The next item of business is a statement by John Swinney on international solidarity to support Ukraine. The First Minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.
14:15
Just last Monday, all of Scotland’s political leaders took part in a powerful and moving ceremony at Edinburgh castle to mark three years since the start of Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. We stood together with members of the Ukrainian community living here in Scotland to commemorate the time that has passed since the start of that invasion but also to reaffirm our support for the people of Ukraine. Although we disagree on points of policy and politics in this chamber—which is right and proper in a parliamentary democracy—when it comes to upholding the values and principles of modern democracy, the Scottish Parliament stands behind Ukraine, resolute and unwavering. [Applause.]
Regardless of our political views, everyone in this chamber understands that democracy is hard fought for and must never be taken for granted. Democracy must be cherished, defended and enhanced. That is the lesson of the 20th century and it is the lesson that the people of Ukraine live, struggle and fight to teach us every day.
The courage demonstrated by President Zelenskyy and by all Ukrainians since the first day of Russia’s illegal full-scale invasion reaches far beyond the protection and preservation of their own homeland. Ukrainians struggle and fight for all of Europe and for the protection and preservation of all democratic nations. It is a struggle for the rule of law, for human rights and to uphold the international norms that once ensured that Europe knew guaranteed peace. The Ukrainian people are fighting for their homeland and their future, but for our future, too.
Three years ago, Russia expected to flatten Ukrainian resistance within days but, despite a war that has caused years of unnecessary misery in a peaceful, sovereign and democratic nation, the power of the fight for democracy and all its freedoms has given the Ukrainian people their purpose as well as their most potent advantage. Ukraine’s people are fighting to defend her independence, her territorial integrity and her security in the face of appalling, unprovoked violence—violence that has destroyed lives, separated families, wounded hundreds of thousands of citizens and razed cities to the ground—yet President Zelenskyy has not wavered in strength or dignity. His people have not laid down arms and Russia has not succeeded in reaching its war aims, despite sending hundreds of thousands of troops to their deaths, or to be wounded, on the front lines.
Now, as a result of all that unnecessary carnage, millions of Ukrainian children have never known peace, while western democracy has never been under such relentless attack from within. Misinformation, propaganda, malicious interpretations of history, arrogance, ignorance, prejudice and hate are being used to divide us. Only yesterday, after Russia launched a drone attack on a civilian building in Kharkiv, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said:
“We see that the collective West has started to become less collective. A fragmentation of the collective West has begun.”
That is precisely what Russia wants its people and the world to believe and it is precisely what Putin wants us to believe. We must be ever vigilant to the threat of disinformation, which takes the shape of the Kremlin’s talking points.
Russia was not provoked to invade Ukraine, in 2014 or in 2022. No credence should be given to deflection tactics that blame NATO expansion for Russian aggression. Each and every country in NATO is a democracy that has made its own sovereign choice to become a member, and many of the countries on NATO’s eastern flank have recent experience of living under Russian threat.
The strong international solidarity and dedication to achieving peace in Ukraine was evident for all to see at the security summit in London this weekend. The vast majority of European leaders have only one message—their unreserved condemnation of illegal Russian aggression.
Therefore, Ukraine’s allies should all have one aim and one aim only—to support Ukraine’s independence, her territorial integrity and her security. I whole-heartedly welcome the Prime Minister’s “coalition of the willing” initiative to provide Ukraine with security guarantees after a ceasefire agreement, as well as the £1.6 billion missile deal for Ukraine. I also accept the case for peacekeeping forces to avert further conflict, subject to proper scrutiny and a vote in the House of Commons, and I understand the delicate balance of diplomacy that the Prime Minister and the United Kingdom Government must navigate in this matter.
I make clear my commitment and the commitment of my Government to a united front and to doing all that I can to support Ukraine to succeed. However—like the many European leaders who expressed their solidarity with President Zelenskyy this weekend, I am sure—I am very disturbed by how his meeting with the US President and Vice President played out last week. I agree with President Zelenskyy’s statement that Ukraine wants its partners
“to remember who the aggressor is in this war.”
We must see unwavering unity across the political spectrum in full solidarity with Ukraine on that essential point. The events at the Oval office meeting with President Zelenskyy and the announcement that was made this morning of a pause in US military aid to Ukraine can only run the risk of emboldening Russia—the aggressor. As I said this weekend, if that were to remain the posture of the US Government, a second state visit for US President Donald Trump would become unthinkable. I know that there are people in this chamber and across this country who will disagree—people who will say that we should not contemplate this stance or who will say that President Trump should not be invited under any circumstances. I understand and respect those points of view but I cannot share them.
Right now, today, as we stand here, men, women and children in Ukraine are putting their lives and their freedom on the line to defend their country and all our democracies. We say that we support them, and we do, but that means being willing to do things that are hard—things that we would rather not do. So, if a state visit could help to solidify US support for Ukraine—if that is part of what supporting Ukraine means in practice—it is a possibility. For that to be true, however, the US would have to sustain the steadfast support of Ukraine, her independence and her territorial integrity.
As we think through all these issues, the important questions are the hard-headed, clear-eyed consideration of what is best for Ukraine and for European security today. For my Government, that means standing steadfast behind Ukraine and alongside the United Kingdom Government and our European allies, and that is exactly what Scotland will do.
My hope is that US and European leaders can once again find a way to speak with one voice on the matter of this conflict. There are no grey areas when one country chooses to send troops and tanks into the peaceful territory of another. My Government supports the approach of the United Kingdom Government in committing to secure international solidarity in support of Ukraine’s long-term future. We welcome the 100-year partnership that was recently agreed by the United Kingdom and Ukraine, and Scotland will play our part, whether as part of the United Kingdom or as an independent nation in the future, in helping to deliver it.
I also welcome the approach of the Prime Minister and the proposed four-point plan to end the war and defend Ukraine from Russia. As I have already stated, Scotland accepts the case for the deployment of any peacekeeping forces to avert future conflict, subject to scrutiny and a vote by members of Parliament in the House of Commons. My Government remains committed to supporting Ukraine until a just peace is secured—not a peace at any cost, which strips Ukraine of her sovereignty in wartime.
Let me once again make clear that there can be no truly sincere or constructive peace talks about the future of Ukraine without Ukraine being present at the negotiating table and that securing the future of Ukraine is utterly vital to securing the peace that we have enjoyed in Europe for so long. Ukraine’s future and her fate is our future and our fate, so we must aspire to be as courageous as the people of Ukraine and stand by them, always, in their hour of need.
We must maintain unity with our partners across Europe and the western world—unity like that demonstrated in London this weekend and at Edinburgh castle last week—because events in Ukraine are having, and will continue to have, a direct negative impact on Scotland’s economy, security and society. Scotland’s approach internationally will continue to be led and guided by our compassion for Ukraine. I know that members in the chamber will continue to work together on these matters and to put any differences aside in respect of our common efforts to uphold justice.
Now, 25 years into the life of this modern Parliament, Scotland chooses to stand for democracy, for human rights and the rule of law, at home and among our courageous allies such as Ukraine. Those are the underpinnings of democracy, of prosperity, and of every freedom that democracy provides. That is the solidarity among allies that will deliver Ukraine from Russia’s barbaric aggression, while protecting her heritage, her culture and her social and economic future.
We have, across Scotland, been honoured that thousands of Ukrainians have made their home in our country. My message to people from Ukraine who are living here in Scotland, is that you are, and always will be, very welcome here. Providing support and sanctuary for Ukrainian people who have been displaced by Russia’s brutal war continues to be a priority for the Scottish Government. I want Ukrainians everywhere to know that they also have Scotland’s fullest support; I know that many of them will be deeply concerned by what has unfolded over the past few days. It is for those brave Ukrainians, and every person who is protected by democracy, that Scotland will never be silent. Here in Scotland, we will, forever, stand with Ukraine. [Applause.]
The First Minister will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 30 minutes for questions. It would be helpful if members who wish to put a question were to press their request-to-speak buttons.
We are honoured to be joined today, in the public gallery, by the consul of Ukraine in Edinburgh. [Applause.]
For more than a century, the United Kingdom and the United States have been the strongest of friends and allies, our bonds forged by shared values of freedom and democracy. During the first and second world wars, we fought alongside other allies to defeat fascism. In the cold war, our unity and resolve prevented the very real threat of a third world war and defeated the tyranny of the Soviet Union.
Today, however, the old alliances that have endured throughout our lifetimes do not seem as certain. Last week’s disturbing public disagreement between the Presidents of the United States and Ukraine feels seismic. For the sake of the heroic people of Ukraine, who are suffering slaughter at Putin’s hands, politicians in this country should recognise the responsibility that we have. It is critically important that we do whatever we can to repair, rather than exacerbate, those rifts. Grandstanding comments such as those from some senior Scottish National Party politicians are self-indulgent and counterproductive. They risk sowing divisions between western allies, to the delight of the Kremlin and other despotic and dangerous regimes.
Today, the First Minister rightly points out that Russia wants a fragmented west. We have seen Russia’s interference in Scottish politics and across Europe, so, when John Swinney suggested that President Trump’s state visit should be cancelled, how did he think that that would help fragile western unity? Today, he says that the visit should be conditional on the US sustaining
“the steadfast support of Ukraine, her independence and her territorial integrity.”
Does the First Minister really believe that he has the power to lay down conditions on the US, lacking any meaningful detail, and effectively expect the King to heed his terms?
Finally, I ask John Swinney about his comments that our nuclear deterrent provides
“no tangible or realistic benefit”
and that nuclear weapons
“are not stopping conflict in the world today”.
John Swinney is dangerously and naively wrong. Ukraine bitterly regrets forfeiting its nuclear deterrent and, during the cold war, it would have been immense folly to surrender our nuclear deterrent. With Ukraine, the United Kingdom, Europe and NATO no longer certain of what American future support might look like, that is even more true today. Does John Swinney recognise that, in these serious times, the SNP’s stance on nuclear weapons is not a serious policy?
First, I associate myself with the welcome to the consul general of Ukraine. I am glad that he is here to hear these exchanges and the solidarity that we have for the people of Ukraine.
I agree with and empathise with a lot of what Russell Findlay has said. Throughout my life, I have lived through many certainties, such as the integral nature of the alliance around the western world and the foundations of solidarity between the United States and the United Kingdom, and I recognise and welcome the centrality of those relationships in creating the peace and stability that I have experienced all my life. I agree with Russell Findlay that those certainties have been weakened by the events of recent days. That poses significant questions with which we have to wrestle.
In that context, I have set out measured remarks about the importance of ensuring that, when we are trying to build those alliances, we all know where we stand. The United Kingdom’s expressing the desire to extend a state visit welcome to President Trump seems to me to be the type of commitment that should be given to an ally with whom we are working in consort.
The uncertainties that Mr Findlay has talked about are uncertainties that we are all wrestling with now. That is the rationale for me setting out the view that I have set out, which is my deeply held view. It can be observed by whoever wishes to observe my view, but, in a democracy, it is right that we say what we think and what we feel. That is the essence of democracy, is it not?
On the question of nuclear weapons, I have made no secret of the fact that, in my entire life, I have not supported the possession of nuclear weapons. Indeed, concerns about the possession of nuclear weapons were one of the reasons why I decided to pursue the particular politics that I have pursued all of my adult life, in a party that has been committed to nuclear disarmament all of its days.
I simply observe to Russell Findlay that, despite all the possession of nuclear weapons today, Ukraine has been invaded. That is the reality of what we are facing. Nuclear weapons have not deterred Russia from invading Ukraine. Indeed, the challenges that Ukraine faces—to ensure that it is able to sustain its military operations—are about conventional weaponry, of which we should have more at our disposal. Those are the arguments that I would put forward.
However, we live in a democracy in which there has to be tolerance of other people’s views, which may be different from the views of others. That is why I am determined to make sure that we stand with Ukraine because, by doing so, we do all that we can to protect the democratic values that have been central to our society today.
I join others in welcoming the consul general of Ukraine to the Parliament. I spoke to him just before we came into the chamber, and he emphasised how much it means to the great people of Ukraine to know that they have the resolute support of the people of Scotland and across the United Kingdom.
I thank the First Minister for his statement today, which I welcome. No one wanted to see the scenes that unfolded on Friday night at the White House. For three years, Ukraine, led by Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has defended itself against the odds. The world has looked on in admiration and respect as the people of Ukraine have heroically stood up to brutal Russian aggression. Last week, I, like the First Minister and other party leaders, stood with the Ukrainian community in Scotland to mark the anniversary of the Russian invasion and to commemorate the lives that have been lost.
The events of the past week were a defining moment for peace and security in Europe. They require serious grown-up leadership, not Twitter diplomacy. This is an issue of war and peace and of life and death, so politicians should not resort to childish attacks on social media for perceived party interest, but instead prioritise peace and the national interest.
Keir Starmer is right to say that he will only take actions that help to achieve peace, not actions to undermine it. That is what should guide all of us. That is why he spent the weekend meeting with President Zelenskyy and the leaders of 18 nations. The Prime Minister is assembling a coalition to find a path that will end the war and ensure that Ukraine’s sovereignty is backed up by strong security guarantees. That means working together for long-term peace in Europe and taking tough decisions, such as prioritising defence spending.
Security is the first responsibility of every Government, and all our actions should be guided by the need for peace. Scotland and all of the UK stand alongside Ukraine in its hour of need. We should all recommit to the cause of peace and freedom across Europe and the cause of peace and freedom across the world. Does the First Minister agree that, if the result of that diplomacy and those actions is lasting peace in Europe, it will be worth it?
In short, yes. I welcome the role that the Prime Minister has taken in recent months, weeks and days—particularly intensively in recent days—to try to establish a way through the very challenging situation that we now face. The engagement with European leaders and the leaders of other countries, including the Prime Minister of Canada, has been particularly effective in drawing together a body of opinion that can help to create some of the cohesion that is required to support Ukraine at this particular moment. Those discussions are fundamental to assembling the correct approach, and I have publicly made it very clear that we support the Prime Minister in his endeavours.
There will, of course, be difficult issues that flow from the plans that the Prime Minister has set out, not least the possibility of armed personnel from this country being deployed in Ukraine. That is some way off, as we all know, but it is important that we contemplate and discuss those issues properly, fully and openly as a society with democratic scrutiny, so that we can come to the right conclusions.
I fundamentally agree with Mr Sarwar that the future of European democracy is very much in play at this moment. What happens in the course of the next few days, weeks and months will shape much of the future that lies ahead of us, and we have to make sure that we take actions that will protect the democratic values that we have all experienced during our lives and which are so precious in our society today.
I join others in welcoming the consul general of Ukraine, and I recognise the impact of these discussions on Ukraine and on Ukrainians who are living in Scotland. The Scottish Greens stand fully in support of the political unity in defence of Ukraine’s sovereignty that the First Minister has spoken of and which I had hoped that all political parties would express in the chamber today, instead of making party-political points.
I recognise the dignity of President Zelenskyy and his courageous display of self-respect in the face of the astonishing mistreatment that he was subjected to on Friday. [Applause.] He told the truth and challenged Russian propaganda.
Scotland has strong solidarity with Ukraine and is outraged at those who would abandon it to an aggressor, but these events threaten all countries, including our own. Trump’s choice to realign the US with Russia and against not only Ukraine but democratic Europe is clear, and it is astonishing that some voices in the UK’s politics and media are pretending that the world has not changed fundamentally.
I want to ask the First Minister about a matter that is within his devolved responsibility. Following the US decision to cease cybersecurity operations against Russia, does he agree that he must ensure that data and systems relating to all functions of the Scottish Government and Scottish public services must be secured? Will he urgently commission a review to identify whether any current or potential US partner company should now be considered a security risk?
I will make two points in response to that. First, Patrick Harvie used the term “truth”. Truth is so important in the conduct of these issues, because we all know that Ukraine, as a democratic society, was invaded by an aggressor—Russia—and nothing should be expressed that does not make that point centrally in this discussion.
Secondly, the Scottish Government keeps all issues in relation to cybersecurity under active review at all times. Indeed, the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs, who has responsibility for civil contingencies and resilience in the Government, briefed the Cabinet this morning on the steps that are being taken to review our posture.
The issues that we, as a society and as a country, are facing are affected by the Ukrainian conflict and the events that are taking their course. We in the Scottish Government must be satisfied—we will work closely with the United Kingdom Government in this respect—and we must be certain that we are doing all that we can to protect the resilience, resolve, capacity and capability of our country, and that includes our data systems. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs will brief the Cabinet on those issues regularly and take forward the point that we agreed this morning about the importance of that exercise being carried out.
I, too, welcome the appearance of our friend the Ukrainian consul general. Slava Ukraini. Heroyam slava.
President Zelenskyy and the people of Ukraine are heroes. They deserve sovereignty, a fair and lasting peace, and the steadfast support of the entire world. What we witnessed in the Oval office on Friday was appalling. In a premeditated act of thuggery, Vice President Vance and President Trump tried to humiliate one of the bravest leaders of our time on the international stage.
It feels as if America could be on the verge of a betrayal of Ukraine, but asking the King to withdraw the offer of a state visit would throw away the most significant leverage that we might have to influence Trump’s thinking on Ukraine and America’s place in the western alliance. I welcome the First Minister’s apparent movement on that in his statement today, as uncomfortable as that might be for many of us.
With the withdrawal of US aid overnight, does the First Minister agree with Liberal Democrat calls to seize the tens of billions of pounds-worth of frozen Russian assets here in the UK and use them to support Ukraine’s fight for survival?
First, what I said about the state visit in my statement is what I have been saying all weekend. There is nothing different about what I said to Parliament today compared with that.
The member asked about the withdrawal of US aid and the implications in relation to financial support for Ukraine from frozen Russian assets. There is a very real difference between using the interest on frozen assets and using those frozen assets themselves. The Cabinet discussed that this morning, and it is the subject of discussion among European partners.
Given the basis on which Russia has invaded Ukraine, I think that it should be contemplated whether those frozen assets should be used to support Ukraine in its time of need. European leaders must consider those issues, and I am aware that those questions are being debated. However, it is reasonable to consider Mr Cole-Hamilton’s point at a time when Russia has disregarded the rule of law. That merits a response that enables us to protect the rule of law and democracy, and those issues should therefore be considered.
It has been an absolute privilege to welcome Ukrainian people to Scotland during this difficult time. However, in this time of increased uncertainty—particularly over the past few days—many will understandably be concerned about what the future holds for their home country. What is the First Minister’s message to Ukrainian people who are living in Scotland at this difficult time?
Rona Mackay highlights the unease and anxiety that must be felt by Ukrainian citizens who are living in this country. Their lives have been turned upside down, and they are now living far from their home and from many of their loved ones. I understand the anxiety that will be felt. My message to those individuals living in our community is to express solidarity and to assure them of Scotland’s support and assistance. Scotland will be absolutely true to maintaining that support and assistance to those individuals.
The statement from the First Minister rightly acknowledges the danger of division in our society. We all want a path to peace, but President Trump’s recent decision has dealt a bitter blow to the people of Ukraine.
In light of the withdrawal of US military aid, does the First Minister accept that, at times of peril such as this, Scotland, as part of the United Kingdom, can play a crucial role in efforts to support Ukraine with our world-leading defence sector base? In the interests of global security, will he now drop his party’s call to scrap Trident?
A number of companies in Scotland are involved in the manufacture of military equipment. Some of that military equipment is manufactured for our use here, and a lot of it is exported to other countries. Those companies make an important economic contribution to Scotland. In the conflict environment in Ukraine, they play a pivotal role in ensuring that people in Ukraine can properly defend themselves from Russian aggression. We welcome their participation in our economy, and they will be able to pursue their dialogue with the United Kingdom Government, which has responsibility for defence procurement.
As I said in my response to Russell Findlay, I have a long-standing view that we should not possess nuclear weapons, and nothing in the current environment persuades me to change that view.
The US Administration seems determined to appease the Kremlin’s butcher of Bucha and seek a Carthaginian peace that makes the treaty of Versailles look sensible. However, critical to peace is a guarantee of the security, territorial integrity and independence of Ukraine.
In terms of European solidarity, what can the Scottish Government and individuals do to show our continued support for a just peace for the people of Ukraine at this exceptionally difficult time?
I think that the importance of a guarantee of security is absolutely fundamental in this discussion. Without a guarantee of security, the suffering of the people of Ukraine in the course of the past three years will have been for nothing, should they be exposed to further Russian aggression. Therefore, the point that Mr Gibson puts to me is vital.
I have set out the Government’s position today in order to contribute to the discussion that is under way across a range of European and western countries on how, collectively and collaboratively, we can assure the security of Ukraine. If we do not secure the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, we will be acting in a manner that will undermine the safety and security of western democracy, and we must not take that step.
Therefore, my point to Mr Gibson is about the importance of us contributing to that European dialogue and working with the United States to deliver the security that Ukraine requires. If we do not do that, we will, I fear, see more of the aggression that we have seen from Russia in the future.
The consul of Ukraine in Scotland, who is in the gallery, told Parliament just a few days ago that Ukraine needs three powers: weapons, economic sanctions and diplomacy. I welcome the fact that, over the past few days, the Prime Minister has taken action on all three by pledging more weapons for Ukraine, funded by sanctions on Russian assets, and by providing steadfast diplomatic support.
What will the Scottish Government do to support the Prime Minister and the UK Government to provide the things that Ukraine says that it needs? The First Minister rightly talks about the need for a “united front”, but does he agree that that applies not only to our actions but to our words? Will he ensure that nothing will be said by members of his Government that undermines the efforts of the Prime Minister to support Ukraine and find a lasting peace?
I do not think that I could have been clearer about the Scottish Government’s support for the Prime Minister’s efforts. That is expressed openly and genuinely to Parliament, and I wish the Prime Minister well in what he is trying to achieve. I do not underestimate the scale of the challenge that he faces, but I wish him well in that effort. We will take whatever steps we can to support him in that dialogue, to ensure that there is cohesion and resolution, and to ensure that the security guarantees that I mentioned to Kenneth Gibson can be delivered for the people of Ukraine and that their sovereignty can be protected.
Last week, the consul of Ukraine in Scotland told the Parliament’s Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee that Ukraine requires
“not only peace but a just peace.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 27 February 2025; c 5.]
Does the First Minister agree with that? What would his message be on that matter?
The people of Ukraine have suffered enormously, and it is vital that the peace settlement that is achieved is one that protects the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. Those are the requirements of a just peace, and they should comprise the approach that is taken to confront Russia and to ensure that the legitimate aspirations of the people of Ukraine are fulfilled as a consequence of that support from the west.
I associate myself with the First Minister’s remarks and acknowledge the work of the Prime Minister. It is important that he knows that he is acting on behalf of us all.
President Zelenskyy, if not quite like Churchill standing alone, is certainly standing on the front line in this contest. It is the blood, toil, tears and sweat of the Ukrainian people that are defending democracy in the west. Would the First Minister support a suggestion that an invitation from him and the Presiding Officer of the Parliament be extended to President Zelenskyy to address this Parliament, at a time of his choosing and at his convenience? There is a precedent for that—we have done it before. We could invite President Zelenskyy to address this Parliament and that could be in conjunction with the Parliament convening a national day of solidarity with the people of Ukraine.
I readily associate myself with Jackson Carlaw’s suggestion. Invitations to Parliament are, of course, a matter for the Presiding Officer and the parliamentary authorities but, for my part in the Government, we would happily support such an endeavour.
Mr Carlaw raises an important opportunity for us as a country to come together to express our solidarity with the people of Ukraine. I would be happy to take part in any discussions on the important suggestion that he has made.
If I may, I will also say how welcome it is that Mr Carlaw makes clear his support, from his political position, for the work that the Prime Minister is undertaking to try to resolve the extremely serious situation that we currently face.
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?
Mr Brown speaks with the authority of having been a member of the armed forces who served in active combat in the Falklands war in 1982. As I do on many issues, I have the greatest respect for the contribution that Keith Brown has made to public life and public service in our country through service in the armed forces, which I have never undertaken.
He acknowledges and knows the seriousness and significance of deploying armed forces in roles of danger. The approach that the Prime Minister is suggesting is that they should be in a position to protect and assure Ukraine’s security, but that does not come without its dangers, given Russia’s behaviour, which we all know to have been malevolent.
The issues that Mr Brown raised about the choices that have to be made about the deployment of armed personnel are very significant. That is why I believe that those issues should be considered and discussed openly in the House of Commons in order to enable a democratic decision to be made and, fundamentally, to enable us to act in solidarity with the Ukrainian people in protecting their independence.
We must be steadfast in our support for Ukraine at this uncertain time, and I echo the need for international solidarity to defeat Russian aggression. Can the First Minister provide an update regarding the financial support that the Scottish Government has made available to support the humanitarian response to the conflict in Ukraine?
The Scottish Government has provided in excess of £5 million in relation to humanitarian assistance in Ukraine, which has provided essential supplies in relation to health, water, sanitation and shelter. Additional support has been provided for Ukrainian citizens who have been coming to Scotland and making this country their home.
Our hearts go out to the people of Ukraine for what they have endured, and their hopes for peace and security for their nation and their right to sovereignty.
Does the First Minister agree that we live in complicated and dangerous times, given the rise of the right in Europe and the unpredictability of the US Administration, and that we must therefore strive for peace and stability in Europe and influence, where we can, all nations that are at war? That includes peace and security in the middle east, where Europe could play a leading role for peace.
Pauline McNeill knows that I come at my politics from the perspective of believing in the necessity of European co-operation and active participation in European decision making and governance. I very much welcome the summit that the Prime Minister hosted at the weekend, which, fundamentally, involved European leaders. That is an indication of really good intention on these questions.
Pauline McNeill is absolutely right. I am certain that more could be undertaken at a European level to support peacemaking in the middle east. We all watch with horror the events that continue to take place in Gaza as we speak. The level of conflict in the world is intolerable, and we must use every available device at our disposal to work to bring communities together and to avoid conflict in the way that we are experiencing it today.
We all want to see a just peace, and in order to achieve that it is in Scotland’s interests that we support Ukraine and its people’s right to freedom, democracy and independence. History shows us that appeasing aggressors expands conflicts and prolongs wars. Does the First Minister share my view that no one who believes in democracy can afford to appease Putin and Russia’s aggression?
I agree with that point. The threat to our democracy and to the values that have underpinned our society is real if we are not able to address and defeat Russia’s aggression. That is the very real issue that we face as a society today, and it is so important and fundamental to the choices that we face.
This is a wholly reserved matter, but the First Minister is right to express our solidarity and united support for Ukraine and its people, including those who now live among us in Scotland.
One of the measures that must now be taken is that Britain must re-arm, as Keith Brown said. That will mean increases in defence expenditure, which are to be welcomed. The lesson of history is that securing the peace is best done through strength, and Scotland is critical in that regard, because it is the location of many important defence contractors.
Does the First Minister agree with what I have said? If he does, will he take this opportunity to disavow the hostility of many SNP MSPs and MPs towards the defence sector? In fact, some ministers will not even meet defence contractors. Will he take this opportunity to give his whole-hearted support to those important businesses and their employees?
Stephen Kerr is correct that matters relating to international relations are wholly reserved, but I contend that they have an impact on our way of life. If the Parliament does not confront those issues, I do not think that we will address properly the challenges that all our communities face as a consequence of the situation in which we find ourselves.
We need to have effective defence forces available to us. Part of my argument is that we have a vast coastline and a vast airspace around Scotland, which are critical to the security of western Europe and our country, and our ability to defend that would be strengthened by greater emphasis on conventional weaponry, rather than the investment that has been made in nuclear defences. That is my reflection on defence priorities.
In relation to the defence sector, a strong number of companies in Scotland are involved in defence-related activities. Those companies make a significant contribution to Scotland’s economy, and I welcome the work that they undertake. It is important that we recognise that, given the difficulties that we face at present.
Nearly 48,000 Ukrainians have found refuge in Scotland over the past three years, and about 800 of them are housed in Dumfries and Galloway. Their transition to life here has been hard, but it has been made easier by the huge amount of work that has been carried out by local agencies and volunteers, including my constituent Peter Kormylo, who has worked tirelessly to help Ukrainian refugees to navigate our national quirks. Does the First Minister agree that, as well as official support from local government and national Government, support from Peter and many thousands of people like him across Scotland should be valued? That support has been invaluable and is a shining example of humanity across our borders.
Right around the country, various local groups are doing such work. Indeed, one day last week, I met in the Parliament members of a group from South Ayrshire who have been providing welcoming support to individuals. Peter Kormylo, to whom Emma Harper referred, and the group from South Ayrshire have made that contribution, as have people from across the country, as I have seen in my community in Highland Perthshire, Aberfeldy and Errol, where work has been undertaken to support families and dispatch assistance to Ukraine. Those people have all made a huge contribution, which is deeply valued by the Scottish Government.
The First Minister rightly recognised the contribution that Scottish industry has made to the defence of Ukraine. To further bolster that effort, will he consider reconvening the aerospace, defence, marine and security industry leadership group, which has been dormant for some years, and appointing a ministerial co-chair?
Work has been undertaken to reform the industry leadership groups. I think that there is engagement with the defence sector, but I had better check that point for Mr Sweeney. I know that there is ministerial interaction on all these questions.
The First Minister will be aware that a large number of Ukrainian families fleeing the war have been resettled in North Lanarkshire, with many being housed in refurbished tower blocks in Coatbridge in my constituency. As they are my constituents, my thoughts are very much with them at this unsettling time, and I have written to them this week to remind them that they can contact me in my office at any time.
Can the First Minister outline what on-going support is in place to ensure that those families, and the thousands like them across the country, continue to be supported in our communities and feel the strength of our unwavering solidarity at this most difficult time?
The support for Ukrainian families in Scotland will come from a combination of the community support that Mr MacGregor’s constituency will have offered, the support that Emma Harper has just mentioned in her question and the work that is being undertaken by the Scottish Government and our partners. That support has always been important, but it is ever more important, given the uncertainties that the people of Ukraine feel at the moment.
The First Minister indicates that he thinks that we probably should be increasing defence spending, and I certainly agree with that, but would he agree that that money should not come from the international aid budget?
What I said at the weekend on this question is that we have to have an honest and open discussion about the public expenditure priorities of the United Kingdom. I tried to have that discussion during the general election campaign, when I pointed out that our public services were under enormous fiscal pressure and that we had to improve the finance that is available for our public services. The issues that we are now confronting affect our defence and security and they merit a response in that respect. We have to have an honest discussion about our priorities. I do not view the question as an either/or—it is not the case that either we can afford defence expenditure or we can afford public services.
Equally, I take the view that John Mason is marshalling today that reductions in overseas aid expenditure can be short-sighted, because we have to change the nature of inequality and address the inequalities in our world, and overseas aid is fundamental to doing that. That has been a shared priority of many Governments for many years, and it is important that we address such priorities. However, we can do so only with an honest discussion about public finances and the choices that are available in relation to taxation. We need to have that discussion.
That concludes the First Minister’s statement on international solidarity to support Ukraine. There will be a brief pause before we move on to the next item of business.
Air ais
Topical Question TimeAir adhart
Scotland’s Renewable Future