Stephen Kerr
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“My first priority is to prevent crime before it happens and, as a consequence, to reduce the number of victims. Therefore, the Government will continue to intervene early to steer people away from crime and focus on areas such as substance dependency, health, poverty, homelessness and employability, which are all significant contributing…”
“Alongside more places, a smarter approach to custody is needed, and I remain committed to using all levers at our disposal, including continuing to expand the use of home detention curfew, which supports reintegration of individuals by providing for their structured return to the community.”
“I expect HMP Highland to be completed in spring 2027— which is later than planned, due to construction issues—and HMP Glasgow, which I visited last week, is due to be completed in 2028.”
“I recognise that the proposed changes are bold, and I hope that they can contribute to a thoughtful debate today on the consequences of not addressing the rise in our prison population. The outcomes of any sentence for a crime committed should be that justice is served and no further reoffending happens.”
“That is why my priority is the prevention of crime and further reoffending behaviour. That approach makes financial sense: every prison place costs us more than £52,000 a year; this financial year, we are spending nearly £510 million in resource funding for the Scottish Prison Service to run our jails.”
“Yi-pei Chou Turvey sums things up very well. This whole issue has been at the bottom of the to-do list—that is exactly where we are. The title of the Government’s motion, which is the subject of today’s debate, is: “Achieving a sustainable prison population”. We can all share that perfectly reasonable objective.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,212 lines we hold for Stephen Kerr, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 25.
“I am grateful to Marie McNair for lodging the motion and for her speech. She has brought to us all remembrance of the events of 13 and 14 March 1941, when Clydebank was subject to devastation on a scale that is beyond belief: 439 Luftwaffe bombers and thousands of bombs; 528 killed and 617 seriously injured; and 12,000 homes damaged, with 4,300 destroyed completely. She mentioned the seven houses that were, famously, not damaged, which is an incredible statistic. Second Avenue suffered the heaviest loss of life. As Marie McNair said, whole families were wiped out and streets disappeared. The targets were strategic. As has been mentioned, they included John Brown’s shipyard, the Beardsmore engine works and the Singer factory.”
“Does Sue Webber agree that those who make the law cannot then break it with impunity? The public expect a certain level of conduct from members of Parliament, both here and in other Parliaments. When we let the public down by not adhering to those standards, we are undermining public confidence in the democratic institutions that our country stands by. Sue Webber: We cannot escape the fact that we are in a world right now where trust in politicians is at an all-time low. With the case of Margaret Ferrier—”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the reported disclosure that £96.2 million has been spent by NHS Scotland on damages, legal expenses and associated costs linked to maternity and obstetric care. (S6T-02910)”
“However, I cannot comment on live police investigations.”
“Given that Police Scotland has indicated that no criminality can be established, what regulatory enforcement action is SEPA now considering under environmental protection legislation? Can the cabinet secretary confirm whether SEPA had previously inspected the site in question, when that inspection took place and whether any compliance concerns were recorded? Gillian Martin: I will need to write to Stephen Kerr about the latter part of his question, because he is asking about things previous to the incident. I can catch up with SEPA, which can let me know whether that was the case. I understand that SEPA is engaging with Police Scotland, and anyone who believes that a crime has been committed in this instance should report it to Police Scotland, which will be able to investigate appropriately.”
“Motion agreed to, That the Parliament agrees to the following revision to the programme of business for Tuesday 24 February 2026— delete 6.00 pm Decision Time and insert 6.35 pm Decision Time Topical Question Time 14:12 River Dochart (Diesel Pollution) 1.”
“If we are going to get caught in a web of process every time we raise an issue—and particularly one that is as timely as this, which has just occurred in the past few minutes—what does that say about the status of this Parliament as Scotland’s place where ministers and this Government are held to account? Graeme Dey: Let me thank Mr Kerr for today’s performance. We get this every day from Mr Kerr and Mr Ross. These are serious matters and they have been dealt with seriously by the Lord Advocate, who has provided the information on the scale on which she undertook to do so. The Conservatives have not even digested that information and they are on their feet, demanding a statement.”
“A mechanism is available through business managers to request a statement, and if a majority—[Interruption.] I hear Mr Kerr groaning. That says everything about his respect for this institution, but we knew that anyway. There is a mechanism by which business managers can come together and request a statement, but I have no intention of bringing a statement today. I give way to Mr Kerr. I apologise. Stephen Kerr: Let me tell the minister that I have the utmost respect for Scotland’s Parliament. Ministers should have a bit more respect for this place. Douglas Ross, on behalf of many of us, is voicing concern about our ability to hold this Government and ministers to account. There is nothing out of order in that—nothing at all.”
“Will the minister give way? Graeme Dey: In a moment. What we have just heard tells us all that we need to know about Douglas Ross’s motives, because some of the questions—[Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear the minister. Graeme Dey: The Conservatives can shout as loudly as they like. That is their tactic, normally. Douglas Ross actually knows the answers to some of the questions that he posed. The problem is that he does not want to hear them, because he has a predetermined position on the matter and he is going to grandstand on it. Presiding Officer, as you and the rest of the Parliament are well aware, there is a mechanism— Stephen Kerr: Will the minister give way on that point? Graeme Dey: I will give way to Mr Kerr in a moment.”
“I move, That the Parliament agrees that, for the purposes of section 11A of the Income Tax Act 2007 (which provides for Income Tax to be charged at Scottish rates on certain non- savings and non-dividend income of a Scottish taxpayer to be charged above the personal allowance), the Scottish rates and limits for the tax year 2026-27 are as follows— (a) a starter rate of 19%, charged on income up to a limit of £3,967, (b) the Scottish basic rate is 20%, charged on income above £3,967 and up to a limit of £16,956, (c) an intermediate rate of 21%, charged on income above £16,956 and up to a limit of £31,092, (d) a higher rate of 42%, charged on income above £31,092 and up to a limit of £62,430, (e) an advanced rate of 45%, charged on income above £62,430 and up to a limit of £125,140, and (f) a top rate of 48%, charged on income above £125,140.”
“There will be a record £17.6 billion for NHS front- line services, supporting the vital work of general practitioners and primary care services, and more than £5 billion will be put towards measures that will reduce Scotland’s carbon emissions. The Government is clear on what its priorities are and what they mean to households across Scotland. That is why I ask members to vote to ratify the proposed changes to Scottish income tax in 2026-27.”
“The income tax proposals that I have set out today underpin the entire budget settlement that we have been debating in the Parliament and provide the investment that ensures that our public services can be properly funded. Let me set out the positive changes that will go ahead only if the Parliament votes for the rate resolution and the overall budget. For a start, income tax bills will be lowered for most taxpayers in our society, putting more money in people’s pockets to help with the current cost of living pressures. From April 2027, the Scottish child payment will be boosted to £40 a week for families with a baby aged under one, which will provide additional support for those who need it most.”
“However, the reality is that we cannot will these things into existence. It requires dialogue, difficult choices and the conviction to make that happen, and that is what this Government is doing. It also requires resources. We cannot will the means into being; we have to provide them, and the rate resolution does so. In the run-up to the budget, we were grateful to those colleagues across the chamber who entered into meaningful engagement with the Government. Our balanced, progressive approach to income tax policy goes some way to allowing us to protect the social contract that provides a range of services not available elsewhere in the UK.”
“Such policies include free prescriptions, the abolition of peak rail fares, free higher education and the Scottish child payment, which the Tories no longer seem to support. When combined, those savings often outweigh the small annual tax differences between those in Scotland and those in the rest of the UK. For example, Scottish households in the lower half of the income distribution are, on average, about £480 better off per year than they would be under UK tax and social security policies. We have fulfilled our tax strategy objective to provide stability for the remainder of this parliamentary session, and we have delivered our commitment to protect lower-income households. We hear time and again, from other parties in the chamber, calls for additional spending by the Government.”
“We propose increasing the basic and intermediate rate thresholds by 7.4 per cent in 2026-27, which is an investment of more than £50 million in lowering households’ tax bills. When considered alongside the policy last year, it means that the basic and intermediate rate thresholds will have risen by about twice the rate of inflation over the past two years. We are continuing with our balanced approach and propose maintaining the higher, advanced and top rate thresholds at their current levels. It means that we are asking those with broader shoulders to pay a little more so that the public services that people rightly expect can continue to be delivered. Many families will feel the benefit of the Government’s policies cumulatively, rather than just in relation to income tax alone.”
“Made-up facts. Shona Robison: Tory members might not like facts being pointed out to them, but they are facts nonetheless. The positive economic indicators that I have set out demonstrate the continued resilience of the Scottish economy. In last year’s budget, our tax strategy made specific commitments for the remainder of this parliamentary session. Those commitments were to keep the same number of income tax bands; not make any increases to rates; ensure that the starter and basic rate thresholds rose by at least inflation; and continue the position whereby a majority of taxpayers could expect to pay less than they would in the rest of the UK. We have stuck to those commitments for 2026-27, and the rate resolution delivers that.”
“I will continue to work closely throughout the bill process with stakeholders to ensure that the legislation balances the needs of industry and local government and that it supports the effective operation of the local visitor levy schemes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on the Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill at stage 1. Scottish Income Tax Rate Resolution 2026-27”
“I know that members would like a cruise ship levy and a point-of-entry levy to be considered for some parts of the country. We have had a consultation on a cruise ship levy, which will be for the next Government to consider post-election, but it will not be part of the bill. I hope that there is recognition that trying to attach it to the bill would cause real challenges for getting this important legislation through in time. I thank the officials, who have done a power of work over a short period to get the bill to where it is now, and who are very much across all the issues that need to be addressed in stages 2 and 3.”
“I am grateful to members for their contributions to today’s debate, and— Ariane Burgess: Will the member take an intervention? Ivan McKee: That is just on cue—I was about to reiterate my thanks to the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee. Ariane Burgess: Sarah Boyack raised a point about the cruise ship levy. It would be good if you could address that. My understanding from the evidence that we took is that such a levy would need a different legal mechanism, as the bill is about overnight accommodation in a place, and that the Government is taking forward measures on that. I would appreciate hearing from you—I mean, from the minister. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. Ivan McKee: That is an important point.”
“Willie Rennie made the important point that, although the bill gives powers to local authorities, it does not compel them to do anything. That point was well made. Some members took the opportunity to support and promote their local tourist attractions. Fulton MacGregor did a wonderful job of promoting many of North Lanarkshire’s often overlooked but excellent tourist attractions, and Alasdair Allan highlighted some of the fabulous tourist attractions in Na h-Eileanan an Iar. Tim Eagle made sensible points about the administrative burden on local businesses. Of course, we recognise that, and it is one of the drivers for the changes that we are introducing through the bill. I always welcome offers of collaboration from across the chamber, wherever they come from, so members should recognise that.”
“On council costs, there is already a provision in section 19 of the 2024 act to allow councils to recover their costs from revenues that are raised by the levy, which gives some comfort in that regard. I thank the cautious Willie Rennie for his clear and principled position in opposition to bells and whistles—in this instance, at least—although that was challenged by Tim Eagle and others, who are taking a more pro-bell-and-whistle position. It will be interesting to see how that plays out through stages 2 and 3. Indeed, Tim Eagle was also involved in controversy when he chose to have a disagreement with Davy Russell on the important subject of seagulls in an earlier debate, so he is making a bit of a habit of that today.”
“On implementation periods, to clarify the language, we propose to make changes in that regard, so that moving between schemes or making changes can be done in a way that has the consensus of everybody who is engaged in the process. As I said, that was one of the major topics of discussion in my engagement with industry and local authorities last week. With regard to regulation-making powers, we are giving the assurance that those are to enable us to deal with specific issues that might arise, and not to make wholesale changes to the bill or its provisions. A number of members made the point about exemptions. Local authorities already have the power to put in place exemptions—we have already provided local authorities with the mechanism to do exactly that.”
“Ivan McKee: I am always happy to look at pragmatic measures, but we must bear in mind that the consensus across the chamber, which I will come on to talk about, is that we need a focused bill that delivers on the objectives, to ensure that everything is done before the end of the parliamentary session. I will touch on a few of the comments that members made. The convener of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, Ariane Burgess, raised a number of points. I have already addressed the point about multiple schemes applying to the same transaction. We are listening closely to concerns that have been raised about the per-person-per-night fee, and we will respond shortly.”
“By providing local authorities with increased flexibility to shape their schemes around local circumstances, the bill will strengthen their ability to support and sustain tourism in their areas. Clear, adaptable and proportionate frameworks can deliver shared benefits for businesses, communities and visitors alike. Stephen Kerr: Can the minister assure us that he will take the opportunity to go slightly beyond a narrow technical clean-up exercise? Will he be brave and look at any pragmatic suggestions that we might make that would improve the measure?”
“We have heard emergent plans from local authorities, which have told us that they intend to use the money that is raised from a visitor levy to invest in growing the visitor economy—for example, by boosting events with visitor management and providing valued jobs in the tourism sector for local people; by supporting culture and heritage opportunities; and through tourism infrastructure, such as by developing connectivity to make it easier to travel between islands and destinations. As I stated in my opening remarks, the bill will help to implement visitor levy schemes that are responsive to local economies and communities, for the benefit of everyone.”
“The bill seeks to deliver changes to the 2024 act to ensure that visitor levy schemes can be tailored by local authorities to work in the interests of visitors, residents and the tourism and hospitality sectors. If the bill is passed, the measures will have tangible benefits for years to come. Those changes will support clarity and flexibility in the design and implementation of schemes that meet the needs of local areas.”
“We want them to share our unique culture, landscapes and warm hospitality. We also want the attractiveness of our local areas to be maintained well and continually enhanced in a way that supports the visitor economy. By directing the funding through the levy, we intend to enable local authorities to do that. That is why we introduced the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill in 2023. The 2024 act now provides a means for authorities to levy a charge on the sale of overnight accommodation and to generate additional resources to support and sustain facilities that are used mainly by visitors. Sarah Boyack gave some fine examples of how those resources can be deployed in Edinburgh.”
“Stephen Kerr: Can I say a couple of words to close? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I am asking you to bring your remarks to a close, so please do that now. Stephen Kerr: I conclude by saying that we will not necessarily follow the advice of Willie Rennie, because we will seek to lodge a controlled, restrained number of amendments to the bill in order to improve it and to make it more pragmatic, which is something that I hope that all members of the Parliament would agree with. The Scottish Conservatives are, unapologetically, the party of business, and we will speak up for the businesses and jobs in our country. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call the minister, Ivan McKee, to close on behalf of the Scottish Government. 16:05 Ivan McKee: Visitors should be welcome across Scotland.”
“It is about jobs, livelihoods, family businesses and fragile rural and island economies, where margins are tight and seasonality is unforgiving. A levy might look neat in a forecast or as an idea, and it might produce an attractive revenue headline on a spreadsheet but, if it shortens the length of stay, shifts bookings to competing destinations or adds friction in a competitive market, the wider economic cost could outweigh the gain. That is why modelling matters. It is reckless to introduce a new tax without properly understanding behavioural impact. Listening to the SNP members who spoke this afternoon, we would have thought that the whole thing was a surprise to them, particularly given— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Kerr, could you please bring your remarks to a close? You are well over your time.”
“It is saying that structure matters, detail matters and impact matters. Tim Eagle said that, when asked, the businesses in the region that he represents said that they wanted certainty, fairness and common sense. We have tried to be a voice for exactly that in this Parliament—in relation to this and other measures. As Daniel Johnson said, before we impose a new tax on a globally competitive sector, we must assess the impact properly, model it rigorously, examine price sensitivity, consider displacement and look seriously at what happens if visitors simply choose somewhere else. I sit on the Economy and Fair Work Committee, which Daniel Johnson convenes, and we have heard from representatives of the tourism sector that that is a live issue in Scotland. Tourism is not a spreadsheet exercise.”
“We argued for flexibility and simplicity. We argued that locking Scotland in a rigid percentage-only model would cause real- world problems for businesses on the ground. Those were not ideological objections; they were practical ones, and the evidence has borne that out. Highland Council undertook a statutory consultation and received more than 4,000 responses. Its assistant chief executive told the committee that the top feedback concerned “the perceived advantages of a per-night fee rather than a percentage-based levy. We had gone with a 5 per cent levy as part of our consultation.”—[Official Report, Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee, 27 January 2026; c 5.] That was clearly seen as the salient and outstanding problem. This is not abstract theory; it is the voice of the sector.”
“That is maybe because Ivan McKee is, at heart, a pragmatist. He understands a little about what makes a business work and he has seen through the bill that we previously passed, and noticed its flaws. We heard the convener of the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee speak earlier. The committee’s stage 1 report said that the core issue in the bill, which is “the basis on which the levy can be charged”, was “not unforeseen.” That is so diplomatic. In other words, it was obvious what the issues were, but they were all raised during the passage of the Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill, and ministers were indeed warned. Murdo Fraser, who is back again, was a salient voice in warning ministers, and he was not alone, because Miles Briggs, Liz Smith and Jamie Halcro Johnston also took part in that. We all tried to make the bill workable.”
“That is a mistake that the Government has made previously—for example, that was one of the issues with the deposit return scheme. Do you agree with one of my fundamental points, which is that the Government needs to look at the practicalities of the charging mechanisms before it embarks on such a levy? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. Stephen Kerr: Absolutely, I agree, but let us be fair—it is a Thursday afternoon. [Interruption.] Well, look at the place—it is empty. [Interruption.] In all honesty, I do not think that SNP members can afford to make such a point in our direction. [Interruption.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Members! Stephen Kerr: I want to be generous to the minister by saying that at least he has had the courage to listen and act now.”
“We warned then that the percentage-only approach was wrong, but we were told that it was right. The sector was not listened to by anyone in the Parliament other than the Scottish Conservatives. We are back here again, amending primary legislation. Earlier, I facetiously intervened on Daniel Johnson—I do not have any particular animus towards him personally—to point out that here we have legislative scrutiny as it is not intended to be conducted. It is so unnecessary. Daniel Johnson: Will the member give way? Stephen Kerr: Yes, I will happily give way. Daniel Johnson: I am grateful to Mr Kerr for giving way, and I am not being facetious in any way. If we boil it down, one of the critical errors is that the Government did not look at how the mechanisms of charging work in a practical sense or at how collection might work.”
“Before any proposed legislation is brought before the Parliament, there ought to be proper understanding of what the measure, the remit and the effect are. That has clearly not been understood in this case. When the original Visitor Levy (Scotland) Bill was brought before the Parliament in 2023, we were unenthused by the idea of a new tax. We are Conservatives, after all: we are not that much in favour of raising taxes, of new taxes or of more regulation. We warned the Government that it was getting key aspects of its legislation completely wrong. We were told that we were being negative. As has happened today, members used the justification that the levy would be a really good source of revenue, as if there was some source of free money available from the private sector that will always be there to take more and more tax from.”
“We had a refreshing moment of honesty from the minister in his opening remarks, when he volunteered that the Government had introduced legislation for a sector that it did not fully understand. The fact that we are back here with an amendment bill suggests that what he said is very honest and true. Ivan McKee: Will the member give way on that point? Stephen Kerr: He may now wish to say something about that. Ivan McKee: If the member listens back to what I said, he will find that I said that the sector had said that it did not fully understand the whole range of activities that happened across the sector. That is what I said. Stephen Kerr: He is blaming the sector for the fact that the Government did not really understand the sector.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I advise members that we have a little bit of time in hand. 15:05”
“Although the bill has been expedited, there has been stakeholder engagement throughout to inform the measures in it. That engagement will continue as the bill progresses through the Parliament and, if it is passed, as we move towards implementation. The bill will provide local authorities with greater discretion to shape schemes in a way that reflects local needs and visitor patterns, and it will support the long-term sustainability and competitiveness of Scotland’s world-leading tourism sector. I am grateful that the committee has indicated its support for the general principles of the bill. Those principles will be welcomed across Scotland as we aim to improve visitor services and support that world-leading sector. I move, That the Parliament agrees to the general principles of the Visitor Levy (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.”
“My recent response to the committee’s stage 1 report confirmed that the financial memorandum sets out the best available central cost estimates. However, we will, of course, continue to refine those with local authorities, as the provisions in the bill may change through stages 2 and 3. The flexibility for councils will be balanced with clarity for businesses. I am considering the committee’s recommendations, including those on the practical operation of multiple schemes, fixed amounts and regulation-making powers. My officials and I will continue to engage closely with stakeholders and the Parliament to ensure that we have a proportionate and effective visitor levy framework for Scotland that suits local circumstances while supporting local authorities and businesses.”
“The bill also includes a regulation-making power, which will enable ministers to give effect to any changes that may be required once the system is operational. I want to reiterate that I have welcomed stakeholder input throughout the stage 1 process and that I continue to listen. I am grateful to the Local Government, Housing and Planning Committee for its consideration of the bill and for its constructive engagement with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, local authorities and industry throughout the process. Last week, I arranged a meeting with local authorities and key industry stakeholders to discuss their calls for further changes to implementation periods. They have helpfully provided written suggestions, which I am giving further consideration to as we move towards stage 2.”
“I will be less diplomatic than Daniel Johnson. Does the minister regret not listening to the Conservatives, who were making exactly those points to him during the passage of the initial bill? Ivan McKee: To be clear, they were not making exactly the same points. The Conservative proposition was to not give councils the flexibility to operate a percentage scheme and to limit them to a flat-rate scheme. In other words, the Conservatives did not want to broaden the scope and provide the increased flexibility that councils and industry very much welcome in the proposals that we have brought forward. If we had taken forward their proposal at that time, we would probably be back here anyway, widening out the provisions through a separate bill.”
“I am sure that this will be a matter that the incoming Government, following dissolution and the election, will want to consider in due course, as there are certain issues to look at in relation to data sharing and data being more readily available to ministers who sit at national level. Grooming Gangs (Public Inquiry) 6.”
“From the data that the cabinet secretary has available to her, can she say what proportion of incidents result in meaningful disciplinary action? How would the cabinet secretary define a consequence that acts as a real deterrent to that behaviour? Jenny Gilruth: Mr Kerr will be aware that the Government published updated guidance on consequences prior to the summer recess last year. As for data on meaningful disciplinary action itself, those are not data sets that the Government would itself gather. I should say that there are broader issues in relation to our education data at the current time.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what analysis it has undertaken of any link between social media use and violent disruption in classrooms in Scotland. (S6O-05539)”
“From the point at which the indictment is served, there is no limit on its terms being made public. I accept that it is a significant case, but the whole purpose of the intimation to the First Minister was because of the significant development of information entering the public domain at that point. I would just be repeating myself to say that the purpose in intimation was quite the opposite of what has been suggested—it was to ensure that the Government was reminded to restrict its commentary for good reason. That was, to protect the integrity of a significant and serious prosecution that has been taken up by independent prosecutors in the Crown Office. The Presiding Officer: That concludes the urgent question. Business Motion”
“The reason why the word “significant” keeps being used in connection with this particular case is that it involves the Scottish National Party. When alleged criminality touches the governing party, even the perception of preferential access such as we are talking about—that is what it is—risks undermining public confidence in the independence of Scotland’s prosecution service. What steps will the Lord Advocate now take to ensure that public confidence is not further undermined in that way? The Lord Advocate: It was not preferential access. I did not brief the First Minister in relation to the prosecution of Mr Murrell or the contents of the indictment. The minute was simply a factual confirmation of the fact that Mr Murrell had been indicted, the nature of the charge and the value of the alleged embezzlement.”
“Scotland is a proud part of the United Kingdom, and Britain was a founding member of NATO. Collective defence is not optional; it is the bedrock of our security and our prosperity, on which our public services depend. The Scottish Parliament can indulge in ideological theatrics or behave with maturity in a dangerous world. I call on members to support the Conservative amendment and to reject the motion. 15:35”
“Its intelligence, logistics, air mobility and deterrent capabilities are woven into NATO’s credibility. That is why countries that are under real threat seek closer integration with the alliance, not distance from it. Then there is the matter of Prestwick. The issue concerns lawful and routine allied flights, revenue for a publicly owned airport, skilled Scottish jobs and infrastructure that strengthens national resilience. In one breath, the Greens speak of protecting public assets; in the next, they would jeopardise a key income stream for the sake of a cheap headline. That is not strategic thinking; it is gesture and student politics. The motion is not about sovereignty and it is not about the law; it is about making a statement that will impress the Greens’ activists while doing nothing to enhance Scotland’s security or prosperity.”
“That is not ideology; it is economic reality. However, that is perhaps an uncomfortable truth for a party with economic instincts that would take us back to the stone age. NATO has preserved peace for more than 75 years. Its collective defence and nuclear deterrent, including the strategic capability of the United States, have underpinned stability in Europe for decades. That is not rhetoric; it is the hard architecture of peace. Because they dislike the current Administration in Washington, the Greens propose that this Parliament should grandstand, but alliances are not disposable, and they are not fashion accessories to be discarded when politics shifts. They are sustained through political cycles and maintained with seriousness and steadiness. The United States remains central to Europe’s security.”
“Nations on NATO’s eastern flank are not posturing; they are seeking protection. In that context, the Greens believe that Scotland’s great contribution is to pick a fight with the Atlantic alliance. That is not serious politics— as Murdo Fraser once observed, it is “wired to the moon”. Presidents come and go and personalities change. Donald Trump came, went, returned and will go again. Others will follow, but the alliance endures because it is bigger than any leader and more important than any electoral cycle. To casually label democratic allies as rogue states is not moral leadership; it is diplomatic vandalism. If that becomes the currency of international relations, trust will collapse, trade will suffer and working people will pay the price. Prosperity depends on stable alliances and open markets.”