Liz Smith
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“For many years, I have come to this debate conflicted, well understanding several of the key points raised by those who support assisted dying, partly based on my own family experience, but also understanding the key points in the case against.”
“As a result, I worry about the implications in relation to coercive situations within families, who may put pressure on vulnerable relatives to end their lives, perhaps for financial reasons in increasingly difficult fiscal situations or for reasons that suit their circumstances rather than those of the patient.”
“I wish to say what I said at the start of my stage 1 speech: “Nobody could possibly doubt the far-reaching implications of the most appalling human tragedy at Grenfell tower in 2017, nor the importance of ensuring that nothing like that can ever happen again.” It is absolutely right that measures are put in place to improve building stand…”
“As the minister knows from stage 2, I have concerns about whether people involved in the conversion of historic buildings will face specific unintended consequences as a result of the imposition of the building safety levy, mainly because projects of that nature are not usually speculative and they tend to be a more expensive way of produ…”
“That must include the medical profession’s commitment to saving lives. I continue to worry about a situation whereby we hand ultimate power to doctors, with the possibility that voluntary action could lead to involuntary action.”
“It is on occasions such as these, when the matter that is under consideration is so challenged by complex ethical, moral, legal and practical questions, that I have come to know the Scottish Parliament at its best. We saw that last week and I believe that we are seeing it again this evening.”
The complete record
Every one of 413 lines we hold for Liz Smith, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 9.
“It is not long, and it could be strengthened to pick up on the points that have been made in the chamber and in the evidence. We do not want to fall behind other legislatures. I know that there will not be enough support across the chamber for my bill to be agreed to at stage 1, so I will finish on this point. I strongly support the committee’s recommendation that consideration be given to a session 7 committee that would have responsibility for future generations, sustainable development and intergenerational equity. That is really important. The question of how the SPCB will deliver the accountability and oversight that those who were consulted supported also needs to be considered. We need answers to those questions. I will finish by thanking colleagues for their positive comments.”
“However, I do not think that that is going to happen this evening. Comments have been made about the situation in Wales. It has been evidenced that a change of culture has been delivered in Welsh public bodies as a result of the ability of the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales to hold people to account. We are coming to the end of the parliamentary session, and we need to think about not only the current population of Scotland but our legacy to future generations. That is a key ambition of the stakeholders that I have been working with, such as Carnegie, Scotland’s International Development Alliance, Oxfam and the Wellbeing Economy Alliance, as well as a host of other organisations and individuals. I still strongly believe that my bill should be progressed to stage 2.”
“I am very grateful to the committee for coming up with so many constructive recommendations. We need to get on and implement them. One observation that the committee made was that it did not want to create “confusion, duplication and additional complexity”, but given the number of times sustainable development has been referred to in various pieces of legislation that have been passed since the Parliament was established, I think that the definition in my bill would provide clarity and guidance. Patrick Harvie made a clever and constructive set of comments about the establishment of a future generations commissioner. He said that we could agree to the bill at stage 1 and then include in it a commencement date for the provisions on a commissioner that would enable us to link that with the review of the national performance framework.”
“They are under huge pressure, and they need clarity on how to translate wellbeing and sustainable development into culture change, new priorities and the investment that we need. The national performance framework was established in 2009 and was refreshed in 2018. In his follow-up evidence to the committee, Max French noted that, in his research, he “could not locate a single national policy in Scotland that the NPF has significantly impacted”. He also noted that the evidence from Wales was that the Welsh wellbeing framework “was far more systematically integrated in decision making than the NPF was in Scotland.” There are lessons to be learned in that regard. The need for action that generated support for my member’s bill and the Scottish Government’s initial bill proposal will not go away.”
“When I was appointed to Donald Dewar’s Cabinet, I set up a cross-ministerial working group on sustainable development—but I cannot tell you how long it lasted, because I did not last very long as a minister. I reflect on the fact that, when ministers change, when there are reshuffles and when people move around the committees, we do not get on-going scrutiny. That is one reason why a full-time commissioner would be important: to be accountable to the Parliament and to our committees, and to have that head space and on- going responsibility. We need to make sure that future Parliaments continue to prioritise the issue. That needs strong leadership and accountability. We need to think about how we hold the Scottish Government to account on the issue. Our public sector bodies need effective guidance and advice.”
“Fifteen years on from the Christie commission, we are not getting that joined-up thinking to address wellbeing and sustainable development goals. As I said in my opening speech, we should be delivering the SDGs by 2030—that is less than five years away. We need on-going leadership and accountability, which are not happening. We cannot keep kicking the can down the road. During the periods of consultation for my bill and for the Government’s proposed bill, I met several ministers, but they have all moved on, either to different responsibilities in the Parliament or from being ministers. Professor Colin Reid noted in his briefing to the committee that before our Parliament was established, it was recommended that there should be action on sustainable development.”
“Although the Government cannot support taking the bill beyond stage 1, we welcome many of the objectives that people have outlined and the aims that they want to achieve. We want to support those going forward. 15:36 Sarah Boyack: Other countries are implementing future generations legislation and there is a danger that we will fall behind. The School of International Futures has been sharing best practice globally, and it is time for us to act. As Clare Adamson correctly observed, the Christie commission recommended action—to prevent, not cure; to invest now, to save; and to keep people well and healthy. However, we are still not delivering the joined- up thinking and action needed. It is not just about climate change; it is about broad, intersectional issues such as poverty and inequality and how those issues interact.”
“They will all be consulted and invited to be part of that wider discussion. Creating new statutory duties or a new commissioner would only add cost and complexity without clear evidence that it would add value. In this time of financial pressures that we all know about, we must avoid unnecessary burdens on public bodies. In the light of all that, we believe that the Government’s approach is pragmatic, proportionate and focused on outcomes. It is about delivering change through a reform of the national performance framework. I welcome today’s discussion of important issues for Scotland’s future. I believe that Scotland has made progress in recent years on sustainability and environmental outcomes, but we all know that there are lots of challenges and a long way to go. Therefore, we have to get the reform right.”
“Although the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 raised awareness, Audit Wales reported that system-wide change remains incomplete and enforcement is costly. As I said in my opening remarks, other countries, such as Canada, Finland and the Netherlands, have achieved strong wellbeing frameworks without legislation, and Scotland should learn from those examples. In relation to timing, we have been developing proposals for reform in collaboration with experts, including our reform advisory group. In early 2026—in the next few weeks, I hope—we plan to invite a wider discussion on the proposed model, prioritising key stakeholders including members of this Parliament and those who have a legislative duty to have regard to national outcomes, such as public bodies and local authorities.”
“We are already acting on that recommendation as part of the overall public service reform strategy. On accountability, which has been a key theme throughout the concerns that have been expressed about the national performance framework in past years, the committee and stakeholders have rightly highlighted that there are weaknesses in the current system. That is why the reform proposals include stronger governance and clearer reporting, and there will also be enhanced accountability. In relation to international comparisons, which several members mentioned, the committee also noted the lessons from Wales, where legislation was passed in 2015 to create a commissioner and statutory duties.”
“However, we are not ruling that out for the future if things change. We believe that the objectives of the bill that we are discussing can and should be delivered through the reform of the national performance framework. That will close the implementation gap that many people, including here in Parliament, have identified, and will embed wellbeing and sustainable development principles across the public sector without creating new statutory duties. The committee’s report makes it clear that although the policy aims are supported, legislation is not the appropriate route for change. It highlighted the risk of duplication with existing duties, as we have heard from members of the committee and from submissions from stakeholders to the committee, and recommended strengthening accountability through national performance framework reform.”
“We all agree that accountability has to be strengthened, and we all agree that planning for future generations is absolutely essential. Where some of us differ today is on whether the bill is the right way to achieve those aims. The committee’s report concluded that reforming the national performance framework is the right route to achieve that. That work is well under way, as I said, and we hope to deliver the improvements that Parliament has called for. Our position is clear: we do not believe that legislation is necessary at this time. The future may be different, but with the on-going review of the national performance framework that is well under way, and in the light of all the issues that the committee and others have highlighted, this is not the right time for legislation.”
“I assure Sarah Boyack and others that, as we reform the national performance framework, we will continue to listen to her and others and to reflect on and value their input in the coming couple of months. I recall that when we came into government in 2007 and adopted the national performance framework and all the national outcomes and indicators that go alongside it, it was seen as trailblazing. Here we are a number of years later, and the Government accepts that the past few years have shown that it is not perfect and that there is room for quite considerable improvement, which is why we are undertaking the reform of the national performance framework. Let us consider the principles on which we can agree. First, we all agree that Scotland should embed wellbeing and sustainable development in our decision making.”
“15:31 Richard Lochhead: I begin by paying tribute to Sarah Boyack, as others have done. Back in 1999, Sarah Boyack and I were elected to Parliament. At that time, I was a young whippersnapper on the back benches, probably giving the minister at that time a hard time. Things have changed over the years, but one thing that has been consistent is Sarah Boyack’s contribution to Parliament. I can testify personally to the fact that she has promoted the sustainability and wider environmental agenda in Parliament over many years and has made a real difference. She will leave a strong legacy behind in that regard, despite the fact that we are not on the same side of today’s particular issue.”
“If they get things wrong, they should be held accountable. I do not think that we are seeing enough of that, which is why I am very sceptical about the need for another commissioner. I will finish on the basis that it is always difficult when we are contemplating new legislation. It takes a great deal of effort and time to go through all the relevant evidence, and when there are differences of opinion, it is not always about the different parts of the evidence but about the process, and Sarah Boyack has perhaps run into a bit of difficulty on that basis. There should be processes that are workable. The fact that they are not workable and have not been doing their job is not a fault of the legislation but a fault of the people who are in charge of that. On that basis, I will finish my remarks.”
“I am a member of the Finance and Public Administration Committee, which looked at the issue of commissioners in considerable detail. It was one of the most interesting aspects of parliamentary business that I have participated in. We were very conscious not just of the increasing number of commissioners, but of the associated costs—as one would expect of a finance committee. As somebody who has been representing patients on the Eljamel inquiry, I have heard a lot of discussion about the absence of commissioners when public bodies fail. I understand where Sarah Boyack is coming from, because there has been failure, but I do not think that that means that there is a need for new legislation. However, there is a need for the Government and public bodies to take responsibility for decision making.”
“However, I am sceptical about various aspects of it, and I want to sound those out. On section 3, I think that Sarah Boyack made a valiant attempt to define the terms “wellbeing” and “sustainable development”. I give credit to her for that, because it has made us think. However, as my colleague Roz McCall said, it is extremely difficult to put such terms into legislation with definitive and comprehensive meanings for them, because they are multifaceted concepts that touch on emotional, cultural, mental and physical health, as well as social and environmental safeguards. It is therefore difficult to find a balance of those complexities that would suit all individuals, whether now or in the future. There has been much discussion about the recommendation to establish a commissioner.”
“I am sure that Sarah Boyack has gained a great deal from its expertise. I agree with Sarah Boyack on the background context of her bill. There has been a long-standing need for a much more holistic approach to policy making—she is absolutely right on that. I also agree that public bodies have often operated under short-termism, which Mr Harvie also referred to, because of the constraints of one-year budgets. It is essential that we make much better use of scarce resources, and there are definitely concerns about the national performance framework. I took the trouble to read some of the submissions in response to the call for views on the bill. I think that most people agree with that background context, and I very much understand where Sarah Boyack is coming from with her bill.”
“On behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, I concur with everything that Carol Mochan has just said. Sarah Boyack is not only a long-standing member of the Scottish Parliament but someone who has served her constituents—and the stakeholders whom she has represented, particularly on the issues that are before us today—extremely well. On a personal basis, I understand exactly what it is like to take a member’s bill through the Scottish Parliament, especially one that runs for a very long time. You get knocked back, you try something else, and you get knocked back again. I have a great deal of sympathy for some of the difficulties that Sarah Boyack has encountered. I put on record again, having said it when bringing forward my own bill, that the non-Government bills unit is outstanding.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what measures it is putting in place to encourage young people to engage in the arts. (S6O-05409)”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: John Mason is the final speaker in the open debate. 16:49”
“When it comes to budgeting and understanding what the longer-term finances of the country will be and how they will be challenged, we must remove the short-termism in our approach. There is far too much short-termism in the Parliament, and I think that we have got used to it. We are not planning ahead in the way that we should be. That is a frustration, especially in the Scottish Fiscal Commission, which feels that we are not taking sufficiently seriously major challenges such as economic inactivity, productivity, economic growth and how we will deal with the demographic time bomb. Those are serious issues that confront the Parliament. The Parliament has a lot of thinking to do about how to better inspire the members in the next parliamentary session to work on budgets and to do things a bit better.”
“To go back to Michelle Thomson’s point, we must understand not only what the Government’s priorities are—and not just through straplines about tackling child poverty, dealing with the climate crisis or ensuring that there is economic growth—but which policies will best deliver on those broad targets and which could be deprioritised. I am sure that I do not have to tell the cabinet secretary that very difficult choices have to be made. Such choices will be easier to make if we understand which policies are most effective at delivering on the outcomes that we all want to see and which policies are perhaps not in that bracket. I do not think that the Parliament is very good at making such decisions. As I said, that is no reflection on any one individual or committee; I just do not think that we have got this process right.”
“I have argued time and again—and I continue to argue—that this place needs a finance bill process so that there is much more effective scrutiny by the whole Parliament as to exactly what each of the budget lines really means. Fiscal sustainability is a huge issue just now. It does not matter which economic analyst we listen to; everyone is telling us that we have to get serious about the size of the gap between the projected expenditure and what we are going to take in. There is a really strong feeling and frustration, including among economic analysts, that we are not taking this sufficiently seriously. I worry about that, because budgets are the most important thing that Parliaments do. We have to get it right, but at the moment we are not able to do that.”
“This is not my final speech in the Parliament, which I will no doubt come to sometime in March, but I want to say some things about the scrutiny of budgets. What I have seen over my nearly 20 years in this place is that things are changing. Just as Douglas Ross intimated, I do not think that it is good enough. I am not casting aspersions on any one individual but on the process, because it is not strong enough. There is a frustration in the Finance and Public Administration Committee, for which I have the highest regard—not only for my colleagues but for the way in which the committee operates—that we spend much of our time going into considerable detail in budget scrutiny but that is not reflected in how the whole Parliament can contribute to the process.”
“Alongside the MTFS and the fiscal sustainability delivery plan, the Scottish spending review and the infrastructure delivery plan provide the medium-term spending and investment context, giving Parliament greater visibility of strategic priorities. The spending review responds directly to committees’ calls for stability.”
“I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for taking my intervention. There is a case for some measure of reform. However, the last time that was done, parliamentary scrutiny was left very incomplete because of the timing. It was a very awkward situation for the finance committee at the time, because we did not have the facility to scrutinise what had already been decided. Shona Robison: I have some sympathy with what Liz Smith said. However, what happened was largely outwith my control, because the United Kingdom Government and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the time were very insistent on what we would describe as a closed process. It was not ideal, and we were not particularly happy with it either. However, that is a lesson for the future in terms of transparency.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Ms Smith. I will make sure that that is recorded.”
“UEFA European Championship (Scotland) Bill: Stage 3 15:25”
“When it comes to the collection of data, I recommend that the residential outdoor education sector be involved in the discussions. I spoke to the sector bodies this morning. They acknowledged the help that the Scottish Government has provided, but there is a need to ensure that there is much more data from that sector and that it is involved in the discussions, because it could be immensely helpful. Jenny Gilruth: I thank Ms Smith for her interest in the matter. Following the successful passing of her bill on outdoor education, I very much support the points that she makes and will ask my officials to take them away. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the ministerial statement on the additional support for learning review. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the open letter from Scotland’s elite swimming athletes sent to the First Minister on 6 November 2025. (S6O-05376)”
“It is very good to see, in table 9.01 of the Scottish budget, a little extra money for employability schemes, which was a recommendation from Sandy Begbie in relation to Developing the Young Workforce. However, the enterprise, trade and investment budget—which is crucial to enabling employers to take on young people—has been squeezed, this time from £420 million down to £398 million. Why is that? Richard Lochhead: There is a whole range of budgets in the budget that was announced yesterday in Parliament. There was substantial additional support and investment for colleges, for instance. We have to look at yesterday’s budget in the round, in terms of support for employers as well as the £90 million employability budget, which the member referred to. It is an ambitious budget that will make a real difference to supporting our young people.”
“Much of the debate among stakeholders was about how to address the issue of the polluter- pays principle. They worry that those who have acted responsibly will end up footing the bill for the levy. I think that it is worse than that, because some responsible builders will go well beyond the basic safety regulations, and they are the ones who will have to pick up the tab, whereas those who have not been responsible can, to some extent, get away with it. The committee is unanimously concerned, for very good reasons, about some of the macroeconomic effects of the bill. Once again, I think that the Parliament is faced with a Scottish Government bill that, although well intentioned, nonetheless has very significant problems. On that basis, the Conservatives cannot support it at stage 1. 15:24”
“Although there appeared, in some quarters, to be an understanding of the problem, particularly in relation to the islands issue, part of it is that we do not have a clear definition of what rurality is, and there are accompanying inconsistencies. I hope that the minister means what he said today and in committee, which is that he is prepared to lodge some amendments. There is likely to be a disproportionate effect on smaller developers, owing to the fact that they will inevitably find it more difficult to absorb the necessary costs. The Scottish Property Federation was extremely clear about that. There was also concern that the bill could have a detrimental impact on those who want to build over a long period of time, such as the build-to-rent sector, as the financial returns there take longer to be realised.”
“House prices are often high in relation to local incomes in rural areas, and there is a shortage of housing that is suitable for families, which means, sadly, that too many families choose to move away. The combination of that, the weak infrastructure that we find in rural areas in relation to accessibility of transport and the internet and the complexities in the planning process means that we encounter major challenges. Scottish Land & Estates told us that the cost of delivering rural housing could be almost double that of mainstream housing. That must be a serious concern. That is on top of a lot of the other issues that affect rural areas, such as the farm tax, national insurance charges and various other aspects of tourism and hospitality. That whole combination is a very serious matter for the rural sector.”
“The most significant concern among witnesses and members of the committee was the fact that the bill could reduce house-building capacity, because it would make certain sites unviable and thereby have a detrimental effect on the ability to deliver much-needed affordable housing. Homes for Scotland estimated that the levy would probably add around £3,500 to the cost of building a new home, and Bancon Homes told us that it would have an impact of up to 20 per cent on its profit margins. Those are not inconsiderable fiscal effects. Different but nonetheless related are the potential effects on rural Scotland, where depopulation is already a significant problem. I have heard the minister’s concerns about some of the rurality issues, but several factors have already combined to create a very complex situation for rural housing.”
“Along with my colleagues on the Finance and Public Administration Committee, I listened very carefully to witnesses, who provided us with extensive written and oral evidence across three different evidence sessions before Christmas. As set out in the committee’s report, there was unanimous concern—including from Mr Mason— about several key aspects of the bill and the negative externalities that are likely to result. As colleagues know, it is unusual for a committee not to fully endorse the general principles of a bill. However, on this occasion, it has not endorsed them, and for good reason. As the convener said, the major issue is the likely impact on the housing market, which, as we all know, has already been facing significant challenges for quite some time.”
“However, the question that we, as parliamentarians, face in this stage 1 debate is whether the bill is the right procedure. For Conservative members and, I suspect, several other colleagues across the parties, there are serious doubts, not because improving building standards is not the right thing to do but because the evidence that was taken at stage 1 points to several important failings in the bill. John Mason: I agree with Liz Smith in that I am not wildly enthusiastic about the package, but does she accept that Westminster has put us in a corner and we do not have a lot of room for manoeuvre? Liz Smith: No, I do not entirely accept that. The bill is a specific, Scotland-centred bill and we, as Scottish parliamentarians, have to take a decision on its merits. That is the basis on which I am making these points.”
“Nobody could possibly doubt the far-reaching implications of the most appalling human tragedy at Grenfell tower in 2017, nor the importance of ensuring that nothing like that can ever happen again. In that spirit, I say to the minister that, irrespective of the bill, the Scottish Government has an obligation to answer the question that Mr Hoy and Mr Kerr posed to him about exactly how much of the £97.1 million has been spent, because we are not getting the true facts about that. It is absolutely right that measures be put in place to improve building standards, especially so that the people who are engaged in the new-build sector fully recognise and adhere to their responsibilities. It is also right that there be a legislative process to secure that for the future.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what recent engagement it has had with Scottish mountain rescue teams regarding mountain safety this winter. (S6O-05342)”
“The Scottish Government lacks fiscal credibility, its tax policies are punitive and disincentivising, and there is no coherent strategy across the Government. It lacks the necessary policies to create the growth that we so desperately seek and to achieve what John Swinney said in 2007 was his overriding objective. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on lowering bills for Scotland’s workers. Non-domestic Rates”
“The size of the state has burgeoned through the growth of quangos and a leviathan and unreformed public sector—and we all know what has happened to the number of civil servants. The forthcoming budget, just like its immediate predecessors, seems set to be stubbornly fixed on the so-called social contract, which cannot be paid for and which, as every economic forecaster tells us, is the main reason for a deeper fiscal hole, because of the exponential rise in the benefits bill. Ministers know from the Scottish Fiscal Commission, the Auditor General for Scotland, the Fraser of Allander Institute and several other bodies that there is a concern about a lack of consistency in the Scottish Government over fiscal strategy and how it should make its spending commitments.”
“Last year, the Deputy First Minister said that we should not overworry, as inward investment was strong and Scottish Enterprise was working very hard to stimulate growth in the business sector. In the same speech, however, she implied that the difficult choices of Government had had less success when it came to the skills agenda. I agree with her about that. That issue is writ large in the minds of our colleges and universities, which have for years been grappling with pernicious underfunding and financial models that are simply not fit for purpose. Regarding John Swinney’s promise in 2007 to ensure that Scotland had a smaller and more effective Government, the facts speak for themselves. The tentacles of the state in Scotland, particularly with regard to social policy, have only ever increased.”
“He told us that he wanted the focus to be on entrepreneurship, supporting business and the SNP’s ambition to deliver a smaller and more effective Government for Scotland. That was then and this is now. With regard to supporting businesses over the past two decades, it has been a dismal picture for the Scottish Government, which has witnessed a progressively higher tax burden being imposed on hard-working Scots over many years without the requisite improvement in public services or widening of the tax base. Unbelievably, three budgets ago, it saw an 8.3 per cent real-terms cut in the economy portfolio and real-terms cuts in the enterprise, trade and investment budgets, and it failed to pass on business rates relief in full.”
“Ivan McKee: I just took the time to read out the past four months of data—and I could have gone on—showing that Scotland had higher economic growth than the rest of the UK. Has Liz Smith not looked at that data? Liz Smith: Liz Smith has very much looked at that data, but she has looked at it in the round, and she has seen a whole lot of other economic statistics that are not really something that Mr McKee would like to talk about. It is two decades since John Swinney was Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, when he made several speeches about his concern over the weak pattern of growth in the Scottish economy. At the Finance and Public Administration Committee in February 2023, he flagged up to me that he thought that economic inactivity is the biggest challenge that the Scottish economy faces.”
“If Brexit was so bad for the Scottish economy, as the SNP keeps telling us is the case, the SNP should recall its independent adviser, Mark Blyth, saying that independence would be “Brexit times 10”. That neatly sums up what the economic situation would be with independence. The SNP’s huge problem is that its long-term adherence to its current tax policy has not yielded the results that Scotland needs or that the SNP predicted. Higher tax rates have deterred economic growth and have acted as a disincentive to middle and higher earners, and our revenue has been less than it should have been had we had better earnings and employment growth, as happened in the rest of the UK. Ivan McKee: Will Liz Smith take an intervention? Liz Smith: Of course I will.”
“I have to tell Ivan McKee that it is no different from many other tax systems around the world. Secondly, it tells us that, in return for paying higher taxes in Scotland, we get far more benefits, such as the Scottish child payment, free university tuition and free prescriptions. The trouble is that the total funding for those so-called free benefits— which, of course, are not free at all—is, as the Scottish Fiscal Commission has pointed out time after time, completely unsustainable for Scottish taxpayers, not just now but over the long term. Worse still, the Scottish public sees no improvement in its public services. The third plea, which we heard again from the First Minister just on Monday, is that Scotland would be far better off if it was independent. That is just plain nonsense, as every credible economic analyst tells us.”
“This afternoon’s debate has shown not only why the tax issue is so critical to the forthcoming Scottish budget—I commend Daniel Johnson and Jamie Greene for their speeches in that regard, because that issue matters—but the clear blue water between the political parties. That is as it should be, because, aside from our general agreement about Adam Smith’s principles of taxation, there is a much wider debate to be had about what we expect the tax system to do for our country. That debate could hardly be more important, given the fiscal situation that we find ourselves in. I say to Mr Hepburn that it would be very helpful if we could all acknowledge the true facts about the extent of the tax burden. The SNP gives us three defence lines when it comes to its tax policy. First, it tells us that it is progressive.”
“I move amendment S6M-20294.2, to leave out from first “reduce” to end and insert: “respect Parliament by outlining its tax policy when it publishes its Budget on 13 January 2026, and ensure that the policy is progressive, fair to the people of Scotland, and supports vital public services like Scotland’s NHS, schools, and blue light services.” 15:05”
“Those are not vague ideas on a page; they are real measures that are already making a difference and they are all funded by a responsible tax policy that protects public services while easing pressure on families. The Scottish Government’s approach is responsible, progressive and deliverable. It protects services, supports families and is based on what Scotland can realistically afford. The Conservative alternative is none of that. It is expensive, vague and unfunded, leaving a £1 billion gap with no explanation of which services the Conservatives would cut. At a time when households need certainty, Scotland cannot afford unfunded promises. This Government offers a credible, fair and affordable plan for Scotland’s future.”