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 9 of 11.
“When this Parliament passed its first piece of climate legislation, the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, I warned that we had consensus on the destination but not on the actions that were necessary, and I have continued to say that. However, in recent months, it has become increasingly clear that the Conservative Party has detached itself even from that consensus on the destination. The 2045 target was set a little more than five years ago, and the final Tory speaker in the debate in which Parliament agreed that target said: “The Committee on Climate Change outlined how Scotland can go faster and further in achieving net zero emissions. I support the principle that we need to go further and faster, for the good of both the economy and the global environment”.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what it anticipates the impact will be on the Scottish film and TV industry of the US President’s intention to impose tariffs. (S6O-04645)”
“I cannot accept that it is our right as legislators to use the criminal law to force everyone down one path, towards one way of facing the end of life, because someone else has chosen that. That is why I will be voting yes to the bill tonight. 15:32”
“In truth, nobody is truly and wholly independent, and the nature and degree of our interdependence differs markedly because of many factors, including disability. Interdependence can be one of the enriching things about human life, and it should not be dismissed or devalued, but I cannot agree that it is right to use that as a rationale for legally imposing a denial of the right to choose. Surely it is never more important than at the most difficult time in life, when we approach its unavoidable end, for us to be supported on our own terms, as we would wish, rather than having someone else’s choice imposed on us by the force of the criminal law. That is important precisely because our differing values matter. I genuinely do not know which choice I would make—perhaps we cannot know until we face it— but the choice should be there.”
“The fundamentally different values that I mentioned, all of which are both subjective and valid, lead us to different answers to that question, but, for me, that is the very reason why we should allow people to reach their own decisions. If all people deserve the right to live life on their own terms, they surely have the right to face its end on their own terms, too. In a recent media discussion with Pam Duncan- Glancy, I argued that our lives are our own and belong to us. Pam replied by quite rightly pointing out that that is far from being the practical reality of life for many disabled people. However, arguing that our lives are our own does not mean ignoring the ways in which we depend on one another as individuals and across society.”
“If that issue is the central objection that some people hold to a change in the law to allow assisted dying, could there ever be some threshold of acceptability in terms of social context? I think that it is very hard to make that case. The context of our society is not static, so we should be asking ourselves whether legalising assisted dying will stop us trying harder or will make us do better. Some people are genuinely concerned that the former will happen, while others, as Liam McArthur set out, point to positive evidence from other places that shows that we can do both, and that assisting dying and improving the support to allow people to live life on their own terms can happen at the same time. Do the concerns justify refusing to give people the help that they choose, on their own terms, when they approach the end of life?”
“I know that, for some people who are concerned about a change in the law, the passionate support that some express for the principle can seem to obscure the social context in which people make choices. It is important that we recognise that social context, whether it is about social care, health services, palliative care or the diverse services and forms of support that many disabled people need in order to live their lives. We do not all make our choices in a context that is equal. That is a point that I have heard Pam Duncan- Glancy, in particular, make very clearly, and I look forward to hearing her contribution to the debate. Is that social context lacking in today’s society? Yes, undoubtedly. Will it ever, even in the most optimistic version of our future, be perfect and unimprovable? No.”
“People might express their values in terms of individual autonomy; the relief of suffering; the equal value of all life or, for some people, the sanctity of life; the relationship between doctors and patients or between carers and those who are cared for; the protection of the most vulnerable people in our society; or in many other ways. Even though each of us will decide how we vote tonight, the debate should not be seen as one that is polarised between supporters and opponents. I do not think that most people are at one fixed point or the other. Many people who want the Parliament to vote yes this evening understand and respect the concerns that have been expressed by others, some of which they might share. Many people who want the Parliament to vote no respect and understand the wish of others to express the right to choose.”
“I thank everyone who has been in touch with me, whether to express their support or to share concerns, questions or strongly held opposition on the issue. There has been long-standing public support for a change in the law, but it has taken time to create a bill that could properly bring the law into line with public views. As Liam McArthur has set out, there are many reasons for the complexity of any proposals for change, but, as he said, it is not always recognised that there is complexity, uncertainty and incongruity in the current law, too. Fundamentally, a great deal of the debate comes down to the very different values—valid and deeply held values—that we hold. We live our own lives by those different values, and we bring them to the debate.”
“I want to recognise not just the years but, in fact, the decades of work by many people. In parliamentary terms, I recognise the work of Jeremy Purvis and then Margo MacDonald, whose second bill I inherited when she died before she was able to bring it to the Parliament, as well as the likes of Kim Leadbeater and other MPs before her who have advanced the argument at Westminster. I believe that Liam McArthur’s work on the bill, in learning from previous debates and scrutiny, marks a significant improvement on past efforts. In discussing the bill today, I will focus on the general principles rather than the detail. The issue requires us to debate things that can be uncomfortable. It also requires us to listen to one another in ways that we, in the Parliament, always should do but often fail to.”
“In a video that was posted on social media yesterday, he said: “I’m old enough to have seen fascism the first time round, and now it’s coming back.” After driving that tank over a Tesla and crushing it, he gave this message to Elon Musk: “We’ve crushed fascism before and we’ll crush it again.” Ken gets it—he knows what had to be done and the cost of what had to be done—but Ken also knows why it had to be done, and he knows that it must still be done. Let us never forget what Ken has reminded us of. 15:57”
“We see far-right ideology growing around the world and the arrest of Nazis in the UK only yesterday. We hear prominent voices in major political parties seeking to abolish our fundamental human rights and tear up the astonishing endowment that the post-war generation left us. As we see the UK Government celebrating VE day on the same day that it announces an agreement with a US President whose ideology is indistinguishable from fascism, we need to remember that appeasement never works. I will end with the words of Ken Turner, 98 years old, as he sat in a Sherman tank. Mr Turner served in world war two, as did the tank.”
“However, it is important to remember that VE day was not the end of the story for those who were still enduring war in other parts of the world, or for East Germany, which went from Nazi to communist control. It would be decades before that country would achieve freedom and join a peaceful and democratic family of European nations. It was not the end of the story for the gay men who were liberated from Nazi concentration camps but re-imprisoned by the allies. We must also remember that the struggle to defeat fascism remains our responsibility today. We see an expansionist war against Ukraine being rewarded on the world stage and the horrific images of genocide from Gaza. We see the brutality of immigration detention camps and imprisonment without trial in countries that claim to be democracies.”
“I honestly do not think that I can begin to imagine the emotional release that must have come—including in households that were, as the First Minister described, still suffering their own personal grief while the celebrations began—when the announcement of VE day was made. In the wake of such suffering, VE day led to new beginnings. In recognising that they had fought together and survived together, people decided to rebuild their society together, with a welfare state and a national health service—an astonishing legacy for that generation to leave us—the creation of international institutions of peace, a framework of international law, human rights and what eventually became the European Union.”
“Today’s motion reminds us of the hundreds of thousands of members of the UK forces and the tens of thousands of civilians whose lives were lost in world war two. Beyond those deaths, the war caused up to 85 million deaths worldwide—about 3 per cent of the global population at the time. That number includes the 6 million Jews and the millions of others who were exterminated by the Nazis. An estimated 40 million to 60 million people were displaced. However, mere statistics are not enough to truly comprehend the scale of what had to be done to defeat Nazism and fascism, the sacrifice of those who fought and the scale of the impact on the millions of lives affected.”
“Will the First Minister explain why it took so many years of pressure from the Greens to make the SNP accept that rents are too high, that standards are too low and that urgent action is needed?”
“I first raised the need for rent controls well over a decade ago, to the complete disinterest of the Scottish National Party housing minister of the day. By then, private rented housing had already been growing dramatically for years, and rents had continued to spiral. The situation now is far more severe. Even if rent controls had been in place just for the past five years, people renting their homes in places such as Glasgow and Edinburgh would be thousands of pounds a year better off. I am glad that the Greens’ efforts and the work of tenants unions have resulted in a housing bill with rent controls for Scotland, even if it is weaker because of SNP amendments. I am also glad that our plans for energy efficiency rules for private landlords are finally going to happen.”
“To ask the Scottish Government, when authorising fishing licences, what process it follows to comply with any legal duty under section 15 of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010, and the judgment in the Open Seas Trust v the Scottish Ministers case, to act in accordance with the national marine plan. (S6O-04609)”
“Repeated comments were made at that meeting that made very clear that we can build a fairer society that will recover from 15 years of austerity only if we continue to raise the resources that are needed fairly, whether that is through local tax reform or a wealth tax. However, I am sorry to say that today’s managerial SNP Government seems to be terrified of anything that looks like the bold, ambitious change that our country needs. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Alex Cole- Hamilton to open on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats. You have up to four minutes, Mr Cole- Hamilton. 15:57”
“By abandoning progressive policies that once had the support of every single party in this Parliament, the SNP is now showing itself to be as much of a threat to the LGBTQ communities as the Conservatives and Labour are. As Helena Kennedy said, about the scrapping of the misogyny bill, “We are seeing a retreat from some of these areas that are being characterised as ‘woke’”. That is not the way to tackle the issue. We need to change the conditions of our society that give the far right its opportunity to manipulate people and spread its message. Many participants in the First Minister’s summit challenged us all to invest in public services, housing and conditions in local communities that need to change if we are to address the real and justified alienation that dangerous forces are exploiting.”
“Just like the goal to end child poverty, the Scottish Government’s wider goal of investing in public services links directly to a new challenge— how to tackle the rise of the far right—which the First Minister has chosen to accept personally by hosting a summit on it. Too many centrist politicians around the world think that, to defeat the far right, we have to copy it. That has failed time and time again, and we cannot afford to repeat it. I like to hope—and I do hope—that the Scottish Government would not go down that route if immigration were under its control. However, on social policy, I fear that it is beginning to follow that playbook.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: There is very limited time, but the First Minister may make an intervention. The First Minister: I will challenge Patrick Harvie’s disgusting characterisation of my comments. I want to make sure that people are supported out of poverty, but I want to enable people to access employment. The characterisation that Mr Harvie has attached to that is not worthy of his place in Parliament. Patrick Harvie: The comments that I read in the First Minister’s interview were that he was worried that, if the child payment were higher, it would “reduce the incentive” to work.”
“Those of us who had, for years, made the case for progressive tax won that argument and forced the SNP to drop its no-change tax policy. That link remains—we can invest only if we raise the funds. In a profoundly unequal society, the funds are there to be found. However, the First Minister now says that the Scottish child payment is at its limit and, worse, he is echoing right-wing rhetoric about not giving people too much in case they lose the incentive to work. That is an age-old story. For wealthy people to have an incentive to work or do anything, they have to be given vast salaries, bonuses and tax havens, but for people in poverty to have an incentive to work, they must be kept poor. The First Minister: Will the member take an intervention? Patrick Harvie: If there is time in hand, Presiding Officer, I will do so.”
“As for the rest of climate policy, the proposed heat in buildings bill has been gutted; the target to reduce car traffic has been dropped, with no alternative put in its place; rail decarbonisation has been delayed; and there has been no serious progress on emissions from agriculture. We have seen years of inaction on anything other than green electricity production, and that is what left the 2030 target out of reach. Now, the Scottish Government seems determined to abandon any serious policy ambition on the actions that are necessary to make this year’s climate plan remotely credible. On child poverty, we should all recognise that the Scottish child payment is one of the most important and successful policies of the devolution era, but it was possible only because the money was raised.”
“I like to begin my contributions to these debates with one positive point, so I welcome the fact that peak rail fares are gone for good. The Greens abolished them, and the SNP brought them back. We criticised that decision and the SNP derided our criticism, not just on financial grounds but by pretending that the policy had not worked. Now, peak fares are finally gone for good. I am glad that the SNP has finally accepted that the Greens were right on that issue, but people need consistent low fares if they are going to change their behaviour, not that kind of chopping and changing.”
“People are paying more and they are getting less, year after year. They think that their politicians are at it, and that must change. This programme for government is more of the same from the SNP. It is a John Swinney special—big promises with no plan for how to meet them. In a year’s time, we will look back at this statement in the same way as we look back at all the other previous SNP statements. All that this will achieve is more broken promises and more failed pledges, along with a lack of trust in the Government and its ability to deliver change. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Jackie Baillie to open on behalf of Scottish Labour. Jackie Baillie, you have up to six minutes. 15:45”
“Raising standards in schools should also be a focus of Government. On the SNP’s watch, they have fallen. When John Swinney was Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, our schools plummeted down the international league tables. Now, violence in schools has spiralled out of control. Gender ideology and wellbeing take up too much time that should be spent on traditional learning. The Government must restore education standards by taking a tougher approach to bad behaviour, bringing back the focus on knowledge in the curriculum and investing in teaching posts. Finally, but most importantly, the Government needs to get smarter at spending taxpayers’ money. Providing value for money is essential to restoring the public’s trust; they feel that Holyrood just does not get their concerns.”
“The Government must bring forward a detailed plan for faster access to GP appointments. That can be done by removing bureaucracy, using technology to streamline the process and by investing more directly in the front line. Our roads are also in desperate need of investment. Fixing the roads has not been a priority for the SNP since it turned against motorists. It decided that the way to meet net zero targets is to punish car drivers and make them pay more, when better roads would help the environment. It would mean that cars could travel more quickly and easily without emitting as much CO2, and it would mean fewer costly repairs. In rural areas such as mine, there is often no other option than to drive, because public transport is so bad. Fixing the roads should become a focus of this Government again.”
“Will the member give way? Rachael Hamilton: I do not see why not. Patrick Harvie: The member is very keen that people’s bills should be brought down and that they should not pay more but get less. Does she accept that private rented sector tenants in Scotland are paying more for their homes than they would if they had a mortgage? They are paying more but getting less, so will she support the proposal for rent controls? Rachael Hamilton: I will absolutely—100 per cent—not support the proposal on rent controls that the Greens and the SNP are pushing, because that will stifle the housing market and drive people out. It will not deal with the housing crisis, and Patrick Harvie knows that. Every year, the SNP grandstands that it is throwing more money at the NHS, but waiting lists remain too long.”
“Even if CCS can ever be made to work at high enough capture rates to result in negligible overall emissions— there is still plenty of doubt about that question—it will always be a huge additional cost, making the production of blue hydrogen dramatically less efficient. If hydrogen is to play any meaningful role, it must be produced using renewable electricity—it must be green hydrogen.”
“The internationally recognised colour code for hydrogen has about as many shades on it as the pride flag does, but fundamentally, most industrially produced hydrogen to date has been made using fossil fuels with no abatement of emissions. Whether that is the most polluting fuels such as lignite, which some countries use to produce hydrogen, or others such as fossil gas, we need to be clear that that approach has no role to play in a transition to sustainability. It should not only be denied Government investment but simply not be permitted. Then there are people who advocate for blue hydrogen, which is still produced using fossil fuels but with the addition of long-promised carbon capture and storage technology.”
“There are, sadly, some people in our society, and too many current and former politicians—as we have seen this week—who want to abandon real climate action in favour of implausible techno- fixes. Hydrogen has the real potential to be seen in the same way, and we cannot afford that. Neither can we afford the same simplistic, unrealistic thinking to affect the way that we develop the hydrogen sector. Sarah Boyack was right to say that there are two critical questions—how we produce hydrogen and how we use it. The answers to both questions will determine the value that it has for our society and for the transition to sustainability. First, where does hydrogen come from?”
“I welcome the fact that we have the opportunity to debate this issue. It should not be seen as a simplistic debate, and there certainly should not be a split between unequivocal hydrogen enthusiasts and hydrogen sceptics. The issue is much more complicated than that. The role that hydrogen could play in Scotland’s energy system and in several industries could be very significant. It could become a significant part of our economy, too, if we produce large amounts for export. I would disagree with anyone who suggests that that cannot happen, but hydrogen is not a magic solution for some of the challenging aspects of the transition to sustainability. I would equally disagree with anyone who wants to see hydrogen in the same category as carbon capture and storage, direct air capture of greenhouse gases or foolhardy experiments to dim the sun.”
“It is being trialled by a company that is putting a tremendous amount of money into proving the concept when we are having to look at all the alternatives for fossil fuels as we work to decarbonise every aspect of our society.”
“The cabinet secretary began by talking about hydrogen’s role in helping to decarbonise “hard-to-abate” sectors of the economy. Why is she now talking in positive terms about using it to decarbonise an easy-to- abate sector such as home heating? Gillian Martin: I think that H100 is a proof of concept. We will have to look at multiple opportunities to decarbonise heating. Some areas in Scotland, such as the western and northern isles, will probably produce more green electricity than could even be put into a grid system. If the H100 project can prove the concept in the houses to which it supplies hydrogen, can do that safely and can then be rolled out to other areas, so that we are using green electricity to provide hydrogen, I see no problem in trialling that.”
“In April, the Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport met chairs, chief officers and chief financial officers from all IJBs in Scotland to discuss the financial challenges. That followed a meeting that she had in March. We continue to engage with the sector, and we understand the challenges that it faces, as I outlined in my previous answer. As I said, we recognise that the funding routes are through health boards and local authorities, which, in turn, have received record funding. However, we also recognise the impact that IJB performance has on local communities and we will continue to engage proactively with the sector and others to be able to address those challenges. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Very briefly,”
“Ivan McKee: I will let Patrick Harvie know the activity that is taking place in that regard. The Government is very much engaged in such discussions. In February, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, along with representatives from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, invited the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and Senior Managers, Scottish Care and the Coalition of Care and Support Providers in Scotland to a round-table meeting to discuss the very issue that he talks about—the financial viability of the social care sector. Through that meeting, a response group for financial viability was commissioned to further explore the risks to the sector as well as potential mitigations.”
“The Government has been blowing hot and cold on this issue. Today, we have heard very little recognition of the human impact that cuts to IJB funding are having, and Neil Gray has brushed off any suggestion that the Government has a responsibility in that regard. However, just last month, during First Minister’s question time, the First Minister said: “There will need to be a wider conversation between the Government and the integration joint board to address the concerns that have been properly put to me by members today.”—[Official Report, 27 March 2025; c 18-19.] His tone was very open. Does the Government recognise that there would be a broad cross-party welcome if the Government were to accept responsibility for taking forward the wider conversation that the First Minister promised? Will that happen?”
“Any concerns that individuals have with the EHRC—and the update that it has issued—are for the body itself, which is responsible for regulating around and enforcing the Equality Act 2010. The Presiding Officer: We do not have a lot of spare time this afternoon. The more concise that members can be, the better, in order that I can accommodate more speakers.”
“Shirley-Anne Somerville: Patrick Harvie is quite right to point to the fact that the EHRC’s update—I stress that it is an update and not guidance—has caused real fear and concern in the trans community. The fact that it landed on a Friday evening added to that. I have read with interest the comments made subsequently, including that of Roz Foyer, who was quoted as saying: “We are going to have to make sure we protect all parties’ rights, but we actually have to find a way forward that makes sure we have some sort of provision for trans men and women in our public bodies, in our institutions.” I agree with the sentiment behind that comment. It is very important that we recognise that such fear and concern exist—and remain—because of the EHRC update.”
“I have heard from people who were not even sure whether they should go to work the next morning, because they did not know whether they would be able to do something as simple as go to the toilet. Does the cabinet secretary agree that the UK is now at risk of breaching trans people’s human rights—just as it did decades ago, before the Gender Recognition Act 2004 was in place— as well as breaching the freedom of the wider LGBT community to organise in the inclusive manner that the vast majority of our members wish to? When the Government meets the EHRC, will the cabinet secretary make it crystal clear that it is unacceptable to see decades of progress on equality and human rights rolled back in that way?”
“Those who have been trying to undo decades of progress on LGBT people’s human rights and inclusion in society may be keen to carry on doing more as quickly as they can, but does the cabinet secretary recognise the extraordinary level— Tess White: On a point of order, Presiding Officer. This bears no relation to the topical question in hand. The Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms White, but I am chairing this meeting of Parliament, and I will do that as I see fit. Patrick Harvie: I was about to ask whether the cabinet secretary acknowledges the extraordinary degree of fear and anxiety that is being caused to the trans community around the country as a result of the update late on Friday night from the EHRC.”
“However, that is what I do not see in the BBC’s proposals for what is to come after this. I do not believe that the BBC has offered either an appropriate off-ramp for a model, if it wants to change the current one, or opportunities for people in the current team who are working on “River City” and for the next generations of people who need to get a foothold in the industry. However, that is what we need if the Scottish screen sector, more generally, is to thrive. 13:11”
“They are proud of what they do, because of the role that the programme plays in supporting the entire rest of the industry. High-end productions depend on that throughput of talent coming through, generation after generation, and it is one of the things that “River City” provides. The second thing that I saw on our visit was that the people whom I met recognise that the industry is changing. They are not suggesting that everything be preserved in aspic. They recognise that the industry is experiencing a move away from linear television, due to the role of the streamers and the costs of production, but they want to be able to continue to ensure that those training opportunities and those first, second and third job opportunities are there for the future of the industry, even if that does not happen exactly as it happens now.”
“What will happen to their break, their lifeline, their support, their welcome to the world of TV drama, which I received?” That sort of thing is not going to be replaced by a few individual, one-off, six-part dramas that fit better with the streaming model and the way in which television is changing, even if significant investment goes into them. I am sure that positive value will come out of that and that there will be opportunities for some people to get jobs, but it will not provide the ecosystem and that basic level of first, second and third job opportunities that “River City” has such a strong track record of providing, and which the entire industry depends on. The folk whom I met at “River City” know that they are not working on the highest-end, highest- value production.”
“We all know about their incredible work in taking an inclusive approach to training. In many ways, soaps such as “River City” and a number of other on-going productions do for television and the screen sector what weekly repertory theatre might well have done for the stage in previous generations. They create opportunities for people to get their first break. Many of those whom I met work not only on “River City”; they spend part of the year working on other productions. I endorse the comments from the hundreds of industry professionals who have added their names to a petition to save “River City”. One writer wrote: “My concern is for those coming along behind me. What about their opportunities, their careers, their finances, their futures, that of their families?”
“We will have a thriving sector only if we have the ecosystem that makes it possible and which provides the opportunities for people to get started in their careers. I express my sincere thanks to the cast and crew of “River City” for welcoming me and my colleague Gillian Mackay on a recent visit. I would say that we saw two things there. First, we saw the incredible pride that the whole team takes in their work—and rightly so. We have heard a lot about the work on training, which, I have to say, has happened not always because the BBC told the team to do it, but sometimes despite the BBC’s expectations, with the team only getting the credit afterwards. There is a huge number of roles, ranging from electricians to make-up, costume and props professionals, camera trainees and script editors—I will not list them all.”
“As a Dumbarton expat, I obviously agree with Jackie Baillie about the value of having creative industries in the town. I thank Neil Bibby for securing the motion for debate in the chamber, and it should be of importance to everyone, regardless of whether they are a fan of the programme. I freely confess, with deep apologies to our guests in the public gallery, that my TV habits—for which I make no apologies—involve rather more spaceships and aliens than we normally see in episodes of “River City”. I want the screen sector to thrive in Scotland, because of, as we have heard, the critical importance of telling distinctively Scottish stories, which the big streamers are not necessarily going to fund.”
“Their level of brutality against the powerless is already sickening, but, if they are successful at dehumanising humanity itself, far worse is to come. Where can we find hope when hope is hard work? I will come back to that in my closing speech, but Klein and Taylor have set out the possible alternative of the sources of hope in the future as a counter to the apocalyptic narrative of the far right and the vested interests. It is a story about how to survive the hard times ahead without leaving anyone behind. It is about not escaping a collapsing world but, as they have said, “staying put and staying faithful to the troubled earthly reality in which we are enmeshed and bound.” 16:23”
“However, they are too invested in the economic model that has created those crises to consider taking the rational action that is necessary to address them. As Klein and Taylor have argued, they are not just taking advantage of catastrophes, shock doctrine and the disaster-capitalism policies of the past; they are, simultaneously, provoking and planning for those crises. In what should be astonishing and sickening to any civilised person, those who have built the modern far-right movement around the world are now openly launching an ideological attack on the very concept of empathy. In truth, that is entirely in keeping with their values. Their ability to frame empathy as a weakness will be essential to them if they are to continue their sociopathic project.”