Daniel Johnson
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“When people feel threatened, they resort to violence. That is why I absolutely associate myself with the minister’s words. We must all take responsibility for our words and reflect on the current circumstances and situations.”
“We could forgive the Reform members for being inexperienced, but they have made this debate about them, so let us talk about them. I do not think that they do themselves any favours whatsoever.”
“Daniel Johnson: Were it only about the terminology that Reform is using, it would be one thing, but it is not. Let us look at some of the words used by Reform politicians, both here and in other places: calling for “cold rage”, describing our justice system as being “two tier” and describing recent migrants as being of “fighting age”.”
“Malcolm Offord opened the debate by saying that, through its motion, Reform rejects the SNP’s version of mediocrity. What was clear from the rest of his speech was that that is because he has his own very special version of mediocrity. The whole of Reform’s approach to the debate is summed up by the motion.”
“Likewise, on energy—we need to talk about what a sensible mix looks like, but, if you wrap yourself up in climate denialism, you absolutely delegitimise your argument. We do need to talk about migration. Did my party get it right when we opened up so quickly to accession countries? That should be debated.”
“Are these the politics that you want to enable and represent? [Interruption.] Thomas Kerr is laughing. If he thinks that violence in this city is funny, I am outraged— deeply outraged. He should think very carefully, because people in this city were injured.”
The complete record
Every one of 684 lines we hold for Daniel Johnson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 14.
“I would make this observation— Alex Cole-Hamilton: I am loth to interrupt Daniel Johnson’s eloquent exposition of what happened to the structures of global unity after the war so that there would never be a war again, but does he recognise that the first treaty of the European Union established the European Coal and Steel Community, so that no country could ever again build a war machine without an EU signatory country knowing that? Daniel Johnson: That is absolutely right. It is my observation that our physical security is inextricably linked with our economic security and our political security—the three go hand in hand. We need to protect our national physical, economic and political security all at the same time.”
“Daniel Johnson: I very much agree with that point, and that was the conclusion that I was seeking to draw. Although people are right to reflect on the rise of the far right and fascism, and we must guard against that, more fundamentally, we need to understand that the institutions that sought to create economic stability and economic equality were vitally important ingredients in the 80 years of peace that we have enjoyed. At a time when people are seeking to retreat into economic isolation and protectionism, we must see that there are consequences to that. We need a world system in which everyone across the world can enjoy access to economic prosperity.”
“It was in 1944 that the Bretton Woods conference took place, which sought to create economic institutions, including many that exist today. The lesson of the first world war was that war was created by economic and political circumstances, and that the world had to work together to ensure that those could not— The First Minister: I agree entirely with the analysis that the member is sharing with Parliament. Does he agree that there is a particular threat and challenge to the strength of those global institutions at the moment? There is a duty on everybody to reflect on the significant role that those institutions have played—although it has not been perfect—in avoiding conflict for many years. Does he agree that we all need to recognise the peril that many of those institutions now face?”
“At this 80-year mark, we need to remember that many of the lessons stem from the fact that world war two occurred only one generation following world war one. The commitments and the lessons learned from world war two happened because we could not afford the proximity of another global conflict so swiftly after that war, as had happened after world war one. I was pleased to hear the contributions of the First Minister and Anas Sarwar, which reflected on how the new order was created and the institutions that people sought to create. What I find most interesting is that people did not wait until after the war to create those. In 1943, Winston Churchill called for the creation of the Council of Europe, which came into being.”
“The nature of world war two was different; it was a total world war. It was good to hear contributions from across the chamber about that, including Douglas Ross’s reflections about family members going down to Dalkeith to work on Army payroll, and Kevin Stewart’s comments on family members going to work in Coventry. There were a vast number of people in reserved occupations—people whose duty was to serve on the home front—including those conscripted to work in the coal mines. The conflict consumed the whole of society. Everyone had a part to play, and everyone did that. The scale is not just about the number of people fighting, because the conflict consumed the whole of society. That is why the lessons of world war two are so important.”
“I do not know what that would be like; I actually really cannot imagine it. I also cannot imagine what it would have been like to come from a civilian life and to be conscripted and asked by your country to do that. As we move past the 80-year anniversary and beyond living memory, we need to keep that fresh, visceral memory alive. It must have been incredibly scary. It was an incredible sacrifice, and an incredible thing to go through. After all, 85 million people—3 per cent of the world’s population—lost their lives. It was a conflict the like of which and the scale of which we had never seen before, and we must never allow it to be seen again. Members are right to have raised concerns about whether we are continuing to learn those lessons. We also need to remember that it was not only armed forces personnel that made that commitment.”
“I thank members for some very thoughtful and, at times, moving contributions. Eighty years is an important milestone. It is a literal lifetime since the war ended in Europe, and we need to reflect on that. My personal reflection, as it always is at moments of silence, was on what it would have been like. Beyond the numbers, which we need to remember, and the history and politics, we need to ask what it would have been like to be one of those young people in a landing craft on D day, or in a bomber flying over the darkened skies of Germany, knowing that, in the latter case, you had a 40 per cent chance of survival. What would it have been like knowing that, coming off one of those landing crafts, there was a very high chance that you would lose your life in pursuit of democracy and against fascism?”
“At each one of those decision points, whatever we choose to do, there will be an option that we choose not to do. That needs to be crafted carefully, because we will have to move at such pace, and we have not always been good at delivering at pace. The hydrogen strategy itself was delivered three years late. It is good, but it is also very broad and non-specific. Let us embrace hydrogen, but let us also be clear about what it can and cannot do, and let us make sure that we maximise our potential. 16:43”
“The whole point of using hydrogen is that it is limitless, as opposed to hydrocarbons, which, of course, are not limitless. Extraordinarily, my ambitions on this matter are much higher than the Green Party’s ambitions, given that Mark Ruskell would not let me intervene to discuss the matter. Daniel Johnson: I share that view. I do not know whether members remember the demonstration that took place at the exhibition stand a couple of years ago, which showed the amazing possibility of producing hydrogen through the electrolysis of water. It was almost like magic. I say to Mr Whittle, an industrial chemist, that there are physical limitations to what hydrogen can and cannot do. As we pursue hydrogen fuel, we will have to understand where the decision points are.”
“As Willie Rennie alluded, this is not just about energy; it is also about the other things that we currently use hydrocarbons for, in which context Grangemouth and project willow are important. We will need hydrogen in order to produce dyes, pharmaceuticals and such things, in combination with biorefining. Hydrogen is critical to that, and we need to get into the detail of that. Ultimately, to make that happen, we need to recognise that there will be different options, and decisions will need to be taken. This is not about racing for as much hydrogen as possible. There are limitations to hydrogen, whether they are about energy density or the physical requirements. Brian Whittle: I speak as an industrial chemist by trade.”
“I am concerned that we simply think, “We can stop using that kind of gas and start using this kind of gas,” when the reality is that the energy density of hydrogen is considerably less than that of natural gas, because of the difference between the hydrogen atom and natural gas, which is made up of ethane, methane and propane. Those are considerably more energy dense, which allows you to do different things. We need our pilots, and the H100 pilot project is interesting for a number of reasons. The end use is probably the least of it, because we need to explore how we can repurpose our current gas networks for using hydrogen. Indeed, the cabinet secretary alluded to that point, and projects and pilots such as H100 are part of that. However, we need to understand a couple of things, and there is one sort of footnote to the issue.”
“That is why the UK Government has sought to establish agreements with Germany, and it is why the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently pointed out the importance of Europe as a trading partner. Willie Rennie was right in saying that, above all else, we need to concentrate on making this happen, but that requires us to have a dose of realism, which is why I very much value Patrick Harvie’s contribution. There is some fundamental physics and chemistry to consider. In order to make using hydrogen for energy possible, we need to store it at a compression of 700 times atmospheric pressure and at -253°C. We absolutely can come up with the engineering and scientific solutions to do that, but it is not trivial.”
“The issue concerns not only our energy economy and our energy security, but what we have to offer the world. Given that we are where we are, and given our incredible geographic opportunities because of our offshore wind potential and the fact that Germany and other parts of Europe lie just across the North Sea, there is extraordinary potential here. Kevin Stewart: In my contribution, I referred to the possibility of integrating into a wider European and international network. Does Mr Johnson share my view that there should now be discussions right across Europe about establishing such a network, so that we can get our approach right, with a view to achieving energy security throughout Europe and so relying much less on the likes of Russia? Daniel Johnson: I could not agree more.”
“It is absurd that, right now, we are paying providers to switch turbines off, which in turn simply increases current electricity costs. Kevin Stewart rightly pointed out that another incredibly important element in Scotland is the fact that, given our history of working in the North Sea, we possess geological knowledge and the ability to undertake engineering work offshore. Those factors come together to form an extraordinary opportunity, because hydrogen energy will be a very significant part of the world’s energy economy in the future. I very much appreciate Maurice Golden’s illustrating that in the context of Germany’s ambitions, which it has made very clear. It has huge targets for hydrogen consumption, which require a demand range of between 95 and 130 terawatt hours of hydrogen by 2030 alone, and that figure will double in 2045.”
“This has been an important debate. I like debates like this one, when we talk about big topics and there is broad consensus, but there are aspects that we need to navigate. I begin by reflecting on what Clare Adamson said about rediscovering our heritage of innovation in science. I believe that science can make our lives better. It has the answers to the challenges that are in front of us. Scotland has an enormous legacy in that regard, and I believe that hydrogen has a huge future here. The cabinet secretary and others, including Kevin Stewart and my colleague Sarah Boyack, set out a compelling case for why we have such a great opportunity in front of us. It is partly a consequence of our huge investment in renewables. As Ms Boyack pointed out, we must ask what we will do with the excess electricity that we will inevitably generate.”
“One important context, which I alluded to earlier, is that Europe’s largest manufacturing economy, Germany, is going through a massive energy shift from gas to hydrogen but is unable to produce hydrogen domestically at the scale that it requires and will need to import it from nearby or further afield. Germany is very interested in what is happening in Scotland and among our near neighbours, so we share a huge potential for the production of hydrogen and could play a significant role in helping our neighbours to decarbonise.”
“There is uncertainty about how, where and when network and storage infrastructure will be supported, which is one of the barriers hampering private sector investment in green hydrogen production. Once built, a national hydrogen network is likely to deliver significant advantages for hydrogen producers located close by. The strategic spatial energy plan that is being developed by the national energy system operator—NESO—will identify the optimal locations for future energy generation and storage, as well as hydrogen infrastructure across the whole of Great Britain. That important work will be completed as soon as possible. Scotland’s natural resources are not only vital to our own transition, but can and will contribute, and are contributing, significantly to energy security and decarbonisation goals in the UK and Europe.”
“However, certainty and pace are also key to seizing the benefits of hydrogen, and, if we are to maintain momentum, we really need to see the UK Government setting out a clear timetable for the future hydrogen allocation rounds, because many projects want to bid for those. We must also confirm how GB Energy and the national wealth fund will help to boost hydrogen development across the whole of the country, so I am grateful for the conversations that I have been having with the UK Government on both of those points. It is increasingly clear that realising Scotland’s hydrogen potential and delivering a balanced decarbonised system will require a national hydrogen network with integrated storage infrastructure and a national market for nitrogen, along with recognition of the international market for hydrogen.”
“If SGN wants to prove the concept by investing in that project, for which we have given it a small amount of assistance, there will be learnings not only for Scotland but for the whole of the UK and for Europe, which is no bad thing. I will talk about some of the other areas of work that we have given funding to. Projects in Orkney, Dumfries and Galloway, and Perth and Kinross are among 11 to be awarded a share of £3.4 million to develop the hydrogen supply chain. Further Scottish and UK Government investment, alongside private capital and privately funded innovation, continue to drive the establishment of a thriving hybrid sector and should mean that we will see fruits.”
“Patrick Harvie raises an important point, because hydrogen is not an uncontroversial choice. It is not as energy-dense as gas, so there has to be a judgment about whether it is a sensible choice for some uses. I agree that we need to trial it, but does the cabinet secretary acknowledge that we must make a very careful judgment as to whether hydrogen is a sensible alternative to natural gas and a better choice than straightforward electrification, which is more direct and therefore more efficient, above all else? Gillian Martin: This sort of debate can sometimes be frustrating, because some people are very keen on particular types of technology when there is a myriad of technologies.”
“As we have said repeatedly, we believe that we should leave no stone unturned to secure the future of Grangemouth—that was the case, first, with the Conservative Government and then with the Labour Government. I am young enough to remember when Labour promised that, if it were elected, it would save the plant.”
“Kate Forbes: Knowing, also, what Daniel Johnson might ask, I included the answer in my statement up front: I said very clearly that, since March 2020, we have worked with the business, investing in excess of £6 million over that period. July 2021, July 2022, August 2023, July 2024 and August 2024 are all examples of when the Government has worked collaboratively with Petroineos and shareholders to consider options for their future. I can assure the Parliament that this Government has been actively at work to secure the future of this key industrial asset. Daniel Johnson mentioned the nature of our conversations with the UK Government.”
“Did her Government ever raise that with the previous Conservative Government or with Petroineos? Indeed, has the Government ever asked its civil servants to consider such options? In the dozens of meetings that the Scottish Government has had with the new UK Labour Government in recent months, has it once raised the topic? If the cabinet secretary cannot point to that evidence, are people not right to conclude that the Scottish Government is producing that option at the last minute to turn this devastating event into a political football, and are they not right— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Johnson. Daniel Johnson: —to conclude that the SNP Government has done nothing in the last— The Deputy Presiding Officer: You have had your allocated time of 1 minute—thank you, Mr Johnson.”
“Yesterday will have been an incredibly difficult day for the hundreds of workers at Grangemouth and for the wider community. They are right to ask what actions their Governments have taken. Within months of taking office, the UK Labour Government committed £200 million of investment for Grangemouth’s industrial future. Unfortunately, that contrasts with the Scottish Government’s actions. The SNP Government was made aware by Petroineos five years ago that refining was under threat. The Deputy First Minister therefore has to answer this question: in that time, did any one of the five different cabinet secretaries responsible develop any real plans for the refinery’s future? Today, the Deputy First Minister strongly hints at nationalisation, although she stops short of calling for it.”
“Will the minister clarify whether the Government is considering delaying the visitor levy’s introduction? Would that include a change to the regulations? Ivan McKee: The visitor levy is moving forward, and Daniel Johnson will know that steps are well advanced in Edinburgh to start the implementation of a levy in the middle part of next year. To understand the challenges that the levy is putting on the sector, we are having discussions with a range of stakeholders, and we are keen to explore what actions could be taken to mitigate the challenges wherever possible. Discussions continue with a range of local authorities as well. Edinburgh City Plan 2040 5.”
“Whether by the Scottish Futures Trust or other organisations in Scotland, a lot of work is undertaken to ensure that there is value for money. There are always external factors that are outwith our control that can influence costs. We have recently seen the inflation crisis and the energy crisis, and there are other factors that can make costs rise unexpectedly for many infrastructure projects, which has serious implications for the rest of our budgets as a Government. I assure the member that a lot of attention is given to the issue. “Quarterly Economic Indicator” 6.”
“Infrastructure investment is vital to economic growth in the south-west of Scotland and across the whole country, but we know that cost overruns are one of the significant barriers to that. A recent Boston Consulting Group report on the cost of infrastructure across the UK highlighted that rail in the UK costs three times as much per kilometre as it does in France, and road costs almost twice as much. What analysis is the Scottish Government doing of why infrastructure costs more in Scotland, and how can we tackle that to deliver more infrastructure to deliver growth across Scotland? Richard Lochhead: The Scottish budget sets out more than £7 billion of capital spending to tackle issues ranging from child poverty to improved infrastructure across the country.”
“I move amendment S6M-17352.2, to leave out from “, and believes” to end and to insert: “; further welcomes the swift action taken by the UK Government following the General Election 2024 in recognition of the importance of the Grangemouth oil refinery, including its support for Project Willow and the commitment of £200 million to invest in the industrial future of the site, and calls on the Scottish Government to commit to publishing a detailed timeline setting out how and when it will implement the policy and regulatory changes needed to attract investment into the technologies identified by Project Willow.” 15:13”
“Critically, we have had five different energy ministers since the Scottish Government was made aware by Petroineos, the owner of Grangemouth, that it was likely to close the plant in coming years, but none of those five ministers produced a plan. Conversely, the new UK Labour Government acted within weeks on Grangemouth and acted promptly and expeditiously on Scunthorpe. The UK Labour Government’s actions speak for themselves.”
“On the SNP’s watch, jobs and investment have been exported from Scotland and foreign countries and Governments have benefited from our natural resources. That point goes way beyond the energy sector. From ferry contracts to the failure to make good on the promise of 130,000 green jobs and new bridges being built with Chinese steel, the SNP’s track record on industrial policy and supply chain security is not good. The Government has tended to be reactive rather than proactive, has a poor track record on delivery and has completely failed to recognise, let alone support, our strategic supply chains. Kate Forbes: Will the member take an intervention? The Deputy Presiding Officer: The member is about to conclude. Daniel Johnson: I am in my final minute—had I not been, I would have given way.”
“It has been clear for a decade that the plant’s future was uncertain, and that was made explicit to the Government by the plant’s owners five years ago. That is a matter of public record. Even without that information and context, the Government’s own policies should have prompted it to act, because, correctly, it is Scottish National Party policy to move away from the internal combustion engine—indeed, it brought forward the target for ending the sale of vehicles with internal combustion engines, making that sooner than the UK Government’s target date. Therefore, it is simply not credible for the Government to act as though what has happened in Grangemouth is a shock or surprise, because it knew that that was coming and, frankly, it failed to act. The consequences of that inaction are stark.”
“Daniel Johnson: I invite the Deputy First Minister to reflect on the actions that her Government could have taken and that are very clearly set out in project willow. That is the argument that our amendment makes. We must genuinely and candidly reflect on the circumstances that have led to today’s announcement, but I argue that that reflection should go in multiple directions. It was in the context of the threat of the Scunthorpe blast furnaces being turned off that the Government acted quickly, using emergency legislation to ensure that those furnaces kept running. The reality is that the Scottish Government has known of the challenges facing Grangemouth for at least a decade and its actions have been scant.”
“Therefore, in my view, although they are both strategic sites, it is clear that the situation in Scunthorpe is different from that in Grangemouth. Kate Forbes: I say for the record that the arguments the member makes for why the UK Government intervened in Scunthorpe are accepted and that we agree with them. He makes a compelling case. However, does he accept that, even though the UK Government did not proceed with a so-called nationalising approach to Grangemouth, there were interventions that could have been made in the past six months regarding sustainable aviation fuel—funding for the development of which went elsewhere—and carbon capture, and that those interventions could have turned the direction of travel at Grangemouth?”
“It is one of the most, if not the most, important primary manufacturing products. Steel builds our railways, our airports and our homes. In these insecure times, it is important to point out that it also builds the tanks and warships that keep this country safe and secure. It underpins growth, prosperity and security, and we will be reliant on the product for decades to come. That stands in contrast with Grangemouth, because the product from its refinery needs to change. We are seeking a transition away from fossil fuels and internal combustion engines—the very articles and machines that the plant seeks to supply and service. Many of us would have preferred that change to have been carried out in a more planned, gradual and deliberate way, but change must happen as we transition away from oil and gas.”
“Although we might disagree on the route to get to that point, that fundamental assumption is vital. Let me set out the distinctions between the situation in Scunthorpe and that in Grangemouth. The first relates to the fundamental nature of the industrial process. People who know anything about blast furnaces will know that they cannot simply be turned off and on again, but there was clear evidence that the owners of the plant in Scunthorpe were about to do just that. The blast furnaces in Scunthorpe are the UK’s last blast furnaces. If they had been allowed to close, the UK would have been left as the only country in the G20 without the capability of producing primary steel. The second distinction relates to the nature of the product. Steel is the backbone of a strong economy.”
“Fergus Ewing: I welcome Mr Johnson’s general arguments, but the UK steel industry, which is represented by the association with which I spoke yesterday, has two main asks on energy. The first is that the compensation that is payable for network charges be increased from 60 per cent to 90 per cent, as is the case in Germany and France. The second is that there be a two-way contract for difference that pegs the UK energy price to that pertaining in Germany and France. Will Mr Johnson address whether the UK Labour Government will meet those two requests that have been made by the main UK steel trade body? Daniel Johnson: As much as I would like to, I cannot speak for the UK Labour Government from this chamber, but Fergus Ewing’s point about ensuring the competitiveness of our energy costs is absolutely fundamental.”
“Ultimately, his party failed to plan for the future by allowing steel production to collapse by 42 per cent, thereby putting our global standing at risk. The Labour Government refuses to make the same mistakes, so it has acted in the national interest to secure UK steel making. The new UK Government also moved quickly and decisively in relation to Grangemouth. Within weeks, it made the decision to accelerate project willow and commit hundreds of millions of pounds to secure Grangemouth’s transition to a more sustainable future. Both situations demand Government action, and the Labour Government has acted. However, the nature of the action has been different because of the different circumstances in the two situations.”
“The security of our industrial base and our supply chains is vital in the context of those three factors. Many of the assumptions that have been made in recent decades have been altered radically, if not upended, in recent months and years. In that context, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the new UK Labour Government’s approach to British Steel. That Government will always do what is necessary to keep the UK secure at home and strong abroad. The Labour Government is doing what previous Governments have failed to do. I almost feel that I have to remind Murdo Fraser that, until last July, his party had been in government for 15 years. If he wants to examine why the energy structure is as it is, perhaps he should reflect on his party’s time in government.”
“I begin by associating myself with the comments that the Deputy First Minister made about the really shocking and tragic news about Grangemouth today, which has come out of the blue. Our thoughts must be with the 400 workers whose future now looks decidedly bleak. The trade unions have been very clear—they have pointed the finger at all politicians and accused us of failure. In so far as we have not secured continuity of production, we need to reflect on that very seriously indeed. I welcome today’s debate in the round, because we live in a time of profound economic change. We have war in Europe, the return of protectionism and trade wars, all at a time when we are attempting to make an energy transition of a scale and at a pace that has never been attempted previously.”
“They are the lifeblood of our rich industrial heritage.”
“The workforce’s skills are valued and we want the workers to stay, live and work in Scotland. That is why we have provided up to £450,000 for a skills intervention that is being delivered by Forth Valley College to help to retrain and upskill affected workers. That will enable them to progress to the sort of new jobs that will be created through the project willow proposals and other opportunities across the Grangemouth cluster. The United Kingdom Government must also stand shoulder to shoulder with those who have contributed so much to the Scottish economy. I will have more to say on that later. This debate could not be more timely. It is an opportunity to recognise the huge contribution that Scottish manufacturing and heavy industry play in our economy and our social and cultural lives.”
“I am grateful to the Deputy First Minister for giving way and for her answer to Stephen Kerr, but will she clarify whether the Government was given any warning in advance of the announcement via X, to which the member has alluded? Kate Forbes: With regard to the finer points of timescales, the only reason why I cannot be definitive is that I was in Cabinet this morning and I, too, learned of the decision from online sources. I cannot say whether the wider Government was informed in advance, but, if that was the case, it is highly unlikely that it was by more than a few minutes. I would give a more definitive answer, but Mr Johnson has asked about timescales, and I was certainly not given any advance warning, as far as I know. The team of officials at the back of the chamber might want to clarify that.”
“The First Minister will have seen reports over Easter recess that Sidara has been given additional time to come forward with an updated bid for the Wood Group. That is concerning for two reasons. First, there is the potential loss of headquarters functions and the associated expertise from the Aberdeen headquarters. Secondly, the Wood Group is critical to our ability to deliver engineering in the North Sea, which is vital for our renewables future. It is my understanding that the pressure on the Wood Group’s lenders has led to that situation. What discussions has the First Minister had directly with the Wood Group about that? Has the Scottish Government or its agencies explored the possibility of financial guarantees or facilities that might ease the short-term pressures and retain this vital Scottish company in Scottish ownership?”
“I referred to some global institutions earlier in my speech. It is a fact that many such institutions arose from the ashes of the second world war. Indeed, the Bretton Woods conference happened during the second world war because the relationship between the economy, politics and security was recognised. We cannot allow another global conflict to be the way that we find our path back to sound global institutions and global prosperity. 17:25”
“The past few months and years have brought into sharp relief how fundamentally important it is to our national security and in providing skilled jobs. The prospect of independence has unfortunately been raised yet again. All I would say to the Government is that, at a time when the issues around the UK-Iceland-Greenland gap are rearing their heads, the thought that we can simply swap one union for another is a flawed concept. We are bound together in our relationship across these islands. Whether we like it or not, we have a shared responsibility to defend this patch of land that sits between the Atlantic and the North Sea. What the Russians are doing in the North Sea cannot be ignored, and we have to co-operate across these islands to defend this part of the world that we call our own. We must learn the lessons of history.”
“Reflecting on what that means for us in this country, the interaction between economic and physical security is profound. We have to look at our industrial base. The UK Government was absolutely right to take ownership of the British Steel plant, because we have to produce things such as steel. Likewise, in Scotland, we need to think about the security of our energy generation. We have to ask questions about how comfortable we are in relying on other countries for fundamental parts of our supply chain and whether other state actors could interfere with our energy supply. Likewise, I gently say to the Government that, although I am pleased by what the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have said about our defence sector, the Scottish Government has at times been coy about talking about that sector.”
“There are profound issues about national security, the relationship between national security and economic security, industrial policy and what we must do, and those absolutely touch on devolved areas. A point that I raised with the First Minister was that, fundamentally, we need to reflect on the failure of globalisation. I would argue that globalisation has been a force for good—it raised 1 billion people out of poverty—but it undoubtedly eroded some of the economic structures in our society and increased inequality. It increased and exacerbated poverty, and we failed to address that. We need to reflect on that. We also need to reflect on the fact that co-operation requires much deeper interactions than simply membership, and we perhaps took that for granted.”
“During the past decade or more, we have also seen increasing levels of democratic interference and an increasing number of proxy wars. Audrey Nicoll was absolutely right to highlight the overflights of Russian aircraft and the disruption of undersea cables. It is all around us, and it has been happening for some time. It did not just start happening in 2022; it has been happening for well over a decade. I have to disagree with my Conservative colleagues. Although I agree with many of the points that have been raised about the way in which the Government uses its time, I point out that sometimes the Government tiptoes around some of these issues, but these are so profound that we have to talk about them.”
“We are right to worry about the rise of the right, but let us not treat these things as though they are happening in different places. They are happening all around us and we should have seen the signs. The reality is that the number of democracies has fallen from 45 to 29 since 2009. There has been a doubling in the number of authoritarian regimes around the world, and we have seen an erosion of the rule of law, even in Trump’s approach. We need to be cautious about our description of Trump, but we should not have been surprised. We are talking about a president who, when he was in the White House previously, blocked the appointment of judges to the appellate court of the World Trade Organization, which fundamentally blocked that institution. He did not believe in the global institutions that enable free trade and movement of goods.”
“It is genuine interstate warfare the likes of which we have not seen in 80 years. We are also seeing the resurrection of trade wars and tariffs, which saw the Dow Jones index drop by 5 per cent on 3 April, with a subsequent 6 per cent drop on 4 April on the back of just one announcement. That is a return to protectionism the likes of which we have not seen for generations. Moreover, we have seen a return of the strongman, authoritarian approach to statecraft— one that is increasingly prevalent closer to home, in Europe, not in far-off lands. I do not want to name names, but we know the regimes within the European Union that are seeing those strong authoritarian trends. I reflect on that, and I sound a note of caution for today’s debate.”