Jackson Carlaw
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“Presiding Officer, I am here under false pretences. I understood that that was to be Christine Grahame’s final speech, and yet I now gather that there are to be more final speeches than Frank Sinatra had farewell concerts.”
“The corporate body’s proceedings during Covid were often interrupted by guest appearances from Mr Smokey, the much-loved cat in Christine Grahame’s ownership—maybe “ownership” is too bold a word to use for a cat. I am less of a cat person than a dog person.”
“We have found, to our surprise, that, from time to time, perhaps because of our lifetime experience, we have the same view on issues that come before the SPCB, sometimes to the disquiet of the other members.”
“In my experience, such cross-party friendship has been Christine Grahame’s example as a parliamentarian. I have watched Christine Grahame speak in all sorts of debates where she has had to go and research the topic. I have watched her bring thoughtful contributions to the chamber.”
“All of us who are of a certain age probably remember Harold Macmillan lamenting the fact that, when the Russians first put a monkey into space, all the great powers of the world were devastated and concerned about what it meant that Russia was in space whereas all that the people who wrote to Harold Macmillan were concerned about was what…”
“As the only man on a corporate body dominated by women, I ask Mr Whitfield whether he is confirming that no man would find himself in such a happy position in a future Parliament. Martin Whitfield: I am grateful for the member’s careful wording as to how he feels that his time on the corporate body has gone.”
The complete record
Every one of 234 lines we hold for Jackson Carlaw, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 5.
“Given my advanced age, and in case I forget to do so otherwise, I will move the motion in my name. I begin by referring back to the recent Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee debate on committee effectiveness, because the Minister for Parliamentary Business, who I am delighted to see will be participating in today’s debate, challenged me to delve into history because he was very disappointed that, in the committee, I had not come up with an example that predated one that had been quoted to us. I will therefore start in the fifth century BC, on the hill of Pnyx, where citizens could gather in the agora to discuss and vote on matters.”
“As a small concession, I am sure that you will be delighted that the Conveners Group meeting is cancelled next month. 15:00”
“Normally in the Conservative Party, when you get the whip’s broadcast, if it says that you are speaking on Thursday afternoon and no division is expected, you rather feel that you have been consigned to the graveyard shift, because everybody else might have left. Notwithstanding the fact that we are here on a Thursday afternoon to discuss the issue, I hope that there is a genuine interest in it rather than a “you will be here to discuss it this afternoon” interest. I can see that everybody who has contributed to the debate so far wants to contribute and has genuine personal experience and ideas to contribute. I hope that we can translate those into something that committee conveners can take forward in a meaningful way so that we achieve the change that we would like to see. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Carlaw.”
“That is not an original idea, and we have gone round the houses on it. I hoped that deliberative democracy might offer an opportunity, but I do not think that the deliberative democracy model was particularly successful. We know that we are all supposed to do more post-legislative scrutiny, but we are unable to do so within the construction and constraints that exist. That is our principal view. In relation to committee size, the smaller the committee is, the better. Five to seven members has worked better but, in our model of doing away with d’Hondt, there would probably be more opportunity for authority and for representation from other parties. I hope that there is a general interest in this issue in Parliament.”
“I am not sure about those suggestions, but I am sure that a number of conveners, particularly in the Conveners Group—which is a group that in some respects I think we could do without, because I am not quite sure what it achieves; I say that with the greatest respect to you, Deputy Presiding Officer, as the chair of it—are unsure about what their level of authority and responsibility is. Almost more important than conveners being elected or remunerated would be a clear understanding of what the authority of a committee convener is to act. I am aware that some feel able to act and others feel constrained by the committee as to what they can do. That probably interferes with the democratic accountability function. We would also like to see the creation of a full- time post-legislative scrutiny committee.”
“If that were done, the smaller parties would have greater representation across the various committees, and it would achieve the ambition of the committees being more independent of Government and being able to scrutinise with more authority. Our view is that that would give additional emphasis to the notion that the committees are, in fact, an essential part of holding the Government to account and thus of ensuring democratic accountability. We are not altogether sure about whether there should be elected conveners. I was part of the previous Presiding Officer’s commission that first suggested electing and remunerating conveners.”
“The minister referred to our report containing our final recommendations on deliberative democracy, which the Parliament will debate early in June, but I note that there are only two members of the committee who have been through the whole of that committee inquiry and taken part in every stage of the development of the recommendations. The Conservative Party is the only party in the chamber that has never had a taste of government in the devolved era, so we do not have the same vested interests as the other parties do in maintaining certain safeguards. Our view is that we should do away with d’Hondt in the construction of committees.”
“I take the point that, if there is no gender balance in the Parliament, having a gender balance on committees would possibly lead to far more work falling on a handful of representatives—that would certainly have been the case with the Conservative Party in this session. Of course, continuity is a difficult thing to achieve, partly because people are promoted within their party to take on more senior roles, which changes the face of their representation. My committee has faced problems with continuity, too.”
“It did not start that way, but we had a woman on the committee who was promoted to another committee, and there was not another woman available to put in her place. When another committee member left, we had two women from their party in rapid succession, after which that place was filled by a man. Then, another party changed its representative but declined to appoint a woman to the place. The way in which our committees are constructed makes it difficult to find a formula that will achieve mixed-sex committees without having a lot of red tape at the start of the session that requires parties not only to abide by d’Hondt but to nominate a member of a particular sex in order to achieve the continuity of gender balance.”
“The suggestion was that we did not need another chamber—of course, we do not, as we are one of the most over-governed countries in the world, and the last thing that we need is a second chamber. However, the promise was that our committee system would be the vanguard or bulwark of democratic accountability that would counteract inappropriate, badly drafted or simply wrong legislation. The question before us is, have we succeeded in doing that? The answer is that we have sometimes done so, but not always. That leads to the issues that are before us today. I sympathise, for example, with the views that have been expressed about gender balance, and the fact that we should not have single-sex committees. I am the convener of such a committee myself now.”
“One might have thought that, with a coalition rather than a majority Government, the land was best placed for some sort of collective agreement to emerge. However, in fact, each of the proposals, some of which were eminently sensible, found a different coalition of interests that was opposed to it, so nothing transpired. The challenge for the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee will be to take forward some of what I think will be a degree of agreed thinking in the chamber this afternoon and transform it into something that might lead to the Parliament being more effective. When this Parliament was created, it joined the Parliaments of North Korea, Nicaragua, Mozambique, China and Cuba in being unicameral.”
“It is my job—as it was once yours, Deputy Presiding Officer—to present, on behalf of the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, the Parliament’s budget to the Finance and Public Administration Committee each year. I am always a model of circumspection and moderation in so doing, and I am always immensely impressed by the convener’s robust handling of the issues that we discuss, especially when it comes to the issue of MSP remuneration. Are there any changes to the Parliament’s procedures and practices that would help the committees to work more effectively? The challenge that arises from this afternoon’s discussion very much reminds me of the early days of the coalition UK Government, when it sought to embrace the challenge of House of Lords reform.”
“I realise that, as a child of the 1950s, I am the oldest MSP contributing to the debate this afternoon, but I assure the minister that I have no first-hand recollection of the events of 1774 or earlier, so I am not able to respond to his request in quite the way that he might have expected. I realise that a special meeting of the Parliament is taking place this afternoon in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse, but I am immediately impressed by the quality of the contributions that I have been able to witness so far in the debate. I do not know whether there is a collective noun for conveners, but I enjoyed hearing from Audrey Nicoll, Richard Leonard and, of course, Kenny Gibson. I join in Stephen Kerr’s tribute to Kenny Gibson.”
“In a sense, our recommendation that there should be no single-sex committees is a bellow from this side of a dark tunnel to those who emerge at the other side after the election, but there is genuine recognition that it will improve the process if it is adhered to. To return to the issue of elected conveners, we reflected on experiences in Westminster and in the Senedd of moving to having elected committee chairs. There was a suggestion—and this speaks to Stephen Kerr’s intervention—that being elected gives chairs more authority and a mandate to run the committee more independently from party groups. We also explored whether having elected conveners would deliver an alternative career path for members, outside of being part of”
“I noted the statement that there should be no single-sex committees in the Parliament. How would Martin Whitfield ensure that that would be delivered? Martin Whitfield: That challenge will rest with members of the Scottish Parliament in the new session. We highlight the issue because of the overwhelming evidence that we have heard that having no single-sex committees is one step towards achieving a better gender balance. However, members in the next session will have to address the issue in the context of the make-up of the Parliament and the different characteristics of its members.”
“Finally, in relation to one of the previous bills, a Church of Scotland minister turned to me and said, “Jackson, we all have a right to life, but we don’t have a duty to live.” The issue before us today is whether we believe that people should have the choice—in that final analysis, and in those final days with a terminal illness—as to whether they should be supported to make their own decision. Let us explore the issue further and give justification to those who have fought for it and to the architects of the bill by passing it at stage 1.”
“I accept that, if the bill progresses, it might end up with people concluding that they cannot support it, but surely it is our duty to all those out there who believe that there is an issue that we should explore more fundamentally that we do not, for the third time, after one debate, simply say, “This far and no further.” Let us take the issue and examine it fully. I say to those who have talked about palliative care that I support the debate that Miles Briggs has begun. However, I note that, in both the previous debates—15 and 10 years ago— everybody said the same thing: that we need to do more in relation to palliative care. Here we are, still saying the same thing. That cannot be something that we hide behind.”
“One of the most interesting things to come from all those who have participated in the pilots, or whom I met elsewhere, is that they can accept a no if the issue is fully discussed, and they can accept a yes, even if it goes against what they believe, if the issue is fully discussed. Therefore, I appeal to all members to allow us to have the fullest possible discussion of the issue, to take a breath for a moment and to look around the chamber that Enric Miralles built for us. Was it built to be a chamber where we closed down discussion, or was it built to be a chamber where we opened our hearts and our minds to the widest possible discussion of the most fundamental and difficult issues that we as a Parliament are ever asked to face? I believe that we were not elected to be a nest of fearties.”
“This time, although we may be in the minority, far more Conservatives are prepared to do so. That is the direction of travel across the world and in public opinion, as shown by those who have made representations to us today. When I read the transcripts of the previous debates, I saw that the churches, the clinicians and all the medical practitioners were fundamentally against the principle of assisted dying. Now, they have moved to being neutral or taking a different view. Three of the four most recent leaders of my party believe that the legislation should be supported. The Parliament should have the courage to move forward, too. I have been very engaged with the principle of deliberative democracy in this parliamentary session.”
“I cannot look up to where Paul Sweeney and Maggie Chapman are sitting and not think of Margo MacDonald sitting in one or other of those two seats. She was hugely big-hearted and enormously compassionate, with an enormous personality. It is lovely that Peter Warren, who was her indefatigable parliamentary assistant, is up in the gallery and has been listening to the debate throughout our proceedings today. I was also in the Parliament to support Patrick Harvie’s bill. It was probably the first and last time that I ever supported him in the chamber, which was probably a relief to him and me. I read through both of the stage 1 debates, and it strikes me that the world and the debate have moved on. The direction of travel has changed. I was the only Conservative who voted in favour of the previous bill on this issue.”
“She made the point that he had to go far earlier than he needed to, and that if the opportunity for such a choice existed here, he would still be alive today, but he felt that he had to end his life at a point when he was still able to undertake that. We also heard from a woman whose husband was in the Royal Navy—a 50-something veteran who had inoperable brain cancer and who, on his third attempt at suicide, succeeded. Just think about what those people went through. I pay tribute to Liam McArthur and the extraordinary work that he and generations of his teams have done. I also pay tribute to the committee’s work—Clare Haughey’s introduction of the committee’s consideration was deeply powerful. I was in the Parliament for the two previous bills on this issue.”
“Members who were able to be at the demonstration at lunch time had an opportunity to hear from some of those who are deeply affected by the issues that are raised in the bill, such as Dianne Risbridger, who is suffering from renal cancer and wants to have the opportunity to decide her end of life. She said that it is better to have the opportunity and not use it than to need it and then find that you do not have it. Stephen Wisniewski talked about his mother’s extraordinarily painful death, which he and his brother had to progress through. Louise Shackleton talked about accompanying her husband to Dignitas in Switzerland.”
“As the last speaker from my party who will be speaking in favour of the bill, I say: what a day and what an afternoon. This has been the Parliament at its very best. At times such as this, the Parliament is much bigger than the sum of its parts. Members have been speaking without a party line, whip or pre- prepared script, so there have been some deeply moving and incredibly powerful contributions from all sides of the chamber. I will not repeat all that has been said in the debate, because we have heard many testimonies and personal arguments, and many fundamental issues have been raised.”
“Part of our responsibility, therefore, is to support our elected MPs at Westminster in the discharge of their responsibility to keep us safe and secure and to ensure that we are engaged positively with the rest of the world. That has to be built on two rocks: we must keep ourselves safe and invest in the security of our country, but we must also invest in outreach, engagement and proactivity in addressing the trouble spots that emerge elsewhere in the world, through which we could subsequently feel threatened. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I invite the cabinet secretary to wind up the debate. I would be grateful if you could take us up to just before quarter to six, cabinet secretary. 17:34”
“This quote from The Economist is pretty apt: “In a mere ten days the president has ended the old certainties that underpinned the world economy, replacing them with extraordinary levels of volatility and confusion. Some of the chaos may have abated for now. But it will take a very long time to rebuild what has been lost.” We must accept and acknowledge that we now face a very challenging situation. I want us to respond to the international situation. We can talk about it here; I am not so averse to our having a discussion about it from time to time. However, I do not think that we have the major levers to influence it.”
“Patrick Harvie rose— Daniel Johnson rose— Jackson Carlaw: I think that I am now into my last few seconds, so I am not sure— The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can give you all the time back. Jackson Carlaw: I will take an intervention from Daniel Johnson. Daniel Johnson: I am grateful to Jackson Carlaw and I apologise to Patrick Harvie. We should not boycott Trump. We should be robust when we disagree, because, fundamentally, that is what he respects. Ultimately, however, we cannot disengage from the world’s biggest economy and, probably, our most enduring ally. Does Jackson Carlaw agree that that is the dichotomy that we must face? Jackson Carlaw: Absolutely.”
“Had he recognised that sooner, the Democratic Party might have had the opportunity to think more widely about who its candidate should have been, although I do not know what the outcome of the election would have been. I am not a fan of Mr Trump, but I do not conclude, as Patrick Harvie does, that we should just abandon our investment in, our relationship with and our hope in the United States. In some respects, President Trump is not wrong: 80 years after VE day, as Neil Bibby pointed out, the other countries of Europe also have a responsibility to step up to the defence of our continent. There cannot just be an on-going expectation that the United States will do that.”
“In a debate that we had five years ago, I said that the Americans faced an unenviable choice between someone who was unsuited and someone who was unfit to be in the White House. In that battle, we had President Biden, but I felt that it was not the choice that the American people should have been given. The American people need to have a complete generational shift away from those who have billions of pounds that they can afford to spend on being elected. It is ironic that Nixon was the last poor president. We need that change to take place, because Trump’s election—in both cases— was almost a reaction to the candidate that he faced. Hillary Clinton was a very polarising figure. Joe Biden was not a polarising figure but he could certainly not have hoped to be a subsequent President.”
“The First Minister: I could not agree more with Jackson Carlaw’s substantive point about the fact that international development expenditure is critical, as an investment in building bridges and societies and in avoiding conflict—which is, unfortunately, a risk that has now been exacerbated by decisions that have been taken by both the United Kingdom and the United States. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Jackson Carlaw, I can give you the time back. Jackson Carlaw: I agree with that, and I would like to hear a little more from members of the Labour Party, who, I think, must be troubled by it. I understand the need and have just made the case for an investment in our defences, but I am concerned that that investment is being made at the expense of the influence and aid that are vital in preventing conflict elsewhere.”
“That is the reactive way to ensure that we are prepared, should such a situation emerge. The other is the proactive way, which involves our commitment, tradition and history as a country that is involved in international trade, that wants to engage and that has been prepared to invest in international aid. We have not talked about that today, but I was very critical of my own Government at Westminster when it temporarily reduced the aid budget, and I said that I hoped that it could be restored, so I am disappointed at the response of the Labour Party to the proposed cut in international aid, because it is that aid that helps to ensure that we are investing in countries that might otherwise become part of the very international situation and problem that we are trying to stand against and prevent occurring.”
“That receded slightly, but not so much that we can be in any way complacent. Then, the threat of the nation state emerged again, with the impact of Russia, as it now seeks to initiate military conflict on the continent of Europe, the emerging suggestion of a threat to Taiwan from China, the on-going expansion and ambition of North Korea, and states conflicting with one other in the middle east and Africa. Perhaps, for my grandchildren’s generation, the prospect of a war, if not probable, once again cannot be ruled out. There is a need, as I think Governments have recognised in this international situation, to respond to that by trying to understand how best we can be prepared. That response comes in two ways, I think. One is to ensure that we invest in the defence of the country.”
“I was reflecting, in advance of this debate, on what I thought were—from a long menu—the key things that had shaped the international situation over my lifetime. I thought of the visit of Nixon to China in 1972, the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979, the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 and the events in New York on 9/11. All of those events had profound consequences for the world in which we live today. Over my lifetime, we have gone from being concerned, as a country, about the might of the Soviet Union and its empire, influence and threat, which meant that many of my generation thought that a war was at least possible in our lifetime, to the fall of the Soviet Union and the extent of state- sponsored terrorism or terrorism sponsored by nobody in particular—which nobody quite knew how to deal with, as it did not have a nation face.”
“With the support of His Grace the Duke of Buccleuch, who was able to enlist the support of His Majesty the King, we have a very positive initiative being taken here, in Scotland, which is allowing those of so many different faiths and communities to exist in harmony here, even with the extraordinary pressures that are being applied by the events outside this country. We should celebrate the work that has been done, and we should be very proud of that Scottish initiative, which is contributing so well in the face of the international situation. [Applause.] Over the Easter recess I turned 66 the day before the First Minister turned 61—so there is just five years between us. I know that, in another context, that would be regarded as a lifetime but, in the context of today’s debate, it is not really that long at all.”
“I do not think that there has been a discernible theme this afternoon; there have been a lot of very individual contributions. I note the contributions by my very good friends and colleagues, Mr Stephen Kerr and Mr Ross. They were so well made that I will not repeat them; perhaps I will look to contribute in my own way. I will start on the commentary from the First Minister about the Drumlanrig accord. I think that we in Scotland should be incredibly proud of it. Sheikh Razawi, my very good friend Edward Green, the First Minister and I and others were at Edinburgh city chambers last year for the candle- lighting ceremony. Against the odds, in many ways, it was decided to bring the faiths together to face the challenge that the international situation presented to the lives of all of us here at home.”
“Having an independent Scotland that is back in the European Union and that stands shoulder to shoulder with our neighbours will give us the strength, the security and the partnerships that we will need to face whatever comes next. In the coming months, we must not look at the world as it is and accept it. We must fight for a world that is as we want it to be and as it should be. That is what built this Scottish Parliament, and that is what will create the better tomorrow that every one of us wants. 16:35”
“However, we saw how President Zelenskyy was made to look in the White House by Donald Trump and JD Vance, who even had a go at what he was wearing. JD Vance is currently touring the world talking about and denying climate change just to make a buck. That is where they are at the moment. All of that—the rise of the far right, the suffering in Gaza and the brutal war in Ukraine—shows us one thing: Scotland cannot afford to leave its future in the hands of others. We did not vote for Brexit, but we are paying the price. We look on as Donald Trump talks about turning his back on NATO and walking away from Europe. That is not the future that I want for the people of Scotland.”
“It is my belief that standing for Palestine is about standing for human dignity and peace. Hamas cannot be defended for its actions, but the suffering of the Palestinian people cannot be ignored. The SNP has been clear from day 1 that we call for an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages and the recognition of Palestine as a state. This is not about politics. It is about ending the slaughter and giving people the right to live in safety and freedom. Today, we are also talking about Ukraine’s fight for democracy. Russia’s brutal and illegal war on Ukraine is the greatest attack on peace in Europe since the second world war. Scotland stands proudly with Ukraine, its people, its democracy and its right to freedom.”
“We have seen the damage that those fears can do. Donald Trump is back at the centre of global politics and is stoking tension. He is slapping reckless tariffs on Scottish industries from whisky to salmon and putting thousands of jobs at risk at the same time. His ignorance of world affairs and his contempt for international co-operation are not just bad for Scotland or bad for business—they are a global threat. Now more than ever, Scotland must unite around our shared values that bind us as a nation and not around things that tear us apart. That brings me to the tragedy in Palestine. The suffering in Gaza over the past year has been utterly heartbreaking. More than 13,000 children and 8,000 women have been killed. Innocent lives have been lost in a conflict that has shattered families and devastated people.”
“My good friend Bishop John Keenan will lead a mass for Pope Francis this evening, in Paisley abbey, on behalf of the diocese. I wonder whether Mr Adam hopes to be able to be present. George Adam: Unfortunately, I have some other business today, but I would quite happily have been there for that. The rise of the far right at home and abroad is very relevant to the people we represent, who are worried about what is happening. Good, honest, hard-working people are being manipulated by those on the right, who are playing on their fears and scaring them to the extent that they start to believe the lies and disinformation that are coming from those on the far right. Whether it exists on the streets of Scotland or in the corridors of power in Washington and Moscow, that ideology offers nothing but hate, division and disaster.”
“If I may, I will also say how welcome it is that Mr Carlaw makes clear his support, from his political position, for the work that the Prime Minister is undertaking to try to resolve the extremely serious situation that we currently face.”
“We could invite President Zelenskyy to address this Parliament and that could be in conjunction with the Parliament convening a national day of solidarity with the people of Ukraine. The First Minister: I readily associate myself with Jackson Carlaw’s suggestion. Invitations to Parliament are, of course, a matter for the Presiding Officer and the parliamentary authorities but, for my part in the Government, we would happily support such an endeavour. Mr Carlaw raises an important opportunity for us as a country to come together to express our solidarity with the people of Ukraine. I would be happy to take part in any discussions on the important suggestion that he has made.”
“I associate myself with the First Minister’s remarks and acknowledge the work of the Prime Minister. It is important that he knows that he is acting on behalf of us all. President Zelenskyy, if not quite like Churchill standing alone, is certainly standing on the front line in this contest. It is the blood, toil, tears and sweat of the Ukrainian people that are defending democracy in the west. Would the First Minister support a suggestion that an invitation from him and the Presiding Officer of the Parliament be extended to President Zelenskyy to address this Parliament, at a time of his choosing and at his convenience? There is a precedent for that—we have done it before.”
“Does the First Minister agree that political leaders everywhere must stand up to disinformation?”—[Official Report, 20 February 2025; c 16.] If only. 15:30”
“If we were to deny Israel the arms to defend itself, which others can argue about in different contexts and in a different way, we would, frankly, risk encouraging Iran— which is, after all, currently on the retreat with the defeat of Hezbollah in Lebanon and elsewhere—in the view that it can move against the state of Israel and potentially proliferate an even greater conflict and an even greater war. For that reason, to me, it remains fundamental that Israel be allowed to defend itself. I will finish with the words of Lorna Slater at First Minister’s question time last week, because I think that they are apposite. She said: “Disinformation is playing an increasingly dangerous role in our communities and our global politics. Promoting lies and misinformation at home and abroad can have serious consequences for all our communities ...”
“The reality, of course, is that the number of arms that this country is involved in directly supplying to Israel is minuscule, yet Mr Greer, on a megaphone, encouraged people to shout, “Jackson Carlaw, you can’t hide, you’re committing genocide” at me and a whole lot of 16-year-old apprentices who were here on 21 February last year to attend a reception celebrating their contribution as apprentices. To be jostled, spat at and personally accused of committing genocide was absolutely reprehensible, and I do not see how any of that assists in any way in the argument before us. The fundamental concern, ultimately, is that people chant “From the river to the sea”, which is the policy of Iran. The policy of Iran is to eliminate the state of Israel.”
“If we are looking for a long-term solution in some of the actions of recent weeks, we should note that not even the Nazis paraded the coffins of children around while cheering on the dead bodies that they were passing around the street. The de- Hamasification of Gaza will ultimately be the only route to a more lasting peace, but that debate is possibly beyond the one that we are having today—it is, to quote Lorna Slater, perhaps a “morally incoherent” debate. Ross Greer: Will the member give way? Jackson Carlaw: Perhaps, in a moment.”
“I also believe that it remains the case that there are more Muslims in Israel than there are Jews in the whole of the European continent put together—I wonder why that is. It is because we exterminated them all. I find the motion to be miserable, but I applaud Richard Lochhead’s amendment. I am sorry that the final line of his amendment means that I cannot support it, but I think that it seeks to bring a measure of reason to what is a very difficult discussion on a subject that, at times, it is impossible to be reasonable about. I remain a critical friend of the state of Israel. I have previously said in the chamber that it is possible, at times, to not support or associate oneself with the actions of the state of Israel while, at the same time, recognising and demanding that it should have the right to defend itself.”
“One of the things that I most regret in a debate that I suppose it is perfectly reasonable that we should have is that, despite the affection and respect that I have for Humza Yousaf, we inevitably find ourselves in different positions on the issue when we would probably, as we have in the past, prefer to work together to find solutions. I do not know whether it is necessary, but perhaps I should, since some people write to me on these matters, declare that one of my sons married into the Jewish community in the autumn of last year. That has absolutely no bearing on my thinking on these issues, although that has been suggested to me by a number of people. As everybody here knows, I grew up with the Jewish community. I have met many people who have family and friends in Israel, and I understand the need for the state of Israel.”
“That Government recognised that the chamber is shaped like a horseshoe—there is not a divide as there is in Westminster—and it understood that, in order to deliver policy, it required to achieve agreement across the parties. The 2007 to 2011 parliamentary session was all the more effective for that. Alex Salmond, the First Minister, Jim Mather, the business secretary, and John Swinney, the finance secretary, all engaged with other parties to achieve policies, some of which are still the longest-lasting and best-remembered policy achievements. When SNP members list their achievements, they are often the achievements of that first Administration.”
“Notwithstanding that, at that time, he was at Westminster, aggressively campaigning for a referendum on Europe, as I recall. However, neither Kate Forbes nor Angus Robertson was here in what was, I think, the SNP’s best parliamentary session—the one from 2007 to 2011. I will characterise why I think that, why things went wrong after that and why I think the focus of this debate is so wrong. In those days, the business manager, Bruce Crawford, and the late Brian Adam—for whom many of us had a great deal of affection and respect—worked the corridors of this Parliament and engaged with all the other parties, because the Government was a minority Government.”