The next item of business is a Scottish Government debate on the international situation. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to please press their request-to-speak buttons.
I call the First Minister to open the debate. First Minister, you have up to 13 minutes.
15:41
We began our business this afternoon by expressing our condolences on the death of Pope Francis, recognising the significance of his spiritual leadership in the world. It seems appropriate that we continue our business today by considering the current international situation, which was a subject of concern in the comments and contributions of His Holiness on so many occasions.
In these times, it has never been clearer that we live in an interdependent world in which the idea of being a by-stander—for any country—has gone for ever. Decisions on trade that are taken, for example, by the United States or China are bound to have an impact on living standards here in Scotland. Russia’s on-going barbaric invasion of Ukraine or the brutal attack by Hamas on Israel, as well as the killing of Palestinian children by Israel, have deep and significant consequences far beyond those conflicts. More than that, aggression on such a scale and the apparent disregard for human life offend any sense of common humanity.
Today, the Scottish Government is bringing forward a debate without motion on the international situation. I hope that this will be an occasion when members of the Parliament can speak freely and openly on the major international issues of the day that have implications for our country and the communities that we serve. We have an opportunity to listen carefully to one another’s contributions and to learn from one another as we navigate these difficult days.
The relative stability that the international system has provided us with in the past 80 years has, in many ways, been assumed to be able to go on for ever, uninterrupted. With every civil liberty gained since the end of the second world war, every rise in living and educational standards, every international agreement signed and each advancement in knowledge and technology, few imagined that we would arrive at an age in which leaders actively seek to roll back universal progress in favour of protectionist measures once more.
In these circumstances, it is more important than ever for Scotland to champion the benefits of international trade, co-operation, and solidarity. As the leader of the Scottish National Party, I obviously believe that we could help people in Scotland to cope with these challenges and make our voice heard more effectively as an independent nation state within the European Union. I acknowledge that others take a different view. However, the vast majority of members in the chamber share common values. I believe that those common values reflect the founding values of the European Union—
Will the First Minister give way?
Of course.
I agree with the First Minister’s points about the assumption of progress and the benefits that globalisation and trade have brought. Will he, like me, also reflect on the costs of globalisation, which we need to think about? Some of the circumstances that we find ourselves in may be because we did not pay enough attention to the inequalities and inequities that were created by globalisation and trade, despite the benefits that they have brought.
Mr Johnson makes an absolutely valid point. Globalisation has huge benefits but, at the same time as globalisation has happened and progress has taken place in countless societies around the world, there will be other societies that have experienced prolonged inequality. There will also be profound inequalities even in some of the societies that have benefited from globalisation. He is intimately familiar with the agenda that my Government is pursuing, which is addressing inequalities that exist in our society.
There is much substance to Mr Johnson’s point, and we must be alert to the implications of those inequalities and dangers as we wrestle with the fast-changing environment that is in front of us.
On the basis of that response, does not the First Minister accept that our debating time in the chamber today perhaps would have been better used to discuss how we can extend opportunity and freedom of choice—and all the other things that I was heartened to hear him say that he agreed with in answer to a question that I asked him at First Minister’s question time before he went to New York? Would not it have been better for us to have spent our time discussing how we can make those things happen in Scotland, rather than having an open-ended debate on the international situation?
When I began my speech, I made the point that we are now in a situation in which we are not immune from changing international events. That is why we are having this debate. It is important that this Parliament reflects on the fact that the international community in which we reside is changing dramatically around us, and we have to be conscious of the implications of that.
If I want to give Mr Kerr a substantive answer on the implications of international trade changes that are emerging in the international community, I must have an understanding of those questions. I have to be held to account about my understanding of those questions by Parliament, because they will shape the response that I bring forward in leading the Government in exercising our devolved responsibilities.
We will, of course, have plenty of opportunity to discuss the domestic implications of those issues on 6 May, for example, when I will set out the programme for government, which will set out the further steps that the Government will take to implement our domestic agenda.
The First Minister spoke about giving a substantive answer. Given that this is a wide-ranging debate with no motion, I believe that we can ask any questions that seek a substantive answer from him.
The First Minister repeatedly refused to answer this question at the weekend. This has nothing to do with accepting the Supreme Court judgment or otherwise; it is about his Government. Do John Swinney and the Scottish National Party Government believe that a trans woman is a woman or not?
Before the First Minister rises to his feet, I point out to Mr Ross that wide ranging is wide ranging, but I am looking at the title of the debate, which is that it is a Scottish Government debate on the international situation. That is important to underline at this early stage in the debate.
First Minister, I will leave it to you as to how you wish to respond.
Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Mr Ross is obviously very familiar with the answers that I gave at the weekend. Given that, I will stick very strictly to the context of the debate—[Interruption.]—to take this forward.
Will the First Minister give way?
I will give way to Mr Ross again.
I am familiar with the answers that the First Minister gave at the weekend. Five times he was asked this question and he would not give a clear answer—
Mr Ross—
—and the people of Scotland—
Mr Ross, could you resume your seat for a second? Thank you very much.
I have made it clear—this is a normal rule of this Parliament—that we seek to debate the subject matter of the debate. I am always happy to take a wide view of what that is, but I am looking at the title of the debate, which is that it is a Scottish Government debate on the international situation. With the best will in the world, Mr Ross, please bring your remarks within the remit of our debate today.
I have been contacted by a constituent who wonders about the international response to the Scottish Government and the First Minister’s answer to this question. Does the First Minister believe that a trans woman is a woman—yes or no?
Mr Ross, we have dealt with that. First Minister, please resume and carry on with your speech.
The international community will have seen that the Scottish Government has continued the important tradition of believing in the rule of law and accepting the Supreme Court judgment, which was at the heart of my responses last week.
I was developing a point about the importance of our having a values-based approach to the international situation that we face. Much of that is focused on the values of the European Union, which have served us well and which this Government would want to see endorsed in the future.
Our stance on international conflict is also relevant to the situation that we face. As a country, we have experienced the immediate implications of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Its displacement of people led to increased levels of migration that this country has positively responded to, but significant disruptions to economic activity have also come as a consequence of that conflict. I make that point to illustrate that the consequences of the international situation are felt directly and acutely here, in Scotland.
Parliament has also debated the horror of the attack by Hamas on Israel and the significance and the brutality of the Israeli response. We have been at the forefront of calling for a ceasefire in that conflict, which has enabled us to make our voices heard in arguing for peace and stability.
A benefit in recent weeks has been a sustained effort, which will be marked in Bute house this evening, of collaboration between the Jewish and Islamic communities in Scotland. They have come together to sign what is becoming known as the Drumlanrig accord—a unified declaration by representatives of the Jewish and Islamic communities that condemns hate crime, bigotry and xenophobia and sends a crucial message of unity and mutual respect when it is much needed. I applaud everyone who has been involved in shaping that declaration for what it does in our communities.
The issue of climate action has also been relevant to the formulation of our response to the changing international situation. There is more and more dismissing of the climate emergency, with populist leaders increasingly ready to trade the hope and the health of future generations for short-term gains. We have to recognise that climate change will increase conflict, hunger, disease, inequality and mortality. It has undeniably done so for some time. Last year alone, flooding displaced thousands in Brazil and South Sudan, and wildfires swept through regions of Canada, Portugal and California. In Scotland, we have seen the effect of severe storms, and we must act together to build a fairer, greener and more resilient economy and society as a consequence.
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 did not have the opportunity to do that in the format that Mr Harvie mentions, but I did engage with the Council on Foreign Relations, with which I had a helpful dialogue about many of the strategic issues that we face.
This year marks the 20th anniversary of the Scottish Government’s international development programme—a significant milestone in Scotland’s commitment to addressing poverty and inequality overseas. At a time when the United States, the United Kingdom and other donors have slashed their aid budgets, we in Scotland are committed to continuing our support to partner countries in the global south and, more widely, to responding to humanitarian emergencies.
Today I am pleased to announce a contribution of £240,000, through our humanitarian emergency fund, to the Disasters Emergency Committee’s appeal for the middle east, along with £30,000 for the Scottish charities the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund and Mercy Corps for their responses in Lebanon and Syria. That is in addition to the £250,000 that we provided to that appeal last November. It comes at a time when humanitarian needs continue to increase across Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and Syria. Scotland will continue to take forward our trusted approach to partnership in the international community.
In recent weeks, the global economy has been significantly disrupted by the steps taken by the United States to introduce tariffs. Volatility in the global markets has had the effect of undermining the patterns of international business activity to which we have become accustomed, and it poses risks to our ambitions to grow and strengthen the Scottish economy.
The Scottish Government’s priority has been to act to support Scottish business in dealing with those turbulent events by engaging with the business community on the circumstances that it faces; by pursuing with the UK Government the issues that matter to different sectors of the Scottish economy; and by continuing to promote Scotland as an attractive and secure place for international investment. Indeed, in recent weeks, the Deputy First Minister, the Minister for Business and I have all been involved in promoting investment in Scotland in the United Arab Emirates, China, Japan and the United States. We continue to seek deeper engagement with the United Kingdom Government about the content of any trade deal with the United States and to encourage better and more effective trading partnerships with the European Union, which lies at the heart of the Government’s international investment strategy.
It is absolutely vital that Scotland recognises the significance of the international situation as it affects our domestic priorities. As First Minister, I am interested in raising standards of living in this country; building community; investing in our culture, services and businesses; and supporting the health of the planet that we share. However, I recognise that we cannot take forward all the action that we wish to take in all those different areas without properly and fully recognising the scope and extent of the influence of the international agenda on our community. Today, I hope that we can have a debate that reflects the significance of the international situation and of the change in international circumstances, and that we recognise the extent to which that affects our prospects as a country and the need for us to have a resilient and effective response to all those challenges.
15:56
First of all, I join the First Minister in expressing condolence to Catholics all over Scotland and around the world on the passing of a holy man, Pope Francis. I also join the First Minister in praising the accord that has been reached between Jewish and Muslim leaders in our country to deal with some of the issues that we see reflected in the international situation.
I also agree with the First Minister on the interconnected nature of our existence. However, this Parliament was not established to play at being the Foreign Office. We are not the United Nations. We are not here to simulate debates from the House of Commons. We are a devolved legislature with a defined purpose—namely, to improve the lives of the people of Scotland by delivering better devolved public services and outcomes.
Does the member not appreciate that improving the wellbeing and prosperity of the people relies on exports? Let us take the visit to the UAE as one example. In terms of single-country sales forecasts for Scottish companies, the UAE is now second only to the US. He knows how exposed we are to the turbulence that is caused by US tariffs. Does he not think that it is in the interests of the people of Scotland to improve exports?
Of course I agree that export sales are an important part of a prosperous and growing economy, but this debate has been deliberately framed as being on the international situation. We are spending valuable time on it in the chamber, and we have only a few hours of debating time in the chamber each week. With all respect to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, this debate is a distraction. It is orchestrated sleight of hand by a failing Government that is desperate to change the subject. The Parliament was created to be accountable to the people of Scotland for devolved responsibilities around health, education, transport, housing, justice and local government.
The member describes the debate as “orchestrated sleight of hand”. Will he reflect on the fact that the Parliamentary Bureau met, agreed to schedule the debate and brought it to the chamber in a business motion, and that the Parliament agreed to have the debate?
I return to my point, because the member’s intervention makes no difference to that. My point is that the primary function of this devolved Parliament is to hold the Government to account for issues that are devolved. However, when the SNP is confronted with its dismal domestic record, it does not face the music—it changes the tune. Rather than deal with the growing crisis in our national health service, the SNP wants us to take time to debate Gaza. Rather than talk about the collapse in our education standards, it would prefer that we discuss Ukraine. Rather than account for its economic underperformance, it would like us to stand up and offer comments on American politics or French farming.
I have to disagree with the member up to a point. Although this chamber is about devolved matters, the international situation impacts Scotland. For example, Scotland makes a vital contribution to the defence of this country. We have a substantial defence sector footprint, which this Administration has sometimes been rather coy about discussing. Is that not a relevant issue that we should absolutely be discussing in order to highlight some of this Administration’s shortfalls?
The whole point of the precious time that we have in the chamber is that we should focus our attention on matters that are relevant to this Parliament’s purpose. Those are important matters, and the subject and content of the First Minister’s speech this afternoon were full of important matters, but that does not mean that debating those issues should take up the very little time that we have in this Parliament as we hold the Government to account.
Does Stephen Kerr not agree that the rise of right-wing politics across the world should absolutely be front and centre in this debating chamber, if history tells us anything?
The way that we address the extremes in politics is by making sure that we do justice by the people of Scotland in areas that impact on the quality of their everyday lives. For example, on education—
Will the member give way?
I give way to the First Minister.
I tread delicately here in order to point out the total contradiction in the point that Stephen Kerr is putting to the Parliament today. In the precious time that is available to the Parliament, Mr Kerr chose to lodge a question for First Minister’s question time to ask me about international trade. Does that not point out that Mr Kerr is talking absolute nonsense in today’s debate?
Please always be courteous and respectful, First Minister.
I am not sure that “absolute nonsense” is a respectful term. We are all entitled—[Interruption.] First Minister, might I have your attention?
Mr Kerr has the floor, members.
Sorry?
I was saying that you have the floor.
Thank you. The whole point is that I am not talking nonsense. I asked a question at FMQs, and the Minister for Parliamentary Business said that he would log that I brought up an issue that involves Scotland’s place in the world, which I accept. However, this is a debate entitled, “The International Situation”. I want to talk about situations that impact the people of Scotland and look at them from the vantage point of the rest of the world.
For example, the SNP inherited the highest-performing education system in the United Kingdom. In 2012, we led the UK in core subjects. Fast forward to 2025, and we are languishing near the bottom of the UK rankings and far behind many of our international peers. In the most recent programme for international student assessment results—2022—Scottish pupils ranked 30th in mathematics, 14th in reading and 32nd in science out of 37 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. We now sit behind countries such as Slovenia and Latvia. It is not a record to be proud of, and that is the international situation that we should be focused on, because it is a national embarrassment.
What did the SNP do in response to those issues? It pulled Scotland out of key international comparative studies. The official reason that was given was “budget priorities”. The real result was fewer benchmarks and less scrutiny. That is not reform; it is retreat. On health, the SNP tells us that the NHS is safe in its hands, but the facts tell a different story. In the OECD’s regional wellbeing index, Scotland scores just five out of 10 for health. Life expectancy is falling: for men, it is now 76.2 years; for women, it is 80.7 years. That places us behind Ireland, Canada and countries that once looked to Scotland as a standard setter.
The crisis in accident and emergency departments is now chronic, and 723,000 Scots are now waiting for out-patient or in-patient procedures. The legal 12-week treatment guarantee, which the Government introduced in 2012, is now routinely breached. In 2024, only 60 per cent of patients received treatment within that timeframe—the guarantee is, in practice, a fiction.
On social care reform, £30 million was spent on plans for a national care service, but those plans have been shelved, have stalled and are subject to indefinite delay.
Audit Scotland has described NHS Scotland as being in crisis without a plan. Staff are exhausted, and infrastructure is crumbling. That is not world-class healthcare; it is failure institutionalised.
On the economy, let us not be seduced by SNP talking points on foreign direct investment. The real measure of a healthy economy is whether the country’s own citizens are investing and creating. On that metric—domestic business investment—Scotland ranks 34th out of 35 OECD countries. That is second from the bottom. Only Cyprus fares worse. Scotland’s employment rate sits at 73.5 per cent, which is below the UK average of 75 per cent. We now rank below Portugal, Spain and Poland. Ministers talk about attracting investors, but they will not talk about the growing number of businesses that struggle to start or survive. Productivity remains low, confidence remains flat and child poverty persists.
When it comes to transport, few scandals match the ferry fiasco. The Glen Sannox and Glen Rosa ferries, which were ordered in 2015 for £97 million, are expected to cost more than £300 million. Let us consider the A9. In 2007, the SNP promised to dual the road by 2025, but not a single new mile was delivered between 2017 and 2022.
Mr Kerr, you need to bring your remarks to a close, please.
As of 2024, only 11 miles had been dualled.
Let me talk about the international situation.
In concluding your remarks, Mr Kerr.
No one is calling Bute house for advice. The idea that foreign leaders are queuing up to learn from the SNP Government is pure delusion. If they are calling it at all, it is to ask how it all went so wrong. The answer is this—a Government that is obsessed with image over substance, a Parliament that is distracted from its purpose and a politics that values posture over performance.
Mr Kerr, please conclude your remarks. I have been generous, but please conclude now, otherwise we will move directly to the next speaker.
I think that that means that I will sit down.
That is one way to do it. Thank you, Mr Kerr.
16:07
In opening the debate for Scottish Labour, I join other members in marking the sad passing of His Holiness Pope Francis. He was a much-loved, compassionate and humble man who cared deeply about the poor and welcomed the marginalised. He will be missed, and my thoughts are with all those who are mourning his loss.
We meet today to debate global events and their implications for people here and across the world. There is much to discuss, from the new US Administration’s intentions to the war in Ukraine and the humanitarian crises in Gaza, Sudan, Myanmar and many other places. Like other members, I cannot possibly begin to address all those issues and more in the time that I have, so I refer members to my previous comments on the need for peace and for international law to be upheld in the middle east and in Ukraine.
I will focus my remarks on Scotland’s and the UK’s place in the world—what we must do, what we must not do and the opportunities in relation to our diplomatic, economic and defence policies. A lot of those policy areas are reserved, but, as Daniel Johnson said, some are devolved.
It is important to note that there is no motion for today’s debate. That might well reflect the uncertain times that we are living in. My initial thought when I discovered that there would be no motion was that that was perhaps an admission from the Scottish Government that a single motion cannot simply provide the answers to the countless complex challenges that we currently face. That is, on some level, welcome, because anyone here who pretends to have all the answers is, I fear, mistaken, so I welcome the fact that the debate is being facilitated in that way.
The international situation is unpredictable and is evolving rapidly. As the Prime Minister said recently,
“The world as we knew it has gone.”
The world is changing, trade-offs will be required and we also need to adapt and move with the times. However, we should do so with caution, because misinformation, which we see so readily on social media, can lead to miscalculations. Reliable intelligence from reliable sources and cool heads are required to navigate the difficult terrain that we are in.
That is why I am pleased that the new UK Labour Government and the Prime Minister are providing serious leadership for serious times, with an approach that seeks to bring countries together in co-operation with our global allies and partners, particularly when it comes to our support for Ukraine, for example, but also one that seeks to protect our national security at the same time. Strengthening relations with others while also focusing on our own self-reliance is a difficult but important balance to be struck. Countries always have acted in their own national interest—they always will—and we should be no different.
We should also seek to work with international partners on the basis of common goals.
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 do not agree with that last point, but I will come on to some further thoughts on our relationship with the US.
Strong diplomacy is based on common goals and also on trust, and that trust will be tested when there is uncertainty about where countries with which we have had a long relationship are heading and the extent to which we have common goals. In times such as this, we need to ask ourselves some fundamental questions. Where do we stand? What do we want to achieve? What are we prepared to do to achieve those things?
A positive and special relationship with the United States has been vital to Scotland and the United Kingdom, and it continues to be so. It has spanned countless Presidents, Prime Ministers and generations of our citizens and Americans. Its importance cannot be overstated. Scottish Labour understands that. That is why Anas Sarwar was in New York and Washington recently, and I am sure that that is why the First Minister was also recently in the United States. That relationship has been helped enormously by the presence of the US consulate in Edinburgh since 1798, and I hope that the US State Department will ensure that it remains, as its closure would be a retrograde step.
In just a few weeks, we will commemorate the 80th anniversary of victory in Europe day, when British and American forces stood shoulder to shoulder, many sacrificing their lives for the liberation of Europe from the Nazis. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was born thereafter, along with the Ottawa agreement, to protect and defend our shared values of freedom and democracy. That founding role, as well as article 5 of the NATO treaty—an attack on one is an attack on all—is as important today as it was then.
Of course, also standing with us in those dark days were our friends and allies in the Commonwealth—India, Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, to name just a few. Our relationship with them remains critical, and we should support them as they have supported us. I wish our friends in Canada and Australia the best as they exercise their democratic rights in the next few weeks.
Our relationship with our closest neighbours in Europe is also critical. It is right that the Prime Minister is seeking to reset our relationship with the European Union, as well as ensuring that we work together to strengthen security on the continent and support Ukraine against Putin’s aggression.
Turning to the economic situation, the news that President Trump has suspended the proposed increased tariffs for 90 days is, of course, welcome. The liberation day tariff announcement caused an immense amount of uncertainty for businesses and markets around the world. Unnecessary barriers to trade and a trade war are not in Scotland’s national interest or in the interests of working people, and any prospective trade deals must be in the interests of businesses, consumers and workers. Isolationism might seem attractive to some, but it has costs. It is not for us to tell other countries what to do, but we must send a signal to the world that we are open for business.
There are opportunities from taking that outward-looking approach. I believe that, by utilising the UK’s soft power and brand Scotland, we can, for example, bring more tourists to visit and students to study here.
Protecting the safety of our citizens is the Government’s first duty. Security takes many forms—economic security, food security, energy security and defence security—and the UK Government is significantly increasing spending on security. That is welcome, and, like Daniel Johnson, I hope that we can have the opportunity to discuss that further.
British Steel is vital to our economic and national security and to sectors such as rail, construction and shipbuilding. The UK Government was therefore right to take decisive action to save British Steel and to pass emergency legislation to prevent the last of the UK’s blast furnaces in Scunthorpe from being shut down. If they were allowed to close, the UK would be the only country in the G20 without the ability to make primary steel.
Considering the uncertainty of the international situation, we must support our industries to ensure that we are well equipped to deal with all eventualities. That is why it was right that the UK Government announced an additional £200 million for the future of Grangemouth. The investment in Scotland’s industrial future will allow for a transition plan for the site.
Cementing our energy security is incredibly important, and establishing a public energy company is a key way to do that. That is something the Scottish Government promised and failed to do, but the new UK Labour Government is now taking forward the creation of Great British Energy, a Government-owned renewable energy investment body that will be headquartered in Aberdeen, which will make us less susceptible to the volatility of energy imports.
That leads me on to the issue of nuclear energy. We can see the energy security and cheaper bills that nuclear has provided in France. Meanwhile, here in Scotland, the Scottish Government’s continued opposition to new nuclear power and small modular reactors is costing Scotland jobs and investment, and I do not believe that that is in Scotland’s national interest. Given the current situation, we need to look differently at our policy positions. Scottish Labour has said that we would lift the ban on new nuclear, which is holding Scotland back.
As I stated at the outset, these are uncertain times. Amid the insecurity around the globe, we must not retreat from the world but co-operate with other countries on our common goals, and we must strengthen our industries and security for the benefit of our citizens, businesses and industries.
16:16
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.”
16:23
Unlike Stephen Kerr, I welcome the debate. It is right that, from time to time, members reflect on the international context in which we find ourselves. We are not governing in a void or passing policy in a vacuum, so I welcome the First Minister’s remarks and, in particular, the fact that he started with a reflection on the late pontiff. That was right. There is much in the work of Pope Francis that we could fill debates such as today’s with, whether on the plight of migrants or the brutality and ethnic cleansing in our world, in Gaza, parts of China and Sudan.
I want to reflect on a recent experience that I shared with Paul Sweeney over the Easter break. In doing so, I will start with the reflections of another holy man—a Greek Orthodox priest, whom Paul and I met in an army base in western Ukraine. His name is Father Taras, and he is a padre—an army chaplain—on the eastern front. He is a veteran of some 10 years in the armed forces of Ukraine. He never carries a gun. In his eyes and face, you can see a tension between his godly world view and love of Christ and the violence that he sees and has to condone every day. As we approached holy week, I asked him whether he expected wide attendance at his Easter mass. He said, “No, I don’t get a lot of people coming to my services. The men really just want me to hear their confession, because they think that they’re going to die.”
Paul and I were there with Mighty Convoy. We had driven 35 hours non-stop overland to deliver five NHS ambulances for immediate use on the front lines by the armed forces of Ukraine. Arriving in Ukraine, you immediately get a sense of the country that it is and the country that it is striving to be—a country that desperately wants to make its freedom mean something, and to grasp on to some sense of normality. We saw that in a stand of three billboards, which are very close to the Ukrainian border. The first advertises the armed forces of Ukraine’s drone unit training programme, the next advertises watchfulness against Russian disinformation and the third brightly invites you to eat at the local burrito shack. This is a country where there is no rationing or scarcity and where people just want to live a normal life.
The other thing that strikes you, as you cross from Poland into western Ukraine, is the abundance of beautiful Orthodox churches. They are everywhere, and their beautiful domes of gold punctuate the amazing Ukrainian landscape. However, as you admire the splendour of those houses of God, you are also struck by the freshly dug graves all around them. New graves are everywhere. They are almost always marked by a Ukrainian flag, of course, but also a flag of red and black, which we understand stands for the blood of the Ukrainian defenders seeping into the soil of Ukraine.
Although there are new graves around every churchyard, they are as nothing compared with something called the Field of Mars. Before 2022, the Field of Mars was like Princes Street Gardens—it was a picturesque city park in the centre of downtown Lviv. It is now a massive cemetery for the fallen glorious defenders of Ukraine. We were both incredibly struck by that. Still, we are talking about a country and a city that are clinging to normality, and the people there make a really good job of it—until you are given your air raid briefing and realise that it is not a normal city, or until you attend your first 9 am silence and realise that it is not a normal country.
At 9 am every morning, across the country, a minute’s silence is observed for those who have died, and who are still dying, on the eastern front. Paul and I observed our 9 am silence in the National Rehabilitation Centre, where we met the heroes of Ukraine. They were veterans of the eastern front who, despite having lost limbs, eyes and a lot of their mental capacity, were still defiant. That beautiful facility is constantly being expanded. We were advised that, in two months’ time, a centre for survivors of captivity and torture will be opened. Such is the demand for that kind of support for the soldiers who return from Russia as a result of prisoner exchanges.
We were grateful to be received by the mayor of Lviv, Andriy Sadovyi, who told us about what wartime city life is like. It is just like life in any other city, only with added complications. They still have to manage the bins and fill the potholes. I ask the 32 local authorities of Scotland, which have struggled with balancing the books for this year’s spend, to imagine having to hypothecate 20 per cent of their budget to weaponry for the eastern front every single year—such is the situation in Lviv.
We also visited a drone factory. Although Ukrainians are worried about the withdrawal of American support, there is some hope in the fact that they are desperately ramping up their own military capability. The drone factory that Paul and I saw was making 10,000 drones a month. The armed forces will take delivery of 4 million kamikaze drones this year alone.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will certainly take an intervention from my friend Paul Sweeney, if I have time.
I thank my friend for giving way. He is making a very eloquent speech about our recent expedition.
One of the valuable things that we both took away from that visit was the richness of the interactions that we had with different stakeholders in Ukraine, including on the visit to the drone factory, when we discussed the opportunities for collaboration in engineering, and on our visit to the hospital, when we were able to learn about the Burn Care Alliance, which is a project that has been led by the young clinicians we met, and to discuss whether there are opportunities to develop those techniques with NHS and university practitioners.
That was quite a lengthy intervention, Mr Sweeney.
I absolutely agree—Paul Sweeney is absolutely right in what he says about the importance of those relationships with stakeholders.
I will finish on this point. At the base where we delivered the ambulances from Mighty Convoy—I thank Simon Brake for his work on that—we made a ceremonial presentation to the brigade commanders. Two days after we left, a Russian spy was uncovered at that base, who had received orders to assassinate the very commanders to whom we had presented the ambulances. That took place three tanks of diesel and one set of road tolls from where we are right now. This is on our doorstep. It is a conflict that will define our century. We must give all our thanks, support and energy to the fighting men and women of Ukraine, who, right now, are the first and last line of defence against Russian tyranny.
We move to the open debate. I advise members that the allocated speaking times were put forward by party business managers and agreed to. SNP back benchers will have up to four minutes, the Conservative back bencher will have up to six minutes and the Labour back bencher will have up to eight minutes. Saying that now will save me from having to explain it vis-à-vis every speaker.
16:30
Where do I start and how do I summarise the international situation in four minutes? A good starting point is probably to do what our First Minister did and take a moment to reflect on the sad news of the passing of Pope Francis. I am not a religious man, but I know full well the strength and comfort that many of my constituents in Paisley and people right across Scotland draw from their faith.
Throughout my time as Paisley’s MSP, I have been able to work closely with our local Catholic community, and I know just how much Pope Francis meant to them, to the diocese of Paisley and to the wider community. Today, my thoughts are very much with them as we all mark the loss of a humble and compassionate man—a man whose values of peace, dignity and kindness spoke far beyond any single faith or border. There is much that we can learn from him that is very relevant to today’s debate.
My good friend Bishop John Keenan will lead a mass for Pope Francis this evening, in Paisley abbey, on behalf of the diocese. I wonder whether Mr Adam hopes to be able to be present.
Unfortunately, I have some other business today, but I would quite happily have been there for that.
The rise of the far right at home and abroad is very relevant to the people we represent, who are worried about what is happening. Good, honest, hard-working people are being manipulated by those on the right, who are playing on their fears and scaring them to the extent that they start to believe the lies and disinformation that are coming from those on the far right. Whether it exists on the streets of Scotland or in the corridors of power in Washington and Moscow, that ideology offers nothing but hate, division and disaster.
We have seen the damage that those fears can do. Donald Trump is back at the centre of global politics and is stoking tension. He is slapping reckless tariffs on Scottish industries from whisky to salmon and putting thousands of jobs at risk at the same time. His ignorance of world affairs and his contempt for international co-operation are not just bad for Scotland or bad for business—they are a global threat. Now more than ever, Scotland must unite around our shared values that bind us as a nation and not around things that tear us apart.
That brings me to the tragedy in Palestine. The suffering in Gaza over the past year has been utterly heartbreaking. More than 13,000 children and 8,000 women have been killed. Innocent lives have been lost in a conflict that has shattered families and devastated people. It is my belief that standing for Palestine is about standing for human dignity and peace. Hamas cannot be defended for its actions, but the suffering of the Palestinian people cannot be ignored. The SNP has been clear from day 1 that we call for an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages and the recognition of Palestine as a state. This is not about politics. It is about ending the slaughter and giving people the right to live in safety and freedom.
Today, we are also talking about Ukraine’s fight for democracy. Russia’s brutal and illegal war on Ukraine is the greatest attack on peace in Europe since the second world war. Scotland stands proudly with Ukraine, its people, its democracy and its right to freedom. However, we saw how President Zelenskyy was made to look in the White House by Donald Trump and JD Vance, who even had a go at what he was wearing. JD Vance is currently touring the world talking about and denying climate change just to make a buck. That is where they are at the moment.
All of that—the rise of the far right, the suffering in Gaza and the brutal war in Ukraine—shows us one thing: Scotland cannot afford to leave its future in the hands of others. We did not vote for Brexit, but we are paying the price. We look on as Donald Trump talks about turning his back on NATO and walking away from Europe. That is not the future that I want for the people of Scotland. Having an independent Scotland that is back in the European Union and that stands shoulder to shoulder with our neighbours will give us the strength, the security and the partnerships that we will need to face whatever comes next.
In the coming months, we must not look at the world as it is and accept it. We must fight for a world that is as we want it to be and as it should be. That is what built this Scottish Parliament, and that is what will create the better tomorrow that every one of us wants.
16:35
I will say at the outset that I have a strong interest in and passion for international affairs and it is right that they are debated by parliamentarians, but this is an issue that is reserved to the UK Parliament. All the parties that are represented here have members of the UK Parliament who can ask these questions, raise these debates and have a discussion about the situation.
Some of the speeches have been very compelling. What Alex Cole-Hamilton and Paul Sweeney spoke about in relation to their visit was important, for example, but we can discuss and debate such things in members’ business time at the end of the day. Right now, we are in Government debating time—this topic has been introduced by the Government of Scotland. We have been on recess for a fortnight—we have not been here for over two weeks—and what are we voting on tonight? Nothing. We do not even have a motion. We will not have a single division of this Parliament on the first day back after recess, because this is the topic that the SNP Government has chosen to debate in its scheduled time.
What could we have discussed today? I am looking at the submission of statement requests from just the Scottish Conservatives—I am sure that there were plenty of other requests from the other parties. We wanted a statement or a debate on the situation with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. Where are we with RAAC in our public buildings? We wanted a statement on agriculture policy, because it is a continuing issue that is affecting our farmers and crofters. We wanted a statement on the massive increase in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder referrals here in Scotland. We wanted a debate on the care home sector and the challenges that it is facing.
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.
I can advise that, if the member remains relevant to the matter that we are discussing, I am happy to let him continue. That is not a point of order, Mr Harvie.
Can you confirm that I will get my time back, Presiding Officer?
You will get your time back, Mr Ross.
I am grateful, because I am just going through some of the points that one party in the chamber would have liked to be debating on our first day back after the recess.
When Mr Harvie made his spurious point of order, I was speaking about the care home sector. It is something that affects every one of our constituencies and regions, but we are not getting an opportunity to debate it. There were also some local issues that we wanted to discuss—I know that Stephen Kerr wanted to discuss the flood prevention scheme in Falkirk and the Scottish Government’s decision not to call that in. I asked for a statement about the £67 million loan that has gone to NHS Grampian—there are legitimate questions to ask the health secretary, who is sitting on the front bench and on his phone, and the Government in general about that situation—but that was refused. There are issues that we could have been debating today—
Will the member give way?
I just want to make a bit of progress, if I can.
We could have spent longer today debating the Supreme Court ruling, which has an international context because it has been reported on around the globe. The Scottish Government went to court over the definition of a woman and lost, and we got 30 minutes as parliamentarians to debate it. Maybe if we had had a full debate this afternoon on that ruling, Nicola Sturgeon would have turned up. All we have had from her, the former First Minister who took that legislation through this Parliament, is a selfie from the gym. We have had not a single comment on what she believes the judgment means about the legislation that she tried to pass, about the Government that she led and about the Government that she is still part of.
Another point that I was hoping to discuss in the Parliament is the massive pay increase that has been awarded to Scottish Government ministers.
The member needs to correct the record. There has been no increase in the wage for ministers. Ministers’ pay is merely being aligned with that of every other MSP sitting in the chamber.
I am not going to correct the record. Ministers are getting an extra £20,000 a year. In any other world, that is an increase, so let us put that point. I was not allowed a statement, and the Scottish Government has so far not made time for the matter.
When we started this debate, there were about a dozen Government ministers in the chamber. We are now down to three and the First Minister. I am happy to use my remaining time to say this to Mr Gray, Mr Robertson and Mr Fairlie: as a result of the decision that was taken by John Swinney, Scottish Government ministers and cabinet secretaries will get an extra £20,000 per annum. Can any minister or cabinet secretary say that they have earned that increase and deserve it?
Mr Ross, I encourage you to stick to the theme of the debate—there is no motion, but there is a theme. That would be helpful.
My point is very clear—
Will the member give way?
No, I will not.
My point is clear: Parliament could have been discussing those issues today. I will say it again, because there was a slight interruption. Can any of the ministers on the front bench say that they deserve, and have earned, their £20,000 increase? [Interruption.]
I am quite happy to continue to wait; I have about another minute, because of the intervention, so I am just going to stand here and wait. If any of these highly paid Scottish Government ministers can defend their £20,000 increase to the public, they should tell us now.
Mr Ross, I ask you, if you could, to return to the topic of the debate this afternoon in your remaining 30 seconds or so.
I make the plea again—come on. If Mr Swinney believes that ministers deserve that increase of £20,000, he should tell us about it—I will give way to the First Minister. I will give way to the cabinet secretary, to Angus Robertson, or to Jim Fairlie—
If you could conclude, Mr Ross—
Can no Scottish Government minister defend it? Maybe that is why we are debating the international situation today. Maybe that is why the SNP Government chose a topic that it is not in charge of—because it cannot answer simple questions about an area for which it has responsibility. I think that the people of Scotland can see that. They can see that this is a Government that takes them for granted, that provides massive pay rises for its ministers and that cannot even hold itself to account.
16:42
To start with, I hope that the Scottish public can see that the Tories would rather stand in silence than stand with us against the rise of the far right, which affects absolutely every person in society. There is no way to describe it other than dangerous. We keep sitting through that lesson as a species, and I do not know how many times we are going to have to learn it.
Anyone who believes that they are not at risk if the far right takes power should take a step back, look at history and rethink, because they are. Everything from the price of bread to the risk of early death is thrown into uncertainty under far-right Governments. It is reasonable to listen to a charismatic person talking about how unfair society is, because it is; how we need change, because we do; and how resources are not shared equally among citizens, which is, again, true, and think, “Oh—that’s a good point.” The danger is then accepting it when the speaker concludes those reasonable statements by taking the time to blame a minority group or to suggest that removing fundamental human rights from those groups is the right thing to do or that doing so is the only way forward. It is never the only way, and it should not even be on the table.
There have been some interesting statements on globalisation and trade from members, and I will be thinking about some of them for a wee while. Again, I found myself sitting at the back of the chamber, thinking that if we were an independent country, we could really get into the detail of trade decisions and how they impact on many of the various priorities on which we actually have a consensus in the chamber. My concerns about globalisation include things such as protecting high-quality Scottish lamb and whisky and the sustainability of our consumer practices. With regard to today’s debate, however, the globalisation of information, misinformation and disinformation is at the front of my mind.
Many of us have had first-hand experience of very believable disinformation on Gaza or Ukraine or even the legitimacy of the rights of women becoming unavoidable on the phones that we carry everywhere. In the past decade, we have seen Facebook criticised by the UN, not just for not stopping people making use of its platforms to incite violence but for actually designing algorithms that, in their prioritisation of promoting engagement, actively contributed to inciting genocide in Myanmar, because that is what got the comments and the shares that its creators said that they wanted.
Today, the artificial intelligence models that are involved in social media analytics and promoting news content have even more autonomy and even less oversight than the algorithms that favoured videos promoting genocide. These models do not just learn that people engage when they are angry and then show them what makes them angry—they can actually create the anger. When AI models are being created and invested in by those who do not just want to be at the forefront of technological advancement but are working to advance their own interests, we must be extremely aware of our collective vulnerability to manipulation. Opinion, fact and voting habits are up for sale.
It can seem very difficult to be a force for good in this world, but, when it comes to the far right, it really is easy. We have to draw a line somewhere, and it should always be drawn in advance of the point at which we start seeing some humans as less than others. Countless people and algorithms are out there trying to convince each and every one of us to turn on other people, often for the sake of somebody else’s investments. We—ourselves—have to know what is not okay and what is over the line, because very clever models are out there learning how to make us cross the line without even noticing.
Human rights are fundamental. When I first started watching this Parliament’s proceedings, nobody would have disagreed with that, but the lines are now blurred and so much of that area is now grey. We need to hold on to what we know to be true. Human rights are fundamental and they are under threat across the world—the UK is not exempt from that. Draw your line, because we have to refuse to cross it.
16:46
As we come together this afternoon to discuss the international situation, it is clear that we live in very uncertain times. Already, many of the speeches have highlighted the backdrop of conflict and violence—particularly violence against women and girls—that we see in the world, and the harmful rhetoric that we see in online spaces, as well as the fact that the global economic consensus, which we have known for so long, is, in essence, being turned upside down. It is in that context that we hold this debate, and uncertainty is the key theme.
In times of uncertainty and in an ever-changing and uncertain world, people will cleave to constancy. We gather today as we return from our Easter recess and after the great Christian festival of Easter, which speaks about hope, faith and endurance. A lot of people around the world find constancy in their faith, which is rooted in their hope for a better world. Recently, we have also marked Eid, Passover, Vaisakhi and other festivals, as the seasons change and winter gives way to spring and darkness gives way to light.
I mention that at the outset of my speech because we live in a world where, all too often, our respect for and understanding of one another’s beliefs and one another’s faith have, in some ways, been forgotten. We have forgotten how to co-exist, how to live together peaceably and, I think, how to disagree better. Therefore, it is important that we start by acknowledging the sense of hope that is felt by so many people in the world.
I will offer a few reflections on some of the corners of the world that are acutely in our minds at the moment and on some areas on which we often do not focus as much as we should.
In March, I had the opportunity to travel to Bosnia-Herzegovina with a delegation of people from the Parliament, public life in Scotland, academia and the media, along with the excellent Beyond Srebrenica organisation, which will be known to many colleagues across the chamber. Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Balkans are a part of our world that have truly experienced the darkest moments of humanity through a long conflict in the 1990s, the ramifications of which continue today, and the people who lived through the experience of genocide at Srebrenica and other places around Bosnia-Herzegovina still feel the impact of those events. The opportunity to visit those sites and to meet people who experienced the war and the genocide to gain a better understanding of their experience and of the issues that persist in that country today was hugely moving, but it was also hugely informative for me and for those who joined the delegation.
Today, there are far too many people in Bosnia-Herzegovina and that part of the world who engage in denial of what happened at Srebrenica. There are actors in that complex country, in relation to which a complex agreement was made after the war, who seek to diminish and reduce the stories of the genocide to nothing more than what they would call rumour. There have been attempted coups in parts of Bosnia-Herzegovina, particularly in the Republika Srpska, and there are still people walking the streets of communities side by side with those against whom they would have carried out horrendous acts.
The plea from everyone I met in Bosnia-Herzegovina was not to forget about the Balkans, Bosnia-Herzegovina and the real challenges that exist and persist. I had the opportunity to speak with many people who are afraid of the current context of the international situation. They are deeply concerned about the actions of Russia and Vladimir Putin—as we know, they live very close to countries that border Russia and, indeed, to the conflict in Ukraine.
In particular, one man I met spoke about how he feels more afraid now than he did at points as a child growing up in the 1990s, and he is worried about what the future holds for his children. He told me that, when the war in Ukraine started, he went out and bought a gun. When I asked him why, he said, “I do not know how to use a gun and I am not sure that I ever will. I just need to know that I have done something to try to protect my children.”
That brought home to those of us who were speaking with him how people feel in that region of the world. They need the support of the international community and for it to stand with them and not to forget about them, and to offer a degree of protection and support that will ensure that, in the future, we do not see the aggression that we have seen in recent years in the regions in and around Ukraine and bordering Russia.
I wanted to put all of that on the record because the experience that I had in Srebrenica will not leave me—those rows and rows of white stones that mark where so many Muslim men and boys were massacred. There is a stillness and a sadness there, and there is evidence of the reality of what human beings can do to one another when they do not heed the calls of history or the need for us to understand one another better.
I am pleased that, on Holocaust memorial day, the Scottish Government made a commitment to on-going funding for wider genocide education. We recognise the importance of Holocaust education within that and of the work that is being done across Scotland to tackle rising antisemitism.
My friend Paul O’Kane talks about education. One of the things that I remember about the Bosnian conflict was that it was seen as war returning to Europe, but we seem to have treated it as almost an aberration. With the war in Ukraine, does he agree that we need to take the matter and the prospect of war in Europe much more seriously, and that that is the real lesson from the Balkans conflict of the 1990s?
Daniel Johnson is absolutely right. What we heard time and again from people we met in places such as Sarajevo and Srebrenica was how quickly we forget. For a period of time in Europe, we saw stability and peace that we thought was the consensus, but the reality is that that has been shattered once again. It is important that we all take the issues in Ukraine seriously.
We have also reflected today on the passing of Pope Francis. I add my voice to the tributes that have been paid across the Parliament, because he was another constant in an uncertain world. The global situation was never far from the mind, the words and the actions of Pope Francis, because he was a Pope who prioritised leadership on the world stage and ensured that people could find reflected in him their aspirations for a better world. He was a Pope for the poor and the dispossessed. He opened doors in the church and in the world to mercy, compassion and hope. He was a Pope for our environment. “Laudato si’” was a transformative document that called on us all to be “stewards” of the world and the environment that we live in.
The Pope also spoke out passionately and with compassion on the situation in Palestine and Israel. Indeed, most recently, on Easter Sunday, he called for a ceasefire, for a release of hostages, for aid to get through to starving people and for an end to the killing and the violence. We have also heard how the Pope spoke with the parish priest in Bethlehem each and every day of the conflict right up until he died.
We should all rededicate ourselves to following the Pope’s example. We must not forget the corners of the world where there are conflicts, and we should unite as a Parliament to do that.
16:55
Rarely has the international situation been so bleak on so many different fronts, from Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine and Israel’s genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza to America’s trade war with the entire world. We are seeing the rise of the far right globally, with their lies and disinformation, which have become accepted by many in our world. These are truly dark days.
There is no immediate end in sight for the conflict in Ukraine, with Ukrainians being given just enough support to hold ground but not enough to win. To make things worse, President Trump insists on plundering any riches of Ukraine that Russia has yet to steal as the price of his half-hearted support. Although Russia announced an Easter ceasefire, it did not stop raining down missiles on Ukraine. Now that that false hope has gone, Russia’s aggression has intensified.
Meanwhile in the holy land, there was not even the pretence of a ceasefire this Easter. The situation in Gaza remains dire, with the conflict remaining intense and civilian casualties continuing to grow. I hesitate to use the word “casualties”, as it is clear that, in many cases, civilians have been deliberately targeted. The word “victims” is more apt. However, although bombs and bullets have killed many in Gaza, with most victims being women and children, it is starvation and disease that are bringing apocalyptic levels of suffering to the children of Gaza. I take this opportunity to join the late Pope’s calls for a ceasefire in Gaza and in the holy land, and I praise him for his constancy in doing so.
The world today is not only ravaged by hot wars; it is blighted by an economic war the scale of which the world has never seen. Let us be clear: Trump’s tariff policy is the type of economic madness that only a toddler could produce. Therefore, it was no surprise that President Trump announced it with a felt-tip pen and a marker board on the White House lawn. He claims that it is about fair trade and protecting jobs, but he slapped the UK, which does not have a trade deficit with the US, with the same 10 per cent tariff as he slapped on penguins living near the south pole. So much for the special relationship.
Perhaps worst of all, President Trump’s back-of-a-fag-packet calculations have placed the highest tariffs on the world’s poorest countries. For example, he slapped a 47 per cent tariff on Madagascar. Its main export to the United States is vanilla. That export allows Americans to enjoy a single venti vanilla latte for a price that would feed a family of vanilla farmers for a week. Of course, in Trump’s world, it is the dirt-poor vanilla farmers who are exploiting the American megacorporations and not the other way around.
We, in Scotland, are not immune to the international situation, and we, too, will suffer Trump’s tariffs, but we must all come together to fight the far right and its rise here and across the globe. I welcome the First Minister’s efforts to prevent the far-right ideology, which is prevalent abroad, from getting a foothold in Scotland.
16:59
For the record, I state clearly and openly that I am dismayed by the rise of the far right across the world. History has shown us that, when the far right is strong, it can lead to wars, poverty for many, the removal of rights and the weakening of the judiciary. It seems ironic that, in Scotland today, women have had to battle to reassert their rights and science has been consistently denied. Just at the weekend, we had dangerous commentary about the judiciary, which we should all condemn whole-heartedly. I say that because we cannot afford to be complacent and we need wise heads to prevail.
In my short remarks, I want to focus on Trump’s tariffs and their implications. First, it is useful to understand how arbitrary they are. Their levels are based on dividing the US trade deficit in goods with each country by the value of that country’s imports, then dividing by 2. However, if that formula had been imposed consistently, countries such as Australia, with which the US runs a trade surplus, would be due money back. Instead, the calculation was abandoned for countries that have little or no trade deficit with the US and a 10 per cent tariff was imposed on them. It is a myth that the UK got a better deal because of Keir Starmer cosying up to Donald Trump.
The most obvious consequences of the tariffs have been a destabilising of international markets. At close of play yesterday, the Dow Jones industrial index was trading approximately 6,000 points lower than it was at the end of January, while the relative safety of precious metals such as gold meant that their price was up again.
For many, the biggest concern is the less-well-reported impact on the bonds market. The US has introduced a rise in the cost of debt of which Liz Truss would be proud. The cost of debt has risen for the US but also for the UK, which is paying over 4.5 per cent—in the eyes of investors, that is a clear measure of a lack of fiscal resilience. That will ultimately lead to a decrease in public sector spend and Barnett consequentials, or tax rises. That is why this debate is highly relevant for the Scottish Parliament.
A fear of rising inflation in the US and the possibility of a global recession are just part of the price that is being paid for Trump’s incompetence. It is not only the large advanced economies that are being hit; poor countries are affected as well. Malawi, for example, has been hit by a 17 per cent baseline tariff by the US.
US stocks ended sharply lower overnight after Trump intensified his criticism of the Federal Reserve chair, Jerome Powell, raising concerns about the central bank’s independence and unsettling investor confidence. That has further weakened the US dollar, with further overnight declines against most major currencies.
What, then, of trade negotiations? Some countries, including the UK, seem to be signalling that they will go down the path of appeasing Trump. Fears are being expressed that that might include compromising on domestic standards, particularly for our Scottish food products, for which provenance and quality are our calling card. My fear is that taking the path of appeasement will only embolden Trump. I can see no sign that he is open to calm reasoning.
I end by making the obvious point that we need to revisit and revise Scotland’s export strategy in the light of world events, as well as our economic and financial policies.
17:03
I am very pleased that we are having this debate on the international situation. I have never understood why we have not spent a bit more time debating issues that impact Scotland in the international space and that have the potential to threaten our democracy, our security and our future. That said, I commend the scrutiny that has been undertaken by the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee on a range of issues, such as Brexit, the implications of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and the review of the EU-UK trade and co-operation agreement.
However, across the world, democratic systems are under pressure, with fundamental principles being challenged and, in some cases, actively undermined. Where does Scotland see itself in all that? How do we remain safe and prosperous? I propose that we give it less passing attention and instead recognise how our domestic policy can and should intersect more closely with international policy across a range of areas, including defence and the security of our energy infrastructure.
Scotland is a peaceful and prosperous country, but we are not immune to the impact of the global events and conflict that have been raised by colleagues this afternoon, such as those playing out in Gaza, Ukraine and Sudan, or to the implications of globalisation withering on the vine, courtesy of US tariffs. Some might welcome that, of course.
On energy infrastructure security, the UK strategic defence review is considering the reforms that are needed to meet the challenges of the 21st century and is expected to advise on an expansion of our military footprint in the Arctic and high north, as the region becomes increasingly contested owing to melting sea ice opening up access. On a recent parliamentary visit to the Faroe Islands, we discussed high north security in the context of undersea infrastructure, which, in the main, means gas pipelines and data cables.
Just last week, we saw two incidents in which Royal Air Force Typhoons were scrambled to intercept Russian intelligence aircraft in NATO airspace. Indeed, in 2023, 50 Russian aircraft were intercepted by RAF jets scrambled from RAF Lossiemouth. That is not an unusual scenario, but it demonstrates the fragility of Scotland’s undersea infrastructure. The issue cuts across domestic and international policy but has significant implications for our energy industry and communications capability. I, for one, will be interested to see what comes forward in the defence review.
That leads me on to Ukraine. In recent months, the situation in Ukraine has been peppered with increasing uncertainty, largely courtesy of the United States pulling back from its previous commitment to support Ukraine and, in particular, the withdrawal of aid and intelligence support. In response, the UK Government has committed to a coalition of the willing, which involves bringing together European countries, NATO and others to drive progress towards lasting peace.
The UK and Europe have committed to rearmament, so what can Scotland do to support that endeavour? I and others contend that, although defence is reserved, Scotland cannot stand still as the world changes around us. We have an opportunity to support our defence industry across skills development, recruitment and research and development—all competencies that lie here in Scotland, not London. In 2022, Scotland’s defence sector added £3.2 billion to the Scottish economy and employed more than 33,000 Scots, including 1,500 apprentices.
Will the member give way on that point?
I am just finishing.
However, the value of the industry is not just economic; it is also crucial to the wider defence picture in the UK, Europe and Ukraine. I look forward to seeing our new Scottish defence industry strategy soon.
17:07
Slavoj Žižek, the Slovenian philosopher and cultural critic, once said:
“The task today is to link struggles which appear separate and local, to show how they are part of the same global process.”
He said that in the context of rising global inequality and political unrest, arguing that, if we fail to see the connection between what is happening across the world and what is happening in our communities, we risk misunderstanding both. That quote is very powerful because, when we talk about the international situation, we often speak in far-off terms about wars in other lands, authoritarian regimes and political instability, but we must recognise that those crises do not only happen somewhere else; they reach us and echo throughout our society, and they are repeated and replicated right here at home, in our communities and on our doorsteps.
I am deeply concerned about what I am beginning to see trying to take root in my constituency of Banffshire and Buchan Coast. I have witnessed a growing wave of intentionally planted hostility online, but it is bleeding into conversations offline and working its way into my surgeries. That hostility is being directed at people who are already marginalised. I have noticed that the noise is getting louder, more confident and more organised—it is strategic and deliberate.
When people are hurting and when services are stripped away, fear rushes in and opportunists pour their poison. It starts with fear; it starts with rumour; and it starts with blame. In my constituency, the council proposes to close day centres for people with learning disabilities and is discussing shutting down sheltered housing. The individuals who are affected by that, and their families, are terrified about what may happen to them. People are left confused, anxious and afraid. Rumours have started as a result of unscrupulous people stating, “They are taking the housing,” with “they” being asylum seekers. The blame is not laid on those cutting the services; it lands on the most marginalised. One vulnerable group is pitted against another—it is a vile tactic. It starts with fear; it starts with rumour; and it starts with blame.
We have seen where that leads. In the 1930s, Jewish people were portrayed as greedy and getting more than their fair share. It was a manipulation of public perception. The lies were repeated for long enough until people believed them, and we know where that ended. It did not begin with violence; it began with division, mistrust and disinformation. We must be alert when seeing such posts and hearing such rumours. Who is pitting one vulnerable group against another, and for what purpose? It is a disgrace, it is disgusting and it must be called out for what it is.
I support the Scottish Government’s clear stance against the international rise of the far right. We are right to stand up for peace, democracy and international law; we are right to invest in humanitarian aid; and we are right to speak out for those without a voice in Gaza and Ukraine—wherever the rise of hate rears its head. History will judge us, not just on how we responded to global crises, but on whether we defended democracy in our own communities and whether we stood up for human rights here in Scotland. Very often, the politics of division tells us to look at the wrong 1 per cent and to believe that someone else’s survival is the reason for our suffering. It is a lie, it is cruel, and we must always reject it.
I end with a plea to my constituents. This is where it starts: not in government but in our communities. It starts in fear, in rumour and in blame. If you hear a rumour online, please come and talk to me. There is no such thing as a silly question, and you will not be judged. I can help you check the facts and get you sources. Let us be vigilant against those who seek to use the suffering of our most vulnerable for their own ends.
It starts with fear, it starts with rumour, and it starts with blame. However, it can end with courage, it can end with truth, and it can end with compassion.
We now come to closing speeches.
17:11
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.
17:18
I will take a moment to add to the many reflections about the passing of His Holiness Pope Francis. I would probably put myself in the latter category when we talk about people “of all faiths and none”—at best, I would probably describe myself as a lapsed Presbyterian—but Pope Francis genuinely gave me inspiration in relation to how to reflect on the world and think about other people. That is relevant to today’s debate, because we find ourselves in a unique and unprecedented global context.
In preparation for this debate without a motion, not quite knowing which direction it would take, I was reflecting on Francis Fukuyama’s infamous quote about the end of history and on how wrong we were. We now have war in Europe—not just a peripheral war but one that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of casualties and deaths. It is genuine interstate warfare the likes of which we have not seen in 80 years.
We are also seeing the resurrection of trade wars and tariffs, which saw the Dow Jones index drop by 5 per cent on 3 April, with a subsequent 6 per cent drop on 4 April on the back of just one announcement. That is a return to protectionism the likes of which we have not seen for generations.
Moreover, we have seen a return of the strongman, authoritarian approach to statecraft—one that is increasingly prevalent closer to home, in Europe, not in far-off lands. I do not want to name names, but we know the regimes within the European Union that are seeing those strong authoritarian trends.
I reflect on that, and I sound a note of caution for today’s debate. We are right to worry about the rise of the right, but let us not treat these things as though they are happening in different places. They are happening all around us and we should have seen the signs. The reality is that the number of democracies has fallen from 45 to 29 since 2009. There has been a doubling in the number of authoritarian regimes around the world, and we have seen an erosion of the rule of law, even in Trump’s approach.
We need to be cautious about our description of Trump, but we should not have been surprised. We are talking about a president who, when he was in the White House previously, blocked the appointment of judges to the appellate court of the World Trade Organization, which fundamentally blocked that institution. He did not believe in the global institutions that enable free trade and movement of goods.
During the past decade or more, we have also seen increasing levels of democratic interference and an increasing number of proxy wars. Audrey Nicoll was absolutely right to highlight the overflights of Russian aircraft and the disruption of undersea cables. It is all around us, and it has been happening for some time. It did not just start happening in 2022; it has been happening for well over a decade.
I have to disagree with my Conservative colleagues. Although I agree with many of the points that have been raised about the way in which the Government uses its time, I point out that sometimes the Government tiptoes around some of these issues, but these are so profound that we have to talk about them. There are profound issues about national security, the relationship between national security and economic security, industrial policy and what we must do, and those absolutely touch on devolved areas.
A point that I raised with the First Minister was that, fundamentally, we need to reflect on the failure of globalisation. I would argue that globalisation has been a force for good—it raised 1 billion people out of poverty—but it undoubtedly eroded some of the economic structures in our society and increased inequality. It increased and exacerbated poverty, and we failed to address that. We need to reflect on that. We also need to reflect on the fact that co-operation requires much deeper interactions than simply membership, and we perhaps took that for granted.
Reflecting on what that means for us in this country, the interaction between economic and physical security is profound. We have to look at our industrial base. The UK Government was absolutely right to take ownership of the British Steel plant, because we have to produce things such as steel. Likewise, in Scotland, we need to think about the security of our energy generation. We have to ask questions about how comfortable we are in relying on other countries for fundamental parts of our supply chain and whether other state actors could interfere with our energy supply. Likewise, I gently say to the Government that, although I am pleased by what the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have said about our defence sector, the Scottish Government has at times been coy about talking about that sector. The past few months and years have brought into sharp relief how fundamentally important it is to our national security and in providing skilled jobs.
The prospect of independence has unfortunately been raised yet again. All I would say to the Government is that, at a time when the issues around the UK-Iceland-Greenland gap are rearing their heads, the thought that we can simply swap one union for another is a flawed concept. We are bound together in our relationship across these islands. Whether we like it or not, we have a shared responsibility to defend this patch of land that sits between the Atlantic and the North Sea. What the Russians are doing in the North Sea cannot be ignored, and we have to co-operate across these islands to defend this part of the world that we call our own.
We must learn the lessons of history. I referred to some global institutions earlier in my speech. It is a fact that many such institutions arose from the ashes of the second world war. Indeed, the Bretton Woods conference happened during the second world war because the relationship between the economy, politics and security was recognised. We cannot allow another global conflict to be the way that we find our path back to sound global institutions and global prosperity.
17:25
I do not think that there has been a discernible theme this afternoon; there have been a lot of very individual contributions.
I note the contributions by my very good friends and colleagues, Mr Stephen Kerr and Mr Ross. They were so well made that I will not repeat them; perhaps I will look to contribute in my own way.
I will start on the commentary from the First Minister about the Drumlanrig accord. I think that we in Scotland should be incredibly proud of it. Sheikh Razawi, my very good friend Edward Green, the First Minister and I and others were at Edinburgh city chambers last year for the candle-lighting ceremony. Against the odds, in many ways, it was decided to bring the faiths together to face the challenge that the international situation presented to the lives of all of us here at home. With the support of His Grace the Duke of Buccleuch, who was able to enlist the support of His Majesty the King, we have a very positive initiative being taken here, in Scotland, which is allowing those of so many different faiths and communities to exist in harmony here, even with the extraordinary pressures that are being applied by the events outside this country. We should celebrate the work that has been done, and we should be very proud of that Scottish initiative, which is contributing so well in the face of the international situation. [Applause.]
Over the Easter recess I turned 66 the day before the First Minister turned 61—so there is just five years between us. I know that, in another context, that would be regarded as a lifetime but, in the context of today’s debate, it is not really that long at all. I was reflecting, in advance of this debate, on what I thought were—from a long menu—the key things that had shaped the international situation over my lifetime. I thought of the visit of Nixon to China in 1972, the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979, the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 and the events in New York on 9/11. All of those events had profound consequences for the world in which we live today.
Over my lifetime, we have gone from being concerned, as a country, about the might of the Soviet Union and its empire, influence and threat, which meant that many of my generation thought that a war was at least possible in our lifetime, to the fall of the Soviet Union and the extent of state-sponsored terrorism or terrorism sponsored by nobody in particular—which nobody quite knew how to deal with, as it did not have a nation face. That receded slightly, but not so much that we can be in any way complacent. Then, the threat of the nation state emerged again, with the impact of Russia, as it now seeks to initiate military conflict on the continent of Europe, the emerging suggestion of a threat to Taiwan from China, the on-going expansion and ambition of North Korea, and states conflicting with one other in the middle east and Africa. Perhaps, for my grandchildren’s generation, the prospect of a war, if not probable, once again cannot be ruled out.
There is a need, as I think Governments have recognised in this international situation, to respond to that by trying to understand how best we can be prepared. That response comes in two ways, I think. One is to ensure that we invest in the defence of the country. That is the reactive way to ensure that we are prepared, should such a situation emerge. The other is the proactive way, which involves our commitment, tradition and history as a country that is involved in international trade, that wants to engage and that has been prepared to invest in international aid. We have not talked about that today, but I was very critical of my own Government at Westminster when it temporarily reduced the aid budget, and I said that I hoped that it could be restored, so I am disappointed at the response of the Labour Party to the proposed cut in international aid, because it is that aid that helps to ensure that we are investing in countries that might otherwise become part of the very international situation and problem that we are trying to stand against and prevent occurring.
I could not agree more with Jackson Carlaw’s substantive point about the fact that international development expenditure is critical, as an investment in building bridges and societies and in avoiding conflict—which is, unfortunately, a risk that has now been exacerbated by decisions that have been taken by both the United Kingdom and the United States.
Jackson Carlaw, I can give you the time back.
I agree with that, and I would like to hear a little more from members of the Labour Party, who, I think, must be troubled by it. I understand the need and have just made the case for an investment in our defences, but I am concerned that that investment is being made at the expense of the influence and aid that are vital in preventing conflict elsewhere.
In a debate that we had five years ago, I said that the Americans faced an unenviable choice between someone who was unsuited and someone who was unfit to be in the White House. In that battle, we had President Biden, but I felt that it was not the choice that the American people should have been given.
The American people need to have a complete generational shift away from those who have billions of pounds that they can afford to spend on being elected. It is ironic that Nixon was the last poor president. We need that change to take place, because Trump’s election—in both cases—was almost a reaction to the candidate that he faced. Hillary Clinton was a very polarising figure. Joe Biden was not a polarising figure but he could certainly not have hoped to be a subsequent President. Had he recognised that sooner, the Democratic Party might have had the opportunity to think more widely about who its candidate should have been, although I do not know what the outcome of the election would have been.
I am not a fan of Mr Trump, but I do not conclude, as Patrick Harvie does, that we should just abandon our investment in, our relationship with and our hope in the United States. In some respects, President Trump is not wrong: 80 years after VE day, as Neil Bibby pointed out, the other countries of Europe also have a responsibility to step up to the defence of our continent. There cannot just be an on-going expectation that the United States will do that.
Patrick Harvie rose—
Daniel Johnson rose—
I think that I am now into my last few seconds, so I am not sure—
I can give you all the time back.
I will take an intervention from Daniel Johnson.
I am grateful to Jackson Carlaw and I apologise to Patrick Harvie.
We should not boycott Trump. We should be robust when we disagree, because, fundamentally, that is what he respects. Ultimately, however, we cannot disengage from the world’s biggest economy and, probably, our most enduring ally. Does Jackson Carlaw agree that that is the dichotomy that we must face?
Absolutely. This quote from The Economist is pretty apt:
“In a mere ten days the president has ended the old certainties that underpinned the world economy, replacing them with extraordinary levels of volatility and confusion. Some of the chaos may have abated for now. But it will take a very long time to rebuild what has been lost.”
We must accept and acknowledge that we now face a very challenging situation.
I want us to respond to the international situation. We can talk about it here; I am not so averse to our having a discussion about it from time to time. However, I do not think that we have the major levers to influence it. Part of our responsibility, therefore, is to support our elected MPs at Westminster in the discharge of their responsibility to keep us safe and secure and to ensure that we are engaged positively with the rest of the world. That has to be built on two rocks: we must keep ourselves safe and invest in the security of our country, but we must also invest in outreach, engagement and proactivity in addressing the trouble spots that emerge elsewhere in the world, through which we could subsequently feel threatened.
I invite the cabinet secretary to wind up the debate. I would be grateful if you could take us up to just before quarter to six, cabinet secretary.
17:34
Before I respond to the points that have been raised by members, I thank everybody who has participated in this afternoon’s important and timely debate. Given the breadth of the subject matter, I am pleased that members of the Parliament have had the opportunity to listen and to contribute to this afternoon’s discussion.
As the First Minister noted in his opening speech, the events of the past few days and, indeed, the past few months have challenged the international rules-based order that we have perhaps taken too much for granted. That has real consequences for people here, in Scotland. Global instability, conflict and economic uncertainty impact on jobs, investment and our shared desire for a just and fairer world. That is why taking an internationalist and outward-facing approach is vital, which means that we must actively engage with partners to protect Scotland’s economic interests, create opportunity for Scotland’s people and stand up for the values that we believe in. In the face of rising tensions and uncertainty, we cannot take the view that global events do not affect matters that come before this Parliament or, indeed, have no impact on Scotland more widely.
As the contributions to this debate have highlighted, a range of issues affect our international work. I will reflect on the contributions of members who had something to say about the impact of the international situation. Neil Bibby was the first to do so. He said that there is much to discuss, and he is absolutely right. He was correct to identify the broad range of challenges, including the dangers of a trade war. I note his support for brand Scotland, which is extremely welcome, and I look forward to him and his party colleagues promoting its campaigns.
Patrick Harvie correctly warned about the range of crises and spoke about the importance of believing in hope and a better future. Alex Cole-Hamilton painted a vivid image of Ukraine and why the conflict there should matter to us all. George Adam said that we should aim for Scotland to play a part in the international community—actively doing so is, of course, the global norm.
Emma Roddick highlighted the impact of disinformation, which is ever more relevant both here and globally. Paul O’Kane highlighted the importance of co-existence and hope, and of not forgetting about frozen conflicts that sometimes appear less in the international headlines. He recounted his visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina with Remembering Srebrenica. Having led the first Scottish delegation to Srebrenica with Remembering Srebrenica, I recommend that all colleagues who have not yet been go—please ensure that the combating of genocide and Holocaust denialism remains a priority for all of us in Scotland.
Kevin Stewart made a powerful speech about the situations in Ukraine and Palestine and warned about the damage of tariffs and the danger of the far right. Michelle Thomson highlighted the impact of tariffs on bond markets and how that impacts on Scotland and our devolved governance.
Audrey Nicoll was right to reflect that we should give greater, not less, consideration to international developments. That includes the malevolent role of Russia around our shores, which we should all be alive to. Karen Adam warned of the dangers of othering, fear, rumour and blame—history is repeating itself in that regard.
Turning to the concluding contributions, I think that Daniel Johnson was right to describe the unique context that we find ourselves in at present and to say that the issues are so profound that we must discuss them. I agree with him. He went on to talk about the importance of the defence sector. I also agree with him on that and on his highlighting of northern security as an area where we all share a key priority.
Jackson Carlaw made a very expansive and considered contribution on behalf of his party. He talked about the importance of faith, co-existence and co-operation, about changing international relationships in a global context and the risk of war, and about the importance of trade and aid. I could not agree with any of that any more than I do.
In closing the debate, I emphasise the role that Scotland plays internationally and the importance of navigating global challenges with a clear focus on our values, interests and strategic priorities. Engagement with the international community matters to Scotland. As well as being an important opportunity to make a positive contribution on global issues such as climate change, renewable energy and economic prosperity, it affects how we are viewed by the rest of the world. Through our engagement with international partners, we demonstrate our commitment to democracy, the rule of law and the principles of co-operation between nations, which are enshrined in the United Nations charter and anchored by the rules-based system that has defined international relations for much of the past 80 years.
Many of those values are also those of our friends in the European Union, which is an endeavour that was forged in the aftermath of global turmoil and war in Europe. That is a point worth remembering—as it has been in this debate—as we approach the 80th anniversary of VE day in just two weeks’ time.
We will continue to work with partners to promote and strengthen multilateralism and global institutions, to protect human rights and, through our international development programmes and humanitarian responses, to help the most vulnerable where we can.
Last year, building on our global affairs framework, I was proud to launch the Scottish Government’s international strategy, which sets out our values-based approach to international relations. The international strategy emphasises Scotland’s aspiration to be a good global citizen and recognises the need for co-operation to build a more just and sustainable global system. That is central to our vision for Scotland’s place in the world, and it underpins the way in which we conduct ourselves internationally. In addition, the strategy’s core themes of economy, trade and investment; climate change, biodiversity and renewable energy; and reputation, influence and relationships will ensure that we maintain focus on priority areas, so that our international work is impactful and delivers for Scotland’s people and businesses.
I take a moment to draw members’ attention to the international network of Scottish Government offices and Scottish Development International posts that do so much work to promote Scottish interests overseas, strengthen our relationships with key countries, and protect and enhance Scotland’s brand overseas. Those networks and the people who work there create links and have helped to put Scotland on a path to a greener and more prosperous future. Recent global economic instability underlines the important roles that those networks play—and will continue to play—for Scotland’s businesses and the wider economy.
For those who do not know this, I note that there are 1,200 to 1,300 members of the GlobalScot network, who work on a non-remunerated basis around the world to promote inward investment, our economy and Scotland as a place to study, work and live in. I encourage members to do everything that is possible to support that network, which is the envy of many other countries.
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?
The GlobalScot network is operated by Scottish Enterprise and Scottish Development International. No issues have been raised with me about any members of the network. Patrick Harvie brings up a historical case, which is factually correct. If he has any concerns, I am sure that colleagues at Scottish Enterprise would be happy to look at them. There is an extensive programme that involves the recruitment, retention and support of members of the GlobalScot network. The network works very well, and I think that we could look at expanding it. If colleagues have any views on that subject, I would be happy to hear them.
We live in an increasingly interconnected world in which no nation or individual is sheltered from the impact of global affairs. Indeed, this afternoon’s debate has underlined the influence and impact that global issues have on our nation. Whether we consider the United States tariffs and the knock-on effects on the global economy, the devastating impact of conflicts and climate change or the weakening of the rules-based system that governs co-operation between nations, the issues affect all of us here in Scotland. That is why I will close by reflecting on what can be achieved when we work together, collectively, across the chamber and across the country, to take a positive view of international engagement.
A very good example of that is the establishment of the Scottish Council on Global Affairs. The council, which has had the backing of other parties in this Parliament and, indeed, the United Kingdom Government, is helping to enhance Scotland’s reputation and to encourage others to think about what Scotland has to offer to global affairs. Its work has also helped to raise the quality of debate and the understanding of modern international issues across Scotland.
By working together in this Parliament, we can—and we must—continue to advocate for Scotland internationally to ensure that our voice is heard on issues that affect our international relations and our domestic policy, and to stand up for the democratic values of the rule of law, co-operation and respect for human dignity.
Previous
Supreme Court Judgment