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 9 of 14.
“Earlier today, we published an update to the priority international markets for Scottish exports to ensure that those efforts and activities abroad continue to be targeted at areas with the greatest potential return for Scotland’s economy. It is always worth looking at the impact of particular support. In 2023, an independent evaluation of Scotland’s export support and promotion delivery showed that supported companies achieved £1.6 billion in additional exports; companies that received support grew exports by 140 per cent more than similar firms without support; 53 per cent of companies created or safeguarded jobs; and more than half introduced new products or improved processes, which shows strong wider economic impact.”
“At its core, the plan was clear that we best increase the percentage of exports comprising Scotland’s GDP by focusing on those companies, sectors of the economy and international markets that offer Scotland the greatest export growth potential. Of course, the world evolves and changes, and so does the work that we do within the framework of “A Trading Nation”. Since 2019, we have flexed our delivery to meet the challenges of the pandemic and Brexit, but also to seize emerging opportunities. We have published a series of sector export plans, including for the renewables and hydrogen sectors, to take action now to seize the opportunities of the future.”
“I think that that makes the point that it was— Stephen Kerr: Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Kate Forbes: I am four minutes in and that would be the fourth intervention, so I will keep going. We can all agree that exporters need additional support, and we are providing it through a six-point export plan that was announced in the most recent programme for government. We have been explicitly clear on the crucial contribution that export growth makes to Scotland’s economic prosperity. As Daniel Johnson said, in 2019, we published the first export growth plan—“A Trading Nation: a plan for growing Scotland’s exports”.”
“I am very grateful to the Deputy First Minister for giving way—she is always very generous in that way. The original paper “A Trading Nation: a plan for growing Scotland’s exports”, which came out after Brexit, set a clear target of raising exports to 25 per cent of gross domestic product. How is Scotland faring against that clear target? Kate Forbes: If it is okay to do so, I will come on to talk about “A Trading Nation” and will set out a little more of the details. Our analysis has shown that, as a result of Brexit, our trade in goods with the EU was 12 per cent lower in 2021—the first year of the United Kingdom-EU trade and co-operation agreement. We have worked really hard to continue— Stephen Kerr: No wonder—it was during Covid. Kate Forbes: I hear the member saying, “No wonder”.”
“Discussions continue on the loan from Scottish Enterprise to GFG—the £7 million plus interest payment—but it is in everyone’s interest to get the plant back up and running so that it is in a position to generate revenue and not only support jobs but, in time, repay the loan from the public purse. I think that we would all agree that it was right to keep the plant operating and paying wages. With regard to the future, as contingency plans are developed, GFG is in discussions about the sale of the Clydebridge plant. I stress that, although GFG Alliance has been working through challenges, that has not impacted on the Scottish plants. However, should something happen to GFG, we have contingency plans in place to continue operations at the Dalzell plant and to seek alternative routes for the Lochaber and Dalzell sites.”
“If the site were to cease operations, there would be significant contingent liability for the Scottish Government, so will the minister provide an updated statement on the scale of the contingent liability for clean-up? Ivan McKee: The order for Navantia, which had been placed with the Dalzell plant and which Daniel Johnson referenced, is moving forward. Commercial discussions are happening but, according to the latest information that we have, the business has secured the working capital to enable it to start production. As I said in my statement, we hope that that will happen in the next few weeks, so there is no plan or need to put more Government money in to support it.”
“I, too, thank the minister for advance sight of his statement and agree with him that our focus has to be on securing the sites and the jobs. I also remind members that I am a member of the Community trade union. In his statement the minister said that there is no immediate risk to the taxpayer. However, given the meetings, the fact that a statement has been given, and the fact that 15 GFG entities across nine jurisdictions are in insolvency, there are clearly concerns, particularly about Dalzell. Given that there are orders on the books but the site is furloughed, there is clearly a working-capital issue. Will the minister confirm the likely forecast for the repayment of the loan to Scottish Enterprise? Will it be extended to provide the lacking working capital? Would that be contingent on some sort of equity in return?”
“Shona Robison and Angus Robertson have said it. The SNP needs to explain to us where the £14 billion—because that is the size of the fiscal transfer—would come from, either in growth or in additional taxation. We did not hear an answer. Two parties in the chamber want us to forget their errors, their mistakes and the very real costs that they have passed on to every Scot in the country. That is why we need a change in direction—a Government that understands public expenditure, which will use it wisely and which understands that, to grow the economy, we do not cut public services but invest in them. 15:47”
“I was at a round table at the start of this week, at which we discovered that health tech businesses, rather than flourishing in Scotland with our £25 billion- plus expenditure in health, are having to leave this country in order to grow. That is the reality. Scottish Government expenditure, which is significant and growing, does not help to grow the economy; it forces companies out. Michael Marra was absolutely right: there has been no acknowledgement of the £5.2 billion that has come forward from the UK Government since Labour was elected, nor of the £9 billion over the spending review. The SNP asks us to completely ignore the £2,500 per person that the Barnett formula provides us with. This is important. It is not about independence. The party opposite believes in full fiscal autonomy. That is now the SNP’s official position.”
“I understand that, right now, meetings to look for savings are happening because the Government is concerned about the finances in this financial year. More important, the debate was meant to be about the economy. Although the parties are similar, their mistakes are slightly different. The Conservatives want us to believe that we will cut our way to growth. That misunderstands the role of the state and public services in their interaction with the economy. The SNP wants us to believe that we can tax our way to growth, which is, to be frank, short-sighted. Most important, both positions misunderstand how the Government should seek to use its money to support the economy in partnership.”
“In a sense, what we have discovered is that the two parties that are across the chamber from mine are probably more similar than they care to remember. Both want us to have exceedingly short memories. The Conservatives want us to forget that, in 2022, their party caused the single most drastic one-day economic event in this country’s history since 1993—the previous time that they did it—resulting in the shortest career for a British Prime Minister in political history. Likewise, when Ivan McKee gets to his feet and professes that the Scottish Government has balanced its budget every year that it has been in office, the SNP wants us to forget that, for the past three years, its Government has had to introduce emergency budget measures every September.”
“In the contribution that we have just heard from Lorna Slater, there is an important point that speaks to the Government’s amendment. If the Government were at all serious about a wealth tax, it would have done exactly what Lorna Slater set out: it would have reformed council tax and non-domestic rates, because they are taxes on wealth. However, for 18 years, the Government has shown absolutely no interest or seriousness about doing either of those things. That exposes the Scottish Government for what it is. This afternoon’s debate has been—somewhat predictably—frustrating, but, in a sense, quite helpful, because— Ben Macpherson: Will the member take an intervention? Daniel Johnson: I want to make some progress.”
“I am already on my feet, Deputy Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government what information it holds on the number of children currently waiting for an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder assessment and the median length of wait. (S6O-04908)”
“To ask the Scottish Government what steps it has taken on digital exclusion to address the “weakened” national leadership referred to by Audit Scotland in its report “Tackling digital exclusion”, which was published 12 months ago. (S6O-04868)”
“That is absolutely vital, and it is what we expect our joined-up services, which involve local government and health boards, to deliver. That is what I want to see, and it is what the national specification aims to do. It is also what the work of the task force that will follow the review will seek to deliver. We will discuss that issue when we have the cross-party summit later in the year.”
“Tom Arthur: I recognise that Daniel Johnson is bringing his expertise and experience to bear on an issue that he has championed in the Parliament. In my statement I recognised explicitly that a diagnosis can be transformational, because it enables people to access medication—I made that point. I quoted the NICE guidance simply to highlight that other forms of non-pharmacological support are also important, and are often used as a first-line intervention. The other key point that I want to convey is that, when someone is waiting for an assessment or a diagnosis, that should not be a barrier to their receiving support. Just as the absence of a diagnosis should not be a barrier to their obtaining that, neither should the fact that they are waiting for an assessment.”
“Although it is true that the NICE guidance suggests that, for children, other forms of therapy should be pursued, it also states: “If the behavioural and/or attention problems persist with at least moderate impairment, the child or young person should be referred to secondary care (that is, a child psychiatrist, paediatrician, or specialist ADHD CAMHS) for assessment.” The minister must not partially quote the NICE guidance in that way. If CAMHS is not the right pathway for diagnosis, what is? When will that pathway be implemented and will it require co- occurring conditions? If it does, the only option will be to access diagnosis privately, which will cost thousands of pounds that many families cannot afford.”
“As someone with ADHD who takes medication on a daily basis, I have to take issue with some of the assertions in the statement. The minister stated that non-pharmacological support can also be helpful and that people may choose to take other forms of therapy. However, the reverse of that is also true. For many people like me, medication will make the biggest difference, but most importantly, how can we choose unless we have a diagnosis? We need that to be in place first. The minister also misquotes the NICE guidance.”
“Amendment 29 disagreed to. Amendment 30 not moved. Section 31—Meaning of “relevant educational establishment” and “excepted establishment” Amendments 31, 32 and 205 not moved. 16:45 After section 31 Amendment 206 not moved. Section 33—The advisory function Amendments 33 and 34 not moved. After section 33 Amendment 35 moved—[Stephen Kerr]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 35 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed.”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer, my app would not connect. I would have voted no. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I will make sure that that vote is recorded, Mr Johnson. For Balfour, Jeremy (Lothian) (Con) Briggs, Miles (Lothian) (Con) Burnett, Alexander (Aberdeenshire West) (Con) Carlaw, Jackson (Eastwood) (Con) Carson, Finlay (Galloway and West Dumfries) (Con) Dowey, Sharon (South Scotland) (Con) Eagle, Tim (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Fraser, Murdo (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Gallacher, Meghan (Central Scotland) (Con) Gosal, Pam (West Scotland) (Con) Gulhane, Sandesh (Glasgow) (Con) Hamilton, Rachael (Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire) (Con) Halcro Johnston, Jamie (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Kerr, Liam (North East Scotland) (Con) Kerr, Stephen (Central Scotland) (Con) Lumsden, Douglas (North East Scotland) (Con) McCall, Roz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Mountain, Edward (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Mundell, Oliver (Dumfriesshire) (Con) Ross, Douglas (Highlands and Islands) (Con) Simpson, Graham (Central Scotland) (Con) Smith, Liz (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Stewart, Alexander (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con) Webber, Sue (Lothian) (Con) Wells, Annie (Glasgow) (Con) Against Adam, George (Paisley) (SNP) Adam, Karen (Banffshire and Buchan Coast) (SNP) Adamson, Clare (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) Allan, Alasdair (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) Arthur, Tom (Renfrewshire South) (SNP) Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab) Baker, Claire (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Beattie, Colin (Midlothian North and Musselburgh) (SNP) Bibby, Neil (West Scotland) (Lab) Brown, Keith (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane) (SNP) Brown, Siobhian (Ayr) (SNP) Burgess, Ariane (Highlands and Islands) (Green) Callaghan, Stephanie (Uddingston and Bellshill) (SNP) Chapman, Maggie (North East Scotland) (Green) Choudhury, Foysol (Lothian) (Lab) Clark, Katy (West Scotland) (Lab) Coffey, Willie (Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley) (SNP) Cole-Hamilton, Alex (Edinburgh Western) (LD) Constance, Angela (Almond Valley) (SNP) Dey, Graeme (Angus South) (SNP) Doris, Bob (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn) (SNP) Dornan, James (Glasgow Cathcart) (SNP) Dunbar, Jackie (Aberdeen Donside) (SNP) Duncan-Glancy, Pam (Glasgow) (Lab) Fairlie, Jim (Perthshire South and Kinross-shire) (SNP) FitzPatrick, Joe (Dundee City West) (SNP) Gibson, Kenneth (Cunninghame North) (SNP) Gilruth, Jenny (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP) Gougeon, Mairi (Angus North and Mearns) (SNP) Grahame, Christine (Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale) (SNP) Grant, Rhoda (Highlands and Islands) (Lab) Greene, Jamie (West Scotland) (LD) Greer, Ross (West Scotland) (Green) Griffin, Mark (Central Scotland) (Lab) Harper, Emma (South Scotland) (SNP) Harvie, Patrick (Glasgow) (Green) Haughey, Clare (Rutherglen) (SNP) Hepburn, Jamie (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) (SNP) Hyslop, Fiona (Linlithgow) (SNP) Johnson, Daniel (Edinburgh Southern) (Lab) Kidd, Bill (Glasgow Anniesland) (SNP) Lennon, Monica (Central Scotland) (Lab) Leonard, Richard (Central Scotland) (Lab) Lochhead, Richard (Moray) (SNP) MacDonald, Gordon (Edinburgh Pentlands) (SNP) MacGregor, Fulton (Coatbridge and Chryston) (SNP) Mackay, Gillian (Central Scotland) (Green) [Proxy vote cast by Ross Greer] Mackay, Rona (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP) Macpherson, Ben (Edinburgh Northern and Leith) (SNP) Maguire, Ruth (Cunninghame South) (SNP) [Proxy vote cast by Rona Mackay] Marra, Michael (North East Scotland) (Lab) Martin, Gillian (Aberdeenshire East) (SNP) Mason, John (Glasgow Shettleston) (Ind) Matheson, Michael (Falkirk West) (SNP) McAllan, Màiri (Clydesdale) (SNP) McLennan, Paul (East Lothian) (SNP) McMillan, Stuart (Greenock and Inverclyde) (SNP) McNair, Marie (Clydebank and Milngavie) (SNP) McNeill, Pauline (Glasgow) (Lab) Minto, Jenni (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) Mochan, Carol (South Scotland) (Lab) Nicoll, Audrey (Aberdeen South and North Kincardine) (SNP) O’Kane, Paul (West Scotland) (Lab) Rennie, Willie (North East Fife) (LD) Robertson, Angus (Edinburgh Central) (SNP) Robison, Shona (Dundee City East) (SNP) Roddick, Emma (Highlands and Islands) (SNP) Rowley, Alex (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab) Russell, Davy (Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse) (Lab) Sarwar, Anas (Glasgow) (Lab) Slater, Lorna (Lothian) (Green) Smyth, Colin (South Scotland) (Lab) Somerville, Shirley-Anne (Dunfermline) (SNP) Stevenson, Collette (East Kilbride) (SNP) Stewart, Kaukab (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP) Stewart, Kevin (Aberdeen Central) (SNP) Sturgeon, Nicola (Glasgow Southside) (SNP) Sweeney, Paul (Glasgow) (Lab) Swinney, John (Perthshire North) (SNP) Thomson, Michelle (Falkirk East) (SNP) Todd, Maree (Caithness, Sutherland and Ross) (SNP) Torrance, David (Kirkcaldy) (SNP) Tweed, Evelyn (Stirling) (SNP) Villalba, Mercedes (North East Scotland) (Lab) Whitfield, Martin (South Scotland) (Lab) Whitham, Elena (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) (SNP) Wishart, Beatrice (Shetland Islands) (LD) Yousaf, Humza (Glasgow Pollok) (SNP) The Deputy Presiding Officer: The result of the division is: For 25, Against 88, Abstentions 0.”
“However, as a last resort, once all steps have been taken in relation to voluntary severance and redeployment, and there is no other route and no jobs for the people involved, compulsory redundancy can be considered, but only at the end of that process. I have been engaging with the unions and the Scottish Trades Union Congress on that, and we believe that the reductions can be made through natural attrition and voluntary severance. Only in that extreme position would compulsory redundancy be enabled, and we do not see that happening in very many cases.”
“Are those targets compatible with the policy of no compulsory redundancies? Shona Robison: Daniel Johnson asks some very important questions. First, because of the scale of the challenge in recent years and across the medium term, the health service will receive a 3.3 per cent real-terms increase in funding. That is important. However, like the health service in England, the NHS in Scotland will require to undertake reform and make efficiencies. In England, about £9 billion will have to be saved by 2028-29, which is about 4.4 per cent of the NHS budget. We are requiring the health service in Scotland to undertake reform, with a particular focus on back-office and corporate costs, in order to protect front-line services. I have set out that the no compulsory redundancies policy will be maintained as the default position.”
“As has already been mentioned, the fiscal sustainability delivery plan sets out that the devolved public sector workforce will fall by 0.5 per cent in each of the next five years. Given that the public sector workforce in Scotland consists of 469,000 people, I make it that that will involve a decrease of 2,300 a year, which will result in a cumulative reduction of 11,700 jobs. Such stark action is perhaps unsurprising, given that the NHS head count has increased by just one third of that, and the numbers of police, fire, local government and college staff have all gone down over the past five years. Can the cabinet secretary confirm that we are looking at a reduction of more than 11,000 full-time equivalent posts? Will NHS and other front-line services be protected?”
“He would have heard me mention in my statement the £350 million underspend that was planned from the spring budget revision in January and carried forward into next year. That sits in the finance and local government budget line. In fact, local government overspent by £22 million in 2023-24, as a consequence of the late approval of the relevant local government pay deal. Far from the situation that Daniel Johnson outlined, we have slightly overspent in supporting local government on the pay of its workers. The £350 million that he talked about was identified earlier in the year as part of a planned underspend to support the 2025-26 budget.”
“The finance and local government line shows a £324 million underspend, which represents around 40 per cent of the total cash underspend in the statement. All members will be aware of how hard pressed local services are, the fact that there was a council tax freeze this year, and the requirement to find additional money for pay, especially for social care workers. Three hundred million pounds would have made a substantial contribution towards dealing with those issues, so why is there an underspend of such a substantial sum in that critical area, given the importance of local services? Ivan McKee: I would have thought that Daniel Johnson would have taken the time to interrogate the numbers a bit more thoroughly.”
“I appeal to members to consider what the company specifically cites as its primary challenges, so that, instead of going off to try to fix things that politicians have come up with, we try to fix the issues that the company has identified as needing to be fixed.”
“A number of those were not able to be delivered by the company, so the final order for ADL involved fewer vehicles, but it is important that the record reflects the truth in relation to securing orders. I am quite astonished that Daniel Johnson asked me to review the Subsidy Control Act 2022, which is a reserved matter. We are looking at how we can support domestic manufacturing, and we have been engaging with the UK Government on that. He will know that procurement rules are broadly aligned across Scotland and the UK at large. All awards of public contracts must comply with the provisions in procurement legislation. To directly answer Daniel Johnson, we are looking at all options.”
“Based on advice from the Cabinet Office, I understand that variation can be made through a direct award in relation to social value and by disregarding non-treaty state suppliers such as China. The Scottish Government might want to consult mayoralties that have used those aspects. What assessment has been made on overreliance on a single country of manufacture for bus supply, given that buses are critical transport infrastructure? What steps will be taken to use the Scottish Government’s convening power to convene bus operators, both private and public, in order to bring forward orders and facilitate the order book that the 400 Alexander Dennis workers so badly need? Kate Forbes: Another helpful clarification, I hope, for Daniel Johnson is that ADL secured orders for 72 of the 252 vehicles in ScotZEB 2.”
“I thank the Deputy First Minister for advance sight of her statement. As a matter of record, last year, under those contracts, there were 252 bus awards, but only 44 went to Alexander Dennis. The figures that the Deputy First Minister quoted for Manchester are since 2022, whereas the figures that she quoted for Scotland are since 2020. A cross-party group of MSPs met workers from Alexander Dennis. Two things are very clear from that meeting. First, the urgency of the matter is clear—if there is no action within weeks, jobs will be lost by August—and, secondly, we need orders on the book. Will the Scottish Government undertake an urgent review of the Subsidy Control Act 2022?”
“To unlock the £1 billion, we need to accelerate what we are doing on automation and we need process redesign, simplification and removal of duplication. That stuff does not happen overnight, but we are working through it as quickly as we can so that we deliver real lasting change that will continue to make services better, rather than just swinging the axe and cutting them or making them worse in the short term.”
“On shrinking the state, he is absolutely right. We are not talking about saving £1 billion for the sake of it. It is £1 billion that we can then invest in front- line services. As I said, my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government will give more information on the detail of that next week. On waste, I think that Daniel Johnson will accept, given his business background, that this is absolutely a journey. We have delivered some significant savings, which I identified in my statement and in the strategy document. Police reorganisation continues to save us £200 million a year, and there are many other examples in the document. As I identified, in the past two years, we have saved another £280 million through the programmes that we have taken forward.”
“We have done the root cause analysis—and we have attempted to put it in an accessible format in the document—to understand why leaders optimise in their silos but not collaboratively across the system; how, in the way that we hold public bodies to account, we incentivise them to work within their silos and not integrate across the system; how budget processes also incentivise organisations and portfolios to optimise in their silos but not to invest across the system, including, importantly, in preventative measures; how the policy landscape has become too complicated, meaning that it requires to be simplified; and how we can look at structures to enable that to happen. Those levers are clearly set out, but we are always open to discussion on anything else that Daniel Johnson believes needs to be addressed as part of that activity.”
“What will address that and make sure that we focus investment on the front line? Thirdly, the minister again mentioned root causes. That is an acknowledgement that we have £1 billion-worth of waste. How did that happen and what will prevent it in the future? Ivan McKee: I know that Daniel Johnson is earnest in his efforts to support reform and make sure that we do the right thing for the interests of everybody in Scotland. The levers are laid out clearly in the statement.”
“Presiding Officer, I, too, apologise to you and members for my late arrival. I thank the minister more emphatically than usual for advance sight of his statement. The one thing that we could not accuse the Government of is rushing into this. It is only 14 years since the Christie commission published its results. Although I welcome the overall sentiment, I fear that this is just a plan for a plan and the creation of another board. The minister said that we need an analysis of the key levers, but can he specify what they are? Secondly, reform is, to my mind, not about shrinking the state; it is about maximising its effectiveness. We must not ignore the fact that, over the past decade, the civil service has grown at three times the rate of the NHS, while police, fire and college head counts have all fallen.”
“To make that distinction is, therefore, to make a very false and, in fact, dangerous distinction.”
“Let me explain why I think that both those points are wrong. Since the start of the Ukraine conflict— or the most recent phase of it, I should say— 950,000 Russians have been wounded or have died, according to the most recent available figures. In response to that threat, the UK has afforded £12.8 billion of support. That has included tanks and air defence, including the development of the Gravehawk system, which has been carried out in conjunction with Denmark. We have provided long-range missiles and 30,000 drones and have trained 51,000 Ukrainian servicepeople. The point is that that support has not just been systems, tanks or equipment—it has included munitions. In fact, it has depleted our stocks. Support of Ukraine and, presumably, defence of this country will require the manufacturing of munitions to take place.”
“I welcome the statement that the Deputy First Minister made at the beginning of her speech underlining the importance of the defence sector. It is not the first time that she has made such a statement in the chamber, but—let us be plain— the statements that she and the First Minister have made in recent months are a change in position, and pretending otherwise is, frankly, just not being straightforward. I say that because I fear that some of the distinctions that the SNP draws in its amendment mean that it is still making some of the same mistakes. The distinction between munitions and other types of defence spending is a false one. It is also incorrect, at a time of acute and heightened global and geopolitical risk, to say that we should be divesting and diversifying away from defence industries and expenditure.”
“If the SNP cannot provide that leadership, it should step aside for the Scottish Conservatives, who will. I have pleasure in moving, That the Parliament recognises the significance of the defence industry to Scotland’s economy, in providing secure, well-paid and highly skilled jobs and in driving innovation in the science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) sector; notes that proposed increased spending on defence provides a substantial opportunity for growth; regrets that Scottish Government policy has meant that a Scottish Enterprise grant to support the Rolls-Royce specialist naval welding skills centre in Glasgow for submarine construction has been refused, and calls on the Scottish Government to drop the policy, which prevents public funds being invested in projects such as this. 16:09”
“The approach does not make any logical sense either. SNP policy is for Scotland to become independent. In that case, presumably, we would need armed forces, and those armed forces would need to be supplied with weaponry and equipment. Is the SNP really saying that, in that event, it wants all that to be imported rather than manufactured here, and the jobs to go elsewhere? None of that makes any sense. What we see from the SNP is the politics of the student union, not of a grown-up Government that continually tells us that it is supportive of the Scottish economy and Scottish jobs. That is why the SNP needs to think again on its short-sighted and destructive policy. Scotland needs a grown-up Government, not one that is run by wannabe student politicians playing silly political games at the cost of real jobs and real wages.”
“Murdo Fraser is absolutely right. Does that situation not also stand in contrast with the attacks on our communications infrastructure in the North Sea, and is it not therefore absolutely critical that the UK Government has stepped in to provide that £2.5 million funding? Murdo Fraser: Yes. I welcome the fact that the UK Government has stepped in, because those jobs and that investment would have gone elsewhere. Steve Carlier, president of submarines at Rolls-Royce, made it very clear: “the project cannot continue, and the facility will not be built and resourced in Scotland”. If the UK Government has stepped in, that is good news, but it is no thanks to the SNP Government. The project did not involve weapons or munitions; it was simply the building of submarines. The SNP’s approach is naive and immature.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: George Adam is the final speaker in the open debate. 15:37”
“Ultimately, there is a lack of engagement with the economic performance gap, which is dismissed as a technicality. It is not a technicality. The performance gap boils down to a difference in the earnings of everyday Scots; it is about tax receipts. It is instructive that the cabinet secretary could not answer my question about the increase in GDP per head since 2016—it is 4.4 per cent for the UK and 2.6 per cent for Scotland. That date is important because 2016 is the year against which fiscal devolution is benchmarked; it dictates how much money we have to spend. The fact that the cabinet secretary could not answer that question and does not understand its relevance tells us everything that we need to know about the Scottish Government’s incompetence when it comes to public finances and the economy.”
“Shona Robison: Does Daniel Johnson recognise that a large portion of that increase is due to the establishment of Social Security Scotland and the devolution of welfare benefits? Daniel Johnson: Social Security Scotland accounts for 3,000 of the head-count increase, which is less than a third. The total head-count increase is between 8,000 and 9,000, and about a third of that is from Social Security Scotland, so that is not an adequate answer. This comes at a time when we have £6.7 billion- worth of waste from things such as ferries and scrapped deposit return schemes and when the Scottish Government seems to seek to reheat the arguments for full fiscal autonomy, with the loss of the 20 per cent premium that we gain through the Barnett formula.”
“Frankly, I think that Willie Rennie was absolutely right to say that public service reform should be routine—it should be boring, measured and continual. The problem is that the Scottish Government has postponed it for 18 years. However, the Conservatives have made a critical mistake, because such reform is not about shrinking the state but about looking at where head-count increases should occur. The reality is that, over the past decade, civil service head count has increased by 71 per cent—that is three times the rate of head-count increase in the NHS and 10 times that of local government—while police head count has fallen by 6 per cent and that of further education by 10 per cent.”
“With straight faces, the Scottish Conservatives are coming to the chamber with exactly the same uncosted tax cuts as were proposed by the UK Conservative Government that led to the calamity of increased mortgage bills, a run on the pound and a run on the cost of UK borrowing. That is simply not credible. Craig Hoy: Will Daniel Johnson give way? Daniel Johnson: I am happy to give way if Craig Hoy can explain why the Scottish Conservatives are doing that. Craig Hoy: Does Mr Johnson think that the people who are watching the debate will find it a bit rich that the Labour Party, which broke its promise on tax, is lecturing the Parliament about tax? Daniel Johnson: With that, we find out that the Conservatives have learned precisely nothing. Let us look at public service reform.”
“We need to lower the temperature a bit. As members know, I always like to strike a consensual tone, so I thank the Government and the Conservatives for providing arguments that I can agree with. I agree with the Conservatives that the Scottish Government suddenly furnishing us with the figure of £1 billion of waste a year is somewhat striking, in relation to both the quantum and the fact that it has taken the Government 18 years to come forward with that. In turn, I agree with the Government that it is somewhat ironic for the Conservatives to present such a miraculous plan. I note that the savings are not added up in the Conservatives’ documentation, so we do not know whether their sums add up at all. When did we last hear about a 19p basic tax rate? That is right—it was in the mini-budget from Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng.”
“The spending review was disappointing for resource and capital spend and infrastructure investment. The Deputy Presiding Officer: You will need to conclude. Shona Robison: To come back to the point about public service reform, tomorrow Ivan McKee will set out the detail of what we have been doing and what we will do. We will do it in a way that is sustainable and works out the detail, not the nonsense that we have heard from the Tories today. I move amendment S6M-17980.2, to leave out from “notes” to end and insert: “believes that public service reform must be an ongoing process in order to deliver the best use of public funding, and recognises that the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party’s arbitrary scheme would lead to a cut in available public funding for vital services like the NHS.” 15:06”
“Shona Robison: Craig Hoy talked about an economic performance gap, but Professor Graeme Roy from the Scottish Fiscal Commission has been clear that, in the context of income tax, that does not refer to an assessment of Scottish Government policy or performance—rather, it is “purely a technical measure and is not meant to be a commentary on Scottish Government performance.”— [Official Report, Finance and Public Administration Committee, 10 December 2024; c 37.] That is what Graeme Roy from the Scottish Fiscal Commission has said. To conclude, last week’s spending review has not helped the position in Scotland. An increase of spending of just 0.8 per cent over the next three years, compared with an average of 1.2 per cent for UK departments, leaves us facing a £1.1 billion shortfall.”
“[Interruption.] I do not know why Daniel Johnson and the Opposition— Daniel Johnson: Will the cabinet secretary give way? Shona Robison: No, thank you. I do not know why Daniel Johnson and the Opposition cannot accept that it is a good thing that, since 2007, gross domestic product per person in Scotland has grown by 10.3 per cent compared with 6.1 per cent in the UK. Why can they not simply accept that that is a good thing? Daniel Johnson: Will the cabinet secretary give way? Craig Hoy: Will the cabinet secretary give way? The Deputy Presiding Officer: The cabinet secretary is now in her final minute.”
“Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Shona Robison: I will later, if I have time. Since 2007, gross domestic product per person in Scotland has grown by 10.3 per cent, compared with 6.1 per cent in the UK, and productivity has grown at an average rate of 1.1 per cent per year, compared with a UK average of 0.4 per cent. Most recently, in 2024, Scotland’s economy grew by 1.2 per cent, compared with a UK rate of 1.1 per cent. I will give way to Daniel Johnson. The Deputy Presiding Officer: It will need to be very brief, Mr Johnson. Daniel Johnson: Would the cabinet secretary care to quote those figures since 2016 and acknowledge whether they are higher or lower for Scotland compared with the UK for that time period? Shona Robison: It is the long-term growth that matters.”