Michael Marra
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“I thank Jack Middleton for bringing the debate to the chamber. Its subject is of widespread concern, and will impact significantly on communities across the north of Scotland and in my North East Scotland region.”
“Indeed, the decline of quality local journalism that is embedded close to people is a tragedy. As many local newspapers face increasing issues with sustainability, it has become more, rather than less, important for the biggest companies and corporations to ensure that their journalism is rooted in communities.”
“More broadly, I believe—Jack Middleton has touched on some of this—that the decision is an act of surrender to what is a wildfire of commoditised fear that is weaponised by tech oligarchs to purposely undermine real freedom in pursuit of power and profit.”
“Although it is a commercial decision from STV, backed by the regulator to this point, it is also the latest example of what is becoming an ever- growing list of services being centralised away from communities in Scotland. Those in the north- east and further afield have, over the years, seen the same situation before.”
“The absence of regional journalism will only hasten that process, and whatever we might think, collectively, about the barrier and where the balance should sit, local people should have that accountability and the opportunity to make their case about where power is situated.”
“I welcome the hard work that Our Union Street is doing to re-energise Union Street and the centre of Aberdeen. The project is working along with partners to bring together a shared vision of the future of the city centre.”
The complete record
Every one of 754 lines we hold for Michael Marra, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 13 of 16.
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was not able to connect. I would have voted yes. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Marra. We will ensure that that is recorded. Tess White: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My app would not work. I would have voted no. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms White. We will ensure that that is recorded.”
“I greatly welcome the opportunity to discuss the UK Government’s spring statement and the broad economic and political context, which is the subject of considerable public debate across the country today. The country faces the real threat of a tariff war, the potential consequences of which can scarcely be overstated for Scotland and the rest of the UK. As the New York Times said yesterday, “President Trump is trying to rewire the global economic order”.”
“From April, anyone who earns more than £30,318 will pay more income tax in Scotland than they would in the rest of the UK, which equates to £1,527 more in tax for someone on a £50,000 salary and £3,331 more for someone on a £100,000 salary. If the UK’s financial outlook is bleak as a result of the spring statement, Scotland’s outlook under the SNP is grounds for despair.”
“Will the member give way on that point? Craig Hoy: Unless I can get the time back, I do not have time. I apologise. High tax is now the biggest concern for businesses in Scotland. Analysis of the latest business insights and conditions survey found that 18 per cent of firms identified taxation as their main concern for April, followed by concerns about falling demand. As the cabinet secretary alluded to, tariffs will no doubt be weighing heavily on people’s minds. In discussions with the Scottish Government, we in the Scottish Conservatives advocated for lower taxes to stimulate growth. The Confederation of British Industry’s Rain Newton-Smith agrees—she has warned that uncompetitive tax policies, including Scotland’s income tax gap with the rest of the UK, are a “handbrake on growth”.”
“Last Friday, I visited a constituent whom I have been representing for years and who is incarcerated in the learning disability unit at Carseview in Dundee. After a delayed discharge of more than five years, he is still waiting in a situation that is deeply inappropriate for his needs. I also recently visited the locked wards of Strathmartine hospital, which has been condemned by the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland. In its report, which I have previously mentioned in the chamber, it highlights the hospital’s Dickensian conditions, including rats falling from the roof, infestations in the walls and other conditions that are entirely unacceptable. It is absolutely clear that there is much work to do in this area, and the minister has an awful lot of questions to answer. 17:57”
“I ask the minister in closing to say how on earth those two things can be true at the same time. It amounts to a statistical contortion. People in Tayside are rightly asking whether the closure of a waiting list is the means by which the waiting list target is being met. That would be doing everybody in the process a disservice, and we must get to the bottom of what is happening. It was right that, in the same question time session, the First Minister expressed concern about the communication around the issue, but substantive questions remain. This afternoon, I met autism campaigners, who were asked about the issues that they wanted to have raised in the debate. The first voice that chimed mentioned that we still lock up many people with autism across Scotland.”
“We are seeing the same pattern across the country, as I think has been acknowledged. It is fair to say that members in the Tayside region believed that the situation was not sustainable and that something had to change. At the time, questions were rightly asked about the system that would be put in its place, the amount of clinical input that would be involved in a team- around-the-child approach, and the availability of medication through diagnosis. However, those questions remain unanswered. We also heard the statistic that those on the CAMHS waiting list in Tayside could be waiting 13 to 14 years for treatment. At First Minister’s question time last week, the First Minister spoke of his delight that, in the period from October to December 2024, 90 per cent of young people referred to CAMHS were seen within 18 weeks.”
“The NHS Tayside board papers from February 2025 refer to “A significant increase in referral rates for Neurodevelopment (ND) assessments and a reduction in specialist ND staff” and declare that “The pathway and waiting list is extensive and unmanageable, with no alternative pathway for these children and young people.” In reaction to that, the health board has agreed that only those children and young people with comorbid mental health difficulty will be accepted by CAMHS, which is effectively a closure of the waiting list. When the situation was presented to MSPs, the health board referenced the 400 per cent increase in the number of referrals for neurodevelopmental challenges on the waiting list. My colleague Brian Whittle told me this afternoon that, in his area, the percentage increase has been far higher.”
“I thank my good friend Daniel Johnson for bringing the debate to light. Reflecting ahead of it, I was conscious of the great range of my work as an MSP that is considered in the debate and the motion. There are issues relating to casework, constituents seeking diagnosis and medication, facilities, delayed discharge and education. The subject cuts across many issues, as many of the speeches that we have heard so far have made clear. However, others have referenced the situation in NHS Tayside, and I want to concentrate my remarks on that.”
“In relation to the national contingency resource, I am sure that the minister will agree that Rossie should be provided with stable financing to allow it to recruit and retain crucial staff. Can the minister assure me that those beds will not be paid for by usage alone? Natalie Don-Innes: We have provided Rossie with funding for the contingency resource. I am confident that the funding has been well received and will go a long way towards alleviating the pressures that I have discussed today. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the ministerial statement. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business to allow front-bench teams to change. Land Reform (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1”
“That is what the GMB told Mr Sarwar. Why? It did so because Mr Sarwar and his colleagues, who are repeatedly shouting at me today, have done what the Tories have done for years—they have run down Ferguson’s while this Government has supported Ferguson’s, for which I make no apology today. Cabinet (Meetings) 3.”
“When the Government came in to office in 2007, the 2006-07 expenditure on ferries in Scotland was £90 million. In the forthcoming budget, which Mr Sarwar did not support, the expenditure will be £530 million—a 23 per cent increase in funding levels on last year. [Interruption.] The Presiding Officer: Let us hear one another. The First Minister: What I would say is that the Government is investing in the ferry network. We have procured six large vessels to join the network. We have got seven smaller vessels that will be joining the network over time. The Government is putting up the money to support that. Mr Sarwar has talked about the Ferguson’s yard. I remind him of what the GMB said when it wrote to him in 2022. Mr Sarwar was told by the GMB that the Labour Party’s approach to the situation at Ferguson’s is so “disappointing”.”
“In Uist, Stephen Peteranna, who is the managing director of a hotel group that employs 70 people on the island, said that his team has spent more than four decades building a sustainable business, only to watch CalMac and the Scottish Government shrink it over the past five years. What does John Swinney say to Stephen, his family and his staff, whose livelihoods are being put at risk by the SNP Government? The First Minister: What I would say to Mr Peteranna—whom I have met on many occasions and for whom I have great respect—is that the Scottish Government is investing in the ferry network. We have commissioned the Glen Sannox and the Glen Rosa from Ferguson’s. We have four large vessels coming from the Cemre yard in Turkey and seven small vessels have been procured by the Government.”
“People in Scotland will think that it is nonsense that he is not building ferries here in Scotland. The consequence of SNP incompetence is stark. It is not just investment and jobs that are going abroad. At the heart of the matter are island communities that have been failed. Islanders are missing out on hospital appointments. They have missed weddings and loved ones’ funerals, and their livelihoods are being destroyed. The Fraser of Allander Institute estimates that disrupted ferry services cost the Isle of Arran alone up to £170,000 a day in lost revenue, which is devastating for an island.”
“That was a separate process! The Presiding Officer: Mr Marra. The First Minister: We have got to follow the procurement law that is in place. We have got to follow the United Kingdom Subsidy Control Act 2022, which puts an obligation on all of us to make sure that ferry tenders are determined on the basis of an open procurement process. I would love for the vessels to be built at Ferguson Marine—of course I would love that to be the case. That is why we are putting in £14.2 million over two years to support Ferguson Marine to develop its capability. I want that to be the case, but I have to make sure that we procure our ferry vessels in accordance with the legislation that is in place in the United Kingdom. Anas Sarwar: John Swinney sends investment and jobs to Turkey and to Poland.”
“That is what the Government is doing, and will continue to do, to ensure that we secure the future of Dundee. I know that Mr Marra wants to have all the details of what that might involve. However, a huge number of factors are relevant here, not least of which are the role of independent financial institutions, such as banks, and the fact that the University of Dundee is an independent self- governing institution. I do not run the university, and I have to respect what the law requires me to do in respecting its independence, which the Parliament has required to be the case. None of that should be interpreted as saying anything other than that this issue is right at the top of my agenda. I want to see that the future of the University of Dundee is secured, and I will do everything that I can to ensure that that is the case.”
“The First Minister has known for weeks about the scale of potential job losses at the University of Dundee. He has not been blindsided, and he cannot say that he is shocked. The question now is: when he will act? Today, Dundee’s newspaper, The Courier, says: “The Scottish Government’s response thus far has been slow, evasive and utterly inadequate.” With every day that goes by, the pain for families in Dundee will only get worse. What will the First Minister’s Government do, in the next seven days, to take action to save jobs and protect livelihoods in Dundee? The First Minister: The Government will do exactly what I have just told Mr FitzPatrick: it will continue its deep and serious involvement in working with the Scottish Funding Council to support the University of Dundee.”
“I say again gently that you cannot credibly sit and demand more money for the University of Dundee if you, Mr Marra, and your party—”
“Graeme Dey: As I said a moment ago to Maurice Golden, we are willing to explore all matters and engage with the University of Dundee on them. If it has a reasonable ask, we will explore that. I gently say to Michael Marra that, just as we will commit to that, I hope that he and his party will acknowledge their part in the challenges that the University of Dundee faces—accepting that the university faces a number of issues that are way beyond any that other universities are facing. The employer national insurance contributions issue has compounded the situation at the University of Dundee, as have the spiralling costs of energy. Like every university, the unwillingness of the current UK Government to revisit the issue— Michael Marra: It has nothing to do with it. Graeme Dey: It has everything to do with it, Mr Marra.”
“Yesterday made clear to all those who did not already know that the University of Dundee requires a Government response equivalent to an industrial bailout. The lack of urgency from and visibility of the Government is clear. I have a specific ask, and I know that the university will welcome it. Will the Scottish Government increase the £15 million loan that was previously committed to with a further £30 million loan across 15 to 20 years, and will it underwrite a £30 million credit facility to allow the university to obtain bank finance, via the SFC or otherwise? That would allow the university to open a voluntary severance scheme far sooner and at long last stop the bleeding that threatens the existence of my city’s most important institution. [Interruption.] Thank you, First Minister.”
“A pipeline needs to be formed of projects that are properly costed, shaped and prioritised. It needs to be a real pipeline, not a wish list’; further understands that addressing these concerns will be key to unlocking the potential of Scotland to attract investment, and calls for the Scottish Government to use all levers available to it, and to work constructively with the UK Government, to achieve the shared ambition of delivering growth and prosperity across Scotland.” 15:23”
“I move amendment S6M-16667.1, to leave out from “deserve” to end and insert: “must gain greater recognition in order to reach their potential, attract investment and deliver growth and opportunity across Scotland; welcomes the UK Government’s commitment to investing in Scotland since July 2024, which includes £200 million to secure the future of Grangemouth, £125 million for Great British Energy, based in Aberdeen, £5 million to support the Scotch Whisky industry, £1.4 billion in important local growth projects of which there is at least £200 million to revive specific Scottish towns, support for Glasgow City Region and North East Scotland Investment Zones and a commitment that Glasgow will be one of the four initial regions to benefit from strategic partnerships with the new National Wealth Fund; notes that these measures have been announced within months of a Labour administration, and, by contrast, the Scottish National Party administration took 16 years to convene an investor panel to make recommendations on how Scotland can attract international capital investment; understands that the investor panel for mobilising international capital to help finance the transition to net zero highlighted significant issues, including that the ‘prevailing perception is that the Scottish Government and wider public sector is not supportive of business’ and that ‘the current investment pipeline is too diffuse.”
“Today’s grievance motion comes to us from an era that should have ended last July. The UK Labour Government, with Scottish Labour MPs at its heart, is possible because the people of Scotland willed it. Today’s announcement about the port of Cromarty Firth serves to underline that. Rightly, the Government stands ready to work with the Scottish Government for the good of Scotland’s economy and people. It is for the SNP to decide whether it wants to do that or to retreat back into the grievance, chaos and decline to which I hoped we had said goodbye last year.”
“The report found that “There are few visible opportunities for scale investment” and “Planning decisions are slow and sit in the system for unacceptably long periods”. We could illustrate that by talking about Berwick Bank, which has just passed its second anniversary of sitting on the desks of the Scottish Government, and the huge impediment that that means for investment in the supply chain in Scotland, given the potential squandering of such a signal investment. The investor panel goes on: “It is not apparent that the Scottish Government considers the impact of its actions on investment appetite”. All of that is a damning indictment of the prevailing approach—if we can call it that—of the Government as a whole. We can also look at its approach to the housing market and other areas.”
“UK Labour Government colleagues stand ready to work in partnership with the Scottish Government and other stakeholders to deliver for the people of Scotland. That has been very clearly demonstrated, as I have started to set out, in the first eight months—only eight months—of the Labour Government. However, will it find a willing partner in the Scottish Government? By the tone of much of what the minister has said, it does not sound as though that will be the case. I suggest that the SNP Government should start, in part, by putting its own house in order when it talks about investment. We can look to the report from the investor panel that was commissioned by the Scottish Government. I do not think that the Government expected that to be quite so excoriating.”
“The taxes that we often discuss are the cost of being able to invest in our economy. The scale of the mess of the public finances has made some of those decisions difficult. Labour inherited not just a black hole but public services that were in crisis and zero growth in an economy that had flatlined for more than a decade. The disastrous and inept Tory Government had made to Scottish towns and areas many promises that it had no intention whatsoever of keeping. The evidence of that is in the fact that it had spent the annual national reserve three times over in the first quarter of the year. Difficult decisions were involved in how to raise the money that I spoke about, but it is right that we invest.”
“Just a few days ago, £200 million was announced from the national wealth fund to secure the future of the Grangemouth economy—a significant investment that was announced by the Prime Minister in Scotland, talking about Scotland and Scottish jobs and answering the call for Government to support the workers in that area. There was £125 million for Great British Energy, which is to be headquartered in Aberdeen, helping to attract investment for our clean energy future in the nation’s—and Europe’s—energy capital. There was £25 million for the 10-year investment in the Argyll and Bute growth deal—and there is much more. However, we have to be clear that none of that was inevitable. In our debate last week about the budget and the budget process, we said that we cannot just will the ends; we have to will the means.”
“There was the budget boost of an additional £5.2 billion for Scotland, with £60 billion being the largest settlement in the history of devolution, and the provision of more money for public services and infrastructure, all of which will help our economy to grow. Craig Hoy: Will Michael Marra take an intervention? Michael Marra: No thank you, sir. There is a further £1.4 billion for local growth projects—at least £200 million for specific Scottish towns, including £20 million for growth and regeneration in my home city of Dundee. Just last month, I was with the Secretary of State for Scotland at the V&A in Dundee, announcing another £2.6 million of funding there, which will help to drive the city economy with tourist footfall and keep the Dundee tills ringing.”
“I will set that out in some detail. The investment that I have just mentioned will support up to 1,000 skilled jobs in the construction, installation and operation of offshore floating wind. Far from deprioritising Scotland, as the minister has suggested Labour is doing, we have put the clean energy mission that defines so much of the animating purpose of the Scottish economy at the front and centre of the UK Labour Government’s economic plans. When I speak to businesses across Scotland, it is clear to me that it is that mission that is driving their focus, their investment globally and what they are doing as businesses here, in Scotland. Let me give some further examples.”
“When he reflects on how his party has plummeted to around 18 per cent in the opinion polls since the UK general election in July, and on the fact that the UK Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that the key to UK economic growth is to focus on the south-east of England— Oxford, Cambridge and London—does he agree with that philosophy? Michael Marra: I simply do not recognise that description of the chancellor’s approach, and I can set out exactly why that is the case. As the chancellor for the whole of the UK, she makes speeches in different locations across the country, so she will not constantly speak about Scotland. Clearly, that is the role of ministers here. It is right that she supports Scotland, and I will set out exactly how she does that. Craig Hoy: Will the member take an intervention? Michael Marra: No, thank you, sir.”
“I suggest that today’s debate is timely, because it gives a very good example of what can be done. In the past two hours, the UK Labour Government has announced a major investment of more than £55 million in the port of Cromarty Firth. That will drive growth and create hundreds of jobs in floating offshore wind. The expansion of that port will make it the first port in the UK that is able to make floating offshore wind turbines on site and at scale. That is exactly the kind of first-mover advantage that the minister said that Scotland should be securing as a country and as an economy. Richard Lochhead: I am pleased that the member agreed with 50 per cent of my speech—I would have been worried if he had agreed with 100 per cent of it.”
“It was a sad indication of a lack of a change of mindset on the part of the governing party, members of which have frequently told me that they have seen a transformation in the attitude of the UK Government over recent months with regard to its ability and willingness to work with the Scottish Government. When I speak to members of the UK Cabinet, they say to me that they simply think that they are doing their jobs. The comparison there is with their predecessors, who, frankly, were not doing their jobs. We need to work together and make sure that we have the best interests of Scotland ahead of us. Last July, the whole of Scotland voted to put years of grievance and division behind us. It rejected the symbiotes of shared grievance, who are invested in mutual failure and rancour.”
“It was with genuine disappointment that I read the motion that we have been asked to discuss. That said, I agreed with almost every word in the first half of the minister’s opening speech. There is huge potential in the Scottish economy, whether in the vast opportunities in innovation or the strength of many of the institutions in our university sector and the knowledge that is learned there, although, at the moment, too many of those institutions have been weakened by the 22 per cent real-terms cut in funding for Scottish students and the financial situation that they continue to find themselves in. However, the second half of the minister’s speech was far below par in that regard.”
“I want to offer all members across the chamber who share those ambitions the opportunity to work with the Government in order to attract investment, drive growth, deliver sustainable economic success and make sure that UK Government economic policy takes into account Scotland’s massive economic opportunities. I move, That the Parliament recognises that Scotland’s many high-growth sectors, which are driven by world class innovation, deserve greater recognition from, and promotion by, the UK Government, which must not unfairly focus investment in the south-east of England, or the so- called golden triangle of Oxford, Cambridge and London, or treat Scotland as an afterthought, especially when announcing or developing policy. 15:05”
“That is what is happening out there, so it would be wise for Labour members to recognise how people in the innovation, research, university and wider business communities are responding to those announcements. They are very concerned by the tone of, and the mindset that has been echoed in, all those speeches from UK politicians. We need our unique advantage in Scotland to be recognised and promoted. The Parliament must urge its Westminster colleagues to ensure that decisions and the mechanisms of delivery respect devolution. The UK Government must work with us to leverage the power of our enterprise agencies and regional structures that are already delivering in Scotland.”
“In doing that, it must recognise Scotland’s regional strengths and the catalytic opportunities that exist in this country. The UK Government must recognise the world-leading reputation of our universities and growth sectors, including advanced manufacturing, AI and life sciences. Again, I see that Labour members are laughing and shaking their heads. In the past couple of days, I spoke to a senior representative of Scotland’s university sector who said that their heart sank when they heard Rachel Reeves’s speech about the new silicon valley being in the south-east of England and about the growth corridor between Oxford and Cambridge being the solution to the UK’s economic challenges.”
“The UK Government’s recent green paper “Invest 2035: the UK’s modern industrial strategy” stated that the “primary objective” of the UK industrial strategy is to “drive growth, by taking advantage of the UK’s unique strengths and untapped potential, enabling the UK’s world- leading sectors to adapt and grow, and seizing opportunities to lead in new sectors, with high-quality, well- paid jobs.” Of course, we welcome that and we have no doubt that the UK Government is serious in its intention to translate that ambition into real and sustainable economic growth. However, for that to happen, its ambition needs to be matched by a commitment to collaboration and co-operation. The UK Government must develop its industrial strategy and determine its investments to deliver it.”
“We have now had an announcement that that will not happen, and we are pleased that the Labour Government has dropped its plans for that after a big backlash from the Scotch whisky industry and, of course, pressure from the Scottish Government and many others. We need the UK Government generally to back, and not to undermine, our successful industries.”
“The UK Government needs to work with us to drive investment in innovation in Scotland and should not give disproportionate focus all the time to the south-east. For instance, look at how Scotch whisky has been treated. The decision to further increase duty on Scotch whisky is a broken promise by the Prime Minister, who publicly committed to “back Scotch producers to the hilt”. On top of that tax rise, we heard last week that the UK Government was considering, at the time, allowing English whisky makers to use the term “single malt”, which would devalue the products that are produced in Scotland.”
“The Prime Minister pledged to increase the UK’s computer capacity twentyfold by 2030, including by building a new supercomputer, just months after the new UK Government pulled back on plans to build a high-tech exascale supercomputer in Edinburgh. Members of the UK Government have ignored Scotland’s leadership on AI and data in speeches about AI policy. They have claimed that Oxford and Cambridge are the home of British innovation, said that the UK’s new silicon valley should be in the so-called golden triangle, and talked about making that area the flagship of UK economic growth. Those are all important insights into the UK Government’s mindset and priorities. We must see more high-profile promotion of Scotland’s innovation strengths from the UK Government. We do not want Scotland to continually be an afterthought.”
“The Prime Minister’s AI announcement, in which he did not mention Scotland—for the record, I point out that Labour members are shaking their heads—was despite the fact that seven of our universities in Scotland have AI courses, and despite the fact that Edinburgh is a major hub for data and AI jobs in the UK and is consistently ranked among Europe’s leading cities for data and AI capabilities. In fact, last year’s Nobel prize in physics went to an alumnus of the University of Edinburgh for outstanding work on machine learning. We do not need a quantum computer to see that the Prime Minister missed something quite important and should have mentioned Scotland and AI.”
“I wonder whether the minister listened to the speech that the Prime Minister made in Glasgow just last weekend, when he announced £200 million of investment in Scotland. Richard Lochhead: I did, and I have already mentioned it in my speech and welcomed it. Of course, that was after a bit of a backlash from the Labour Party’s member of the UK Parliament for Grangemouth. I hope that we will see the details of that investment sooner rather than later, because it is important.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the Institute for Fiscal Studies assessment in “The IFS Scottish Budget Report—2025-26” that “it is particularly important that the front-loaded increases in investment and public service spending planned are undertaken effectively”. (S6O-04388)”
“The case for infrastructure will be won only through economic benefit. It has been pointed out that money for scout huts is not sufficient—there have to be jobs for the next generation. Douglas Lumsden: Will the member take an intervention? Michael Marra: No thank you, sir. Frankly, the failure to grow the supply chain in Scotland results from planning delays. As Sarah Boyack pointed out, the Berwick Bank project has been on ministers’ desks for two years. Douglas Lumsden: Will the member take an intervention? Michael Marra: No thank you, sir. If I can continue— Stephen Kerr: You mentioned his name.”
“Those plans are the cornerstone of what stands for an industrial policy from the SNP Government. On both sides, those parties need the political bravery to defend their record or to defend the projects as they stand at the moment. Gillian Martin: Does Mr Marra not recognise that the Conservatives in this chamber have historically had an objection to mandating community benefits and the types of consultation that the new UK Government and the Scottish Government are now doing to improve the system? The Conservatives denied that: the Conservatives did not want it. Michael Marra: That is a very fair point, but I reiterate that it is incumbent on the cabinet secretary’s Government to stand behind those projects more fully, because the infrastructure projects that are being set out are controversial. Mr Matheson talked very clearly about that.”
“Martin Whitfield paid great tribute to the workers in East Lothian at Torness, who have made a substantial contribution to our economy. The question has been asked, “Where would those nuclear power stations be?” Frankly, I know that Torness is keen to have one. In contrast, nobody sensible is dismissing the renewable future potential, which brings me to Douglas Lumsden, and the Conservatives’ increasing rejection of reality. The plans that Mr Lumsden now vocally opposes were laid out by the Conservative Government, as Michael Matheson set out in a very fine speech. Douglas Lumsden: Will the member give way? Michael Marra: I will not, at the moment. What Mr Matheson neglected to say, however, was that that was done in partnership with the SNP Government.”
“If the same sites are used, if safety standards are maintained—the Government must be satisfied about that if we are to continue them—and if the technology continues to improve, why turn our faces against an energy source that is so integral to the mix? Gillian Martin rose— Michael Marra: I would like to continue for the moment. We would also be turning our backs on the jobs and the wages from domestic generation. I am thinking of John McGlinchey from Dundee, who goes to Tannadice on Saturday, the Hawkhill Tavern on Sunday, then gets the train on Monday to go to England to work as a highly skilled welder in nuclear power stations. Times that by thousands. Wages and economic activity are lost to Scotland, while we are all set to import nuclear energy for decades to come, as Paul Sweeney so ably set out.”
“All the facts tell us that a sustainable energy mix must be delivered. Too often, ministers of the Government have been caught out using statistics to claim effective energy independence, and have had to correct the record after the event, given the very welcome growth in renewable sources. However, the reality is that an interconnected UK and European energy market relies on consumption markets, bill subsidies and Government price guarantees on a huge scale. It also relies on a base-load that is predictable; we have heard a lot about base-load today. At the heart of our base-load in Scotland is nuclear energy—it is a key part of our energy mix. The SNP Government has been very happy, time and again over its 18 years in government, to extend the lifespan of existing nuclear power sites.”
“I contrast that approach with that scion of environmentalism, James Lovelock, and with the campaigning journalist George Monbiot, who, when the facts changed, changed their minds. The facts changed because of the evidence that was gathered on the urgency of addressing climate change. That is why they converted to believing that nuclear power is the right thing to do. In his first speech, Patrick Harvie set out a picture of a distributed system with reduced demand. That might be a laudable aspiration but, unfortunately, it bears no resemblance to the reality of the situation that is in front of us. Instead, we have a Government with no energy strategy and no plan to deliver an effective transition. It also does not deal at all with the predicted vast increase in electricity demand across the UK and Scotland.”
“I am glad to add my voice to those who welcome the fact that the Scottish Government is engaging on the nuclear agenda, and that that is happening following so closely after the announcements at the Scottish Labour Party conference. Anas Sarwar has thrown down the gauntlet to the Government to deal in reality and seize the energy and industrial opportunity that is in front of us, as a country. Unfortunately, the SNP is, so far, doubling down on its long-standing opposition to nuclear energy. From the discussion today, it strikes me that that case is somewhat retrofitted in opposition to the current reality. What began many decades ago, because of a perceived relationship to nuclear military power and the role of the British state that the SNP contested, has morphed as that link became less credible.”