might not even make major changes to it.

Therefore, I would like to ask you about your attitude to some of the specific propositions for change that some of our witnesses have talked about. One proposition was for an explicit list of criteria for exemptions. Indeed, if we had had such a list, and if minimum unit pricing had been taking place under the IMA, we would have been able to argue that it aligned with a specific exemption criterion. Another proposition was for a shift in the burden of proof, so that the default expectation would be that devolved legislatures had the right to act, and the UK Government would have to come forward with a sufficient burden of proof if it wanted to constrain that. Those kinds of more modest changes do not go as far as I want—and they will not go as far as you want, either, cabinet secretary—but if they are achievable, what will be the Scottish Government’s attitude to them? Do you think that, politically, they are achievable, given the discussions that you have had so far with UK colleagues?

Thank you.