Maurice Golden
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“Large numbers of young people continue to be referred to child and adolescent mental health services, and the waiting times that they face illustrate the scale of demand that is put on the system. In NHS Tayside, there is only one facility: Dudhope young people’s unit, which admits an average of 20 young people per year.”
“Beat’s helplines, peer support groups and campaigns continue to provide essential help for people who are suffering from eating disorders, not least by giving people the opportunity to connect and share their experiences. Those services are only part of the picture.”
“I am pleased to speak in support of the motion recognising eating disorders awareness week 2026, as I have done in previous years, and I thank Elena Whitham for securing the debate.”
“Recent data from the 2024 Scottish health survey reveal that around 26 per cent of people aged 16 to 24 reported eating behaviours and feelings related to food that could be indicative of a possible eating disorder—the proportion was far higher than in older age groups.”
“We must ensure that no young person in Scotland feels alone in their struggle and that their communities in schools, workplaces and families are empowered to support them.”
“To ask the Scottish Government, in light of recent changes to Scottish Qualifications Authority policy permitting internet-enabled devices, such as Chromebooks, in exams, what action it is taking to ensure that pupils who rely on speech-to-text as their normal way of working are not, in practice, prevented from using this technology durin…”
The complete record
Every one of 229 lines we hold for Maurice Golden, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 5.
“With that in mind, I will highlight elements of other members’ contributions, with a focus on those of the party leaders. The First Minister outlined that few milestones could be more significant in our history. He spoke about visiting his uncle’s grave in Italy and about the gravity of the loss felt by his family. In a poignant and heartfelt contribution, he made it clear that the passing decades do not dampen that memory. Russell Findlay spoke of the six years of bloodshed and horror that our country endured until it awoke to the light of freedom as the dark forces of fascism were vanquished. He also mentioned the disturbing fact that the average age at which a Scottish serviceman was killed was only 21. Anas Sarwar spoke of a global struggle against tyranny, in which members of his own family fought in the British Indian Army.”
“Sadly, I do not have time to mention every allied contribution, but I want to highlight the role that Polish troops played in my part of Scotland in the early days of the war, with Britain under threat of invasion. It was Polish troops who helped to defend the coast between Arbroath and Burntisland, and we honour them for standing alongside us in that dark hour. It was not only soldiers who suffered. Tens of thousands of British civilians perished, too, on the streets, at work and even in the one place where they should have been safe—their own homes. By the end of the war, tens of millions of civilians around the world had been killed, including 6 million Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust. Although this is a day of victory, it is also one of remembrance and reflection.”
“They had risen to the occasion like no generation before or since. They fought and died in far-off fields. They suffered night after night of relentless bombing that brought terror to their homes. They raised families and tended the sick while cities fell down around them, and they waded through the rubble to rebuild and carry on. Today, we remember their courage, their sacrifice and their victory over tyranny. However, even as we celebrate the victory, we must never forget that war itself is nothing to celebrate or glorify. Around 384,000 British soldiers died in world war two, including almost 60,000 Scots. Fighting alongside us, 580,000 Commonwealth troops were killed, and we must never forget the enormous casualties that were suffered by our allies, either.”
“It is an honour to speak in today’s debate marking VE day, especially as I am the convener of the cross-party group on the armed forces and veterans community. I thank Graeme Dey, as minister with responsibility for veterans, for his support over the years in recognising the role of not just the CPG but the veterans community. Eighty years ago, Sir Winston Churchill marked this hour of victory with the following words to the British people. It is a much-used quote, and so it should be. He said: “My dear friends, this is your hour. This is not victory of a party or of any class. It’s a victory of the great British nation as a whole.” He was right. It was a victory that belonged to everyone—the ordinary men and women who had been forced to put their lives on hold and endure the most awful conflict in human history.”
“Dundee’s low-emission zone is too small and it does not cover the areas that would make the most difference, such as the outlying retail parks where people do most of their shopping. The focus on a tiny area in the city centre means that the most behavioural change that we are likely to see is from taxi drivers. In addition, the roll-out of thousands of electric chargers whose cost is double that of petrol disenfranchises all those who cannot charge at home, who are primarily the poorest in society. Protecting our standard of living and providing for our children’s future requires transformational climate action, and I believe that that is what the Scottish Government should deliver. 16:21”
“Only yesterday, Friends of the Earth Scotland felt compelled to say that the Scottish Government was “paying lip service” to climate action. I call that out to highlight the failure to make enough progress. As I said in last year’s debate on growing the green economy, we cannot expect the public to lend us their support or businesses to invest their money if they are unsure that the government of the day will deliver. We have run out of time for yet more consultations, road maps, working groups, talking shops and strategies. Where there is action from the Scottish Government, it is too limited. Talk of a latte levy will not create enough behavioural change for a circular economy, but it would be a game-changer to throw the full might of public procurement spend behind circular economy choices.”
“We have the rather strange and intriguing position of the Scottish Government repeatedly failing to meet the 2013 household recycling target. That was not a misquote by me; it really is the target from 2013. If we cannot meet the 2013 household recycling target by asking members of the public to put something in a bin in their house or near their home, there is no chance of achieving net zero. We have the same story on the circular economy. The Circular Economy (Scotland) Act 2024 was watered down to deal only with waste and litter, albeit that I say to Murdo Fraser that those are important matters. Meanwhile, incineration capacity is ballooning past the point where the policy makes sense. There is a long list of failures.”
“Shirley-Anne Somerville: I have an enormous amount of respect for the member and his views on the issue, but will he at some point in his speech deal with the elephant in the room, which is that the Conservative Party throughout the UK is walking away from net zero and the arguments for it? Kemi Badenoch has made that quite clear. Every single time the Scottish Government brings a difficult decision to the chamber, the Scottish Conservatives vote against it. I respect the member’s personal position, but does he feel a degree of discomfort about his party’s? Maurice Golden: What I say to colleagues on net zero is, “You turn if you want to, but this MSP is remaining committed to tackling climate change.” I go back to the Scottish Government, because that is essentially what we are here to discuss.”
“The effects of climate change will be felt everywhere, with serious and lasting consequences for our communities. Everyone needs to think about which is worse: being ambitious in our targets and policies even if we might not always succeed, or stoking up a narrative against climate action? Let me be clear that I am not for a moment suggesting that the Scottish Government should get a free pass for failure. I have held and will continue to hold it to account when it does not live up to its promises. The Scottish Government would expect me to do that, such as when it failed to meet its emissions targets nine times in 13 years. That was disappointing, to say the least, as is the fact that the annual emissions targets have now been scrapped altogether, along with the interim net zero target.”
“Those are all welcome measures and I hope that they all do some good, but the reality is that they do not amount to the transformational change that we need in order to deliver net zero on time and build a circular economy. My concern is that Governments are facing and will continue to face increasing pressure to avoid taking those difficult but necessary steps to keep us on track. Climate action is an issue where we had consensus on both the need for action and the price to be paid should we fail—I say “had consensus” because the climate debate is changing from how we act to whether we act. That is not a debate that we can afford, and it will come as a shock to many who thought that the case for action, backed by scientific consensus, had been won.”
“I will use my time in this debate to speak up for the need for greater and more urgent climate action. To its credit, the Scottish Government has included some action in the programme for government, such as a sizeable investment in energy efficiency measures and setting targets for installing clean heating systems. It will extend the nature restoration fund and provide farmers with capital funding to achieve climate outcomes. There is more support for the transition to electric vehicles, at least in theory, and there will be a new national flood advisory service, which reflects the calls that I made for a unified body in the wake of the storm Babet floods.”
“The provision of hydrogen utilising existing grid infrastructure is theoretically possible, but it is certainly not the first port of call. The most likely scenario is that hydrogen will be used in domestic properties either as part of a blend or where the properties are in proximity to industrial clusters. I will close with a simple appeal to the Scottish Government. I do not doubt its intentions and there is much in its motion to agree with, but we need it to provide the detail and, ultimately, to help to deliver a green hydrogen future. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The final speaker in the open debate is Emma Harper. 16:23”
“As an aside on transport, I note Graham Simpson’s comments on the EU mandating hydrogen refilling stations every 124 miles, not to mention electric vehicle charging stations every 37 miles. As an EV driver who is frequently frustrated by access to chargers, I can only hope that the Scottish Government learns from such issues when, or if, it develops future hydrogen infrastructure for transport. Returning to heating, it is important that we have a robust mixture, which will undoubtedly include heat pumps, but we have to acknowledge that heat pumps are not suitable for everyone. Scottish Government estimates suggest that they will not be suitable for about 24 per cent of properties by 2040, even with upgrades.”
“Although Government ambition and investment are welcome, we need to be concerned when the Scottish Government cannot say what is happening with its hydrogen action plan or how the investments will ultimately deliver a green hydrogen future. It is delivery that counts. One place where that delivery is happening is at the H100 project in Fife, which is the first project of its kind to use clean power to provide hydrogen for domestic heating. I was able to visit it recently with colleagues and see its progress for myself, ahead of renewable hydrogen starting to be delivered into hundreds of homes later this year. I can confirm that the pancakes that were made using the hydrogen hob tasted exactly the same as those made using natural gas.”
“I think that we all agree with the ambition on green hydrogen, but it is more realistic to say that we are actually seeing grey or even blue hydrogen. Ultimately, that is an issue. We need to make progress on that, because the case for hydrogen is, in my view, inextricably linked with being green. Ultimately, the business case for net zero changes significantly if we are talking about different ways of producing the said hydrogen. I also caution that we have been here before on green jobs, with promises being made and then broken. We see the same story repeated across the entire net zero and low carbon portfolio: emissions targets are repeatedly missed, recycling is stalled and net zero policies are watered down or abandoned.”
“Behind such trade, there would be new supply chains, new inward investment and, perhaps most importantly, new jobs. That is exactly what a just transition is supposed to mean, especially for my constituents in North East Scotland, who have built their careers on oil and gas and now need long-term opportunities to use their skills in a net zero economy. Daniel Johnson: The member has done an excellent job in setting out the scale of the opportunity and highlighting the 5GW target rising to 25GW, but the 5GW is to be achieved by 2030 and, at present, as I understand it, we are not producing any green hydrogen at an industrial scale. Does he believe that we are making sufficient progress to realise the targets and the opportunities that he has set out? Maurice Golden: I do not.”
“The Scottish Government’s hydrogen action plan aims for 5GW of production by 2030, which would account for half the UK production target. The target for Scottish production is 25GW by 2045 and there is the potential for Scotland to export 2.5 million tonnes of green hydrogen by that date. That could be exported across Europe, given the estimate that the EU will import around half of its hydrogen by the end of the decade. Because of the uncertainty about energy supplies in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine, that huge market is waiting for a reliable supplier, and Scotland is well able to fulfil that role. In fact, Scotland could supply as much as a third of Germany’s demand, so it is encouraging to see that the UK has signed a hydrogen partnership agreement to collaborate with Germany on research, standards and trade.”
“Graham Simpson opened his speech on a positive note, and I shall follow where he leads, because I welcome the Scottish Government’s ambition on hydrogen. The Government is absolutely right that Scotland should be leading in this space. It is also right that significant resources are being committed, as we have heard about already today. There is the multimillion-pound investment in strategic green hydrogen projects, support for the Aberdeen green hydrogen hub and the investment in a green hydrogen farming pilot. All of those are welcome, because hydrogen, especially sustainable green hydrogen, offers another useful tool in our efforts to decarbonise our economy and reach net zero. However, this debate is not only about climate; it is about seizing a significant economic opportunity.”
“Zonal pricing will discourage investment in net zero in Scotland but will lower Scottish consumer bills. Does the minister support zonal pricing? Alasdair Allan: That issue came up at First Minister’s question time. It is important that we get zonal pricing right. The current wholesale electricity market in Great Britain is not fit for the delivery of our net zero ambitions. The Government and I recognise the trade-offs and complexities that exist in the debate on zonal pricing, and we continue our conversations with the United Kingdom Government to ensure that the voices of industry and community are heard in that debate. Any reforms or policy interventions from the UK Government must reduce costs for Scottish consumers and businesses while protecting investment.”
“However, in England, the sale of house coal was banned two years ago. To be fair, in Scotland, the cleaner air for Scotland 2 strategy proposed such a ban, but there has been little or no action from the Scottish Government to implement it. That seems like an obvious move to make. Consumers and householders would not be disadvantaged, but air quality would certainly benefit. Scotland has some catching up to do, both on the treatment and prevention fronts. I urge ministers to take the advice of Asthma and Lung UK to treat asthma and respiratory conditions as the national priority that they are. 13:01”
“Emma Harper: Does the member agree that low-emission zones will help to contribute to cleaner air in our cities, which might benefit people who have asthma—especially those who might be triggered by poor air quality? Maurice Golden: It was clear from yesterday’s debate that we need the data to confirm that, and the effectiveness of low-emission zones as a mechanism for improving air quality needs to be verified. We need to see the data, and there has to be an evidence-led approach. We could have air pollution monitors to ensure that the data is correct, particularly in areas such as schools, and not just focus on specific areas in city centres. A lot of work can be done in that area, but I was speaking about domestic coal heating. Domestic coal heating is a major problem for air quality.”
“Perhaps we will hear from the Scottish Government today on the possibility of a new lung health strategy to allay those concerns. I also hope that we will hear more about the action to tackle air pollution, because many people with asthma readily say that it makes their condition worse. Common complaints include feeling breathless or wheezy and having symptoms triggered. In that regard, I note the case of one of my constituents, which has been reported in the press. Audrey Glenn from Dundee has raised the impact that localised air pollution from coal fires is having on her. She sees her garden fill up with smoke, which triggers coughing and forces her to reach for her inhaler. She makes the perfectly reasonable point that house coal fires are not suitable for built-up residential areas in this day and age.”
“Many such deaths are preventable, but only if we take the right action, such as providing the basic treatment steps that are outlined in the motion. They consist of a patient action plan, education on proper inhaler technique and an annual review. That is a vital combination, because asthma requires daily attention, even if someone otherwise feels well, in order to mitigate the risk of asthma attacks. It is therefore deeply concerning to see what the research from Asthma and Lung UK says about that. Last year, just 30 per cent of Scots received all three of the basic elements of treatment, which was slightly behind the rest of the UK, for which the figure was 32 per cent. We need more progress to be made, so it is obviously a concern that the respiratory care action plan appears to have been shelved.”
“I thank Emma Harper for securing this debate on world asthma day 2025. I, too, thank Asthma and Lung UK for the incredible work that it does on asthma and respiratory conditions in general. It quite rightly campaigns for lung health to be treated as a national priority, and it is not hard to understand why when we look at the numbers. The motion refers to figures from Asthma and Lung UK that show that around 360,000 Scots are afflicted with asthma, although a recent study that was published in the British Medical Journal estimates that the actual number could be up to double that. Although asthma is manageable for many, we should not underestimate the seriousness of the condition. Since 2014, more than 1,000 Scots have died from asthma attacks, with the figure for 2023 being the highest in more than 30 years.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what discussions the education secretary has had with ministerial colleagues regarding what action is being taken to reduce vaping in schools. (S6O- 04570)”
“The benefits seem obvious, so the question is: why is the Scottish Government not taking that seriously? 17:16”
“At a high level, it would be a means of holding the Government to account over the kind of failures that I have just outlined, in turn helping to strengthen public trust in our climate policies. I also note that the Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland has outlined the potential for a number of practical benefits, such as reducing the current fragmentation whereby environmental litigation is carried out in multiple settings, or helping to reduce costs by reducing the risk of multiple legal proceedings stemming from one dispute. Perhaps most importantly, a dedicated court would offer the possibility of easier and faster resolutions by, for example, employing mediation, which would reduce time and costs for all parties while building up greater technical expertise within the legal profession.”
“On the Aarhus convention, there is not really any sign that the Government has a clear strategy to make changes, especially given that its proposed human rights bill appears to be missing in action. The Government also missed more than half of the Aichi biodiversity targets. Meanwhile, it failed to meet the domestic emissions targets in nine years out of 13, and its response has been to abolish the targets. I have spoken about this before, but those repeated failures, coupled, it would seem, with a lack of repercussions, damage public trust in climate change and climate action. Without that trust, it becomes extremely difficult to deliver the changes that we need to make in our economy to deliver sustainable growth. That brings me to the subject of having an environmental court.”
“Even larger organisations find it tough. In one case, the John Muir Trust faced legal bills of almost £700,000. The key point in all of this is not about giving one side an advantage over the other on any given issue. It is not about making it easier to challenge projects or, indeed, to steamroll decisions through. However, a review of legal aid in such cases should be looked at. I urge the Scottish Government to consider the Environmental Rights Centre for Scotland’s proposal that the exemption from court fees for Aarhus cases be extended to sheriff courts. That is a relatively minor change, but it would show that ministers are serious about making progress. It is important to build trust, because—I am sad to say—the Scottish Government has a relatively poor record of living up to its environmental and international obligations.”
“Of course, there is a wider policy consideration—that of the codification and application of environmental law in a devolved context. We know that the Scottish Government has a policy position of aligning with EU law, even though there is no obligation on it to do so, but its policy with regard to international law—to which, from a legal perspective, there is a stronger case for adherence—is not clear. I believe that there must be a level playing field when it comes to accessing environmental justice. We know that that is not the case at the moment. Pursuing action through the courts can cost eye- watering sums of money. That situation has put Scotland in breach of the Aarhus convention for a number of years. One community group in Maryhill in Glasgow had to resort to a loophole to secure legal aid.”
“I am pleased that this debate is taking place, because environmental justice has an impact on ordinary people and communities across the country. We have heard about some of those issues today, and I welcome the minister’s commitment to introduce regulations to meet the requirements of the Aarhus convention. However, Douglas Lumsden described it as “a disgrace and a shambles” that such little progress has been made to date. Tess White made a strong argument for communities’ voices to be heard and described some of what she has seen as “environmental vandalism”. Sarah Boyack expressed her concern about the fact that a deadline to implement recommendations by 1 October 2024 had not been met. Mark Ruskell highlighted the issue of financial cost restricting access to justice.”
“We must do everything in our power to see measures delivered to entrench people’s rights because, as the Aarhus convention has clearly established, environmental rights are human rights. I have a member’s bill in front of the Parliament that would mean that the principles of sustainable development and wellbeing would be addressed by public sector organisations. However, we need action. It is on the Scottish Government to take that action, and it needs to act now. 16:27”
“What is Labour’s position on a dedicated environmental court facilitating access to justice? Sarah Boyack: That is one of the things that is raised regularly by campaigners, but it involves consideration of the structure of our legal system. Without other changes, we will need that kind of focus. It is clear that we need change. Our citizens should be able to have the power to influence or reject changes to their environment, but the measures that are currently in place make that difficult, if not impossible. One thing that we could do is resource our planners in local authorities, because we do not have the scale of resource to deliver on time. That is a frustration that communities—urban and rural—raise with us.”
“The member also raises a point about air- source heat pumps. In my constituency, I have seen a new generation of air-source heat pumps being installed in people’s houses, to the great satisfaction of those people. The heat pumps are working in a much wider variety of houses than they did previously and they are proving very popular. However, the member is right that we will have to dramatically increase the number of such installations in the years and decades ahead.”
“Heat pumps are not mentioned in the statement, perhaps because the number of installations is well off target. The households that are buying heat pumps are generally older, more affluent and off the gas grid. If heat pumps are taken up more widely in urban areas, it risks the gas grid becoming a stranded asset and increasing costs for those who are unable to afford electrification. Why are heat pump installations failing, and what is the Scottish Government’s position on utilising biomethane in the gas grid? Alasdair Allan: The member asks a number of questions. The first one was about the future of the gas grid. The Scottish Government makes no apology for saying that we will have to move people off gas heating and, indeed, oil heating by 2045 if we are to be able to say that we have reached our environmental targets.”
“We all recognise the important contribution that such schemes can make to tackling problems such as littering and our carbon footprint in Scotland. I hope that all members will work together to ensure that the scheme is progressed, and I am sure that local authorities will be part of that. The Presiding Officer: That concludes general questions. First Minister’s Question Time 12:00 Ferries 1.”
“Since the disastrous collapse of the Scottish Government’s last attempt at DRS, a UK-wide scheme is being planned and a Scottish Government circular economy strategy is being prepared, in addition to the extension of producer responsibility. Can the minister confirm that work is being carried out to assess the impact of those changes on local authorities with regard to jobs, finances and recycling services? The Presiding Officer: Let us have a brief response, minister. Alasdair Allan: Once appointed, the scheme administrator will work closely with stakeholders, including local government, to ensure that those questions are taken account of. It is worth saying that more than 50 countries around the world have similar schemes.”
“To ask the Scottish Government how it is maximising the impact of its international development fund in its partner countries, including any of those affected by high levels of indebtedness. (S6O-04442)”
“To ask the Scottish Government for what reason it will reportedly not meet the target to reduce Scotland’s food waste by 33 per cent by 2025. (S6O-04426)”
“The loss of so many jobs is a horrendous blow to higher education in Scotland and to Tayside in particular. In order to help to prevent an exodus of skills and to support the local economy, will the minister consider working with colleagues to create an innovation hub that is focused on emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence? Graeme Dey: In short, yes, because we are in a situation in which we should be open to collaborating as far as possible to explore all the options that might be available. I am certainly willing to explore that with”
“I have concerns about Ofgem’s decision to back the zonal pricing model. Although it is theoretically sound, splitting the country up into different pricing zones risks investment by creating unstable market conditions. We have to create a friendly environment for business, innovation and investment, which this Government struggles to cope with doing, whether it be around anaerobic digestion or heat-pump installations—which, unfortunately, I do not have enough time to go into. Stephen Kerr: Will the member give way? The Presiding Officer: Mr Golden is concluding. Maurice Golden: If we are to make progress on a just transition as a whole, the SNP needs to step up. Speaking for me and my colleagues in the chamber, I can assure the Scottish Government that we will be there to support it in that regard. 17:20”
“In other words, those who use the most energy, such as households in rural areas such as the north of Scotland and those who rely on medical equipment, would pay more, although second- home owners would benefit significantly. The SNP position for a floor approach to the forward-looking transmission demand residual charge would, according to the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets, increase current charges, particularly for customers in the north of Scotland. Although many members have mentioned transmission network use of system charges, which is the current transmission charging regime, everyone should note that, although Scottish generators pay more, Scottish consumers pay less. If anyone is arguing for generators to pay less, the quid pro quo is that consumers in Scotland will pay more.”
“In the long term, we have to transition away from carbon-based fuels, however, which includes gas. On transmission infrastructure, Douglas Lumsden highlighted the case that has been made by communities who are asking to be listened to by the Scottish Government. As well as being set out in the Nolan principles, that is also a requirement under the Aarhus convention of 1998. However, as Graham Simpson pointed out, there can be no transition without transmission, so a balance has to be struck. We know that the SNP has a long-standing policy of arguing for Scottish households to pay more for their energy bills. For example, it has called for standing charges to be scrapped, but those charges help to pay for network costs. If we scrap them, higher unit costs would almost certainly make up the shortfall.”
“We have already seen that a reliance on foreign gas imports can lead to huge energy bill spikes, not to mention its having implications for energy security. Building over capacity brings extra balancing, storage and transmission costs, which are all measures that risk increasing the price that people pay for their energy. Fergus Ewing: Given that the Conservatives accept that, even if the new SMRs are capable of working—many members argue that that is not the case—it would take seven years to build them, according to Stephen Kerr, and perhaps three years to build a gas power station, and 85 per cent of the 30 million homes in Britain are fuelled by gas, should we not go for gas rather than nuclear? Would that not provide the backup and base-load that are required? Maurice Golden: Fergus Ewing has made a valid point.”
“Therefore, there is no point in Gillian Martin saying, “Somebody over there said something”, referencing people in the chamber. We can be responsible only for what we ourselves say and do, and it is fake news to suggest otherwise. I agree with some of Patrick Harvie’s points. He said that we waste too much energy and that energy efficiency in our buildings must be improved, which I agree with. Alex Cole-Hamilton made the point that Scotland should be leading the world in clean energy. He has a vision of Scotland as a renewables powerhouse, and I associate myself with his remarks. We also need energy sources that are capable of generating energy 24/7 in order to maintain grid stability and avoid brown or black starts.”
“By all means, let us ensure that wind, solar, hydro and other renewables are the driving force in the energy transition. I would echo Gillian Martin’s comments regarding Scotland’s potential in that area. I would like to point out to you, Presiding Officer, that it is indeed fake news to say that I or the Scottish Conservatives are against community benefit. In fact, in 2017, I announced a policy to expand community benefit. Gillian Martin: It is possible that I did not make myself entirely clear. I was not saying that the Scottish Conservatives are against community benefits; I was saying that I had asked the previous UK Government to explore mandating community benefits and engagement, but was told no. Maurice Golden: I have not been in government, and I am not responsible or accountable for anyone who has been in government.”
“I welcome the opportunity to debate renewables. I will focus my remarks on how we deliver our low- carbon future, what it means for households and the effect that it will have on their bills, but I will start with a broader point about nuclear energy. I find the nuclear power section of the motion slightly bizarre and lacking an evidence-based approach. Sarah Boyack described it as “negative” and “a retrograde motion”. She also made the case for a robust mix of low-carbon energy that serves us well in all conditions. I associate myself with those remarks. Let us be clear that nuclear power is a low- carbon energy source. According to the United Nations, it has the lowest carbon footprint of any energy source, when we factor in construction and decommissioning.”
“I also agree with Patrick Harvie’s point—we must all get real about our own behaviour and our energy use. To conclude, nuclear is not an option for Scotland; an exciting future supporting a world- leading renewables industry is. 16:15”
“How much would consumers pay in that scenario? Audrey Nicoll: I do not know, but I would imagine that they would not pay any more—I would hope that they would pay less. That allows me to segue to my final position on nuclear power, which was shaped in no small part by my working-class parents, who saw that energy option as an insult to Scotland. The debate on nuclear has moved on, and although the new UK Government continues with its plans to boost nuclear power in England and Wales, I fail to understand the rationale for supporting an energy source that produces vast quantities of waste from which radioactivity takes decades to reduce to safe levels, is vastly more expensive than renewables, takes decades to build, cannot be switched on and off easily and is potentially dangerous and contaminating.”
“It takes effort to provide options that people actually want, to make them accessible and to persuade people to use them. I want to see that happen in Scotland. 16:36”