Chamber and committees

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I note that the member is interested in accuracy. Is it in order for members to misrepresent that late-night interim update as guidance? “Guidance” has statutory meaning. The update is not guidance. That is an inaccurate statement.

Those who have been trying to undo decades of progress on LGBT people’s human rights and inclusion in society may be keen to carry on doing more as quickly as they can, but does the cabinet secretary recognise the extraordinary level—

As a Dumbarton expat, I obviously agree with Jackie Baillie about the value of having creative industries in the town.

I thank Neil Bibby for securing the motion for debate in the chamber, and it should be of importance to everyone, regardless of whether they are a fan of the programme. I freely confess, with deep apologies to our guests in the public gallery, that my TV habits—for which I make no apologies—involve rather more spaceships and aliens than we normally see in episodes of “River City”.

I want the screen sector to thrive in Scotland, because of, as we have heard, the critical importance of telling distinctively Scottish stories, which the big streamers are not necessarily going to fund. We will have a thriving sector only if we have the ecosystem that makes it possible and which provides the opportunities for people to get started in their careers.

I express my sincere thanks to the cast and crew of “River City” for welcoming me and my colleague Gillian Mackay on a recent visit. I would say that we saw two things there. First, we saw the incredible pride that the whole team takes in their work—and rightly so. We have heard a lot about the work on training, which, I have to say, has happened not always because the BBC told the team to do it, but sometimes despite the BBC’s expectations, with the team only getting the credit afterwards. There is a huge number of roles, ranging from electricians to make-up, costume and props professionals, camera trainees and script editors—I will not list them all. We all know about their incredible work in taking an inclusive approach to training.

In many ways, soaps such as “River City” and a number of other on-going productions do for television and the screen sector what weekly repertory theatre might well have done for the stage in previous generations. They create opportunities for people to get their first break. Many of those whom I met work not only on “River City”; they spend part of the year working on other productions.

I endorse the comments from the hundreds of industry professionals who have added their names to a petition to save “River City”. One writer wrote:

“My concern is for those coming along behind me. What about their opportunities, their careers, their finances, their futures, that of their families? What will happen to their break, their lifeline, their support, their welcome to the world of TV drama, which I received?”

That sort of thing is not going to be replaced by a few individual, one-off, six-part dramas that fit better with the streaming model and the way in which television is changing, even if significant investment goes into them. I am sure that positive value will come out of that and that there will be opportunities for some people to get jobs, but it will not provide the ecosystem and that basic level of first, second and third job opportunities that “River City” has such a strong track record of providing, and which the entire industry depends on.

The folk whom I met at “River City” know that they are not working on the highest-end, highest-value production. They are proud of what they do, because of the role that the programme plays in supporting the entire rest of the industry. High-end productions depend on that throughput of talent coming through, generation after generation, and it is one of the things that “River City” provides.

The second thing that I saw on our visit was that the people whom I met recognise that the industry is changing. They are not suggesting that everything be preserved in aspic. They recognise that the industry is experiencing a move away from linear television, due to the role of the streamers and the costs of production, but they want to be able to continue to ensure that those training opportunities and those first, second and third job opportunities are there for the future of the industry, even if that does not happen exactly as it happens now. However, that is what I do not see in the BBC’s proposals for what is to come after this.

I do not believe that the BBC has offered either an appropriate off-ramp for a model, if it wants to change the current one, or opportunities for people in the current team who are working on “River City” and for the next generations of people who need to get a foothold in the industry. However, that is what we need if the Scottish screen sector, more generally, is to thrive.

The cabinet secretary is right to put some of this in the context of the charter renewal, because one of the things that have changed, and which will not go back to the way that it was, is that, at the beginning of the era of the BBC, licence fee-funded public service broadcasting dominated production. Now, production is dominated by commercial models, including those of the big streaming services, which are not funding infrastructure and the ecosystem in the way that the BBC used to. Therefore, does the Scottish Government support the idea of a levy on the streaming services so that we have revenue funds to invest in productions—whether those are made by the BBC or anyone else—that create that ecosystem and which can sustain what the BBC does not want to sustain at the moment?

Will Neil Bibby say a little more about what he means by international partners with whom we share common goals? Given the Trump regime’s alignment with anti-democratic forces and its direct threats against previously friendly democratic countries, surely the UK must conclude that it can no longer be treated as a reliable ally.

I often argue that hope is hard work these days. As we look at the international situation, there are so many aspects that need unpacking that it is hard to know where to begin. Whether we are talking about the economic chaos that is coming from Donald Trump’s on-again, off-again, will-he, won’t-he tariff chaos or the security implications of his realignment of US posture against democratic countries and with Putin’s regime, there is a need for Europe and the UK in particular to recognise that, in that context, the US can no longer be seen as a reliable ally.

There is the Russian occupation and war in Ukraine, more than three years on from the full-scale invasion; there is Israel’s genocide in Gaza, with more than 50,000 dead—mostly civilians, at least half of them women and children—and endless examples of the Israeli Government and the Israel Defense Forces openly committing war crimes and celebrating it; and there is the violence in the wider world.

Then, of course, there is the climate and nature emergency: despite knowing for decades about the profound danger that we have been causing, the world has continued to expand fossil fuel use, polluting at ever higher levels and devastating the natural world for profit, and we are now witnessing a reboot of denial and conspiracy theories to prevent the rational action that we know is needed.

The scale of the refugee crisis continues to grow. At the end of 2023, more than 117 million people around the world were forcibly displaced due to persecution, conflict, violence, human rights violations and more. By early 2024, that number had grown to more than 120 million. That is before we consider those forced to move by economics or by changes in climate and food production—changes that global refugee conventions are simply unprepared to cope with.

Just as many countries enact ever more brutal and inhuman policies to control and exclude refugees, many are also becoming ever more authoritarian against their own citizens, with the so-called culture war agenda generating a wave of hatred and hostility against the most marginalised.

Are those really disparate crises, each with a specific source of chaos in a turbulent world, or are they aspects of a wider, more general crisis—one of humanity’s making, which threatens our whole world? That can seem like a daunting question even just to consider but, in my view, the recent writing of Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor has come close to an answer. They talk about the rise of what they describe as “end-times fascism”.

Some, of course, will scoff and splutter whenever the word “fascism” is used, despite the evidence. Some even refuse to see what is in front of them—a US Administration that is using every possible means to prevent the peaceful transfer of power after losing an election, or, once returned to power, that is overseeing an ideological and literal purge of people who are legally protected from deportation. I cannot help those who refuse to see fascism for what it is, even when it is in front of them.

However, the point that Klein and Taylor make is beyond that. They contrast the fascism of the past—which offered the selfish hope of a purified future for the chosen—with the end-times fascism of today, which is led by those who appear to be prepping for the catastrophe that they have caused. The control and expulsion of unwanted people; the seeking to exploit the resources of other countries through threat, occupation or the abuse of economic power; the attempts of the super-rich to buy their ticket out of collapse in gated communities, corporate city states or Elon Musk’s absurd fantasy of a future on Mars once they have destroyed the life-sustaining conditions on this world; and the fossil fuel industry’s doubling down on its own self-interest, despite knowing the consequences—all those things give the appearance of the alignment of powerful political and economic interests that have recognised that we already live in an age of consequences and crises that have been brought about by their actions. However, they are too invested in the economic model that has created those crises to consider taking the rational action that is necessary to address them.

As Klein and Taylor have argued, they are not just taking advantage of catastrophes, shock doctrine and the disaster-capitalism policies of the past; they are, simultaneously, provoking and planning for those crises. In what should be astonishing and sickening to any civilised person, those who have built the modern far-right movement around the world are now openly launching an ideological attack on the very concept of empathy. In truth, that is entirely in keeping with their values. Their ability to frame empathy as a weakness will be essential to them if they are to continue their sociopathic project. Their level of brutality against the powerless is already sickening, but, if they are successful at dehumanising humanity itself, far worse is to come.

Where can we find hope when hope is hard work? I will come back to that in my closing speech, but Klein and Taylor have set out the possible alternative of the sources of hope in the future as a counter to the apocalyptic narrative of the far right and the vested interests. It is a story about how to survive the hard times ahead without leaving anyone behind. It is about not escaping a collapsing world but, as they have said,

“staying put and staying faithful to the troubled earthly reality in which we are enmeshed and bound.”

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?