Angela Ross
Reform UK · Scotland
“Once our education system was the gold standard for the world, but over the past 20 years it has slipped from outstanding to merely average. With that decline has come the greatest period of uncertainty for Scotland’s young people, who deserve better.”
“Scotland is in an enviable position: we have great talent, institutions and opportunities. We do not lack in economic assets or ambition. A strong wellbeing economy is foundational to everything that the Parliament seeks to achieve, from eradicating child poverty to tackling the climate crisis and delivering quality public services.”
“It allows us to invest in our people through measures such as our tuition free university system or our national health service that is free at the point of need. It helps to create the stability that our businesses need to invest, grow, and thrive.”
“I want to start by saying that I had no intention of coming into politics, but I have spent a long time watching people in the Parliament, who are apparently our politicians, behaving in a somewhat similar way to the way that they are behaving today. I am disappointed. I entered Parliament because I was fed up.”
“The minister talks about being a welcoming nation. Does he also recognise that we must be a functioning nation? Can he explain how the SNP intends to accommodate the growing population pressure?”
“There is no place for xenophobia in Scotland. Those who choose to make Scotland their home and to contribute to our culture, economy and communities should be welcomed, not demonised or frightened. Angela Ross: [Made a request to intervene.] Tom Arthur: No, thanks.”
The complete record
Every one of 33 lines we hold for Angela Ross, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account.
“We must confront the most fundamental failure of all. One in four children in Scotland leave primary school without the appropriate level of literacy. Let us take a moment to consider that.”
“Once our education system was the gold standard for the world, but over the past 20 years it has slipped from outstanding to merely average. With that decline has come the greatest period of uncertainty for Scotland’s young people, who deserve better. For too long the Scottish Government has presided over an education system that has drifted from its core purpose. It has narrowed opportunity, elevated one, academic pathway above all others and left Scotland’s real economy crying out for the knowledge, skills, trades and technical expertise that our future depends on. So, let me be clear. Today, Scotland stands at a crossroads. The path that we choose now will determine whether this nation rises to meet the future or resigns itself to decline. That is one of the many reasons that brought members of Reform into the Parliament.”
“I want to start by saying that I had no intention of coming into politics, but I have spent a long time watching people in the Parliament, who are apparently our politicians, behaving in a somewhat similar way to the way that they are behaving today. I am disappointed. I entered Parliament because I was fed up. I came here to make a difference and to represent people out there who are completely fed up with how things are run in here. That is why half of them did not even bother voting. There are 17 Reform members in the Parliament because the other parties are failing. I want to be a bit more constructive by turning to consider the particular area of education. I welcome the ability to speak on many different topics, because so many things are broken that that is necessary.”
“There is no place for xenophobia in Scotland. Those who choose to make Scotland their home and to contribute to our culture, economy and communities should be welcomed, not demonised or frightened. Angela Ross: [Made a request to intervene.] Tom Arthur: No, thanks. We have the welcome challenge of an ageing population, and the demographic challenge of imbalances in how our population is spread across the country. Some parts of Scotland are depopulating, while others are growing at a breakneck pace.”
“Scotland is in an enviable position: we have great talent, institutions and opportunities. We do not lack in economic assets or ambition. A strong wellbeing economy is foundational to everything that the Parliament seeks to achieve, from eradicating child poverty to tackling the climate crisis and delivering quality public services. Economic growth must be felt by people, places, and businesses: felt as we eradicate child poverty through sustainable employment and support for families; felt as we deliver a just transition to net zero, creating industries of the future and protecting our climate; and felt as we sustain the public services that make Scotland the great place that it is to live in. Maintaining Scotland’s reputation as a world-class place to live and make a home in is key to our current and future success.”
“It allows us to invest in our people through measures such as our tuition free university system or our national health service that is free at the point of need. It helps to create the stability that our businesses need to invest, grow, and thrive. It makes Scotland an attractive place to live in, move to, start a family in, and start and grow a business in. The approach that is taken by the Government is contributing towards that. The newly released EY “UK Attractiveness Survey 2026” has found that Scotland remains the United Kingdom’s top destination for foreign direct investment outside London for the eleventh consecutive year. Recent investment successes demonstrate the impact of the approach, including the investments by Ryanair at Prestwick and Center Parcs in the Scottish Borders.”
“The minister talks about being a welcoming nation. Does he also recognise that we must be a functioning nation? Can he explain how the SNP intends to accommodate the growing population pressure? When we face such things as a housing shortage, general practitioner appointments that no one can get, and school places that are under pressure, how do we cope with increasing pressure on our resources? Tom Arthur: The member may wish to dress it up in moderated tones, but let me call it out for the dog-whistle politics that it is. It is utterly transparent. We see it, we will not tolerate it and we will call it out. Fair and progressive taxation creates the foundations of a productive economy.”
“A 1°C change in the global average is significant, but it is not, in and of itself, an argument for policy at any price. It should not prompt anything other than careful, practical, transparent decision making.”
“I studied core samples extracted from the ground in Scotland, not far from here, and used dendrochronology, entomology and pollen samples to determine climate patterns. I learned for myself that the climate is dynamic—it does change, and we have seen dramatic changes over expansive phases of time. There are two key points that I want to raise from the recent “Scotland’s Carbon Budgets” report by the Climate Change Committee. First, the temperature graph on page 21, to which members can refer later, shows a gradual rise in the mid- 1800s, around the start of the main phase of industrialisation, with an increase of roughly 1°C. An uptick then occurred over the past 50 years. We note that that is an increase—we agree that there has been some correlation—but we should keep it in proportion.”
“The Climate Change Committee, for example, is an independent statutory group of mainly scientists that advises the Scottish Government. However, it is funded in part by the Scottish Government, and the person who oversees that committee is the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero at Westminster. Can we trust the CCC, therefore, to be truly impartial? I am thinking about some of the optics here. It may surprise members to learn that I actually studied environmental archaeology and paleoecology at the University of Edinburgh; I know about science, and I know about data and interpreting it. I studied core samples extracted from the ground— Katie Hagmann: Will the member take an intervention? Angela Ross: I am going to make some progress, just so that I do not keep us here too late—sorry.”
“As I said, we cannot keep on having these circular debates and arguments around doing one thing or the other; we need to move forward. As someone who has been in the public eye only for a short time and has only very recently moved into politics, I am already tired of hearing circular debates. The question is less about whether we trust the science and more about whether we trust what the Government is doing with the science. In the light of that, it is important to consider how the science is presented to us; who interprets it for policy; which assumptions and benchmarks are chosen; and whether the resulting decisions are proportionate, transparent and practical for Scotland’s economy and infrastructure and for our communities.”
“I think that most people would agree that we do not want the public or businesses to suffer or struggle. We must find ways forward and not get caught up in circular debates. Alan Brown: In relation to nuclear energy, can Angela Ross explain the current costs of Hinkley Point C and the projected costs of Sizewell C? Will she tell us how not spending that amount of money is somehow ruining our economy? Angela Ross: I thank Alan Brown for his point. Torness nuclear power station, which is near where I live, contributes £45 million to the local economy, but that money will be gone when the power station is switched off in 2030. I think that most of us would agree that we do not want the public to suffer—we have talked about that—and we owe it to them to find solutions.”
“When David Barratt talks about peak river flow data, is he saying that there has been an increase in the rise of rivers? David Barratt: Yes. Angela Ross: Okay. I live locally to Musselburgh, where, in 1948, there was the worst flood involving the River Esk. The height is marked on a wall, so members can go and look at it for themselves. We have had flooding for an awful long time. The present political push for net zero targets and rush to implement renewables without proper infrastructure, and at higher costs due to, for example, curtailment costs, while we drop oil and gas licences overnight and block nuclear development, is ruining our economy. That is at the heart of our concern. We want people to get a fair and just energy transition.”
“There is a failure at the heart of modern politics: the belief that a policy wrapped in virtue should be spared from scrutiny. The people of Scotland expect those who govern to prove their case, to show their evidence and to demonstrate that every decision will strengthen our people and will not weaken them. The present political push— David Barratt: Will Angela Ross take an intervention? Angela Ross: I have not got far, but go on then. David Barratt: On the point about evidence, robust evidence from the National River Flow Archive, which is the UK’s official river flow archive, shows that there has been an upward trend in peak river flow data sets. Does she accept that her colleague is wrong? Angela Ross: I am not here to talk for my colleague right now.”
“We know that Scotland’s hands are still tied by decisions that are made in London. Failure to invest in grid infrastructure by successive UK Governments has held Scotland back. Successive UK Governments have cut support for renewables, delayed vital projects and prioritised short-term politics over long-term survival. That is why independence remains essential. An independent Scotland should have full control over our vast natural resources, the ability to strike our own international green energy deals and the power to align our immigration skills and investment policies with the urgent needs of the climate emergency. The challenge is great, but so is our capacity to meet it. East Lothian has always punched above its weight, from the agricultural revolution to the industrial age. Now we can lead the green revolution.”
“We also need to expand active travel networks so that people can cycle and walk across our towns and countryside, and we need to back innovation in green hydrogen and carbon capture. We need to push for accelerated deployment of floating offshore wind, retrofitting of our homes to slash fuel poverty and new woodland creation that enhances biodiversity while locking away carbon. None of this is easy. There will be difficult choices. We must be honest with people: meeting our climate targets requires change—in how we travel, heat our homes and use our land. However, change does not have to mean sacrifice. It can mean warmer homes, cheaper energy bills, better health from cleaner air and thousands of well-paid local jobs. A just transition means that no community is left behind.”
“Families and households are struggling while energy companies are profiting. However, proposals could lead to more than £900 million in regional benefit, combatting fuel poverty in the region. For me, a fundamental aspect is how we talk about climate change. It offers economic opportunities. Hundreds of local jobs are under development. Energy security is important. We can lower emissions and reduce impact on the climate. Green jobs are already making a measurable, high-value impact in East Lothian. We have heard today from a few members about the importance of a just transition. We have a net zero target for 2045. We need to support community energy projects, which are incredibly important.”
“East Lothian is placed among the top areas in Scotland for the importance of green and net zero activity. That makes a real difference to our communities and to people’s livelihoods right now. As I said, that includes transmission infrastructure, specialist manufacturing and fabrication. Local examples of companies are Sunamp, Lemac Power and Had-Fab. The net zero economy makes a stronger relative contribution in East Lothian than it does in many other parts of Scotland, and that highlights East Lothian’s specialisation in the green energy transition. The role of heat networks will be key as we move forward, although we have not heard about that today. I commend the work of Lothian Heat. Another key point is that one in three Scottish households cannot afford to keep warm. Energy bills keep rising.”
“What does the member think about the impact of Berwick Bank wind farm, which would be just off our beautiful coast and would affect up to, I think, 80,000 birds, which are expected to be slaughtered by the turbines? Paul McLennan: I would not use that terminology. I have engaged with the Scottish Seabird Centre, RSPB Scotland and local communities on that. That discussion is ongoing. According to the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit’s report, “The Scottish Net Zero Economy in 2025”, East Lothian has one of the areas of highest relative exposure to the net zero economy in Scotland. I note key statistics for East Lothian. The net zero economy accounts for 6.8 per cent of local GVA and supports 1,380 jobs, which makes it a significant contributor to and employer in East Lothian.”
“Many homes in Scotland are still using gas boilers, which we know are very ineffective. There are many oversized boiler systems that have heat load issues and are not on the right settings. Will the First Minister consider doing something fairly simple in the short term and ensure that gas boiler systems are optimised in order to reduce carbon emissions and lower costs for people across Scotland?”
“The guidance as it stands allows for school-appropriate flexibility, including on whether the ban applies in the classroom or to the whole campus, and what exemptions might be made available. Another thing that is critical to making the policy work practically, which is what Angela Ross’s question was about, is the whole-school- community approach to its development. That has to involve the heads of schools and teachers working with parents and carers, and, crucially, with young people. When I visited James Gillespie’s high school, I found that it has put a great deal of emphasis on the whole school community’s buy-in to the policy, and that was bearing fruit in its implementation.”
“Màiri McAllan: I thank Angela Ross for her question and her support for the policy. I hope that we can continue to garner that support right across the chamber. I also acknowledge her comments about the preparedness and the preparations that have gone into the policy. I give credit to my predecessor in the education portfolio—the Deputy First Minister, Jenny Gilruth—for the very considered manner in which the policy has been adopted and for getting us to this stage. Angela Ross is right to ask about flexibility. One problem with the current situation, and one reason why we need to change the law, is that some schools have adopted the approach and others have not, and that variability across the country will be letting down some pupils. We cannot have that and we have to correct it, but flexibility will continue to be an important aspect.”
“Thank you for your speech, cabinet secretary. We support the ban of mobile phones in schools to help to ensure focus in classrooms and to support teachers in delivering lessons. I appreciate the level of consultation that there has been—I am impressed to see how much work has gone into that, and I think that it is the right approach and the right way forward. I want to look at how we ensure on an ongoing basis that the policy is delivered effectively. We are having a ban and we are stopping something from occurring, but we need to support the delivery in a way that will allow staff to have autonomy and control in their classrooms and to ensure that the appropriate discipline and consequences are in place. How do we get the balance right between providing support and resources and allowing a level of autonomy in classrooms and schools?”
“Yesterday, parking meters came into force in North Berwick, which is in my region, and local people are worried about what that will mean for the high street, the local community and their livelihoods. The high street literally went from a bustling hub on Sunday to quite an empty and desolate place on a Monday. It seems that the state runs out of money and then heads straight for the pockets of hard-working people. Does the First Minister accept that the current funding framework is driving councils to make difficult choices in order to make up shortfalls, and that reform of funding should occur sooner rather than later?”
“If the intention is to support economic growth, responsible policy must focus on providing support where it is most needed, ensuring that funding follows the child and prioritising working families. The motion asks Parliament to expand a system that is already under pressure without offering a clear plan for funding or delivery. For the reasons I have given, we cannot support it.”
“In Scotland, the opposite is the case, and we are being asked to expect childcare to deliver that growth. The reverse is true. We should be cautious about relying on that aspect. Policy cannot override economic reality. Even if funding could be found, there is the serious issue of the workforce, which we have mentioned previously. Infant care is the most complex and resource-intensive form of childcare, and, if we are to expand entitlement to it, we must take the workforce into consideration. Without a credible workforce plan, not only will further expansion be difficult, but there is a risk that it will be undeliverable. We encourage a more responsible approach that is not about doing less but about doing things properly.”
“That raises concerns about long- term capacity and choice for parents. We must remember that, behind the figures, there are real families and real providers. Parents are struggling to find places, and staff are working under tremendous pressure to keep services going. That is not a secure platform for expansion. There is also the question of funding, as we have heard. Scotland faces significant fiscal pressures, and we are being asked to support an expansion that would require billions more in spending. I think that the £500 million figure is a low estimate. The motion assumes that economic benefits will follow from the proposed expansion, but that assumption is not guaranteed. The Quebec model is often cited as a good example, but that model was released in times of economic growth and fiscal stability in Quebec.”
“Therefore, the question before Parliament is not whether access to childcare matters—I am sure we all agree that it does—but whether expanding a universal taxpayer-funded model on such a scale is the right way to achieve the aims set out in the motion. We must also look at the reality of the system today. The 1,140-hour system costs close to £1 billion without clear and consistent evidence of success. Private nurseries have struggled to deliver funded hours sustainably—some have fallen short and even closed—and there has been a significant loss of places offered by childminders. Staff are under incredible pressure. Surveys by organisations such as Unison have shown the level of stress that staff are experiencing. In some cases, providers are withdrawing from offering funded hours.”
“The 1,140-hour policy was meant to improve child development, close the attainment gap and deliver more support for parents who were in work or who wanted to get into work, but, although some progress has been made—I acknowledge that the Government’s policy has had positive aspects— overall, the reported outcomes seem to be mixed. The attainment gap has certainly not narrowed, and the impact on employment has been, to use the Government’s own word, modest. I agree with Willie Rennie that the targeted approach to support for two-year-olds has delivered the best signs of improvement. The more universal provision for children from the age of three onwards seems to be the area that is struggling, and that is where the evidence is far less certain.”
“We recommend a phased approach to expansion, with published results and evaluation at each stage, focusing on ages two to five alongside early primary school—that is, primary 1 to 3— wraparound care. A phased approach would allow the opportunity—which we have in the business world—to reflect and to measure, understand and assess success before moving on. We, in Reform, believe in supporting families and not limiting their options. We believe in childcare that enables work, not a system that ignores cost, capacity and choice. We must also be honest: childcare supports participation in the labour market but it does not, on its own, drive economic growth. It is an enabler, not an engine. Before the existing system is expanded, we need to ask whether it has delivered as intended.”
“We cannot keep pretending that a system that is already under strain can simply be stretched further without consequences. That is why we cannot support the motion as it is drafted. In the spirit of being constructive, we offer a different approach—one that is targeted, sustainable and grounded in evidence. We believe that the solution should provide choice for parents, because a system without flexibility and competition risks becoming one in which families have fewer, not more, options. We suggest that the existing 1,140-hour offer should be strengthened by prioritising working families and by targeting support on the basis of need. We insist that funding should follow the child, so that the provision is flexible, transparent and not restricted primarily to council-run delivery.”
“I, too, congratulate the cabinet secretary on her appointment. As this is my first speech, I thank the voters of Edinburgh and Lothians East, who have put their trust in me. I will serve them diligently. I will start by saying a little bit about myself. I have a background in education. For nearly 30 years, I have been either teaching or involved in instructional design, helping public and private organisations globally with learning. I understand the importance of having the appropriate structure and pedagogy for learners of all ages, so this subject is a particular passion of mine. I am sure that we all agree that every child deserves the best start in life. We all agree that childcare matters for families, for work and for child development. However, agreeing on the principle is not the same as agreeing on the policy.”
“I, Angela Ross, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law.”