Murdo Fraser
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“This has been quite a lively debate so far. I might take a slightly more sympathetic approach to Reform than other colleagues who have spoken. To be fair to Reform members, they have been on a steep learning curve in relation to how they approach debates in the Parliament.”
“After all the promises that were made about Reform members coming in to shake this place up, they cannot even get the basics right. If these are the foxes in the hen house, the chickens will be sleeping pretty safely tonight. That seems reflected in Reform’s most recent electoral performances.”
“I will make what I hope is a constructive suggestion, which is that it would be more helpful to have a debate on any one of those topics to allow us time to discuss the issues in detail. We will all be here for another five years, so Angela Ross should not fire all her bullets at once.”
“Murdo Fraser: I will give way in a second. The only things that have been left out are the NHS and justice. Virtually every topic in the remit of the Parliament is covered in the motion, as are some topics that are not in the remit of the Parliament.”
“Most significantly of all, we had a superb Conservative victory in the Aberdeen South constituency, with my good friend Douglas Lumsden winning just shy of 50 per cent of the vote—a massive swing from the SNP. Reform received just 2,478 votes, or 8.6 per cent of the total.”
“He will know that there is a necessity in the case of individual judgments for those involved to consider whether there is any basis on which an appeal should be mounted in a particular case.”
The complete record
Every one of 699 lines we hold for Murdo Fraser, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 14.
“Most significantly of all, we had a superb Conservative victory in the Aberdeen South constituency, with my good friend Douglas Lumsden winning just shy of 50 per cent of the vote—a massive swing from the SNP. Reform received just 2,478 votes, or 8.6 per cent of the total. To put that in perspective, in the equivalent seat of Aberdeen Deeside and North Kincardine just last month, Reform managed to secure 17.7 per cent. Their vote is down by more than half in the course of a month.”
“After all the promises that were made about Reform members coming in to shake this place up, they cannot even get the basics right. If these are the foxes in the hen house, the chickens will be sleeping pretty safely tonight. That seems reflected in Reform’s most recent electoral performances. In last week’s by- elections, Reform failed to deliver on expectations. In Makerfield, to the delight, I suspect, of colleagues on the Labour benches—or some of them, at least—there was an overwhelming victory for Andy Burnham in a seat in which Reform had originally been expected to do well. Closer to home, in Arbroath and Broughty Ferry, Reform trailed in third place behind our excellent Conservative candidate, Jack Cruickshanks, who managed to not only finish in second place but increase the Conservative percentage of the vote.”
“I will make what I hope is a constructive suggestion, which is that it would be more helpful to have a debate on any one of those topics to allow us time to discuss the issues in detail. We will all be here for another five years, so Angela Ross should not fire all her bullets at once. There will be plenty of opportunities in the next five years to come back and discuss the topics in detail, instead of pushing everything together at the start of the session. I gently say to my Reform colleagues that they have some experience on their benches, and they might want to make use of it. Graham Simpson is an experienced parliamentarian who knows how to write a comprehensible motion, so they should perhaps turn to him for his talents. We should perhaps not be surprised that Reform is in a state of confusion.”
“Murdo Fraser: I will give way in a second. The only things that have been left out are the NHS and justice. Virtually every topic in the remit of the Parliament is covered in the motion, as are some topics that are not in the remit of the Parliament. It is almost as if a troop of monkeys with typewriters has been given the job of writing a motion to cover as many policy areas as possible. Angela Ross: Does Murdo Fraser not think that all the topics that we cover in our motion are important for our voters and the public? Does he not think that those topics are worth a debate in the Parliament? Murdo Fraser: I appreciate that Angela Ross and her colleagues are new to the Parliament.”
“This has been quite a lively debate so far. I might take a slightly more sympathetic approach to Reform than other colleagues who have spoken. To be fair to Reform members, they have been on a steep learning curve in relation to how they approach debates in the Parliament. The kindest thing that I can say about the Reform motion is that it is an amateur production. I do not think that I have ever seen such a shambolic and convoluted conflation of so many different issues in a motion as I have today in Malcolm Offord’s motion. The motion ranges from the economy and taxation to skills, apprenticeships, education, net zero, oil and gas, low-emission zones, transgender prisoners, immigration, housing and welfare. As far as I can see, the only things that have been left out— Angela Ross: Will the member take an intervention?”
“He will know that there is a necessity in the case of individual judgments for those involved to consider whether there is any basis on which an appeal should be mounted in a particular case. A swift decision has been taken by the Government not to appeal in this case and to indicate that the practical steps are now being taken by the Scottish Prison Service to ensure that the prison estate is entirely compliant with the judgment that was issued by Lady Ross on Friday. The case involved considerations regarding ministers’ legal obligations under the Scotland Act 1998, the Equality Act 2010 and the European convention on human rights. The complicated interaction of rights and responsibilities was fully aired in the case that was considered by Lady Ross, and the Government is now implementing the conclusions of that decision.”
“There has been a very welcome and sudden U- turn from the Scottish Government in response to the court case that was decided on Friday about the presence of transgender male prisoners in the female prison estate. Although that was welcome, it was shocking that the Scottish Prison Service seemed to indicate initially that it would not be complying with the law and would continue to allow male-bodied prisoners in female prisons, putting females at risk. I welcome the U-turn, but can the First Minister tell us how much taxpayer money has been spent on defending the indefensible with regard to this issue? Will he now finally agree to meet For Women Scotland to hear its concerns on behalf of vulnerable women? The First Minister: Mr Fraser is a qualified solicitor.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will reconsider its plan to reorganise neonatal care across Scotland, in light of reports that it could result in the downgrading of essential units, including the service at Ninewells hospital. (S7O- 00081)”
“However, some leading organisations that were heavily dependent on Scottish Government funding came out and opposed the bill.”
“Undoubtedly, that is usually the case, but we know the Scottish Government’s budget—we know, overwhelmingly, what the value of it will be—and, although there are in-year revisions, inevitably those in-year revisions put the budget up, not down, so I think that there is much more flexibility in relation to the solutions that the Government could find. We also need to ensure that third sector groups that are in receipt of Government funds do not then feel bound to support Government policy—a point that is referenced in the Liberal Democrat amendment. I am sure that members will recall when my former colleague Douglas Ross introduced the Right to Recovery (Scotland) Bill, which was supported by many working in the drug and alcohol sector.”
“However, we have been hearing that for more than a decade, and it has not been delivered. The SNP had a previous commitment to deliver fairer funding by 2026—by this year—but, so far, all we have seen is a pilot scheme worth £130 million over two years. That is the biggest single change that would make a real difference to the sector. Holly Bruce made an important point about the amount of money that the sector would save if that multiyear funding was put in place, because the sector would not have the administrative cost of issuing redundancy notices and potentially losing staff as a result. In her response to my earlier intervention, the cabinet secretary said that the Scottish Government does not get multiyear funding from the UK Government.”
“Over the years, I have met too many bodies that complain of a hand-to-mouth existence and rely on year-to-year financial settlements. I can quote examples of organisations that are already well into the new financial year before they even know how much cash they will get in funding. That makes life extremely difficult for managers, those who organise financial projections and staff who are working without any ongoing job security. That means that those organisations regularly have to issue redundancy notices. Inevitably, that leads to experienced and valuable staff looking for jobs elsewhere, to try to get job security, while they await decisions from the Government, local authorities or other public agencies. I heard with great interest what the cabinet secretary has had to say today about multiyear funding.”
“In the meantime, the Scottish National Party Government has cut third sector funding in real terms. The amount of cash has fallen by £177 million in real terms—5 per cent of the total— between 2021 and 2023. Today, the cabinet secretary has talked about a new third sector partnership agreement, and we look forward to hearing more about the detail of that, as will those in the sector. There is certainly a case for a reset and a new approach in respect of a number of different issues. First, I will address the question of funding. The overall quantum of funding is important, but it is only part of the story. The number 1 issue that we hear from organisations—we have heard it already in this debate—is the issue of security of multiyear funding.”
“It celebrated its 25th birthday just last month, and I had the privilege of attending to see, once again, the excellent work that it does. As has already been said in the debate, the third sector is full of individuals who are working hard with very limited resources. Many organisations depend on volunteers, whom we should salute for giving up their spare time to help others. That is a contribution of incalculable benefit to the Scottish economy. However, the reality is that the third sector is in crisis, as anyone who engages with it will testify. According to Third Force News, 81 per cent of charities and voluntary organisations face financial challenges, while the Scottish third sector tracker has found that charities face a triple threat of rising demand, falling income and rising costs.”
“I welcome the debate and I pay tribute, as others across the parties have done, to all who work in the third sector. It is a reality that, without the third sector and its organisations, Scottish society and our economy would be much poorer. Indeed, across many parts of the public sector— particularly in areas such as health, social care or education—were it not for the contribution of third sector organisations, the Government would not be able to deliver many of its policy objectives. I could namecheck many organisations, but I will restrict myself to one, because I visited it very recently: the Strathmore Centre for Youth Development in Blairgowrie—SCYD—which does so much good work for youngsters who need support.”
“I move, That the Parliament commends the essential role that the third sector plays in supporting people and communities; recognises the contribution that the third sector provides to the delivery of many Scottish Government key priorities, including eradicating child poverty; acknowledges that the Scottish Government understands it has a shared responsibility alongside other funders and those who contract out to the third sector to take action to ensure that the sector is sustainable; agrees that a Third Sector Partnership Agreement provides the opportunity to formalise the relationship between the Scottish Government and the third sector, building upon the Scottish Government’s progress in delivering on its Fairer Funding commitments to date and responding to the views of the sector, and agrees that the Third Sector Partnership will be co-designed with third sector stakeholders to embed their knowledge and experience, demonstrating the value that the Scottish Government places on the sector.”
“It benefits the workforce, it benefits the people of Scotland and it benefits the Government, through stronger delivery, better outcomes and more resilient communities. That is why the development of the partnership is such an important way to demonstrate and implement our support for the third sector right across Scotland, in every community.”
“I am also aware of calls from those in the third sector in Wales to review that scheme. We have an opportunity to learn from the Welsh approach and work with the sector to explore what would work best for Scotland. Although I will not take that option off the table, I suggest that giving something a statutory footing is not always the most effective approach and that more work is needed to get this right. Legislation is both time and resource intensive. The Parliament would rightly expect us to continue to progress third sector policies such as those relating to charity law, volunteering and fairer funding, and I would not want the development of legislation on the framework to impede any of the wider work that the Government intends to take forward to support the third sector. A sustainable and thriving third sector benefits us all.”
“I say that to demonstrate the context, not as an excuse not to deliver further multiyear funding, which is definitely the direction of travel that the Government wishes to go in. Ensuring accountability at all levels of the partnership is another important part of the framework. We will work with the sector to develop appropriate monitoring and evaluation, which ties into the point that David Linden made, so that the delivery of the partnership is embedded across the Government and the third sector. I am also committed to ensuring that voices from across the sector contribute to shaping a partnership that is rooted in trust and respect, that supports the sector’s long-term sustainability and that drives better outcomes. I have heard calls from some to give the partnership a statutory footing akin to that of the Welsh third sector scheme.”
“The cabinet secretary will know that multiyear funding is the third sector’s number 1 ask. Although she is technically correct in saying that the Scottish Government does not receive multiyear funding from Westminster through the block grant, we can predict 95 per cent or more of the quantum from year to year, so surely there is more scope to give the third sector greater clarity through multiyear funding. Shirley-Anne Somerville: That is exactly why we have been trying to provide a greater level of multiyear funding. Murdo Fraser has gone through enough budget rounds to know that there are always changes to UK Government decisions and to UK budgets, so we have to wait for the UK Government’s budget to be passed before we know what is happening with the Scottish Government’s budget. We cannot get away from those intrinsic links.”
“That sharing should not just be done at a Scottish Government level— it could also be done with local authorities or, indeed, UK Government bodies and agencies. We could start with international offices, for example. Ivan McKee: [Made a request to intervene.] Murdo Fraser: I will happily give way again if I get the time back.”
“Secondly, the Scottish Government needs to reconsider its policy on no compulsory redundancies, because relying solely on voluntary severance means that the public sector could be left employing people whose jobs have effectively disappeared and cannot be redeployed elsewhere into valuable roles. Thirdly, we need to look at the whole public sector estate and assess whether there can be much better sharing of resources. We want to see more public servants back in the office, working on a hybrid model, rather than the default being just working from home. However, even with that, we have substantial buildings sitting underutilised, and we could see significant rationalisation and cost saving through sharing.”
“Even the Information Commissioner has said that he is astonished at the number of public bodies in Scotland and that he keeps finding new ones that he did not know about. Whatever the value of their work, each one of those independent bodies needs to have its own board, chief executive, finance director, human resources functions, audit and reporting. When we produced our manifesto just a few weeks ago, we identified that, in the field of economy alone, there were more than 100 different organisations offering business advice. Therefore, we need a simplification and rationalisation of the landscape, and considerable savings could be made if we went down that route.”
“In June 2025, the then finance secretary, Shona Robison, set a target to reduce the public sector workforce by 0.5 per cent a year, but, by the fourth quarter of 2025, the head count, at 601,600, was higher than it had been in the previous year. She had already pledged to reduce the public sector workforce in 2023, but it has continuously increased. The devolved civil service alone has grown by almost 60 per cent since just 2018-19. What should the Scottish Government do? In the spirit of being helpful, let me give the cabinet secretary some practical suggestions as to the way forward. First—and this is in line with the comments made by Michael Marra and other members—there needs to be a comprehensive assessment of the number of public bodies in Scotland and whether there is any duplication or room for rationalisation.”
“Looking at this whole agenda, we cannot ignore the fact that the SNP has now been in power for almost two decades, so it has had 19 years to start addressing the issue. As my colleague Meghan Gallacher reminded members just a few moments ago, the Christie commission reported on it in 2011. Fifteen years on, we are still hearing about the need to make progress on the same themes of prevention, joined-up services and efficiency, but little progress has been made. The Government can talk a good game, but it needs to start actually delivering. The SNP has promised before now to shrink the state, but instead it has grown bigger and more expensive.”
“In relation to public service reform, Mr Fraser needs to understand the difference between cuts to services—that is, delivering reduced or fewer services—and being more efficient while delivering the same or better services. That is about taking waste out of the system, which I am sure that he will agree exists, in order to make those services more efficient. Murdo Fraser: We will come on to waste in a moment—I have some suggestions to make in that regard—but I refer Mr McKee to today’s Accounts Commission report on local government, which highlights the scale of the cuts that the Scottish Government has passed down to councils over the 19 years that it has been in power. I hope that that is not a model that the Government intends to follow.”
“However, in other interviews, he has made it clear that public service reform is not about making cuts. However, those statements cannot both be true at the same time, which is why we need some clarity on what exactly reform is intended to deliver and how that £5 billion black hole will be filled. Ivan McKee: I have been through this a number of times with Mr Fraser, but we will go back through it again for his benefit. First, what he calls the black hole is a projected gap that is based on projecting past spending patterns into the future. As Mr Fraser well knows, the Scottish spending review that was published last year identified, over a five-year period, how the Scottish Government would close that gap, as it is called, to ensure that income balances expenditure. That has already been laid out.”
“I should explain that I am having to contribute remotely today due to a family issue; otherwise, I would be in the chamber. I welcome Ivan McKee to his new role as Cabinet Secretary for Public Service Reform. I know that he is keen to dispel the notion that he is here as an axeman to make cuts to public services—that is, to be “Ivan the Terrible”, as my colleague Meghan Gallacher suggested some weeks ago—but I think that we need some clarity from the Scottish Government about what public service reform actually means. When, in a debate last week, I challenged the Scottish Government on how it would address the looming £5 billion black hole in public finances, the cabinet secretary’s response to me was that it would do so through public service reform.”
“Had we adhered to some of the tax cuts that Ms Truss was advocating for some time ago, we would have been poorer to the tune of £1.8 billion. However, I repeat that I am more than happy to take any further learning that Mr Fraser can offer the Scottish Government on these matters.”
“Last week, when I asked in the chamber how the black hole would be filled, the Cabinet Secretary for Public Service Reform replied that it would be public service reform that would fill the gap. At the same time, he said that public service reform was not about reducing the overall spend on public services. Those two statements cannot be true at the same time. Which is it? [Interruption.] Jenny Gilruth: I can hear Mr McKee disagreeing with Murdo Fraser’s description of his contribution last week. As I said to the member previously, we need to work on the issue on a cross-party basis. I am more than happy to hear any suggestions that Murdo Fraser might have. Of course, the budget- setting process in Scotland would be a lot better had we not had Liz Truss’s mini-budget, which made things far more challenging.”
“Scotland has already become the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom, and we know that the population of Scotland is growing less quickly than the population of the UK as a whole. We are not attracting the people here in the numbers that we need to grow our tax base. All the time, the business community tells us that differential taxes in Scotland are a barrier to attracting talent. We know that there are people working in the public and private sectors in Scotland who restrict their working hours because the tax burden means that it is not worth their while to work more, and now the SNP wants to make matters worse. Perhaps Keith Brown can reassure me that that is not the case.”
“The issue is efficiency, which is about improving the level of service by addressing all the issues that are laid out in the 18 workstreams in the public service reform strategy. As a consequence of that, those services will become more efficient and cost less money. Murdo Fraser: I think that we will be debating those issues next week, so I am sure that we will get much more clarity from Mr McKee on what exactly is going to happen. What has the debate been about? It has been about more wealth taxes. The motion talks about celebrating a mansion tax and a tax on private jets. That is going in entirely the wrong direction. Scotland should be encouraging wealth creators and creating a welcoming environment for those of high net worth who want to come here to live, work and invest, because that is clearly in our economic interest.”
“I saw reported comments from Mr McKee earlier this week trying to deny the image of the mad axeman, or Ivan the Terrible, as some people are, disgracefully, trying to present him. The Government says that it would not preside over cuts, but if it will not put up taxes and there are not going to be cuts, how are we going to fill the gap? I will happily give way to anybody sitting on the SNP front bench if they can give me an answer to that question. Ivan McKee: I am a public service reformer. Murdo Fraser: Maybe Mr McKee was misquoted in the interview that I saw, when he said that public service reform was not about reducing costs. Ivan McKee: Cuts mean putting less funding in and delivering fewer services.”
“We learned this week from another place, the Mandelson files, that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Pat McFadden, said: “Every meeting I have is ‘who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others.’” The Scottish Government sounds as though it is pretty much in the same boat, because we are facing a £5 billion black hole in the public finances by the end of this decade not because public spending on services is going up but because of the exponential rise in benefits. Throughout the debate, Willie Rennie has made a doughty attempt—as we would expect from him—to get answers about how that gap will be filled. The cabinet secretary seemed to indicate that taxes were not going to go up.”
“Liam Kerr made that point earlier when he quoted the economist Arthur Laffer, who made that case many decades ago with his famous curve. Ivan McKee: Will the member take an intervention? Murdo Fraser: Oh, so soon! I will, of course, give way to Mr McKee. Ivan McKee: Does Murdo Fraser agree that, although the Laffer curve says that not all increases in tax rates result in an increase in revenue, it does not say that all reductions in tax rates automatically result in an increase in tax revenue? Malcolm Offord clearly does not understand that. Murdo Fraser: That is not all that Malcolm Offord does not understand, to be fair, but I agree with Mr McKee’s basic premise, and I hope that Mr Offord would, too. The biggest growth in the Scottish budget is not spending on public services but spending on benefits.”
“I start by welcoming Jenny Gilruth to her new position as finance secretary and also Hannah Mary Goodlad, whom we look forward to hearing from shortly. I also congratulate all those who made their first speeches—Kim Schmulian, Katie Hagmann, Martyn Day, Joe Fagan, Iris Duane and Andrew Baxter. I do not want to single anybody out, but I thoroughly enjoyed Andrew Baxter’s audio tour of his constituency’s highlights. I think that I have climbed most of the mountains in his constituency, and I hope to complete the rest of them this summer—weather permitting. We are talking about wealth taxation for public services, and ensuring that we have well-funded and effective public services is a worthy ambition. However, we cannot increase taxes to a level where it becomes counterproductive.”
“I move, as an amendment to motion S7M- 00249, to leave out from “welcomes” to end and insert: “notes that fair taxation must recognise the current cost of living crisis and the impact that any tax increases can have on individuals and businesses; believes that the Scottish Government must prioritise getting Scotland’s finances in order, in light of warnings by the Institute of Fiscal Studies that it faces a ‘fiscal reckoning’; considers that taxpayers in Scotland deserve value for money as well as confidence that their taxes are being spent wisely, and believes that the trust that taxpayers should have in a government to spend wisely has been lost over the last 19 years of an SNP administration.””
“We should have reform, and we should work on the basis that it is revenue neutral as a starting point, before we even consider whether it should result in increased revenue in the future. It sounds as if I am being boring, but a bit of boringness in politics does no harm, because it brings predictability and confidence. The Government and parties sometimes reach for easy solutions, but sometimes the easier and more glitzy something sounds, the more unbelievable it is. Let us focus on actually making the change. Let us build confidence among taxpayers. Let us grow the economy. Let us make sure that we have more participation in society and the economy, so that more people contribute to taxation—that way, I will get excited. That is the change that we need, and I urge members to vote for our amendment.”
“I know that that area was in the Scottish National Party’s manifesto—it was in ours, too—to incentivise investment from private sources in order to secure a return for substantial change. We know that, when a fire is going on in public services, it is difficult to implement change at the same time, because of the people and money that are available, so I am in favour of such measures. I am in favour of tax reform and, on the face of it, I agree with everything that is in the Green amendment. Council tax reform is long overdue. I would favour moving from taxation of physical assets through business rates to online taxes for Amazon and other such companies. My problem with that is the rhetoric, which sounds too enthusiastic about increasing taxation.”
“Willie Rennie: I believe that that is part of the problem, and we should not kid ourselves that it is all just one equation. I accept that and I encourage firmer and faster measures, but we are in this Parliament, where we need to make decisions about our finances. We need to be focused rather than deflecting on to other Parliaments and other issues. Public service reform will require to be substantial, and we will need to engage in new methods of reform. I will work in partnership with Ivan McKee and Jenny Gilruth to make that happen and reach agreement, if we possibly can, because I accept that change is hard. Today, I met an organisation that promotes social impact bonds.”
“We cannot just pull a lever and have things happen—things take a long time to happen. I am confident that Jenny Gilruth and Ivan McKee will introduce the changes that are required, and I think that the First Minister has set them that task, but I am not sure that I have heard that today. Patrick Harvie: I wonder whether I could bring Mr Rennie back to the argument that he was making about trust in the tax system. He seems to place most of the problem around devolved approaches to progressive tax. Is it not at least as plausible that the reason why people lack trust in the tax system is the tax dodging and tax avoidance by the super-rich and by big business? Is that where we should start taking action to restore trust and revenue?”
“I am enjoying Mr Rennie’s analysis of where we are. He raises the issue of the looming £5 billion black hole. The Deputy First Minister seemed to suggest that taxes were not going to rise to fill that. Mr McKee is on record as saying that public sector reform does not mean reducing overall public spending. Is Mr Rennie any clearer than I am as to how that £5 million black hole is therefore to be filled? Willie Rennie: I am a generous man and I have full confidence in the front bench to sort out that puzzle and conundrum. It will require resolution, because it is looming fast. The £5 billion—the Deputy First Minister could not quite bring herself to say that—is a huge amount and the issue will require resolution quickly, because such savings take a long time to implement.”
“She was clear that new fossil fuel developments were not in the interests of either the climate or the North Sea workforce. In that respect, Labour and the SNP are cut from the same cloth. We know that Mr Flynn might take a different view, but the view of the Scottish Government, consistently repeated, is that there should be a presumption against new oil and gas fields. It is no friend of the oil and gas sector. That flies in the face of Scottish public opinion. According to recent surveys, 84 per cent of Scots support the continuation of North Sea oil exploration and drilling—and no wonder.”
“A recent report from Robert Gordon University suggests that the number of oil and gas jobs could halve by 2030 to 60,000—a direct result of the policy that is being pursued by the UK Labour Government and backed up by the SNP in Scotland. The SNP now says that it is against the energy profits levy. When the energy profits levy was introduced, the SNP said that it was not high enough. The SNP was calling for it to go even higher, but, fortunately, it seems to have changed its tune, with it now agreeing with us that the EPL needs to go, and it is right to do so. However, the SNP is no friend of the oil and gas sector. When Nicola Sturgeon was First Minister, she called for the presumption against oil and gas to be formalised.”
“There might be good reasons to decarbonise our energy supply—I accept that—but let us not kid ourselves that doing so will reduce our bills. It will not reduce our bills but will make them more expensive. The only reason why we can do this is that there are 70 million people across the United Kingdom who pay their energy bills. If the costs had to be shared among 5.5 million people in Scotland, bills would rocket. The second issue that we need to address is the future of the oil and gas industry. Scotland has lost three oil and gas jobs for every one clean energy job that has been created over the past decade.”
“Every pound that we are spending on that is coming from bill payers across the United Kingdom and is adding to fuel poverty. Renewable energy is intermittent, so we have to be able to provide storage and back-up. That is why we see proposed battery projects across Scotland, and every one has to be paid for through our electricity bills. As Alan Brown said, SSE is progressing a massive pump storage project at Coire Glas in the Highlands at a cost of billions of pounds. Who is paying for that? Energy bill payers. All the costs of transmission, storage and back-up for intermittency must be factored in, which gives us what energy economists call the whole-system cost. The whole-system cost of renewable energy is many times higher than the whole-system cost of oil and gas.”
“The choice is not about whether we use oil and gas, because we will need it; the choice is about whether we produce it here or import it from other countries and, therefore, export our carbon emissions to them. To me, that makes no sense— we should have the jobs here, in Scotland. Duncan Massey made some good points about the cost of renewable energy. It is not just the strike price and the subsidy that we have to look at; we have to look at the on-costs that arise from developing renewables. Our grid needs to be upgraded. SSE in Perth is investing tens of billions of pounds in grid expansion to accommodate new renewables projects to deal with the issues that we have been talking about today regarding constraint payments.”
“The reason for that is that, despite what we sometimes hear from SNP members, renewable energy is not cheap. The most recent contracts for difference round showed that the cost of offshore wind projects—the most significant area of expansion in Scotland in recent years—is now set at nearly double the wholesale cost of gas, and that is before we factor in all the additional costs that renewable energy brings. Lorna Slater: Does Murdo Fraser accept that any oil and gas costs must include the cost of sequestering that carbon later, because we cannot continue to emit carbon without reabsorbing it or else we face catastrophic global warming? Murdo Fraser: The problem for Lorna Slater and those who make such arguments is that we will need oil and gas for decades to come.”
“However, that is possible only because the investment is supported by the generous UK-wide subsidy regime, which is funded by the bill payments of 70 million consumers across the United Kingdom. That simple fact exposes the fallacy at the heart of SNP policy—the single UK energy market supports investment in industry, and breaking that up would be a disaster. I thought that there was perhaps a wry smile on Mr Gethins’s lips when he accused others in this chamber of being isolationist. It is not us who are proposing breaking up the UK energy market and splitting away; it is Mr Gethins and his colleagues. Of course, the SNP claims that independence would reduce energy bills by one third, but there was no explanation from the minister as to how that would come about, because, in fact, independence would increase energy costs.”
“We do, of course, miss both Annabelle and Fergus Ewing, and I hope that Mr Barratt will be equally independently minded when it comes to members of his front bench. Mr Gethins opened the debate. I congratulate him on his new role, and I welcomed his confident delivery of his speech. It was so confident that I omitted to realise that it was his first speech in this Parliament. However, I have to agree with Daniel Johnson’s analysis of it, because, although the delivery was good, the content was simply pie in the sky and lacked any credible detail. In recent decades, Scotland has seen massive investment in energy, particularly in the renewables sector, with the construction of a huge range of offshore wind projects, which have created jobs and helped with our energy security.”