John Mason
Independent · Scotland
“I noted press coverage just yesterday of the vacancy level for both primary and secondary teachers in the Highland Council area, yet I get complaints from young teachers that they cannot get a job in Glasgow.”
“I thank Jamie Halcro Johnston for securing the debate and other members for their kind words. Many people in Scotland’s urban areas and central belt still care deeply for our remote, rural and island communities.”
“[Laughter.] I was proved correct during Covid, when it was treated as part of the mainland. I can understand the desire to have causeways, bridges or tunnels linking islands to each other or to the mainland. That makes access to a range of services much easier, from shopping to medical services, weddings and funerals.”
“Land mass should be a factor, too. This is my last speech in Parliament, so I thank all those who make this Parliament work, including fellow MSPs—and especially those who are leaving. We are much smaller than Westminster, and that is a big advantage in my opinion.”
“In my opinion, that should be a higher priority than dualling the A9. I do not often agree with Scottish Land & Estates, but I agree with some of the key points in its briefing for the debate. Tackling depopulation in rural areas has to be a top priority; and as it says, “if rural Scotland does not thrive, Scotland does not thrive”.”
“That has clearly got me into trouble at times, but it has certainly been a huge privilege to serve here. I conclude by thanking you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and your two colleagues.”
The complete record
Every one of 652 lines we hold for John Mason, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 14.
“I move amendment S6M-16750.3, to leave out from “welcomes” to end and insert: “notes the ongoing concerns amongst the Scottish business community about the effects of the widening tax differential between Scotland and the rest of the UK; further notes the failure of both the UK Government and the Scottish Government to prioritise policies that will deliver sustained economic growth, investment in infrastructure and more efficient public services, and calls on the Scottish Government to take a balanced approach to net zero, which includes supporting Scotland’s oil and gas industry and ending policies that worsen cost of living pressures.” 14:48”
“Some of those circumstances are well beyond our control, but that makes it even more important that, in Scotland, the UK and Scottish Governments work together to address the issues that concern our voters the most: their jobs, their family budgets and the delivery of effective public services. It is no secret that the Scottish Conservatives believe that the recent budgets have confirmed that both Governments are moving in the wrong direction, because there is not sufficient focus on growth, lowering the tax burden or removing the barriers to business that stifle entrepreneurship and innovation.”
“The Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy, who is sitting beside the housing minister, rightly made the argument about the need to address things at source. Housing is one way in which we can do that. The current statistics, which I think were rehearsed during topical question time just before this debate, spell out the extent of the challenge that we face on housing. I began my contribution by referring to the international situation because I firmly believe that that is a hugely important backdrop to the economic circumstances in which we find ourselves.”
“To make matters worse, the SNP Scottish budget came in conjunction with the Labour UK budget, which was also intent on damaging the economy by punishing the wealth creators of the UK with increased national insurance contributions—a tax on jobs. That will increase considerably what businesses have to cope with. Labour and the SNP both talk a great deal about supporting the economy of the future, and they are right to do so—whether that relates to life sciences, financial services, new technologies or artificial intelligence—but they do the exact opposite when it comes to oil and gas. My colleague Douglas Lumsden will expand on that in his speech. There is also the issue of housing—I see that the Minister for Housing is in the chamber. We have had many debates on housing.”
“Some 62 per cent of small businesses mentioned the increases in energy prices, and it is not surprising that half of small businesses complained about taxation, VAT, pay as you earn, national insurance and business rates. Two thirds of the businesses that were surveyed said that the Scottish Government’s income tax policy had a huge impact on their business, with the construction industry being the most impacted sector. Those policies—namely, the high-tax agenda and low growth—will not help to address the cost of living pressures but will instead exacerbate them. The SNP’s idea of keeping taxes high is not an agenda that will address our concerns.”
“Liz Smith talks about the Scottish economy as being a high-tax economy, but does she accept that, in countries such as Denmark, taxes are considerably higher and public services are considerably better? Liz Smith: As someone who has visited some of those countries, I know that their delivery of public services is an awful lot better than it is in Scotland. One of the great problems that the Scottish Government faces just now is that the reason for having a high-tax agenda is surely to deliver better public services. However, that is simply not the case at the moment, which is a serious issue for most people. We also know that, in one in every two of our small businesses, the most reported obstacles to their success did not relate only to the high-tax agenda.”
“One of the lines is: “It’s better to have fought and lost than not have fought at all”. That is a value that Donald Trump does not seem to understand. I hope that there can be peace negotiations that lead to a fair and just settlement. Whatever happens, though, President Zelenskyy and the people of Ukraine should know that, by standing up to Russia as they have, they have won the greatest respect from Scotland and from the rest of the democratic world. 18:08”
“If my memory serves me correctly, the Americans offered to airlift the President and others out of the country, but Volodymyr Zelenskyy stayed on and is still there. Clearly, Ukraine is a much smaller country than Russia, and the odds were always going to be stacked against it. Even with more weapons supplies, it lacks the manpower to match its larger neighbour. Personally, I think that war is seldom the ideal solution to disagreements between nations, which is why I wear a white poppy each November. However, there does come a time when, either as an individual or as a nation, we have to say, “Enough is enough” and take a stand, whatever the consequences might be. When I was a youngster, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, there was a television series called “The Flashing Blade”, and the theme song still sticks in my mind.”
“I had the privilege of being given a tour of the classes and seeing the enthusiasm of the young people, who range in age and have a range of abilities in the English language. While I was there, they were making wristbands, alongside other craft activities, and I have to say that I failed dismally to make my wristband, as did Father Chernenko. However, I was given a completed one, which I am wearing tonight, and which is in good shape. Another example of persistence is that of a constituent whom I share with Stuart McMillan. She has impressed us both by how often she turns up at our surgeries. On the wider issues and the war itself, it is now three years since Russia invaded. Many of us thought that Ukraine might be able to hold out for only a matter of days before being overrun.”
“One issue that my staff and I were happy to help with was finding suitable premises for the Glasgow branch of St Mary’s Ukrainian school. It is a Saturday school for young people from Ukraine to allow them to keep up with their language, music and culture, even though they also attend Scottish schools every Monday to Friday. Some of the families travel quite a distance to attend St Mary’s school, and it is extremely important to them. The school has limited funding and could not afford what Glasgow City Council was charging for the use of a school each week, so we were very grateful to Glasgow Clyde College when it came forward with the offer of premises at its Langside campus.”
“Partly as a result of that, I have attended a range of events over the years at both St Michael’s and Glasgow cathedral, often with Kaukab Stewart in attendance, including the marking of Ukrainian constitution day and the memorial service for the fallen defenders of Ukraine. If there is one thing that I can say about the Ukrainians whom I have met, it is that they are very persistent. We have also seen that persistence in President Zelenskyy, in the armed forces on the front line and in civilians still living in Ukraine, and we have seen it, too, in the many Ukrainians whom we have been pleased to welcome to Scotland. I think that persistence is a very good trait, and it is especially valuable given the present circumstances.”
“I thank Colin Beattie for securing the debate and for chairing the cross-party group. I suspect that he did not foresee quite how events would unfold between his lodging of the motion on 18 February and where we are today. Clearly, there are a number of aspects to the war in Ukraine. First, I will touch on some of the impacts in Glasgow. Across from my office, near Parkhead Cross, is St Michael’s church, which is the base for Father Andriy Chornenko, whose very long title I shall abbreviate to Vicar for Scotland of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. Mass in Ukrainian takes place there every week.”
“There will be a brief pause before we move on to the next item of business. Scotland’s Renewable Future”
“I do not view the question as an either/or—it is not the case that either we can afford defence expenditure or we can afford public services. Equally, I take the view that John Mason is marshalling today that reductions in overseas aid expenditure can be short-sighted, because we have to change the nature of inequality and address the inequalities in our world, and overseas aid is fundamental to doing that. That has been a shared priority of many Governments for many years, and it is important that we address such priorities. However, we can do so only with an honest discussion about public finances and the choices that are available in relation to taxation. We need to have that discussion. The Presiding Officer: That concludes the First Minister’s statement on international solidarity to support Ukraine.”
“The First Minister indicates that he thinks that we probably should be increasing defence spending, and I certainly agree with that, but would he agree that that money should not come from the international aid budget? The First Minister: What I said at the weekend on this question is that we have to have an honest and open discussion about the public expenditure priorities of the United Kingdom. I tried to have that discussion during the general election campaign, when I pointed out that our public services were under enormous fiscal pressure and that we had to improve the finance that is available for our public services. The issues that we are now confronting affect our defence and security and they merit a response in that respect. We have to have an honest discussion about our priorities.”
“I move amendment S6M-16571.3, to leave out from first “notes” to end and insert: “reiterates its unwavering support for the ceasefire in Gaza, for the calls for all efforts to be made to ensure an extension of the ceasefire, for humanitarian aid to reach people in Gaza, and for the remaining hostages to be released; recognises and supports the humanitarian assistance that the Scottish Government has provided to the people of Gaza; calls for recognition of a Palestinian state and a two-state solution; recognises that Scottish Enterprise does not provide funding for the manufacture of weapons or munitions; notes that Scottish Enterprise operates a human rights due diligence process in the awarding of any funding; recognises that responsibility for issuing licences for the export of arms is reserved to the UK Government; calls for the suspension of arms exports to Israel, and does not believe that any public funding should be going to supply arms to Israel.” 15:04”
“However, I appreciate the concerns that have been raised and the calls for Scottish Enterprise to review its human rights due diligence checks to ensure that it takes into account a product’s end use, so we will support the Labour Party’s amendment to ensure that the due diligence process is always as robust as it can be. Our amendment speaks to the values that the Government holds. As I said, it calls for peace in Gaza, for humanitarian aid to be provided and for a lasting two-state solution. It urges the UK Government to suspend arms exports to Israel and it sends a clear and unequivocal message that the Parliament does not believe that any public funding should go towards the supply of arms to Israel.”
“Any awarding of grants follows careful scrutiny and assurances that the companies in question meet the required ethical standards and have passed the due diligence checks. The Scottish Government funding that is given to many of the companies that are being discussed in the context of this debate is largely directed towards the diversification away from core defence activities. We must also acknowledge that Scotland benefits from being home to highly skilled industries that contribute to national and international security at the same time.”
“I am aware of the concerns that have been expressed about the support that Scottish Enterprise provides to companies that are involved in the defence sector in Scotland. Scottish Enterprise operates a human rights due diligence process when it awards any funding, including funding to companies in the defence sector. It does not provide funding for the manufacture of weapons or munitions, in line with the Government’s long-standing policy. We have fulfilled the commitment, to which Lorna Slater referred, that was given back in 2019. The due diligence process is designed to ensure that public funds are not directed to companies that engage in activities that contravene international law or human rights standards. The checks involve an assessment of each company’s operations, with cross-referencing against a number of independent resources.”
“As the Scottish Government’s amendment states, the focus should be on extending the ceasefire, securing the release of the remaining hostages and ensuring that humanitarian aid reaches the people of Gaza. It also outlines support for a two-state solution and calls on the UK Government to officially recognise the state of Palestine in order to break the political impasse that has condemned Israelis and Palestinians to successive cycles of violence. The Green motion does not address the wider backdrop against which this debate is taking place. The Government believes that such issues should be aired and voted on today, but I appreciate that the Greens have been consistent in their support for a recognised Palestinian state, too.”
“If Iran is still able to arm and to produce arms for export, surely it is unfair to stop Israel defending itself. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I can give you the time back for the intervention, minister. Richard Lochhead: I have already outlined the backdrop against which the debate is taking place and said that we should unite on many key principles, which I hope John Mason will support. Although it is currently the responsibility of the UK Government to issue licences for arms exports, we should be clear and united in our calls for the UK Government to use its powers to stop arms exports to Israel and to protect the lives of those who have suffered so much.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on Police Scotland’s work to tackle the issue of uncontrolled pyrotechnics at football matches. (S6O-04356)”
“However, Labour has failed to make any case whatever for electing Scottish Labour MSPs to this Parliament next year, as it failed entirely to engage in the budget process. The Labour Party could have asked for anything and may well have got it, as the Greens and Liberal Democrats have managed to do, but it decided to ask for nothing and then to get nothing as a result. Compare that to what the Scottish Greens have done—we have delivered for people and planet. More children will be fed, our natural environment will be better protected and public transport will be cheaper as a result of our interventions. Surely that is exactly what we were all sent here to do. 17:28”
“However, after 14 years of Conservative cuts to the UK’s social security safety net, that absolutely was not the result. The result was pain and misery for many of the most vulnerable people in our society, many of whom wanted to return to work but needed employability programmes, training and other support to do so. They needed more support from the public sector, not to have that essential safety net taken away from them. I was interested in what Michael Marra said on the point that Labour will not stand in the way of the £5.2 billion of additional spending that the UK Government has delivered. In Labour’s approach to the budget over the past few months, it has made a fair case about the impact of Scottish Labour MPs at Westminster—I disagree with it, but it is a fair case.”
“Its chief executive reported to us that there has been no loss of productivity but a hugely significant reduction in the number of staff working days lost due to ill health. That is a positive development that needs further evaluation and rolling out more widely across the public sector. I was intrigued by what Craig Hoy said. He used what I think is incredibly inappropriate language in talking about people “languishing on benefits” as he discussed what in his view is Scotland’s unaffordable social security bill. He failed to acknowledge that a huge number of the people who he is speaking about—indeed, the majority of them—are either children or adults who are in work. The Conservatives consistently fail to acknowledge that. The Conservatives’ position seems to be that, to get people into work, we need to cut social security.”
“However, the UK chancellor has said that, after conversations with the group that she referred to as “the non-dom community”, she will not do that, as if that was some kind of protected status—as if someone’s being a multimillionaire or billionaire who is going out of their way to avoid tax made them deserving of a unique audience with a Labour chancellor. As well as tax reform, we need reform in our public services in Scotland. I am proud that the Scottish Greens secured the pilot of the four-day or reduced working week in our public sector. The Finance and Public Administration Committee took evidence on the interim findings on the impact of that pilot in South of Scotland Enterprise, which is one of the bodies involved.”
“For a start, sticking with national insurance contributions, if we removed the ridiculous reduction to those contributions above £50,000 of earnings, that would raise in the region of £10 billion. If we extended national insurance to investment income, that would raise billions more. If we closed the loophole in the oil and gas windfall tax that actually incentivises further exploration for more fossil fuels, that would raise £6 billion a year. If we equalised capital gains tax with the English income tax system, that would raise £16 billion, and if we equalised it with the Scottish income tax system, it would raise even more. Of course, if we abolished the non-domiciled status, as Labour promised to do before it was elected, that would raise £4 billion.”
“Whatever locally elected representatives wish to do with that tax, they should be able to do it, rather than having limits dictated to them by us here. All of that combined is still not enough, in my view. There is a need for further tax reform and for further resources to tackle the challenges that this country faces. Michael Marra quite fairly challenged those of us who oppose the UK Labour Government’s decision to increase employer national insurance contributions, asking where else we would have raised that money from. I am sure that Mr Marra and his Labour colleagues will not be surprised to hear that the Greens have a range of alternative ways in which that money could be raised.”
“I was intrigued by what the Conservatives were saying about property tax: that we actually need a cut to LBTT to help first-time buyers. However, all the evidence that we have seen shows that cutting property taxes helps sellers, not buyers. The efforts of the UK Conservative Government to cut property transaction taxes only increased house prices and pushed them further out of the reach of those who wanted to be first-time buyers. I am proud that we have doubled council tax on holiday homes, but I think that we can go further. We could emulate the system in Wales, where it is possible to go up to 300 per cent. My preferred position would simply be to lift the cap entirely, allowing local government to make those decisions for themselves, whether they want to increase or decrease the amount.”
“The £1.7 billion of additional revenue that we have for public services that our Conservative colleagues so regularly deride is a result of Green changes to the income tax system, and that, in turn, allows us to deliver unique Scottish spending decisions such as free bus travel for young people, the Scottish child payment, and those Bolshevik baby boxes that so haunt Craig Hoy’s dreams. Income tax is not the only area of tax where we have made different decisions in Scotland. With the change that we have just made to the additional dwelling supplement, we have doubled that particular tax on the purchase of second or holiday homes in the course of this parliamentary session, raising money for public services and helping first-time buyers, putting them in a better position to have their offers accepted.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: We now move to closing speeches. 17:21 Ross Greer: When we debated the rates resolution last week, Willie Rennie made what I thought was an important point: the devolution of income tax powers to this Parliament has strengthened the institution, because it has forced us, in these budget debates, not just to think about spending allocations but to consider the wider impact of the decisions that we make and the wider health of the Scottish economy. I am proud of the impact that the Scottish Greens have made on income tax since it was devolved.”
“If we set up a new tax, such as the aggregates tax, Scotland has to bear all the admin costs of getting it going, and we pay any costs that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has in switching off the old tax. It really does seem that the fiscal framework is set up so that it is a case of heads the UK wins and tails Scotland loses. Continuing on the subject of the relationship with Westminster, the Finance and Public Administration Committee wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, inviting her to a committee evidence session. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury replied that he was “unable to accept this invitation” because “the UK Government is accountable to the UK Parliament”. Surely that does not stop it talking to us. I am happy to support the budget for 2025-26, but Scotland’s deal from Westminster really has to improve.”
“The way that the block grant is worked out is one of the most complex that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has seen. As the OECD has told us in the past, it is not well understood by most people or, I suspect, by most MSPs. Although the fiscal framework is better than it might have been—which is thanks to John Swinney, when he was finance secretary—it was meant to be properly reviewed after it had settled down in 2023. However, as Shona Robison told us, Westminster refused to do that. That leaves us trying to compete with London and the south-east of England—something that few parts of the UK have ever managed to do historically. As a result, our budget and block grant get squeezed year by year. On top of that, the Barnett formula further squeezes our budget year by year.”
“I do not want to repeat what I have said in previous budget debates. However, I still hold to some of the key points that I have made before, including, first, that taxes in the UK and Scotland are too low: if we want better public services, we need to have higher taxes. Secondly, we need to replace council tax and raise more money. Thirdly, economic growth is all very well, but the benefits of that growth have to be shared out more equally than they currently are. My theme, in my limited time, is the relationship with Westminster. First, around half of our resource budget comes in the form of a block grant. For 2025-26, it is estimated to be £26 billion, out of a total Scottish resource budget of £51 billion.”
“The Scottish Fiscal Commission projected that £53 million of revenue ought to be raised from that in 2024-25, but it went on to estimate that the net amount was likely to be around £8 million, once behavioural responses were factored in. The risk is that people will work fewer hours or retire earlier. It is certainly the case that some people are moving away or are not moving here.”
“Does the member accept that, rather than Scotland having tax that is too high, the UK has tax that is too low, and that that is why we have such poor public services? Craig Hoy: John Mason can continue to live in la-la land and argue that high taxes are a good thing when growth is low, but all the evidence suggests that that is not the case. Despite the publication of its tax strategy, I still do not believe that the Scottish Government has a handle on how its tax policies have affected Scots’ behaviour. In the 2024-25 Scottish budget, the top rate of income tax was increased from 47 per cent to 48 per cent.”
“To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its negotiations with the Department for Work and Pensions regarding the release of relevant data pertaining to the two-child benefit cap. (S6O-04343)”
“However, the fact is that employer national insurance contributions are being increased, and there seems little likelihood that Westminster will suddenly become more generous and refund all employers in Scotland, or in England, where GPs and the third sector are also losing out. I certainly support the Government’s motion calling on Westminster to reverse its decision, but I am not holding my breath. 17:06”
“I note that the Conservatives, as they always do, are murmuring when I say that kind of thing. I agree that raising employer national insurance contributions was not the best option. We have had a number of suggestions already, but how about higher VAT on luxury goods and services? We could have capital gains tax on first homes as well as second homes. We could have a production tax on whisky. We could have a carbon land tax. The list goes on and on. However, there is no getting around the point that most of us want better public services, and that means more taxation. In particular, at Scottish and UK levels, we need a replacement for council tax. It must not be revenue neutral; it must raise more revenue, especially for local government. That would also impact positively on national finances.”
“Thank you, Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to speak, albeit briefly. My key theme is that Labour was right to raise taxes, but it has chosen to raise the wrong tax. That is partly because it promised before the most recent election not to raise income tax or employee national insurance. That should be a warning to all of us about what we put in our manifestos. I have said previously, and I am happy to say it again, that we cannot have taxes as low as they are in Scotland and the rest of the UK and expect to have good-quality public services, whether it be better road surfaces, shorter NHS waiting times, more mental health support or more classroom assistants. Either we accept public services roughly as they are, or we look at how we can raise more money through taxation.”
“However, I point out again that, after almost 18 years of an SNP Government, our third sector is on its knees because of repeated failures to increase budgets and invest in multiyear funding so that third sector organisations have the clarity that would enable them to plan for the future. We will not take any lectures from the SNP or the Tories, who are clearly conspiring today with no alternatives and no solutions. They have lodged their motion and amendment today simply for a political purpose.”
“Its motion sits alongside the add-on amendment from the Conservatives, which fails to take one iota of responsibility for their 14 years in Government, during which they wrecked the economy—they left a complete mess behind and the new UK Labour Government had to pick up the pieces. That is what the UK Labour Government is doing, and it is seeking to invest for the people of Scotland. As I said at the outset of my speech, it is quite telling that there is such synergy and agreement between the SNP and the Conservatives today. As Daniel Johnson and other colleagues have outlined, decisions in Government are not always easy, but they have to be taken to increase the public finances. Of course, we recognise the challenges that will exist, particularly for many third sector organisations, and we have to continue to work to support them.”
“Perhaps we might have had more clarity from the First Minister, as leader of the Government, but no—he advocated that the UK Government should match his own tax policies. However, the Fraser of Allander Institute published an analysis, just one month ago, showing that doing so would mean Scotland losing £636 million. If that is the position of the SNP, it must be clear about that. If it is not willing to make tax rises in order to pay for public services, it must say, here and now, what it would cut. Would it be the health service, when we know that one in six Scots are on a waiting list? Would it be the housing budget, when the SNP is trying to correct mistakes that it made in the past in that regard? As I said already, it is clear that not a single alternative is suggested in the SNP motion because the SNP simply does not have one.”
“Again, they are perfectly entitled to that constitutional position, but I would gently suggest that, given the complete lack of an economic case for independence, the projected deficit on day 1 of becoming independent country, and the fact that independence would do absolutely nothing to deal with the reality of the here and now in relation to the debate that we are having, I do not really think that it is much of an answer at all. Perhaps the Government front bench can provide a little more clarity than the back benches, although it, too, has opposed every revenue- raising measure in the UK budget. SNP MPs did not vote for any of them—indeed, they did not turn up to vote on the budget.”
“Yet the motion from the SNP Government says that some of those revenue measures should be cancelled. The SNP is, of course, perfectly entitled to advocate that position, but in doing so, it surely must level with the Parliament and the public and explain what alternative measures it would take to increase revenue. It is clear that the SNP has to either advocate for alternative tax rises, which I do not think we have yet heard happen—we have heard about vague notions of a basket of measures—or propose spending cuts. When challenged in the budget debate on that point, SNP back benchers wholly failed to answer— indeed, they seemed to suggest that independence was the solution.”
“Paul O’Kane: As I have said many times, and as has been well established, after 14 years of austerity, putting £5.2 billion into the Scottish budget is significant and has allowed us to look again at public services. That is well documented and was well rehearsed in the budget debate. There was confusion between those on the front benches and those on the back benches. If we give the Government the benefit of the doubt, instead of listening to the glittering hit list of SNP back benchers, we can assume that the ministers believe that the £5.2 billion investment is a positive thing and is important for Scottish public services. If that is the case, the SNP surely must recognise that revenue-raising measures had to be taken in the UK budget and that they were sought in order to provide the resources for public services.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Paul O’Kane: If Mr Mason allows me to make some progress, I will come to him. In the case of the stage 1 debate, it seems that there was, at best, confusion on the SNP benches about whether that record investment was positive, as suggested by the finance secretary and other members on the front bench, or whether it was, “charity” or “handouts”, as advocated by many SNP back benchers. I know that Mr Mason is no longer an SNP back bencher, but I will hear him if he wishes to make a contribution. John Mason: The member says that it is a record increase, but would he accept that, in real terms, it is a 0.8 per cent increase in the resource budget? That is not exactly stunning.”
“The Scottish Greens were elected here to deliver for people and the planet, and by voting for the budget this afternoon, with the changes that we have secured, we are fulfilling that promise. 16:34”
“The dividing line is between those who are here to play games and grab headlines and those who are here to deliver real change for their constituents. We might all disagree on what that change is— that is absolutely fine—but, surely, we were elected on manifestos full of specific policy proposals and the delivery of the change that we all believe in. Some of us are trying to pursue that. The Greens who were elected to this place have delivered more free school meals for the children who need them, free bus travel for young people and now a bus fare cap trial to make fares cheaper for everyone. We have delivered nature restoration funding and the job creation that comes with that, as well as record funding for climate action.”
“There has been a dramatic reduction in ill health among the staff involved and there has been no apparent loss of productivity. There is a need to do far more, though. I absolutely agree with the cabinet secretary on the need to have some long-term certainty from the UK Government, but I agree with Liz Smith that that is no reason for the Scottish Government not to get on with its own planning. Of course, Liz Smith and I would come up with very different spending plans if that was our responsibility, but there is no reason not to make progress on that at this point. Even just scenario planning would be of great benefit to the resilience of our public services. The debate has shown the dividing line in the final 13 or so months of this session of Parliament.”