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 12 of 14.
“I will take a moment to add to the many reflections about the passing of His Holiness Pope Francis. I would probably put myself in the latter category when we talk about people “of all faiths and none”—at best, I would probably describe myself as a lapsed Presbyterian—but Pope Francis genuinely gave me inspiration in relation to how to reflect on the world and think about other people. That is relevant to today’s debate, because we find ourselves in a unique and unprecedented global context. In preparation for this debate without a motion, not quite knowing which direction it would take, I was reflecting on Francis Fukuyama’s infamous quote about the end of history and on how wrong we were. We now have war in Europe—not just a peripheral war but one that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of casualties and deaths.”
“There will also be profound inequalities even in some of the societies that have benefited from globalisation. He is intimately familiar with the agenda that my Government is pursuing, which is addressing inequalities that exist in our society. There is much substance to Mr Johnson’s point, and we must be alert to the implications of those inequalities and dangers as we wrestle with the fast-changing environment that is in front of us.”
“Will the First Minister give way? The First Minister: Of course. Daniel Johnson: I agree with the First Minister’s points about the assumption of progress and the benefits that globalisation and trade have brought. Will he, like me, also reflect on the costs of globalisation, which we need to think about? Some of the circumstances that we find ourselves in may be because we did not pay enough attention to the inequalities and inequities that were created by globalisation and trade, despite the benefits that they have brought. The First Minister: Mr Johnson makes an absolutely valid point. Globalisation has huge benefits but, at the same time as globalisation has happened and progress has taken place in countless societies around the world, there will be other societies that have experienced prolonged inequality.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the reported prevalence and trend of crimes committed where the perpetrator was wearing a disguise, particularly in relation to antisocial behaviour. (S6O-04528)”
“You have up to four minutes, Ms Adam. 17:10”
“If what it takes is a person to bring a focus, to provide the level of attention and co-ordination that is needed, to cut across portfolio barriers, and to act independently, we should simply employ them and create that position in the civil service. There are 29,000 civil servants in this country. If the Government is saying that it cannot find one person to do that job and enough people to provide that person with support, what on earth are we doing? I will end with this question: the Government has withdrawn the bill, so what is it going to do? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Before we move to the open debate, I advise members that the debate is heavily oversubscribed, which will come as a surprise to nobody. I will therefore require members to stick to their speaking-time allocations. With that, I call Karen Adam.”
“We could start, for example, with better data recording. Right now, we do not know the waiting times for assessments for ADHD and autism; that measure is recorded in England and Wales, but not in Scotland. Even if we had just that and we knew the scale of the problem, that would be better than the current situation. We need to tackle the backlogs and the absurd positions that have been adopted on shared care by general practitioners and health boards, which have decided that practices that were once normal are no longer possible. We also need better pathways from school into assessment. I stress that we should not just legislate.”
“We needed a commissioner to provide access and to act as an ombudsman to ensure that people get the services and the assistance that they need. The reality is that cancelling and withdrawing the proposed learning disabilities, autism and neurodivergence bill has returned us to the point of invisibility. All the time and effort that various organisations put in, the compromises that they made, the negotiations in which they engaged, and the shared understandings—some of which, believe you me, were difficult and painful—have all been for naught. The worst thing about it is that there is no alternative. Nothing has come forward from the Government since October, when it withdrew the bill—nothing. There is no proposal for how to make things better, despite the fact that—let us be clear—we do not need to legislate to make things better.”
“We needed action and visibility for these invisible disabilities. A bill would have brought a focus to these conditions, which are all too often just a bolt-on in public policy. It would have brought co-ordination, because these are complex conditions that span education, healthcare, social care and other forms of assistance. Above all, we needed resolution. I can tell colleagues that, in reading the consultation responses to my proposed bill to prevent restraint and seclusion in schools, I found the level of desperation overwhelming. Parents simply could not get the services that they were supposed to get from schools and health providers, and, when they saw things going wrong, they could not get the information or the help that they needed.”
“Those on the waiting list are looking at waits of almost a lifetime—14 years, in some cases. If a child is suspected of having ADHD or autism, it is very unlikely that they will get a diagnosis, let alone treatment, during their time at school. That is the nature of the crisis. Above all else, we face injustice. These conditions are still the punchlines of jokes, and the figures in relation to deaths and the justice system provide evidence of such injustice. If someone has a learning disability, their life is likely to end 20 years earlier than that of an average person; for someone with autism, it is 16 years. Someone with any one of the conditions covered by neurodiversity is between twice as likely as and 10 times more likely than the general population to be in the prison population. That is why we needed a bill.”
“There is no therapy, no support and no assistance, and that was the situation before the pandemic. Since then, we have seen waiting times go through the roof, a medicine shortage that means that people with ADHD cannot get that vital lifeline, and school refusals of astronomical proportions. In the best-performing local authority, the proportion of persistent absences stands at 20 per cent, rising to just under 40 per cent in the worst. That is the crisis that we are facing. The reality is that, in most parts of the country, someone cannot now get an assessment for autism or ADHD. Most recently, NHS Tayside has stopped referrals, but pretty much every part of the country has either temporarily or permanently ended the process of putting new people on the waiting list.”
“We know that there is a crisis of part-time timetabling and illegal exclusions of children with neurodiverse conditions in our schools. Indeed, we particularly know about that from the publication “Not included, not engaged, not involved: A report on the experiences of autistic children missing school”, which was commissioned by the National Autistic Society Scotland, Scottish Autism and Children in Scotland. We know that the core number of children accessing co-ordinated support plans is going down, despite the number of those with additional support needs going up. We know that the pathways are simply not there and that therapies are not available. For many people with autism, diagnosis is the end point—there is nothing else in place to help or support them.”
“An adult might be seeking a diagnosis because they have hit a crisis in their life, whether that relates to their work or their family. Families face a crisis in dealing with the challenges of having children with neurodiverse conditions or learning disabilities and in the struggle to manage those conditions while dealing with day-to-day life. Above all, the system is in crisis. It was in crisis before Covid and it is certainly in crisis following Covid. Before the pandemic, we knew that the numbers of those with additional support needs were growing ever higher but the system was falling back. While the number of children with additional support needs has doubled since 2014, the number of ASN-qualified teachers has dropped by 12 per cent.”
“Obviously, they have in mind things like substance misuse or a gambling problem, but I told my agent that I had ADHD and that I am medicated. I thought that that could hurt my election chances and that it would potentially shame me and my party. I thought that having my condition, and taking the medication that I use every day to help me with it, was a source of shame to be kept secret. I say that because it shows the level of stigma that we are still combating and the issues that we still face and why we need visibility. However, this debate is not about me but about everyone out there, because crisis surrounds these conditions at every single level. I met autism campaigners in the garden lobby just before the debate, and they agreed with me: crisis permeates every level, from the personal outwards.”
“I thank those members who signed my motion to enable the debate to happen. It is a very important debate, because it is difficult to overstate the level of frustration and anger that exists among the various learning disability and neurodiverse communities. I speak today not as an MSP but as someone with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and I will give members a little personal insight into the level of frustration that people with neurodiverse conditions face. Before I stood for election to this place, I had a conversation that probably all of us have had with our election agents. Is there anything that they should know about—anything that, if it came out, could damage the party or damage the candidate’s chances?”
“That speaks to the consideration that we are giving to the specific transition points in people’s lives where economic inactivity can begin. We are giving that very serious consideration and I would be happy to engage further with the member on the matter. Artificial Intelligence (Regulation) 6.”
“The issues in Fife demonstrate the need to have an accurate picture of where there are issues with people accessing the workplace. As Willie Rennie referenced, there is an issue with young people. However, at the Economy and Fair Work Committee this morning, Skills Development Scotland said that the real youth unemployment figure is upwards of 10 per cent, and that is not the official figure. Does the minister agree that we need to re-examine our approach to data gathering to get a clearer picture? Has he had discussions with Skills Development Scotland about the issue of youth unemployment figures? Tom Arthur: I assure the member that we are having conversations across Government, on the point that he referenced in particular.”
“While there are other important products, their export value is measured in hundreds of millions of pounds, not billions of pounds. Where is the strategy to deliver? That is the challenge.”
“The Norwegians are not holding back their aquaculture and salmon industries; they are pursuing high quality and seeking to expand. We should support the salmon industry as we pursue those best standards, because we need those jobs and exports. We should support jobs and exports in parts of the country that, quite frankly, would be struggling for industry if it were not for aquaculture. The other point about that list of products is that the £5 billion of whisky exports and the £1 billion of salmon exports make up £6 billion of the £8 billion of exports in the sector; therefore, we are hugely reliant—dare I say overreliant?—on those two products. We need to challenge ourselves: how can we go further and how can we diversify our food exports?”
“We need to have a debate about salmon, and I know that the Parliament is having that debate and that Ariane Burgess and Beatrice Wishart raised important points about it. Of course, there are issues around the environmental impact of aquaculture. Indeed, there are issues around the environmental impact of all food production. By definition, when we produce food from the land and the sea, we have to think about the environment. Salmon is, however, a hugely important product and export for this country. We need to work together and look with clear eyes at the issues that the industry is facing and at how we can improve and have the best and highest standards in salmon production in the world. That is exactly what other markets are doing.”
“I also want to confirm that the Scotch Whisky Association said—again, I am quoting—that the statement made by Darren Jones was a “welcome statement”. By all means, let us push for clarifications, but I do not think that it could have been clearer. I am happy to give way to Douglas Ross. Douglas Ross: I am grateful to Daniel Johnson for giving way. He is speaking about clarity, but, when one UK Government minister says something on 4 March and another UK Government minister writes to MSPs on 13 March with distinctly different comments, does he really think that we have any clarity at all? Daniel Johnson: Daniel Zeichner was addressing a different point about legal competence versus what was being accepted. I will move on.”
“In the lead-up to the election, we heard about how they were going to cut fuel costs and energy bills, and those have gone up three times. Does he understand why the Scottish people do not trust what Labour says any more? Daniel Johnson: All that I can point to is the clarity that we have from the Government. More than that, as I indicated in my previous interventions, it is about the priority that the UK Labour Government has placed on whisky in pursuing the trade talks with India. Let us remember that the Indian market is the biggest market for Scotch whisky by volume and it is a market in which Scotch faces a tariff of 150 per cent. That is why the UK Government brought forward its talks in January and why they are so important.”
““I have checked with Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I can confirm that we will not be watering down the definition of single malt whisky.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 4 March 2025; Vol 763, c 155.] I understand the concerns, but that is as clear as possible. I also recognise the letter that Douglas Ross mentioned, but I was listening very carefully to him and it is a point about legal competence. It is not an acceptance of the definition. Douglas Ross rose— Daniel Johnson: Clare Haughey was the first to attempt an intervention. Clare Haughey: I thank Daniel Johnson for taking my intervention. I hear what he is saying about what was said in the House of Commons, but we have heard a lot from Labour politicians in recent months.”
“The one point of consensus that we heard throughout the chamber was the need to focus on how we can grow, promote and become a genuinely world- leading food nation. That list is instructive in a number of other ways, including on the importance of some of those products and the nature of our food exports. I will deal with them in order. On whisky, I do not think that Darren Jones, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, could have been clearer on 4 March when he said: “Scotch whisky is a proud ... brand and export, and this Government will always support the industry.” Clare Haughey: Will the member take an intervention? Daniel Johnson: I will finish the quote.”
“I join the chorus of praise for the cabinet secretary, although she has left the chamber for the moment. At the risk of making a dreadful pun, I am quite convinced that she is off to pastures new rather than being put out to pasture. That is not the last pun that I will make in a debate on food and drink. Indeed, members would have thought that, in a debate on food and drink, there would be a point of consensus—something that we could all agree on—but we can trust the Scottish Parliament to turn a debate on food and drink into something of a bun fight. We have heard from a lot of different members about a long list of products: whisky, salmon, seafood, Scotch beef and lamb, shortbread, cheese and dairy products—the list goes on. Scotland has a breadth of food and drink products, some of which are absolutely world leading.”
“Our products are sought after and should be afforded the protection from imitation that they deserve. The GI scheme must exist to protect products individually and collectively. However, let me be crystal clear: any attempt to include products that are apparently comparable but have lesser production processes undermines not only the GI scheme but consumer confidence, both here and in our vital export markets. I know that there has been significant interest in the recent application. Given the reserved nature of the application process, I continue to encourage anyone with concerns to respond to that consultation, which is open until 20”
“Will the cabinet secretary acknowledge that, in the House of Commons—just the week before last, I think—Darren Jones said: “I can confirm that we will not be watering down the definition of single malt whisky.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 4 March 2025; Vol 763, c 155.] That is a direct quote. Will the cabinet secretary acknowledge that? Mairi Gougeon: Although those verbal assurances were offered in the UK Parliament that day, the consultation on the English whisky GI is still very much open. We have received no confirmation from the UK Government that it intends to change course. Scotland is lucky in the breadth of protected products that come from all over our islands and mainland, be that Arbroath smokies, Stornoway black pudding or Orkney Island cheddar.”
“I move amendment S6M-16595.1, to insert at end: “; recognises the best practice that is happening across the UK, including in Greater Manchester, where joined-up working across the public and private sector, investment in infrastructure, and an industrial strategy have boosted investment in the region; notes Department for Business and Trade statistics showing that Scotland comes seventh out of 12 for jobs created by inward investment projects, compared to fourth for the North West of England, and believes that the Scottish Government and Scottish Enterprise have failed to maximise Scotland’s economic potential and provide support to sectors that are key to Brand Scotland and attracting inward investment, including tourism, food and drink, and financial services.” 15:55”
“I also agree with their point that we need to remove build-to-rent properties from the rent restrictions. Finally, in the budget debate the other day, I misquoted a number. Kenny Gibson challenged me, and he was absolutely correct to do so. I have taken the opportunity to correct the record on that point in the chamber.”
“All too often, businesses in key sectors, such as tourism, that are important to the economy get turned away because they are not in the right sector. There is a question whether the agencies should focus purely on initial investment or whether they could do just as much by winning repeat investment. For example, in Scotland, we have 25 per cent of Pernod Ricard’s globally invested capital, but that is as a result of repeat investment. Likewise, I have heard from financial services firms that have invested here despite the lack of help from Scottish Enterprise rather than because of its help. I fear that I need to close, but I will say that there are points around skills, and I agree with the Conservatives’ points about infrastructure and connections.”
“What makes the difference in cities being able to buck the trend? Daniel Johnson: The structure of the combined authority in Manchester allows the constituent borough local authorities to unite around a clear plan. The secret to the success in Manchester is the degree to which the combined authority provides a point of unity and co-ordinated action rather than an additional structure. We need to look at the barriers to investment. I have already mentioned the enterprise agencies. The real question is whether they focus on the right things. They do a great deal that is positive, whether that is Scottish Development International or the co-investment funds. Those are areas where they do well, but I question whether their focuses are correct.”
“Indeed, when it comes to the fundamentals over the past 10 years, growth in gross domestic product per head in Scotland has been around half of that in Manchester. Although GDP per head in Scotland is higher than that in Manchester and the north-west, we just need to look at what is going on. We have more levers in Scotland, but the question is whether we are using them as effectively as we can. Kate Forbes: I am interested in the point about cities attracting investment. Daniel Johnson made a point about Manchester, and we had an exchange about that at committee. Without putting words in his mouth, I imagine that he would suggest that it has been Manchester’s leadership that has delivered the success and not necessarily the Conservative Government in London. My point is that cities have powers.”
“However, although we will support the Government motion, I believe, a little like Murdo Fraser, that we need to take account of the broader context. The Deputy First Minister is quite right to highlight the points in the EY report, but she omitted a key comment. The report says: “There’s a growing sense that Scotland’s cities may be losing out to rivals like Manchester”. Likewise, although she is correct that Scotland fares very well in the EY report, if we look at other data, such as Office for National Statistics data, and at inward investment on the basis of numbers of jobs created and the value of projects, we see that Scotland lags behind the north-west of England and the West Midlands by some margin.”
“We have a cluttered landscape and I recognise that that is not an easy challenge to fix, but, when we talk to people globally, we hear that they find a complex array of different agencies and organisations to speak to in Scotland. I welcome Ms Forbes’s comments about investment models. We can look at investment in infrastructure in other parts of the world, particularly in northern Europe, where tunnels have been constructed in the Faroe Islands, which have been vital not just to supporting growth but to repopulation. There are interesting models there. We need to look at those collectively, because those are the sorts of things that need a degree of political consensus so that investors can have the confidence to invest in them. I very much appreciate the Deputy First Minister’s comments, and there is much to build on.”
“When I speak to investors and investment firms, they tell me that they are seeking clarity on our national objectives and on the planning and regulatory framework that supports them. I am not sure that Government should be in the business of identifying individual projects, although it should potentially do so for large ones. It is absolutely vital that we have clarity of objectives and stable, clear and consistent policy across not just the economic policy domain, but all Government policy. The Deputy First Minister’s other points were also clear. The engagement point is absolutely correct, but we have to question whether we can provide that.”
“I welcome and accept the Deputy First Minister’s offer of cross-party talks. I very much believe that they would be constructive, because we need to find points of consensus and provide a team Scotland approach. If we are serious about attracting international investment, we need simplicity and clarity, but, importantly, we also need to show something of a united front across the political spectrum. Let me address the three themes that the Deputy First Minister’s investment approach will take. I hope that members will forgive me because I only heard about it in her comments, but I agree with the pipeline. We need to focus on that. My one comment on the pipeline is that, having spoken to a number of investors, it is not necessarily about identifying individual projects.”
“This afternoon, we have heard the Government’s overly positive view and Murdo Fraser’s very negative view, so, once again, it falls to me to provide something of a third way. I genuinely welcome this debate, which the Government has brought to the chamber, and I accept the challenge from the Deputy First Minister. The challenge for all of us is to focus on what needs to be done to attract investment in this country. I think that the Deputy First Minister is absolutely correct in her analysis that Scotland, along with the United Kingdom, suffers from low levels of investment. Whether we are concerned with economic growth or how we tackle the challenges of net zero and demographic change, we need investment to address those issues and ensure that we maintain prosperity for as many Scots as possible. Investment is the only way through that.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Murdo Fraser: Let me finish this point and then I will give way. Those infrastructure projects are absolutely vital in terms of their ability to expand their businesses. Daniel Johnson: Will Murdo Fraser reflect that it is not just about getting goods to market but about integrating supply chains? The whisky coming down the A9 will very often be bottled in the central belt, so roads provide a vital link between rural and urban economies. Does he think that we need to refocus on road infrastructure in that way?”
“I move amendment S6M-16571.2, to insert at end: “; acknowledges that across the UK, arms export licences have been suspended for items with a clear risk that they may be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law; calls on Scottish Enterprise to review its human rights due diligence checks to ensure that they take account of where products’ end use is, and that they fully comply with legal obligations under the Export Control Act 2002 and international law, and recognises the contribution of the defence sector in Scotland and the role that Scotland-based businesses have played in defending democracy and freedom.” 15:12”
“However, the Conservatives are absolutely correct in that, given that the US has made it very clear that we cannot rely on its resources to defend this country, and given that we have Ukraine—war in Europe—on our doorstep and might well be asked to put boots on the ground in order to protect the peace, we have to have the industries and the capability to build the ships that we need, the radar for the aircraft that will keep our skies safe, and communications equipment so that troops on the ground who might well be asked to keep peace in Ukraine can do so with the equipment and resources that they will need. That is what the defence sector in Scotland provides.”
“Ultimately, that is the only way that we can have peace and stability in the middle east. However, we also need to look at what has been supported. I have spent much time at Babcock at Rosyth and BAE Systems in Scotstoun. The investment in the skills academy at Scotstoun is about providing skills for the people who will build the warships that will keep our sea lanes—and this country—safe. Those skills will have effects beyond that, too. We have to support the activity and investments of Scottish Enterprise and the other enterprise agencies: we cannot ignore them—albeit that they are difficult. My issue with the Conservative amendment is that it would completely remove Gaza from consideration. That cannot be right.”
“I also completely agree with them on the seriousness of the situation that we face in Gaza. Some people may argue that the matter is not for the Parliament and that the export control mechanisms are all that should be looked at. That is not good enough: we cannot say that our politics should just stop at the border. We need to ensure and be confident that the money that we spend is in line with the values that we espouse. The Greens are right to bring up those questions, and that is reflected in our amendment. Likewise, the Scottish Government is correct to outline the processes that are in place. I very much welcome the Scottish Government’s emphasis on the two-state solution, because it is, above all else, vital that we look at how we can bring that back.”
“However, unfortunately—this is where Craig Hoy is right—we cannot separate those issues and those of the defence sector from the real and present danger that we face in this country. We live in unparalleled and unprecedented times. Lorna Slater: Will Daniel Johnson take an intervention? Daniel Johnson: I am afraid that I do not have time. I need to make some progress. We have to understand what that will take. Keith Brown made some of the points very well yesterday in the budget debate. However, we also need to recognise that there is a wider economic impact from such companies, which we cannot ignore and from which we get benefits. I will therefore step through the motion and each of the amendments. I very much welcome the Greens’ giving us the important opportunity for a full and frank debate.”
“This is an important debate, but we need to approach it with maturity. In all honesty, I agree with things that have been said already by all sides, so it is important that I step through all that. I very much welcome Richard Lochhead’s approach to the debate, which must be about principles. I will set out mine. The debate must be about Gaza. I do not think that we can look at what has happened in Gaza and in any way condone or support it, at this point. I say that as someone who was clear, after the atrocities of 7 October, that Israel had the right to defend itself. However, what has happened in Gaza is truly horrific, so I do not think that we can be seen to be using our public money to support it.”
“If the minister wants evidence of such behaviour, she need only walk to the Meadows, where there are tyre tracks left by masked individuals who were driving all-terrain vehicles in the early hours of Thursday. We need new standard operating procedures and equipment, because, without those, the police are incapable of intervening. Will the minister engage with the police so that those things can be put in place? Siobhian Brown: Yes—I have engaged with MSPs and the police on the issue this week.”
“Published in Edinburgh by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body, the Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh, EH99 1SP All documents are available on the Scottish Parliament website at: www.parliament.scot Information on non-endorsed print suppliers is available here: www.parliament.scot/documents For information on the Scottish Parliament contact Public Information on: Telephone: 0131 348 5000 Textphone: 0800 092 7100 Email: sp.info@parliament.scot”
“At col 82, paragraph 1, line 1— Original text— Those are the figures that are laid out very clearly by the Scottish Fiscal Commission: there is a 6 per cent real-terms increase. Corrected text— Those are the figures that are laid out very clearly by the Scottish Fiscal Commission: there is a 0.8 per cent real-terms increase. This is the final edition of the Official Report for this meeting. It is part of the Scottish Parliament Official Report archive and has been sent for legal deposit.”
“Daniel Johnson: What Scotland needs is not simply an increase in funding but a new direction, which can be delivered only by a Scottish Labour Government. 17:36”
“We have not heard a word about what it might do. We certainly have not heard SNP members repeat the First Minister’s claim that we should equalise tax rates, because we know that that would lead to £636 million being lost from the Scottish budget. Neither have we heard them repeat their claims, which they made during the general election campaign, that we should borrow more. I do not think that anyone could credibly claim that they are doing that. Frankly, the SNP is out of credibility on the budget, because it simply has no alternatives—it has nothing to say. The budget is an important step. It will see increases in the revenue that is available to our public services, thanks to that £5.2 billion in the block grant. The Deputy Presiding Officer: You need to conclude.”
“That is why, although we will not block the funding going into the Scottish budget— Members: Oh! Daniel Johnson: We cannot support the record of this Government. We need reform—[Interruption.] We need Scots to have public services that serve their interests— [Interruption.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: For the third time of asking, could we have a bit of respect for the member who is on their feet? Daniel Johnson, please continue but begin to wind up. Daniel Johnson: Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I am grateful. I know that it is hard for members to have respect for what I am saying, but clearly I am getting them very excited. Critically, if the SNP’s argument had any credibility, it would have come forward with alternatives to the measures set out in the UK Labour Government’s budget, but it has offered none.”