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 8 of 12.
“I apologise that he does not like that answer, but that is the position that we are in. Franchising panels were put in the primary legislation—the 2019 act—and we have to follow through on that. Patrick Harvie: Would the minister just accept as a point of fact that the situation down south is so much easier because it does not have that unnecessary step, which adds nothing of value to the process? We should surely be making it as quick, simple and easy for SPT and others as possible. Jim Fairlie: Patrick Harvie makes a couple of points there. He says that that approach adds nothing. Actually, it does add something—it adds robustness to the franchising process. Clare Haughey talked earlier about whether passengers can have a say in what is happening to their services—franchising gives us that, too.”
“I am encouraged that authorities across Scotland, including SPT, are exploring those powers. The franchising panel has been mentioned a couple of times in the debate. SPT has previously highlighted its concerns about the panel, which I absolutely accept. However, it has also said to the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee that it would “seek assurance that any change would not materially impact on the timeline required to undertake a Franchise Assessment nor introduce additional risks to any authority considering Franchising as a means of improving bus networks for the travelling public in Scotland.” If we go back to square 1, which is what would be required, that is exactly what will happen. We are on the journey that we are on, and we have to do this together. I see Patrick Harvie shaking his head.”
“What will the minister do to tackle those issues and give people some hope? Jim Fairlie: I will continue to use my time to get through as much of my speech as I possibly can, because the answers to an awful lot of the questions that I have been asked in the debate will be contained in what I am going to say. Across Scotland, more than 2 million children, young people, disabled people and older people are now benefiting from free bus travel, making more than 3 million journeys a week. However, we want more people to travel by public transport for work, study and leisure. In order to help local transport authorities improve bus provision in their area, we have delivered the legislation that provides them with powers on partnership working, running their own services and bus franchising.”
“That is helping them and their families to cut the costs of essential and leisure travel. In December 2024, the Child Poverty Action Group reported that free bus travel could save a child in Scotland up to £2,836 annually. I take the points that have been made by members across the chamber— Monica Lennon: Will the minister give way? Jim Fairlie: Yes. Monica Lennon: I am grateful to the minister for giving way. Of course I accept his apology. I understand why he feels frustrated; it has been a long week. Nevertheless, does the minister agree that it is even more frustrating for people who rely on bus services when buses do not turn up, the service is unaffordable or the routes are under threat? We heard about the 65 service, and Ross Greer gave a powerful example as well.”
“I apologise for expressing my frustration to Monica Lennon—it is late in this session of Parliament and late in the day—but I think that the Scottish Government has done, and is continuing to do, a lot. We are absolutely committed to doing as much as we can. We are all, across the chamber, in agreement that buses are an essential service not only in providing people with access to the services and facilities that they need, but in tackling the climate emergency. Bus services play a vital role in delivering on the First Minister’s four priorities of eradicating child poverty, growing the economy, tackling the climate emergency and improving Scotland’s public services. Since January 2022, more than 225 million bus journeys have been made across Scotland by children and young people using their under-22 free bus entitlement cards.”
“I ask the minister to respond to the calls in this debate and from campaigners to act with urgency on the matter. Action on this matter would be transformational for the economies of not only our cities but our rural areas in particular, for social justice, and for public health, in tackling many of our local air pollution issues. It is a win-win—it is exactly the kind of preventative spend that we talk about and exactly the kind of transformation for which our constituents are crying out. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I invite the minister to respond to the debate. You have around seven minutes, minister. 17:42 Jim Fairlie: I genuinely thank Patrick Harvie for bringing the debate to the chamber and for allowing us to discuss the opportunity that we have in front of us.”
“The board is now providing its own direct service, but that is only for staff and patients, and not for visitors or patients’ companions, unless they are a formal companion for someone with a recognised disability. For visitors, there is now going to be an expensive, long, multi-operator journey to get from Helensburgh or the Vale of Leven to the Royal Alexandra, where many of the services for those constituents— Paul Sweeney: Will the member give way? The Deputy Presiding Officer: I suggest that you do not, Mr Greer—you need to wind up. Ross Greer: I will wind up—my apologies to Mr Sweeney. What I have described is just another example of fragmentation, and it is going to result in more cars on the road during a climate emergency and greater isolation for those without a car.”
“Anybody who lives anywhere near the area will know that the distance between Duntocher and Gartnavel is not huge, and an extra 90 minutes on a journey, before and after a 12-and-a-half-hour shift as a nurse, is a significant challenge. I will give one final example, because it involves a change that will come into effect this Saturday. McColl’s has just announced that it is withdrawing the 340 service, which runs from Helensburgh and the Vale of Leven hospital to the Royal Alexandra hospital in Paisley. That bus service was introduced when some health services at the Vale of Leven hospital were transferred to the Royal Alexandra. I sympathise with the health board, which subsidised that service using charitable funding that is no longer available.”
“Two services in my area—the 17 and the 15, which are operated by West Coast Motors and run from Duntocher and Milngavie, respectively, into Glasgow city centre—have had their timetables significantly expanded in recent years because of the increased patronage by young people, primarily those going to college and university in the city. However, when the 17’s timetable was improved, that resulted in two other bus services in Duntocher being withdrawn completely. McColl’s Travel withdrew the 6B and 118 services. That was not done because the 17’s increased timetable provided a comparable or like-for-like service, and the decision left a number of my constituents without the services that they need. Sandra, who is a nurse in Duntocher and works at Gartnavel general hospital, now has an extra 90 minutes on her journey to get to the hospital.”
“That journey, which involves eight buses to and from his regular medical appointment, represents a significant barrier to his ability to access services, but it would be even worse for someone who is between the ages of 22 and 59 and therefore has to pay for their bus tickets, because they cannot get a day ticket for those journeys, as the buses are run by two different operators. There are areas in which some progress has been made, largely driven by the free bus travel for young people scheme that the Scottish Greens secured.”
“We pay once for a ticket on the bus and we all pay a second time through taxation to subsidise essential services that private operators are not interested in running unless they receive a public subsidy to do so. I will share a couple of examples from either end of my region. John Mason made the point about Strathclyde being seen as a region in this regard, which makes sense given that much of the operations are centred on Glasgow. The first example involves a constituent of mine, Cameron, who is 89 and lives in Skelmorlie. He has to go to Crosshouse hospital regularly for treatment for Crohn’s disease. However, he needs to take four buses to get there—a local bus within Skelmorlie, then a bus from Skelmorlie to Largs, followed by one from Largs to Irvine and then a fourth bus from Irvine to the hospital.”
“Like colleagues who have spoken already, I thank Patrick Harvie for securing this debate and for his long-standing commitment to campaigning for quality bus services. I remember that, when I was first elected in 2016, I found it advantageous that I could borrow some of the props that Mr Harvie had produced over many years of campaigning for local services. His novelty bus conductor’s hat and novelty bus stop have proved to be very useful for various photo opportunities with local campaign groups over the years. I am glad that we are having this debate, because, as Paul Sweeney reflected, there has been a disastrous 40-year experiment with the privatisation of our bus services. In the current situation, the public pay twice.”
“This morning, Oxfam published a report showing a huge increase in private jet travel in and out of Scotland. Private jets are a disaster for the climate and are 20 to 30 times more polluting than regular commercial air travel. Two of the three airports that have seen significant increases are owned by the Scottish Government. Air departure tax has not been devolved, but could the First Minister commit to introducing a charge at Scottish Government-owned airports to ensure that super rich elites pay for the amount of pollution that they are throwing into our atmosphere?”
“At this point, I put on the record my thanks to Shirley Rogers, who has already begun the transformation of the SQA as it stands, leading to the creation of qualifications Scotland. As Miles Briggs said a moment ago, we are trying to legislate for a change in culture, and that is exceptionally difficult. However, under the leadership of Shirley Rogers, the culture at the top of the SQA is already changing and it is preparing to meet the expectations that we have set out for qualifications Scotland. I certainly welcome that. This is a huge opportunity for us to move forward with an organisation that is driven by the voices of teachers and students in particular, and the Scottish Greens will be proud to support the bill at decision time. 20:21”
“The chief examiner—a role that we have just agreed to create—must be an educator. Again, that has been missing from the system. Too often, key decisions have been made by those who, to be frank, did not understand the impact that they would have in the classroom. The board will include experts who will have that direct experience. That means having at least five teachers and lecturers on the board rather than the situation that we have seen for the past five years, whereby there is not a single teacher or headteacher, or the situation that we saw at one point when there were three management consultants compared with just one teacher. There will be someone on the board speaking for staff and there will be a duty to recruit young people to the board. We are setting very high expectations of those board members.”
“They will have to consult extensively before making key decisions, which is something that the SQA not only did not do but often refused to do. Staff will have to co- design the learner charter and the teacher and practitioner charter and set out the principles that will underpin their work. The two committees that will lead on that work will be made up entirely of learners and of teachers and practitioners, and they will link directly to the organisation’s board. That link is currently missing between the learner panels that the SQA has convened or outsourced and the current organisation’s board. There is a point of learning from the national qualifications group that was set up during the pandemic, in which young people were included but in an entirely tokenistic and disempowering way.”
“It was more focused on having a credible national data set than on meeting the needs of individual young people and learners and delivering what each of them deserved. In many ways, it was worse for teachers. The SQA’s approach to teachers over years and, indeed, decades has verged on and in some cases surpassed the definition of hostility. I emphasise that I am talking about the senior management team at the SQA and not the whole organisation. There are about 1,000 staff at the SQA—1,000 brilliant, talented and dedicated individuals—and they will make qualifications Scotland a success. The bill, which was significantly amended through the legislative process, will create an organisation in which staff will have to work with teachers, students and others.”
“The issue is that it simply did not do a better job, and legislative change has been required in a dramatic manner to compel better performance. Indeed, towards the start of the previous session of Parliament—in 2017, I think—the Education and Skills Committee, of which the cabinet secretary and I were members, published a report that proposed significant internal change—primarily cultural change—to the SQA. However, it missed that opportunity. It had the opportunity to change and it did not take it. In 2020, after the scandal of the alternative certification model, with young people being graded based on their postcode rather than on their abilities, there was no apology from the leadership of the SQA. The Government apologised, but the leadership of the SQA never did.”
“The bill was a long time coming. For me, the cabinet secretary and some others, it has been nine years in the making; for other members who have been here since before 2016, such as Willie Rennie, it has been even longer than that. The case for this reform has been made across many years. Given the amount of effort that has gone into the bill for that length of time, I thank the Government’s bill team and the legislation team in the Parliament for the huge amount of work that they have put in to deliver it. However, the bill did not actually need to happen. There was nothing to prevent the SQA from performing better and there was nothing in the legislation that underpins it that prevented it from doing a better job than it did.”
“However, I do not think that they provide the radical change that students and teachers across the country are looking to the Parliament to deliver. I have been disappointed by the fact that the Parliament has not been bolder and that the Government has been complacent in its work with parties for the bill. As I have said, the bill at stage 3 is not the education bill that it should be and, therefore, we will not support it at decision time. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I was caught on the hop there. I call Pam Duncan-Glancy to open on behalf of Scottish Labour. 20:11”
“On the member’s point about it being only a cosmetic change, we are going from a situation in which the SQA has a single chief executive to qualifications Scotland being required to have chief executive, a chief examiner and a chief accreditation officer. The chief examiner would be accountable to an expert group, and the chief accreditation officer would be accountable to an accreditation committee. Does he really think that that is just a cosmetic change, bearing in mind that we have just passed an amendment that legally obliges each of them to act completely independently of each other? Miles Briggs: Those changes will be improvements to the internal structures, and I hope that they work, which is why we have supported the amendments.”
“On many occasions, they would simply need to consult a sample to get a representative view.”
“Amendment 234 is a simple amendment. It would clarify that, under section 36(4), the chief inspector will be required to consult only such persons as they consider appropriate, and it would allow them to fulfil the requirement by consulting a reasonable cohort of the groups that are referenced in the section. The amendment would eliminate any potential ambiguity and any suggestion that the chief inspector must, for example, consult a representative of every school in Scotland. We agreed to similar amendments to other sections yesterday, so I hope that the amendment is not particularly controversial. Amendment 239 would apply the same clarification to the provision that will require ministers to consult. There would be no need in either case to consult a representative of every school unless they believe that that is necessary.”
“Those amendments might also still leave the accreditation function with the qualifications body. That is very disappointing indeed. We should not be legislating to have a review; we have had reviews. Furthermore, such a review should not need legislation. The previous reviews did not, and today, we should be legislating to give effect to those reviews. I urge members to reject amendments that fall far short of reform and instead support the amendments in my name. We should make law today that delivers the education landscape that we need for the future—one that supports staff and pupils and is best geared towards ensuring that our young people are set on the path to success, with world-class education in a system that is designed to deliver it.”
“I am disappointed that the Government has not come forward at stage 3 with the changes that it promised members at stage 2. I cannot support the amendments in the name of Willie Rennie or Ross Greer, because they do not deliver change. I am sorry to say this, but they are a poor compromise with the Government that falls far short of expectations and legislates for a review, not reform. I am disappointed that the Greens and Liberal Democrats gave in for so little. They will argue that the Government has moved, but all that we have got out of the Government here is handout amendments that promise a review, which might result in yet another piece of legislation that will not even be considered during this session of Parliament—another example of jam tomorrow.”
“Although changes have been made to qualifications Scotland—I thank the cabinet secretary and other members for working with us to improve what we can, including on the governance of the body—it will have the same functions as the SQA. Indeed, if the accreditation arm is left with qualifications Scotland, it will have entirely the same functions as the SQA. If that happens, there will be no independent scrutiny. Furthermore, as we will debate in group 21, there is nothing in the bill as it stands to guarantee that a fresh look at the leadership will be taken. We have been left with the SQA—the body has not really been abolished, although notable improvements have been made to its governance—in a landscape that leaves the job half done.”
“I am pleased that she will listen to and take seriously what is being said. The Education, Children and Young People Committee’s stage 1 report identified one issue above all others: public confidence will not be restored while the same body both awards and accredits our national qualifications. That conclusion echoed the OECD review and Professor Ken Muir’s report, and it is what almost every stakeholder told the committee. Each source, expert and stakeholder reached the same judgment: independent scrutiny of standards is crucial. The bill, as amended at stage 2, leaves the scrutiny function with the qualifications body. Our view, which is in line with that of experts, is that that position is no longer defensible.”
“The cabinet secretary and members on the Government front bench are laughing. However, when we did not get this right in 2020, pupils from the poorest backgrounds had their grades downgraded. This year, there was a scandal after a history exam was allowed to continue even though experts raised concern after concern that, as Ross Greer indicated, the quality assurance function for that exam sat within the body that set it. The cabinet secretary and other members in the chamber may find that funny but I am sure that people who are watching the debate will not. Jenny Gilruth rose— Pam Duncan-Glancy: Did the cabinet secretary wish to make an intervention? Jenny Gilruth: For the record, I was not laughing at the content of Ms Duncan-Glancy’s contribution. Pam Duncan-Glancy: I thank the cabinet secretary for that clarification.”
“There are other amendments that the Parliament has the option to support to deliver on expert opinion and on pupil, parent and teacher expectations. Amendments 158, 161, 163, 209, 228, 252 and 261, also all in my name, would place accreditation in the office of the chief inspector without there being a chief regulator. I invite colleagues to also consider that option. All those options would also create a committee for accreditation, to which the function would be accountable. That has been considered crucial by staff currently in the SQA and by external experts. Separating the functions is not just the direction that Scottish Labour believes that we should go in; countless experts have said the same. I repeat that point, because it is crucial. The Education, Children and Young People Committee also agreed with that position at stage 1.”
“However, if members are not supportive of our package to create curriculum Scotland but would like to deliver on the advice of experts and teachers and on the expectations of pupils and parents, they can support my other amendments, which would guarantee the separation of awarding and accrediting functions by moving the regulatory and accrediting function to the chief inspector’s office, to be overseen by a chief regulator. Amendments 158, 161, 163, 197, 199, 200, 207, 208, 225, 226, 277, 253 and 260, all in my name, would achieve that. Presiding Officer, forgive me for cantering through the amendment numbers in the interests of time; I know that members will have studied the groupings and the marshalled list and will have an understanding of what the amendments do.”
“Separation would future proof the landscape and would create a coherent system that could regain and enjoy the trust of pupils, learners, teachers, parents and employers. Our amendments to create curriculum Scotland—amendments 8, 9, 10, 159, 162 and 164, as well as amendments 6, 7, 180 to 192, 250, 74, 254, 256, 262, 263, 264 and 312—give the Parliament plentiful options to do the job properly. I will come to some of those amendments and the rationale behind them when we debate a later grouping. All the options that we are presenting today give the Parliament the opportunity to create the structures for world-leading curriculum development and a separate body to host the accreditation of our qualifications.”
“There is nothing in the bill that moves accreditation from that body into another body. That, to me, is a failure of reform—it is reform unfinished. 15:45 The Parliament has the option over the next 48 hours—sorry, 24 hours; I do not wish to extend the debate for a further 24 hours—to legislate for a system that stands the test of time and in which the accreditation body for qualifications in Scotland is able to accredit school qualifications in the future, whether or not that includes the ones that the SQA accredits now. If we are reforming the curriculum and assessment, we need to know that the body that oversees qualifications is in a separate place from the one that awards them. We should have taken that opportunity already in the bill.”
“Instead of supporting that, the cabinet secretary told members of the committee at stage 2 that she would take seriously Unite’s concerns about accreditation, that she would go away and think very carefully about it, and that she understood that the status quo—the function remaining in the qualifications body—was not acceptable. However, she brought along the chair of the current SQA to the cross-party discussions between stage 2 and stage 3. Regardless of members’ opinions on how impressive—or otherwise—one individual can be, in those discussions we were supposed to be considering where the Government would put accreditation, given that it had been told by the committee, experts and others that that function should not stay with the qualifications body.”
“In the absence of any planning, scoping or action from the Government or preparation for a proper qualifications system that puts young people’s future at its heart, Unite the Union recognises that a rushed job could be very difficult for its members, who have endured countless days, weeks, months and years of the Government’s dither and delay when it comes to properly reforming the education system. That is what Unite is not happy about, and that is why it is trying, at the very last moment, to convince the Government to do the right thing. As the cabinet secretary knows, that means moving the accreditation and regulatory function from the SQA into a new body.”
“The letter says: “our members believe that further independence could be achieved with minimal disruption to staff, their stakeholders and represent more value for money if the new Qualifications Body hosted the accreditation function.” Is Unite the Union wrong? Pam Duncan-Glancy: I thank the cabinet secretary for that intervention, which I was prepared for. The cabinet secretary knows full well that the members of Unite in the Scottish Qualifications Authority would have preferred the accreditation and regulatory function to go to an entirely new body in the first place.”
“Some people have said that those who have been clear that a separation of functions is needed do not understand what accreditation is for, because SQA-awarded qualifications are not accredited. Ross Greer alluded to that in his intervention. However, that misses two key points. First, trust in the system means that a body that awards qualifications should not regulate them. Structures matter. Secondly, regardless of what is accredited now, at a time when we are claiming to reform the system, we should not miss an opportunity to do so in a way that is entirely fit for the future. Jenny Gilruth: We debated the issue at length at stage 2. I remind Pam Duncan-Glancy of correspondence that the committee and I received from Unite the Union, which represents the majority of staff in the SQA.”
“That is why we should have taken—and must take—the opportunity to do that with these amendments this afternoon. Setting up a new body such as curriculum Scotland—a single arm’s-length organisation that could steer what is taught, guarantee the standard of certificates that flow from that and drive continuous improvement—is a remedy. School- based qualifications are not currently accredited, as Ross Greer just explained; they are simply considered for quality by the body that awards them, which is the SQA. We have seen what happens when the SQA thinks that its qualifications are high quality. External scrutiny is resisted until assessors whistleblow, the press exposes the scandal, and Parliament and Government have to intervene, as was the case with higher history. The bill is a chance to change all of that.”
“Pam Duncan-Glancy: Mr Greer is quite right in relation to higher history, but he did not point out that, although the SQA does not accredit or regulate our school qualifications, those qualifications are subject to quality assurance by the very body that determines what they are and that awards them, which is the SQA. That is why it is crucial to create a separate regulatory and accreditation function, so that we can look at whether we want to accredit or regulate those qualifications in the future. We are legislating today for Scotland’s young people’s future, and not moving that function from the qualifications body now, under the bill, means that, without separating the accreditation function from the awarding function, we cannot necessarily take those decisions in future.”
“Will the member take an intervention? Pam Duncan-Glancy: I am happy to take Ross Greer’s intervention. Ross Greer: Would the member join me in recognising the difference between accreditation and quality assurance? Simply moving the current accreditation function to any other body, such as the curriculum Scotland body that is suggested or His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education, would not address any of the issues that we have seen in recent years in relation to national qualifications, because the current accreditation function does not accredit—for example, it does not accredit higher history.”
“Health is of course by far the biggest area of expenditure within the Scottish Government’s budget, and so the focus on managing health budgets in-year is clearly critical to ensuring that we achieve the path to balance and balance our budget as we are required to. Many moving parts, as a result of consequentials or other changes in- year, can influence those budgets. However, in the interests of transparency, we are always keen to make as much information as possible available to Parliament and others.”
“The minister will be aware of my concern that, because many of the Government’s costs are fixed at the start of the year, the annual path-to-balance reallocation exercises place a disproportionate burden on particular portfolios—primarily health and education. Allowing for the fact that there will be an election before then, will the Government consider publishing alongside next year’s outturn statement a multiyear analysis of the impact of the path-to-balance exercises and in which portfolios they fall, perhaps covering the five financial years of this parliamentary session? Ivan McKee: The member will be aware that the health budget is protected and that we pass on all consequentials to health.”
“There might well be a role for the approach in certain parts of the public sector, for the reasons that the member highlights, and we are reviewing that as part of the follow-up work on the pilots that were undertaken.”
“I recently met the chief executives of South of Scotland Enterprise and the Accountant in Bankruptcy to get feedback on the pilots that have been run in those organisations, and I learned that the approach has been well received. I have also met trade union colleagues to discuss how we move the approach forward, and I know that they are keen to do so. There is absolutely a place for a four-day working week, but it is important to understand where it will be effective and its mechanisms for delivery. We are reviewing that at the moment to see where the approach works most effectively, but we will not lose sight of the big picture, which is how we make services more joined up, more integrated, more efficient and more focused on prevention and on empowerment, so that we deliver improved services for the people of Scotland.”
“When the Scottish Greens were in Government, we secured a pilot of the four-day working week. South of Scotland Enterprise confirmed to Parliament’s Finance and Public Administration Committee that that has resulted in significant reductions in staff absences, which is good for productivity in the public sector. I was therefore a bit surprised to see no mention of the four-day or reduced working week or of better work-life balance for public sector workers in the strategy document. Does the Government recognise that the four-day working week and a better work-life balance for public sector workers are powerful tools in our quest for a more productive and effective public sector? Ivan McKee: The word “balance” is important.”
“It can call for a boycott of trade with Israel in the same way that it called for a boycott of trade with Russia. The International Criminal Court (Scotland) Act 2001 can be used to prosecute Israeli soldiers who return here—members should be in no doubt that some of those who are committing these crimes in Palestine are from the UK. Peace is not just an end to violence—it is the presence of justice. I pray that the perpetrators of this genocide face justice. Right now, what I pray for more than anything else is that my Palestinian friends will simply be allowed to live. 19:20”
“We say, “Never forget,” and “Never again.” However, so many of those who say that with us are now passive or even active supporters of this genocide. If you have ever asked yourself what you would have done then to prevent history’s worst atrocities, it is whatever you are doing now. What the UK can do is end all arms sales to Israel; end intelligence sharing with the Israeli military; expel—or, better yet, arrest, rather than train—the Israeli occupation force personnel who are here; and recognise the state of Palestine. The Scottish Government can stop giving public money to Israel’s arms dealers and can ban the companies that have been identified by the United Nations as complicit in the occupation from receiving a penny in grants or contracts in Scotland.”
“Throughout the slaughter, Britain has never stopped arms sales to Israel. Britain has never stopped the Royal Air Force flights over Gaza and the passing of the intelligence gathered to the Israeli military. Britain has never stopped trading with Israel’s illegal settlements in the West Bank. Britain has only sanctioned two ministers in the Israeli Government—not the Prime Minister, the defence minister, the President, the foreign secretary or a single military official. We now have the news that the British military is training the murderers that are the Israeli occupation force. I am always deeply reluctant to use the word “holocaust”. I never want to diminish the unique evil of the Holocaust, but what can we call this other than a holocaust of the Palestinian people? Every year, with unanimity, we remember the victims of genocide.”
“I cannot wait for the Iranian people to overthrow their regime and live in freedom, but let us compare Iran with Israel. Iran has no nuclear weapons and, according to American estimates, is at least three years away from developing one. Iran allows international observers into their nuclear facilities to verify that that is the case, and it agreed to a treaty preventing it from developing nuclear weapons. In comparison, Israel has nuclear weapons, which it developed in partnership with apartheid South Africa. Israel denies that it has those weapons, but it will not allow international observers in to verify that. Day after day, we see more starving people desperately lining up and being herded into cages for something to eat, and then being shot— executed—at aid points. Britain is complicit in this.”
“I can think of no other word than “twisted” to condemn the Israelis who point to the Iranian air strikes on civilian infrastructure in Israel and say, “We could never possibly do that—that is the difference between democratic Israel and tyrannical Iran.” How can those Israelis say that after two years of systematic slaughter of civilians in Gaza and the West Bank? How can they say that after 80 years of occupation and the systematic murder of Palestinian civilians with impunity and without consequence? Some of—not all—Israel’s air strikes in Iran were, indeed, highly targeted at military officials. However, all that does is prove the point that the mass slaughter of Palestinians is a choice—it is not collateral damage; Israel is choosing to deliberately kill tens of thousands of Palestinians.”
“Those children are five, six or seven years old and have single gunshot wounds to the head—in other words, wounds caused by execution shots by Israeli soldiers. Where are those who denied that Israel would ever massacre paramedics now that a mass grave has been found of 15 Palestinian paramedics, who were buried with their ambulances in an attempt to cover up that crime? Of course, when Israel was caught, it described that massacre as a professional error—and by the way, it murdered the 12-year-old boy who witnessed it.”