Ross Greer
Scottish Green Party · Scotland
“In the short term, will the Government introduce measures such as the Scottish Greens’ proposed Amazon tax—a higher rate of NDR for large online retailers—to help even the playing field for small businesses and local high streets?”
“I welcome the fact that vape shops will now be paying full rates. However, that shows how poorly designed the small business bonus scheme was in the first place. The Government spends more than £200 million a year on untargeted reliefs, despite its own review finding no economic benefit to the scheme.”
“Scotland faces a wave of applications for hyperscale data centres. If all the applications that are currently in the pipeline were approved, they would consume up to 6,000MW of power, which is more than one and a half times our entire national power use at peak time and is obviously completely impossible.”
“The Government’s policy is to support what it refers to as “green” data centres, but that position was decided before ChatGPT existed, before Elon Musk launched Grok and before any of those hyperscale proposals came forward. So, what is the Scottish Government’s definition of a “green” data centre?”
“I am glad that the Labour Party has secured a debate on restoring public trust in Scottish politics, because, quite clearly, the public have very little trust in our political institutions. However, that did not begin and does not end with Peter Murrell’s crimes against the SNP.”
“If we want to talk about the damage that has been done to our politics in a UK context, we could mention Labour Together, an institution with strong links to the Prime Minister that was caught spying on journalists and did not declare substantial amounts of money that it had received in donations.”
The complete record
Every one of 553 lines we hold for Ross Greer, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 12.
“There is much more to do in the next session of Parliament and that must be underpinned by a far greater degree of honesty in our debates on tax and spending. It is not credible for parties to come to the Parliament demanding that the Government spends hundreds of millions of pounds more while also demanding that it cuts income tax or other forms of devolved taxation. My final point is about the need for us actually to spend less time debating Parliament’s tax powers because we have given far more control over tax to local government. Local government knows far better than a national Parliament what the economic, social and environmental needs of communities are.”
“There will always be a little bit more that we could do on income tax and we must always ensure that we maintain progressiveness in the system, but the focus now, and in the next session of Parliament, should be shifting the burden of taxation from work to wealth. The single biggest failure in the 27 years of this Parliament has been the failure to reform council tax. We have come so far on income tax and have been able to do an incredible amount for our constituents with the money that we have raised, but Scotland’s other major tax—and one that is paid by the vast majority of households—has been left untouched and is still the system that we inherited in 1991, when there was a quick and dirty compromise to replace the hated poll tax.”
“This year, the Scottish Greens did not propose any further changes to income tax as part of our budget negotiations because we believe that Scotland already has a progressive income tax system. We proposed changes elsewhere and I am glad that we were able to come to agreement with the Government on the introduction of a private jet tax that will properly tax 12,000 incredibly polluting flights into Scotland every year, on a new mansion tax, new bands for council tax and the removal of shooting estates from the small business bonus scheme, where they were masquerading as small businesses to receive tax benefits that they simply do not need.”
“Craig Hoy: I thank Mr Greer for quoting my words back at me, but does he accept that, because of the woeful underperformance of the Scottish economy under the SNP, that £1.8 billion drops to less than £1 billion? Ross Greer: I accept that the fiscal framework results in Scotland having to constantly compare its tax performance and income performance with those of London and south-east England. If the fiscal framework recognised that the economy of London and south-east England is so utterly different from that of everywhere else in the UK, Scotland would be in a very different position. There is a significant need for reform of the fiscal framework.”
“The current system is a result of that argument; it is a result of the early years of discussions between us and SNP colleagues in which we agreed to something quite different from the system that we had inherited from the UK Government. We now have the most progressive income tax system in the UK. As Craig Hoy said, the result of that is £1.8 billion more to spend each year on public services such as our NHS than would otherwise be the case. Without that money, we would not have been able to deliver policies such as the Scottish child payment or free bus travel for young people. Without that money, we would not have been able to make Scotland the only part of the UK in which child poverty is falling.”
“Scotland has been on a journey. Over the past decade, we have come quite far on that journey when it comes to income tax and progressive taxation more widely. The 2016 election was the first election to this Parliament in which tax was a major topic of debate. Some wanted tax cuts and others wanted small tax increases, but, by and large, most of the proposals were all or nothing: either everyone’s income tax would go up, everyone’s income tax would go down or the rates would stay the same. However, the Greens made the case for a different system. We wanted a system in which those on higher incomes contributed more and those on lower incomes paid less.”
“We would lower tax, increase growth, tackle the benefits bill and, in turn, generate the tax receipts that are needed to build a fairer and better Scotland—a Scotland where hard work is rewarded, where excellence returns to our public services and where efficiency is at the heart of Government. However, we will never get that from this failed SNP Government and this failed First Minister. That is why we will vote against the income tax resolution tonight. 16:29”
“We would do what Mr McKee seems incapable of doing by cutting the civil service back to 2016 levels. We would reduce quangos by a quarter, and we would fix Scotland’s broken benefits system. Anyone who has watched the Scottish Government’s actions could be forgiven for thinking that the Parliament only has tax-raising powers, but that is not the case—it has tax-varying powers. However, under the SNP, the levers are only ever pulled one way—towards ever higher tax. It has never tried to cut tax in any meaningful way; a tax cut of £32 a year is not a meaningful tax cut. It has never tried to apply the logic of the Laffer curve. Scots are sick and tired of paying more for the SNP’s failed projects and misplaced priorities, but there is a different way—a commonsense, Conservative way.”
“Craig Hoy says that the Tories would close the spending gap by cutting the benefits bill. The last estimates that I saw in studies in The BMJ and The Lancet showed that there were between 100,000 and 300,000 excess deaths across the UK as a result of UK Tory Government austerity. What does he think the impact would be of his proposed cuts to Scotland’s social security system? Craig Hoy: The IFS has said that the Scottish Government is living in a parallel universe, and I think that Ross Greer is quoting data from a parallel planet. In relation to the Scottish child payment, on the introduction of which there was consensus, one in 10 recipients of that payment have changed the way that they interact with the labour market. Therefore, it is a far more complex issue than Mr Greer makes it out to be.”
“I repeat the position, which is this: the key point is that the minute was sent after an independent prosecutor had taken a decision to indict the case. It was not an opportunity to influence this case at all. It was about informing of a significant development, which was, at that stage, entering the public domain. I was seeking to protect the process, because that is what, as Lord Advocate, I am required to do: uphold the rule of law and protect the process.”
“The Presiding Officer: I remind members to avoid mentioning specifics of the case. The Lord Advocate: The figure appears on the indictment, and it was, therefore, a figure that I was able to share. As I have said, the fact is that, from the point at which the indictment was served, there was no limitation on its terms being made public, and the timing of my minute to the First Minister, after service of the indictment, reflected that. It is important to say that I am answering to the Parliament today, but it really is not appropriate to comment on the substance of a live case beyond matters of process. I simply reiterate that it is critically important to protect this live case to ensure that, at the end of the day, justice is served.”
“I echo the colleagues who have rejected the deeply irresponsible allegations of corruption against the Lord Advocate. I accept that there is precedent for informing the First Minister of significant cases, and I welcome that the Lord Advocate is going to supply the Parliament with examples. However, I want to repeat the specifics of Jamie Greene’s question. Although I recognise that the Lord Advocate cannot comment on the specifics of a live case, I am keen to understand not why the First Minister was informed of the developments in this case—I understand that there is precedent for that—but why the detail of the £460,000 figure was included. If the Lord Advocate could explain why that detail was included in the update to the First Minister, I would certainly appreciate further clarification on that point.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the debate on ending US military use of Scottish airports. There will be a brief pause before we move to the next item of business, to allow front benches to change over. Mossmorran (Just Transition Fund)”
“So much of what they said during the debate about the actions of Trump’s Administration was absolutely correct. What should the consequences be? What is our moral obligation when our ally uses our assets to breach international law, abuse human rights and rob people of due process within our territory? What should be the consequences of such behaviour? The Scottish Government has the opportunity to stand with the Greens today, to stand up for Scotland and to show the Trump Administration that there are consequences to breaching not just international law but Scots law. Any Government that claims to stand up for Scotland should take that action, to show that there are consequences and to respect not just the sovereignty of the UK as a whole but Scots law and the importance that this Parliament places on it.”
“Neil Bibby said that foreign militaries must abide by our law, but, once again, just a matter of weeks ago, a foreign military breached our law and the Labour Party had nothing to say about it—there was not even a suggestion that there should be any consequences for that. I simply cannot understand this behaviour. It stinks. It reeks of double standards. I would call on SNP colleagues to reconsider their positions. We have heard unionists this afternoon deny the legitimacy of even debating the operations of an airport that an SNP Scottish Government owns. That is totally unacceptable, but it is what we have come to expect from our unionist colleagues. SNP colleagues, however, should take the opportunity to stand up for Scotland, Scots law and international law.”
“I do not expect my Tory or Labour colleagues to say anything different to what they have said, but Scottish Government colleagues know that what is going on is wrong, so I genuinely cannot understand this utterly subservient behaviour. With regard to what unionist colleagues have said, I note that Murdo Fraser is a lawyer. I would have thought that he would have had respect for the rule of law, but, just a matter of weeks ago, the US military breached Scots law, breached an order of the Court of Session, disrespected our Lord Advocate and breached UK sovereignty, and the Tories did not even turn up to hear about it. They had nothing to say about one of the most significant breaches of Scots law in decades.”
“Some people in this Parliament are happy to excuse any behaviour and any breach of not just international law but our domestic Scots law for the sake of economic benefits, but I ask them whether they would still take that position if the US had followed through on its threats against Greenland and if Prestwick, Wick or Benbecula had been used as staging points for military operations against one of our other NATO allies. I do not think that they would be saying that; I imagine that they would be saying very little out of shame at the position that they had previously taken. What I find frustrating is that the Scottish Government knows that this is wrong.”
“Again, the issue comes back to the point that Murdo Fraser made about other countries. The Greens do not pick and choose when we believe that international law should be respected or when we believe that human rights should be respected. We believe that every nation should uphold international law and respect human rights. In particular, we should hold our allies to a higher standard than our opponents. If the US is an ally of the UK, why do we not hold it to the same standard that we should apparently hold ourselves to?”
“A lot was said by many members about Russia’s war on Ukraine. I will again quote Professor Phillips O’Brien, because I know that many members in this chamber of various persuasions have a huge amount of respect for him. He said: “People need to understand what happened strategically in 2025. The US switched sides, helped Putin a great deal”. That is the state that is using an airport that this Government owns as a de facto military base for more than 500 flights in the past year—a state that has, for all intents and purposes, switched sides. Alex Cole-Hamilton made a number of fair points about the shadow fleet. Like a handful of other MSPs, I have been sanctioned by the Kremlin specifically for my campaigning to get the shadow fleet shut down and to end its operations in the UK, including here in Scotland.”
“That means that there is a precedent for what we are asking for. Our proposal is based on the risk of international law being breached, and there is no doubt that the US is also a state that is in breach of international law. I have found it surreal in this debate to hear British unionist colleagues defend a foreign military breaching the sovereignty of the UK. It was surreal to hear from colleagues who talk a lot in this chamber about the rule of law and the importance of law and order in this country, but who seem to be quite happy that there was absolutely no respect for the rule of law when it came to the abduction of the two individuals from that tanker in our waters—two individuals who were subject to our jurisdiction. That is not just subservience to Westminster, but subservience to the White House, which I find absolutely bizarre.”
“Scots law has been breached by the US military, which clearly could not give a damn about the UK’s sovereignty or the laws of this country. The cabinet secretary could not even answer my question about whether the Government actually believes that the current US Administration shares our values. I have to say that, although there was a lot that I found that I could agree with in speeches by other SNP members, the cabinet secretary’s speech could have been made by a unionist. That was what I took from it. He was entirely factually wrong when he said that the only party that can make a decision about flights in and out of these airports is the UK Government, because, despite the fact that the UK Government is a supporter of Israel, Prestwick airport has already banned Israeli military flights.”
“Are you content that what was just said in relation to the integrity of members of this Parliament be allowed to stand uncorrected? It was more than suggested—in fact, a direct accusation was made—that some of us are taking the positions that we are taking because of some kind of an inducement. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Kerr, if I had been dissatisfied with what was said, I would have intervened. This has been a robust debate and some challenging things have been said around the chamber. Let us continue. Mr Greer, I can give you the time back. Ross Greer: The First Minister has taken his attempts to establish a relationship with Donald Trump all the way to the Oval office, yet he still has nothing to show for it.”
“It is fair to say that this has been a somewhat surreal and—certainly from our perspective— disappointing debate. Some colleagues have given the impression that they thought that Donald Trump might be watching, so afraid have they been even to utter his name—or perhaps they were concerned about whether whoever it is at the US consulate whose job it is to decide which MSPs to offer free world cup tickets might be watching. Certain people are clearly trying to curry favour ahead of the summer. What I found most disappointing about the way in which the debate has been conducted is that it was an opportunity to stand up for Scotland, which is a slogan that the Scottish Government likes to use on a regular basis. However, the Scottish Government is failing to stand up for Scotland. Stephen Kerr: On a point of order, Presiding Officer.”
“That is founded on the belief that, if we want to maintain a rules-based international order, we must ourselves abide by those rules.”
“As a Parliament, time and again, we have stood with the people of Ukraine in defiance of aggression. I ask the Parliament to once again affirm its support for Ukraine and for international law and to condemn the devastation that has been caused by Russia. If we accept the principles of international law, we must support action where that law is flouted. Regimes that undermine the rule of law and illegally invade their neighbours should face consequences. It is therefore correct that Russia faces sanctions. This Government therefore supports the UK Government’s action against Russia’s shadow fleet—a fleet that prolongs the suffering by financing Russia’s aggression. I believe in international co-operation in partnership with our allies.”
“The cabinet secretary says that we need to work together with nations who share our values. Professor Phillips O’Brien, whom I know the cabinet secretary is a fan of, has said: “People need to understand what happened strategically in 2025. The US switched sides” and “helped Putin a great deal”. Does the Scottish Government believe that the current United States Administration shares our values? Angus Robertson: I am glad that the Greens have finally raised Ukraine and Russia in the debate. I will come on to the United States in a moment. Next week, as I mentioned, it will be four years since Russia’s illegal full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Russia predicted victory within days. Now, almost four years later, Ukraine continues its heroic fight for its survival, and Scotland has welcomed many displaced families who have sought refuge here.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 1 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No. The Deputy Presiding Officer: There will be a division. The vote is closed.”
“I believe that the measure has the potential to create difficulties in that area, by forcing schools as well as teachers and school leaders into an unenviable position in which they cannot win. I am grateful for the acceptance of amendments 1 and 5. I understand the intent of amendment 19, but I am concerned that we do not have any idea of the drafting. I understand the degree to which there will be consultation, but, before that consultation, there would have to be something to consult on. I would like to have seen thoughts on what that guidance would be. I think that Pam Gosal put the point well. I am concerned about exactly what the guidance will entail, given the power that it could have in shaping practice in our schools. On that basis, I will press amendment 1.”
“I ask Stephen Kerr not to move amendments 2, 3 and 4. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Stephen Kerr to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 1. Stephen Kerr: I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for accepting amendments 1 and 5—that is a most pleasant surprise on this Tuesday afternoon. I am grateful for the spirit in which the cabinet secretary has approached the intent and detail of the amendments. I remain concerned about the rights of parents, as indeed do all of us in the Conservatives. Martin Whitfield’s intervention on the cabinet secretary captured the point well that there is a tension between the rights of children and the rights of parents. Above all, our concern is for family life.”
“I mentioned school operators. Education authorities and the managers of grant-aided schools, as well as bodies that represent teachers, parents, and children and young people, would be among the mandatory consultees that I spoke about in response to Mr Whitfield. As with amendment 21 in the previous group, amendment 19 includes representatives of denominational schools. That is a recognition of their distinct interests and the importance of consulting the denominational sector. Finally, amendment 19 would place a requirement on ministers to publish the guidance within a certain time. That responds constructively to the committee’s discussion at stage 2 and offers a helpful and proportionate set of requirements for the statutory guidance. For those reasons, I support it. The Government is happy to support amendments 1, 5 and 19.”
“Does the cabinet secretary envisage that the guidance would be sensitive to what happens in cases involving a balancing of two different rights being arbitrated by another person? Will the guidance give advice on how to best handle that balance? Jenny Gilruth: I envisage that those discussions would very much be sensitive to that difference of opinion—I give the member an assurance on that point. We have heard a range of views on the development of the guidance, but it is important to say that, assuming that the bill is passed, the 12-month period will begin with consultation with the mandatory consultees. That is imperative. We have heard arguments from the member’s colleagues about why that is important if we are to recognise the difference that exists in our schools and reflect that in the statutory guidance.”
“I welcome the more careful framing of amendment 5, which provides reassurance without undermining trust in teachers, and I am therefore happy to support it. Amendment 19, in the name of Elena Whitham, would replace the existing ministerial power to issue statutory guidance with a duty to do so. It would also set out additional requirements regarding the content of that guidance, as we have heard, as well as the consultation that would have to take place during its development and the arrangements for its publication. Martin Whitfield: In amendment 19, subsection (2)(a) refers to “the process for considering a request” and subsection (2)(d) refers to “handling of discussion between pupils and parents”.”
“As it stands, the bill includes a presumption that a child is capable of forming a view unless the contrary is shown. That reflects the concept of “evolving capacities” under the UNCRC and also aligns with established legislative precedents, including the UNCRC (Incorporation) (Scotland) Act 2024. That capacity-based approach was supported by a majority of the committee’s members in its stage 1 report. For those reasons, I am unable to support amendments 2, 3 and 4. Stephen Kerr’s amendment 5 would require school operators to act impartially and not seek to influence a pupil’s views in relation to parental withdrawal requests. Mr Kerr lodged a similar amendment on that issue at stage 2, but it was phrased in such a way that it implied a lack of professionalism in schools.”
“They would be “presumed not to have the maturity to form a view on their withdrawal unless the contrary is shown.” That would effectively introduce an age-based threshold of 16 for the new pupil rights in the bill, which would go against existing legislation on children’s rights, as we have already heard this afternoon. Amendment 3 would specifically shift the test for whether a pupil can express a view from one that is based on capacity to one that is based on maturity. In doing so, the amendment does not align with the requirements of article 12 of the UNCRC and it conflicts with the wording in section 9A(3) of the bill, which refers to a pupil’s capability to form a view. That creates a level of confusion about the judgment that is required from the operator, without providing any clear benefit.”
“The amendment is consistent with the Government’s existing guidance on religious observance, which outlines that schools should provide worthwhile alternative activities for pupils who are withdrawn from such observance. For those reasons, like Mr Simpson, I am able to support amendment 1, and I encourage other members to do so. However, amendments 2, 3 and 4, also in the name of Mr Kerr, would significantly alter the bill’s approach to how pupils are involved in decisions about withdrawal from religious observance. Taken together, those amendments would remove the presumption that pupils under 16 should have their views considered in relation to a withdrawal request.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: I advise members—and they will probably have noted— that we will shortly reach the next time limit, and we still have a further group to debate. As a consequence, I am minded to accept a motion without notice, under rule 9.8.5A of standing orders, to extend the debate by 30 minutes. I ask the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills to move such a motion formally. Motion moved, That, under Rule 9.8.5A, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Jenny Gilruth] Motion agreed to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I now call the cabinet secretary. Jenny Gilruth: As we have heard, Stephen Kerr’s amendment 1 would require schools to ensure that “suitable and purposeful educational activity” is provided for any pupil who is withdrawn from religious observance.”
“Graham Simpson: Unfortunately for Stephen Kerr, the wording in amendment 3 is “be capable of forming” and “have the maturity to form”. Amendment 4 says: “A pupil under 16 years of age is presumed not to have the maturity to form a view unless the contrary is shown.” That is just wrong, because many children under the age of 16 are perfectly capable of forming a view. Where I have good news for Stephen Kerr— although he might not be bothered one way or the other—is that I find amendment 1 extremely sensible in that it says: “Where a pupil is withdrawn from religious observance,” we must ensure that there is some kind of “purposeful education activity during that period.” I can support his amendment 1 but not his other amendments. I will also support Elena Whitham’s amendment 19.”
“That is why I am testing the Parliament’s view on the matter and, indeed, Graham Simpson’s view. Graham Simpson: Stephen Kerr does not need to test my view. I am looking at the amendments that are in front of us, which do not mention parents. I accept that parents are part of the debate that we will have. [Interruption.] Stephen Kerr is chuntering from a sedentary position, but we need to look at the amendments that are in front of us. Stephen Kerr: The whole point of these amendments is to underscore the importance of the roles and responsibilities that parents have in relation to their children. I could not be clearer about why I have lodged the amendments and what the intention behind them is: it is to reinforce family life and the roles and responsibilities of parents.”
“On the issue of age, and particularly the age at which children are able to form a view, it is just not right to put a hard and fast figure on that—certainly not the age of 16. I can remember that, when I was at school—I am sure that Mr Kerr experienced this, too—there were pupils aged under 16 who were perfectly capable of forming a view on such an issue. 16:45 Stephen Kerr: Does Graham Simpson accept and understand that, in the context of the bill, we are also talking about the rights and responsibilities of parents? Surely, as a Parliament, we understand and accept that parents have an important role in the lives of their children until they reach the legal threshold. To set them aside, as the proposed legislation would, is a very bold thing to do.”
“Everything in the bill strengthens our compatibility with the UNCRC, so I do not accept that raising to 16 the age at which children are afforded the agency to make decisions on the matter will somehow ameliorate the tensions between those rights. This comes back to what sits right with people’s conscience. I wish it were otherwise on the age of criminal responsibility, but if we, as a Parliament, recognise that children have the maturity, and afford them the opportunity, at the age of 12, to make decisions on what is right and wrong when it comes to criminal acts, I do not see why we should suggest that they lack the ability to say what sits right with their conscience in matters of faith. Graham Simpson: I hate to say this to Stephen Kerr, but he has got some of this wrong.”
“Yes, there will always be tensions between the rights of groups in our societies. In this case, we are talking about the tensions between rights as a parent and the rights of the child. However, the Parliament has unanimously agreed to our commitment to incorporate the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child into Scots law. Stephen Kerr’s party voted unanimously in favour of that. Stephen Kerr: I think that I made it clear in my remarks that the UNCRC recognises the roles and responsibilities of parents and the evolving nature of the autonomy of a child. Alex Cole-Hamilton: The UNCRC offers us a blueprint as to how to navigate the tensions between those rights.”
“We cannot, on the one hand, recognise young people’s maturity in knowing the difference between right and wrong, or what sits well with their conscience in relation to criminal acts, but, on the other, deny them the same recognition when it comes to matters of faith. That is a fundamental inconsistency, and, for that reason, I believe that Stephen Kerr’s amendment is fundamentally flawed. Stephen Kerr: I respect Alex Cole-Hamilton’s point about the inconsistencies—after all, we have to deal with a variety of ages in this regard. However, does he not accept that the issue here is a matter of family life and the rights and responsibilities of parents? Surely that places a different shade on the matter than the approach that he is taking. Alex Cole-Hamilton: I welcome that important intervention, which gets to the very heart of this debate.”
“I lodged amendments that sought to raise it higher—to 14 and to 16 for various purposes—but it was, in large part, down to Mr Kerr’s party that the Parliament rejected both my amendments and left us with an age of responsibility that is lower than those in Russia and China. In relation to that piece of legislation and the age of criminal responsibility, the Conservatives attested that it was about understanding right from wrong. Surely the assessment of— Stephen Kerr: Will the member give way? Alex Cole-Hamilton: I will give way in a minute, but I want to make the point that understanding right and wrong and what sits well with people’s conscience is absolutely at the heart of the debate today.”
“Will Ms Gosal take an intervention? The Deputy Presiding Officer: Ms Gosal has finished her contribution. Alex Cole-Hamilton: As I hinted to Stephen Kerr in my earlier intervention, I now rise primarily to speak to amendment 2 and his attempt to introduce 16 as the age of presumed maturity in making decisions in this matter. Stephen Kerr freely admits that we, as a Parliament and a country, are inconsistent about the age at which we recognise maturity and offer autonomy to our children and young people. That has come from a very considered space in some regards. I raised the example of health matters, in which 12 is the age at which consent will be sought for medical processes and procedures. The age of criminal responsibility in this country was raised to 12 by legislation in the previous session of Parliament.”
“If the cabinet secretary is willing to continue those discussions, we will engage in them in good faith, and I hope that we will be able to reach an agreement before stage 3. 15:59”
“We know that families cannot afford skyrocketing bills, the cost of the weekly shop and the cost of their daily commute, regardless of what form of transport they use. We know that further change is possible. Yes, the powers of devolution are limited and, yes, Scotland’s public finances are under a huge amount of pressure, but there are options still available to us. There is more that we can do to reduce the cost of childcare and public transport, and there is more that we can do to protect our planet. There is more that we can invest so that we can, once again, become a world leader on climate action and nature restoration. I believe that an agreement is still possible between the Greens and the Government.”
“I welcome today’s changes in the budget. On 27 January, Gillian Mackay raised with the cabinet secretary the need for more funding for social care, and I am glad that the Government has made that possible. On 7 January, Maggie Chapman raised issues around the investing in communities fund, and I am glad that the Government has been able to find a solution to that. Earlier today, I announced that, at this point, the Greens would be abstaining on the budget. I am proud of what we have achieved so far and I believe that agreement is possible with the Government, but our job is to be the challenger. Our job is to push the Government to go further, and often to push it to go outside its comfort zone, because we know that change is still needed. We know that people across the country are really hurting.”
“During a cost of living crisis, that is a policy that not only delivers for our planet by reducing private car use, but delivers for the public, because it helps families to save money. This year, through our discussions so far, we have secured more money for bus franchising, bringing our buses back under public control and ending a four-decade-long Thatcherite experiment in privatisation. I am quite sure that that is what is holding the Labour Party back from giving its full support to the budget, given who is cutting the party six-figure cheques these days. However, the Scottish Government and Scotland as a whole are still failing when it comes to reducing our transport emissions. We need to go further. That is why the Greens put forward other proposals for the budget, and why we are still keen to see more progress on that front.”
“Particularly for those who have to commute by bus over long distances—the only public transport option available in many rural areas—that is already resulting in huge savings, which will quickly add up to hundreds of pounds for commuters. That is the real impact of constructively engaging in the budget process. That policy builds on previous Green successes, the most obvious example of which is free bus travel for everyone under the age of 22. Hundreds of millions of journeys have now been taken by Scotland’s young people, and genuinely life- changing opportunities have been made available to them as a result of that. We also scrapped peak rail fares, which has saved commuters hundreds—and, in a few cases, thousands—of pounds a year.”
“It has been easier for us to come to agreements in some years than in others, but I have always found the Government’s default position to be a willingness to talk and engage with the ideas that we put forward. Members can see across the country the impact of the changes that the Greens have secured. Even just in the past few weeks, the impact of our budget negotiations last year has been felt. Starting on 31 January, those who commute on the bus in Shetland are now benefiting from the fact that single bus fares are capped at £2. This month and next month, that is being rolled out across the rest of the Highlands and Islands.”