Patrick Harvie
Scottish Green Party · Scotland
“That challenge is important because, when other politicians and the media choose to ignore the arguments of far-right populism or, worse still, excuse them under the guise of “legitimate concerns”, they gradually legitimise them.”
“That is how we build, to quote the motion, “a successful nation, where everyone can feel hope”. It is how we pay to protect public services, tackle poverty and more. However, how could we expect a political party that is run by millionaires and funded by billionaires to understand that or even to care?”
“These cause disruption and devastation, highlighting the vulnerability of our globally interconnected societies.” As Brian Hoskins, the chair of the Grantham research institute on climate change and the environment, has said, “the discourse around net zero is increasingly decoupled from that science and our changing weather.”
“Patrick Harvie: No, I will not be taking interventions. Those are the voices that we should be listening to, not Nigel Farage’s hand-picked politicians.”
“To be honest, I was tempted to ignore this debate altogether. I can think of a dozen better things I could do with a few hours than debate one of the most incoherent motions that I have seen in 23 years in this Parliament. Goodness knows what shape it was in when the chamber desk first got its hands on it and tried to sort it out.”
“On net zero, which yesterday’s debate showed most political parties understand to be a necessity and an opportunity, Reform members repeatedly said that they support the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change position even as they appealed for ever more fossil fuels while the mercury rises outside.”
The complete record
Every one of 544 lines we hold for Patrick Harvie, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 11.
“In just one line, the motion moves seamlessly from singling out so-called “illegal migration” to calling for measures against what it calls “non- citizens”—people who are, overwhelmingly, here legally. However, we all know that, just as we all know the effect—in my view, the intended effect— of such rhetoric. We saw it in the racist riots of 2024, and we have seen it this year in Belfast, in Glasgow and, most recently, in Edinburgh. It is not accidental. Those who use divisive and racist rhetoric are culpable.”
“Patrick Harvie: No, I will not be taking interventions. Those are the voices that we should be listening to, not Nigel Farage’s hand-picked politicians. The anti-environment parts of today’s sprawling motion are followed by a brief but deeply ironic call for evidence-based policy, before it moves on to its other major theme: the culture war agenda. Whether it is transphobia or the immigrant bashing that we have heard for the past few weeks, it is all about encouraging people to blame some of the least powerful people in society for the problems that we face—problems that are, in truth, caused by austerity and the hoarding of wealth by the super-rich.”
“These cause disruption and devastation, highlighting the vulnerability of our globally interconnected societies.” As Brian Hoskins, the chair of the Grantham research institute on climate change and the environment, has said, “the discourse around net zero is increasingly decoupled from that science and our changing weather. While it is right to debate costs and implementation, public and political discussion increasingly overlooks the fundamental ‘why’. Net zero is not an arbitrary slogan, rather it is dictated by the laws of physics. To halt warming, net greenhouse gas emissions must stop. Pretending we can safely slow the transition ignores the certainty of escalating climate costs, which will fall most heavily on vulnerable, lower-income households.” Helen McDade: Will the member take an intervention?”
“On net zero, which yesterday’s debate showed most political parties understand to be a necessity and an opportunity, Reform members repeatedly said that they support the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change position even as they appealed for ever more fossil fuels while the mercury rises outside. Let me tell the chamber what the IPCC chair said only last month. He said: “At current levels of warming, we can already see the effects of extreme events, including intense heat, wildfires, flooding, heavy rainfall and tropical cyclones.”
“That is how we build, to quote the motion, “a successful nation, where everyone can feel hope”. It is how we pay to protect public services, tackle poverty and more. However, how could we expect a political party that is run by millionaires and funded by billionaires to understand that or even to care? It will always serve the interests of the super- rich. The motion talks about incentivising work, but that mindset says that, to motivate the wealthiest to contribute to society, they must be offered ever greater wealth and, to motivate the poor, they must be threatened with ever deeper poverty. The idea of collective solutions for our shared social welfare is anathema to Reform, which is why its priority is massive tax cuts for the rich, massive welfare cuts for the poor and even more austerity for public services.”
“That challenge is important because, when other politicians and the media choose to ignore the arguments of far-right populism or, worse still, excuse them under the guise of “legitimate concerns”, they gradually legitimise them. We need to take the arguments on and set out clearly—not only here, in Parliament, but around the country—why they are wrong. Let us start with the economic arguments. The motion repeats that tired old canard of Scotland being the “highest-taxed part of the UK”, which is a claim that ignores the higher council tax rate in England, costs such as tuition fees and prescription charges and the progressive nature of income tax, which taxes the highest earners a bit more. If you earn a little bit above average, the difference in your income tax bill is tiny; if you earn a lot more, you start to pay your fair share.”
“To be honest, I was tempted to ignore this debate altogether. I can think of a dozen better things I could do with a few hours than debate one of the most incoherent motions that I have seen in 23 years in this Parliament. Goodness knows what shape it was in when the chamber desk first got its hands on it and tried to sort it out. I saw little point in writing an amendment. I thought that, as long as there was at least one “delete all and replace” amendment, it would inevitably be an improvement, so I will vote for the Government’s amendment. However, dangerous and toxic arguments are being deployed here and they need to be challenged.”
“I hope that the minister and his colleagues will impress on the UK Government the need to fast track, if anything, the renewal of the Sewel convention and the restoration of respect for devolution in what is currently a deeply inadequate process. 18:04”
“We have not seen progress between the two Governments on renewing the Sewel convention or adopting a new memorandum of understanding about how it is supposed to work. As I said in my intervention, the agreements that are reached— and I am pleased if there has been progress between the two Governments—are on the basis of a handshake and a degree of trust that has been expressed with a minister at the UK level who might well not be in post when the new Prime Minister reshuffles the Cabinet and creates a new Administration. This is a deeply inadequate process. I have no wish to block the granting of legislative consent, but I do not feel that, as an Opposition party, the Greens have had the opportunity to scrutinise the details sufficiently, so we will abstain on the motion.”
“The Scottish Government’s submission for that report said that restoring confidence in the Sewel convention—the convention by which we are asked for and either give or withhold legislative consent in these circumstances— “is key to resetting the relationship between the UK and devolved governments and ensuring that the position of the Scottish Parliament is protected, with sufficient opportunity for scrutiny.” Yet here we are again, just a few months later— by no means for the first time—seeing a legislative consent motion for which we have not had time for proper scrutiny and a bill that is being fast tracked through Westminster. I know the problems that I am identifying are outwith the minister’s control, but that in itself is a problem as well.”
“We are just one week on from the Government lodging a legislative consent memorandum that said that it recommended against giving consent to the passing of the bill. Now, at the very last minute, just before we vote in Parliament, we see a letter that changes that position. I was a member of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee in the previous parliamentary session and I am a member of its successor committee in this session. I am not speaking on behalf of the present committee, because we have not discussed the issue, but its predecessor committee held an inquiry into the transparency of intergovernmental activity and its implications for parliamentary scrutiny. We published a report in March this year.”
“In raising concerns about this LCM, I want to make it clear from the outset that I do not have any disagreement with the intention behind the bill or, indeed, any desire to question the importance of the steel industry. The steel industry is critical, both in decarbonising the industry itself and in its contribution to decarbonising Scotland. If anything, I welcome the fact that the UK Government is now willing, at least in some circumstances, to recognise that private ownership of critically important industry is not always in the public interest and that there should be a more assertive role for the state. To be frank, I would like to see more rather than less of that, so I welcome the intention behind the bill and I recognise its importance. My concern is about the process.”
“As I set out in my letter to the convener of the Economy, Tourism and Energy Committee, it is regrettable that, due to the expedited process for the UK Government’s bill, which does not align with the timetable of our Parliament finishing for summer recess and the post-election period, we have found ourselves in a position whereby the bill could not have gone through the usual scrutiny process of this Parliament. I am, however, grateful to members who are joining this debate today to discuss the bill, and I look forward to hearing members’ views on the matter.”
“Is this situation not a reminder of the deficiencies of the current process for agreeing legislative consent, which depends on good will—which sometimes is there and sometimes is not? Tom Arthur: Patrick Harvie makes some very important points. The situation is, of course, sub- optimal and would not be our first choice. We have sought to engage constructively on an area of mutual interest, but the points that Patrick Harvie makes nonetheless stand.”
“Will the member give way? Tom Arthur: I will give way to the member if he gives me a few more moments to progress. That positive engagement and the position that we have settled at demonstrate positive intergovernmental relations and highlight the Scottish Government’s desire and willingness to work constructively and collaboratively with the UK Government where doing so will secure the best outcome for the people of Scotland. The Scottish Government will now continue to monitor the passage of the bill and engage with the UK Government on the matter. Patrick Harvie: If there is constructive engagement, we should all welcome that. However, the minister described the commitment that has been given as a political commitment from a Government that is about to change leadership and, presumably, its whole cast of characters.”
“The Government is committed to fully engaging throughout the process, ensuring that all voices have the opportunity to make representations—including on the points that Mr Harvie has articulated.”
“Does the minister find it surprising—as I do—that, while the options remain on the table, some people seem determined to argue for the most expensive and time-consuming options rather than the quickest and cheapest option, which is removal? Does the minister agree that there needs to be an environmental assessment of the longer-term impacts and not only of the construction phase of the options—which has not so far taken place? Tom Arthur: The member’s question illustrates that there are a range of views on the issue. I want to provide assurance to Parliament that no decisions have been taken. There has been an initial public consultation, and there will be detailed consideration of that before any further consultation.”
“I would like to see an awful lot more, but we will welcome anything that brings us closer to the rest of Europe and minimises the damage of Brexit. I will always look to work constructively with colleagues, but let us be clear that we are minimising the damage that has been done. Damage is still being done. It is not being forced upon us. It is a political choice.”
“The proposed UK-EU partnership bill that was announced in the King’s speech will undoubtedly do a lot less good than rejoining the EU would but, if it has any potential to begin undoing some of the damage of Brexit, we should strive to work constructively with it. Has the UK Government been working collaboratively with the Scottish Government to agree the terms of that bill? Is the minister confident that there will be no breach of the devolution settlement or the Sewel convention? Stephen Gethins: Patrick Harvie will be well aware of the impact that the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 had on the Parliament, the fact that it took away powers—it centralised the UK—and the breaches that happened subsequently. I am relatively new in the job and will give the Labour Government the benefit of the doubt.”
“I say unashamedly that we should deliver those franchises to publicly owned operators, whether they are nationally owned or—as I would prefer— locally owned, with their routes in the communities that they serve, because that is how we can provide public transport that is a genuine public service, which is what Scotland deserves. 15:52”
“We have an opportunity, because the solution is before us—we must shift to franchising. That process needs to be accelerated, made less bureaucratic and given financial support from the Government, because that is how we can protect service standards, including in the rural areas that many members have talked about. We must take away from operators the power to simply scrap routes and abandon communities. At the same time, we must ensure that the public sector, which is paying for the subsidy, sets the service standard. From there, we will be able to move on.”
“Paul Sweeney: Does Mr Harvie agree that the most extreme example of how the argument has been polarised is the Conservatives’ opposition to the concessionary travel scheme for people seeking asylum, when there was previously consensus on that measure, which included members such as Mr Carlaw? While profit is being extracted from the system, the Conservatives want the weakest members of the community, who are banned from working and banned from social security, to be—in their view—penalised. Patrick Harvie: Mr Sweeney knows that I agree very strongly with him on that point. The opposition to free travel for asylum seekers is not really about bus services; it is about a desire to punch down against a marginalised and vulnerable minority for populist reasons. It is disgraceful.”
“In truth, private sector operators cherry pick the routes that they want to run; they cut the services that they do not want to run or restrict the times of day at which they operate; and they hike the fares to meet the commercial needs and interests of the owners, rather than the transport needs of communities. After all that, they still want subsidy. They still want to benefit from public money being put in, whether to cut the fares, to improve the vehicles or to address other aspects of how the system is run. Therefore, we do not have a private sector, market-led, competition-led model that works; frankly, it is a farce.”
“It has failed for decades. I genuinely think that the most comical aspect of today’s debate is in the text of Mr Hoy’s amendment, which says that “competition between different providers is the most effective way to achieve” affordability and reliability. I invite members to consider the parallel universe in which that statement would be true. In that parallel universe, we would have seen, for the past 40 years, continual improvement in the reliability and affordability of bus services throughout the country. Buses would be as cheap as they are in the most progressive European countries. They would be a ubiquitous, reliable way for people in every community to get about. However, that is simply not true.”
“I restate the need to make that scheme for asylum seekers a permanent policy after the pilot scheme, which closed some time ago. The £2 bus fare cap came up in a budget discussion with the SNP. At the time, we were told that a national £2 bus fare cap was not achievable and all that we could get was a pilot. We were glad to see that as a small step in the right direction; I am even more glad that the Government now acknowledges that we were right in the first place and that a national roll-out of that policy is the right way to go. All those measures, policies, interventions and subsidies—and those on infrastructure, the provision of information to passengers and the transition to low carbon, on which we have more to do—demonstrate that privatisation and deregulation as a model of bus service provision has comprehensively failed.”
“I welcome the fact that this debate has been secured and I am glad that the Government is so proud of many policies that the Greens persuaded it to adopt. We have all enjoyed a bit of knockabout with us all claiming credit, but I genuinely believe that this Parliament is at its best when political parties seek out the common ground between one other and find ways to work together. On bus travel, that has been achieved, and I am glad of it. The Greens have worked hard to protect local routes in our communities up and down the country. We have worked to give voice to bus users, who are very rarely heard from, in contrast with the likes of the road lobby. We have worked to expand free bus travel, first for under-19s and then for under-22s and asylum seekers.”
“We are proud of the commitment that we have made to Scotland’s young people. In a Parliament of minorities, it is important that, where we can get consensus and work together in relation to the budget, we seek to do so. In real terms, more than 3 million journeys are being made every single week with the Scottish Government bus pass. I had the good fortune to visit Buchanan bus station in Glasgow this morning to hear from young folk who have been making the most of it. They told me about the positive impact that free bus travel has had on their lives, saving them money and opening up work, education, leisure, social and even relationship opportunities—”
“Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Stephen Flynn: Yes, of course I will take an intervention from Mr Harvie, who I would imagine is about to indicate his role during the course of the previous parliamentary session. Patrick Harvie: The cabinet secretary has predicted correctly. Just to complete that conversation, I will say that I am sure that the cabinet secretary is proud—and he should be—of the free bus travel for under-22s. I know that he was not here at the time, but does he recognise that that happened only because of Green budget negotiations, first for under-19s and then for under- 22s? The Scottish Government allowed itself to be pushed out of its comfort zone, but that did take some work. Stephen Flynn: I am not sure that we have ever willingly been pushed out of our comfort zone, let alone by Mr Harvie.”
“The option in Mr Hepburn’s amendment, of taking no action, should be rejected, but so should the option of holding an inquiry without having the power to do anything about it. That is why I urge the chamber to vote for the Green amendment when we vote today. 17:29”
“The response should begin with a review, but it must be independently led and it must look at these issues across all parties and organisations seeking to buy political influence. That review must also lead to action—the kind of action that UK authorities have, so far, chosen not to take. If this Parliament is sincere in wanting to do what it takes to restore public trust, we need the power to do it as well. The Green amendment is the only option in front of us today that confirms the need for action but ensures that it will be independent instead of partisan. More to the point, it is the only option that says that we need the power to act on the conclusions afterwards.”
“The list of issues that have undermined trust in politics is a long one, and for anyone to pretend that only one political party is at fault would be deeply dishonest. It is also not only a domestic problem. This week, we have witnessed the chilling result of the abuse of power by a super-rich owner of social media, Elon Musk, who uses that power to foment racism and violence on our streets. His actions represent a wrecking ball through public trust, yet we allow him to carry on doing business, pumping toxic propaganda into our society and telling people that they cannot trust Government or political parties or even their own neighbours. The overwhelming majority of the public believe that money buys influence in politics; what is worse is that they are clearly right.”
“There is also the decades-long influence of Peter Mandelson despite his murky ties to the super-rich such as Epstein; the influence of Russian oligarchs and kleptocrats and the flow of their money into UK politics; the series of huge bungs from the crypto spivs towards Nigel Farage and the rest of the far right; the political influence of the dark money junk tanks peddling propaganda for fossil fuel corporations and other big business; and the routine acceptance of high-priced gifts by serving ministers, from clothes to gig tickets. Those are the kind of freebies that most hard-working people never see, and they are funded not as a perk of the job but by companies and vested interests that all want something in exchange.”
“However, that response must avoid the naked partisanship that has characterised too much of this debate. If we are serious about it, a pantomime performance is not what is needed. If we want to restore trust across our political spectrum, we all need to face scrutiny and not only demand it from others. My party is willing to face it and others should, too. The damage to public trust relates to the crimes exposed by operation Branchform, but it relates not only to those crimes.”
“Patrick Harvie: I think that Anas Sarwar would be horrified if a former or a current leader of a political party told its members how they should vote on a committee decision. [Interruption.] That is for committees to decide, and I am not going to instruct any—[Interruption.] Look at him laughing. Look at Mr Sarwar laughing at that suggestion that we should respect the independence of our committees. If Mr Sarwar will stop heckling, I will continue. The Greens agree that the wider question of trust is legitimate. Indeed, it is more than legitimate; it is urgent, and it requires a political response. The Greens say that, beyond the criminal justice response to Murrell’s crimes, which is the job of the courts, a further response is needed.”
“If the justice committee of this Parliament wants to do that, it does not need the permission of the Parliament to do so, but it would need a clear basis for doing so. It does not hold parliamentary inquiries into every criminal prosecution, or even into every very high-profile criminal prosecution. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Mr Sarwar wants this one to be subject to a parliamentary inquiry explicitly because a rival political party is involved. Anas Sarwar: Mr Harvie says that committees in this Parliament could investigate certain prosecutions. To clarify, if a motion came to the justice committee, would his party support such an investigation by the justice committee?”
“That investigation examined others in the SNP and the party itself, and the result was the establishment of his guilt, and no basis was found to bring charges against others. However, some of the response today amounts to a demand for an investigation into the victim of a crime. Is there more that should be looked at? Were there further crimes that have not yet been prosecuted? That is for the police, the prosecutors and the courts to consider, if there is evidence. Has there been a breach of party political rules and regulations? That is for the Electoral Commission to investigate—again, if there is evidence. What is the case for a parliamentary inquiry? Mr Sarwar answers that it is the criminal justice process itself that should be investigated.”
“I thought that we all condemned that attitude. SNP members have a right to feel anger, not shame, at the crimes committed against them, and they have a right to know that their party has put its finances and its governance on a sound footing; however, that is ultimately a matter for them. Throughout the reporting and debating of the scandal, there have been regular insinuations that the Scottish Government is implicated or that Peter Murrell embezzled money from the Government. If anyone has evidence of that, they should present it. If not, the innuendo is beneath contempt. Although Labour presents the debate as being about restoring public trust in politics, to encourage or even hint at such misleading insinuations can only further undermine trust. Peter Murrell’s crimes have been investigated thoroughly.”
“I beg your pardon, Presiding Officer. I was just discovering how much some speeches improve when I remove my hearing aids. Sadly, today, we have very much seen the debate that I expected. There has been some opportunistic partisanship dressed up as principled concern, and there has been a touch too much defensiveness on the other side, too. We should all recognise Peter Murrell’s crimes as his crimes, committed against the SNP, which has been betrayed both professionally and personally in a deplorable way. The party will feel pain about that, and it has a right to feel angry about it. That is very different from the view of Anas Sarwar, who stated in his opening speech that the SNP should own the shame of those crimes. I wonder whether he thinks that the victim owns the shame of any other type of crime.”
“Is it not absolutely extraordinary that some people respond to a fossil fuel crisis that is sending prices spiralling through the roof by demanding that we double down and make ourselves even more dependent on fossil fuels and even more exposed to the next energy crisis that fossil fuels cause? Stephen Gethins: I am a great believer in the energy mix. As we make a just transition and invest in it, that will involve a huge range of skills. However, we are, as Mr Harvie knows, a massive exporter of renewables, and we can also be a massive exporter of renewables to the whole of Europe. Scotland has an awful lot to offer when it comes not just to our own energy security but to that of our whole continent. Electrical Infrastructure (Orkney) 5.”
“I move amendment S7M- 00290.4, to leave out from “is essential” to end and insert: “does not necessarily deliver prosperity, tackle child poverty, improve public services or achieve climate ambitions, and that only government action can ensure that economic activity helps to achieve these objectives rather than undermining them; believes that growth is needed in areas such as clean energy, housing, nature restoration, as well as social provision, including health, education and care, and that public, community and worker ownership should play an increased role; welcomes the recent publication of the Global Justice Report by the World Inequality Lab, which, it considers, is an important contribution to the debate about how high standards of living for all people can be compatible with decarbonisation and sustainability; urges the Scottish Government to ensure that its economic strategy shows similar ambition in combining these vital objectives, and rejects the failed idea that GDP growth inevitably builds a fair or sustainable economy.” 16:28”
“This country has huge potential to meet the needs of all our people without trashing our life support system, and to contribute to the wellbeing of others around the world without allowing a tiny number to hoard the wealth that we all generate together. There will be things that we need to grow: clean energy, nature restoration and efficient resource use, as well as the social capacity that improves everyone’s lives, from health and care to education and culture. Growth in the areas that improve our lives, help people to help one another and protect the world that we all depend on is healthy growth. However, growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell. I urge the Government to rediscover that understanding, which, for a few years, it was beginning to embrace.”
“Dare I say it: it is time to take back control. New thinking is emerging. The “Global Justice Report” that the Green amendment mentions makes the case that a global transformation that reconciles planetary habitability and high standards of wellbeing for all people is possible. However, that depends on rapid decarbonisation, a shift away from overconsumption towards efficiency and a dramatic reduction in inequality. That would certainly be bad for the billionaire class, but it would be a path to shared prosperity for the majority of the world’s population that is better than they have access to today. We need a Government with that willingness to confront the failures of the current dominant, failed economic system and with the vision and ambition to bring new thinking to the challenge.”
“The UK’s national security assessment on global biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse shows the scale of the crisis that has been brought about by the current economic model, and it illustrates that the economy is wholly dependent on a healthy environment and a fairly functioning society, with up to 12 per cent of GDP at risk as a result of ecosystem collapse by 2030—that is just a few years away. A reckoning is needed with the profound failure of the old economic model, which has left us with a legacy of poverty and inequality, hollowed-out public services, public infrastructure in private hands, and a climate and nature crisis. A reckoning is also needed with the political model that enabled that system and has, for decades, handed away power that should be democratically accountable to corporations and markets.”
“There will be those who say that all growth is good growth and that it simply does not matter that a tiny number of people become immensely wealthy while others are hungry and homeless or if growth comes from depletion of finite resources. For example, the cabinet secretary’s remarks today seem to suggest that he no longer even supports environmental impact assessments and that Rosebank should have been approved without them. Some people might think that growth is desirable even if it continues the destruction of our ecosystem, but the world is already finding out just how self-defeating that argument is.”
“It reads as a repudiation of the Government’s previous work on the concept of a wellbeing economy, which would be a regressive change compared to the previous decade. Stephen Flynn’s speech did not give so much as a nod to the previous progressive track record. Daniel Johnson: I will try to seek consensus. Surely a view of growth that is grounded in jobs, wages and opportunity would be a compromise between the position that the member is articulating and those taken by members in other parts of the chamber. Patrick Harvie: There are better ways to think about that, which I will come back to later. However, the record in Europe, across decades, is that long-term economic growth has benefited the 1 per cent vastly more than the large majority of the population.”
“As recently as January 2024, the Scottish Government backed a motion in the Parliament that set out the aim of “a fair, green wellbeing economy in Scotland”. The SNP’s position was never an outright rejection of growth. Indeed, even the Green position is often misrepresented. As our amendment makes clear, there are certainly areas where our economic activity should increase. However, we argue that an increase for its own sake, that takes place regardless of who benefits or bears the social and environmental cost, is the wrong goal to pursue. Therefore, although there were always differences between the Green and SNP positions, the motion that we are debating today looks like a complete reversal of the Scottish Government’s previous direction of travel.”
“It measures everything that is good and bad for people and pretends that it is all of equal value—it is a simplistic metric. It is wrong to focus on that alone, and it is the wrong target for a Government that cares about people’s wellbeing. The Scottish Government and the SNP have certainly never fully shared the Green critique of growth, but they began to move in the right direction. The national performance framework recognises wider economic indicators, even if it keeps GDP on a pedestal. As First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon placed a strong emphasis on the concept of a wellbeing economy, working with, for example, Iceland and New Zealand to create the wellbeing economy Governments group. In her TED talk in 2019, she said that the time for GDP to be seen as the only measure of a country’s success was over.”
“I congratulate Stephen Flynn on his appointment. This will be his first opportunity to hear my traditional rant about the ideology of economic growth. Other members have been listening to that rant from me for decades, but this is his first chance to hear it—I am sure that he has been looking forward to it. Greens are far from alone in criticising the myopic approach to measuring GDP. We recognise that some economic activity is good for our health and our environment, generates wealth that is fairly shared and rewards workers with secure jobs, rights and protections in the workplace and high levels of local ownership. There is also economic activity that undermines our health, degrades our environment and exploits the workforce while enriching remote corporate interests. We criticise the focus on growth as a simplistic measurement.”
“To ask the Scottish Government, in light of comments made by the First Minister in the Parliament on 2 June that the Scottish Government prioritises active and safe travel routes and the encouragement of cycling, walking and wheeling, for what reason Transport Scotland reportedly reduced the revenue funding for regional transport partnerships’ people and place programmes by 60 per cent, during the election purdah period. (S7O- 00021)”
“That is why I move amendment S7M-00249.1, to insert at end: “; recognises that significant scope exists for further action within devolved powers, such as surcharges within the non-domestic rates system; further recognises that political support has grown for a so-called Amazon tax, as proposed in both the 2026 Scottish Green Party and Scottish National Party manifestos, and believes that progressive reform of property tax could play a powerful role in wealth taxation, and that the Scottish Government must not allow council tax valuations to reach the milestone of being 40 years out of date by the end of the current parliamentary session.” 15:13”