Official Report 440KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-20819, in the name of Gillian Mackay, on ending the United States military’s use of Scottish airports.
I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons.
14:55
When Prestwick airport was nationalised, in 2013, the then Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, presented it to the Parliament as an opportunity to revitalise the aviation industry in the west of Scotland. In the hopeful pre-referendum days, we were encouraged to imagine how Prestwick could become a hub for international travel, global business and, possibly, even space flight. We were told that it would be an airport for Scotland and that it would create jobs and build skills and expertise in industries for the future.
Few of us in the chamber today could have predicted how much the world would change in the 13 years that came after. Nor could we have anticipated that, instead of a hub for holidaymakers, the publicly owned airport would become a major de facto military base of an aggressive foreign air force under the control of a rogue and unstable leader. Donald Trump’s United States has shown repeated contempt for international law, human rights and democracy at home and around the world. Some of his worst offences are taking place right now—against his own citizens. Innocent people are being shot at point-blank range in broad daylight for standing up to the harassment and threats of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE. Tens of thousands of people—including thousands of children—are being held indefinitely by the state in inhumane conditions and are being denied access to adequate food, fresh air, exercise and even basic sanitation facilities. If that was happening in any other country, we would be denouncing the rise of fascism and calling on the international community to cut ties and take action.
On the global scene, Trump has waved in a new era of heavy-handed neo-imperialism. From the illegal invasion and removal of the president in Venezuela to his repeated threats to the sovereignty of Greenland and Denmark, Trump has made it clear that international norms will not curtail his personal pursuit of wealth, power and control. Only last month, his military ignored a decision by Scotland’s Court of Session and kidnapped two foreign citizens from our waters. We later learned that it likely used Scotland’s own publicly owned airports to support the operation. That cannot be allowed to continue. That is not what the communities around Prestwick were promised. It is not how the people of the Highlands and Islands want their lifeline airports to be used, and it is not what the public in Scotland deserve for our nationally owned assets.
Our motion today focuses on Prestwick because that is where the problem is most acute. Between 1 April 2025 and 12 February 2026, the United States military landed at Prestwick airport 565 times. Military flights have landed on most days, sometimes multiple times per day, with the busiest day, in May 2025, witnessing 15 landings. The data shows clear patterns, with the number of flights peaking alongside known US military operations. In January, when the US military seized the Marinera oil tanker in Scottish waters, landings by the US military were up 76 per cent on the previous month. Last summer saw sustained activity at the airport, which coincided with the US military’s bombing of Iran during the 12-day war with Israel.
The member mentioned the seizing of oil tankers. Does she recognise that the seizing of vessels in Russia’s shadow fleet is critical to upholding sanctions and supporting the fighting men and women of Ukraine?
I absolutely recognise that, but when vessels come into our waters, our laws apply. Those people were taken in contravention of what the Court of Session said should happen, so it is right that we call the US Government out on it.
Those are not occasional stopovers. That is the routine and sustained use of Prestwick airport as a de facto military base by the US Air Force for training and live military proceedings. Allowing the continued use of our publicly owned airports in that way risks making us complicit in the current and future actions of a foreign Government that has made it clear that it has no intention of sticking within the bounds of international law.
Passenger numbers for Prestwick airport are now at similar levels to those in the late 1990s and are less than half what they were when the airport was nationalised for just £1 in 2013. I would welcome it if the cabinet secretary could provide more information on the current business plan for Prestwick, because it seems clear to me that the financial sustainability of Prestwick is based not on commercial flights but on on-going and routine use by the military.
Does the member recognise that Prestwick airport supports hundreds of jobs and, with it, the Ayrshire economy, and that military contracts are a significant source of revenue for the airport? How many Scottish jobs would she be prepared to risk?
I do not dispute the point that Sharon Dowey makes about jobs, but there is no security for those jobs in basing them—and others in the local economy—on servicing the military of a foreign state, given its unpredictable nature and, in particular, the unpredictable nature of Mr Trump.
The airport even publicly advertises itself with a glossy website offering
“a dedicated and discreet military base”
and
“the perfect location for crew rest, fuel stop and training of any size of aircraft at any time—day or night.”
That pitch is accompanied by photos of US Air Force planes. Is this really what the Scottish Government had in mind when it brought the airport into public ownership—hiring out our land, our facilities and our workforce to a foreign military to use at its will, with no questions asked?
The Scottish public are the ultimate owners of Prestwick airport. It should be run for their benefit, not for the benefit of an unstable and volatile United States or a President who has armed genocide, inflicted coups and threatened his neighbours. The Scottish Greens share the Government’s aspiration for Scotland to be an independent country, and a big part of that is having the ability to play our full role on the international stage as a good global citizen and a champion for peace and stability around the world.
Will the member give way?
Yes.
Very briefly, Neil Bibby.
Gillian Mackay talks about Scotland taking its role on the international stage and in the international community. Does that include being a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization?
Greens around the world are very clear that we do not support the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but that is not what we are debating today. We are debating the routine use of public airports for military actions. We absolutely need co-operation on the world stage, but that does not necessarily mean that we need to be in NATO. Given Donald Trump’s actions towards NATO, including removing funding from it and threatening NATO allies, it does not seem as strong as it should be.
Do I need to wind up, Presiding Officer?
I would be grateful if you could begin to wind up.
We must move beyond rhetoric and sentiment on this urgent issue. Evicting the United States Air Force from Prestwick and blocking its passage and refuelling through our publicly owned airports across the Highlands and Islands is the most effective way for Scotland not just to talk a good game on the issue but to explicitly stand in support of everyone around the world who is currently a target for Trump and his hostile regime. It is how we stand up for the people of Greenland and affirm our support for their sovereignty and their right to live in peace without the on-going threat of invasion from their neighbour. It is how we stand up against his illegal and immoral actions in Venezuela, which showed utter contempt for international law.
Donald Trump is no friend of Scotland, and we should not pretend that he is. It is time to end his army’s extensive use of our airports and make sure that Scotland is a force for peace in an uncertain world.
I move,
That the Parliament strongly opposes the actions of the United States (US) under the leadership of Donald Trump; believes that, under Trump’s presidency, the US has become a rogue state that has shown contempt for Scottish and international law through its attack on Venezuela and Scottish waters and its threats to the sovereignty of Greenland and Denmark; notes that two people were recently abducted from Scottish waters by the US military, in defiance of the Court of Session and live legal proceedings; understands that the US military currently uses Scottish Government owned Prestwick airport as a de-facto base, with US military flights landing at Prestwick over 560 times since 1 April 2025; agrees that Scotland must not be complicit in any illegal action by allowing the use of publicly owned assets by foreign military, and calls on the Scottish Government to evict US troops operating from Prestwick airport immediately and to instruct all airports owned by the Scottish Government through Highlands and Islands Airports Limited to deny access and use of their facilities to the US military.
I advise members that what limited time we had in hand has been exhausted, so I will have to require members to stick to their speaking time allocations.
15:03
Last month, the First Minister set out the fundamental challenge that Scotland faces in the light of what the Canadian Prime Minister, Mark Carney, has described as
“a rupture in the world order”.
I recognise that the rules-based system has not always functioned as many would have wished, but, for all its flaws, it has underpinned global co-operation between Governments.
International uncertainty today emphasises the need for us to co-operate with other nations. For Scotland, co-operation is vital—co-operation on these isles, co-operation across the North Sea with Europe and co-operation with nations everywhere who share our values. Next week, it will be four years since Russia illegally invaded Ukraine.
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?
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. 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. That is founded on the belief that, if we want to maintain a rules-based international order, we must ourselves abide by those rules.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
I will not take an intervention at this time. I have already taken one.
There is no doubt that the Maduro regime in Venezuela was illegitimate. However, as the First Minister has said, it is hard to see how international law has been respected. I also recognise that recent statements by the US Government about Greenland have risked destabilising the international order. Across history, smaller nations have been exposed to threats from more powerful nations. In that case, a strong and unified response saw European nations stand behind the principles of sovereignty and self-determination, and that unity has produced results.
The US is our ally. The bonds of friendship between the people of Scotland and the US run deep. I will be clear, however: the US Air Force does not have a base at Glasgow Prestwick airport, has not operated one since 1966 and does not have any personnel based at the airport. Glasgow Prestwick airport does not determine the policy, destination or mission of any aircraft using facilities there. Instead, it provides regulated aviation services in line with UK law, international aviation standards and long-standing agreements between allied nations.
Sometimes, friends and allies act in ways with which we disagree, and we disagreed fundamentally with the US in relation to Greenland—
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
I have already said that I am not taking further interventions.
We disagreed fundamentally with the US in relation to Greenland, and we spoke against threats of economic coercion. We will not hesitate to restate that position while maintaining ties of friendship and family with the US. We recognise that our relationship will be tested, and we will continue to speak out in support of Scotland’s interests and Scotland’s values.
It is no surprise to any member in the chamber that I support Scotland becoming a sovereign state. That would involve the ability to determine our own defence and security policy and to underline our solidarity with neighbours and treaty partners, including the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, as a non-nuclear-hosting nation just like our Nordic neighbours. It would also allow this Parliament and Government to determine the use of our military and civilian air facilities and other facilities.
Members will be aware of my track record in highlighting to the Council of Europe the suspected use of airports for rendition flights, and I fully understand why having legal agency in landing rights for flights is relevant and important. However, at present, foreign affairs, defence, national security and air transport policy powers are all reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament and the UK Government.
The Green Party motion appears to invite us to consider taking steps in contravention of the Scotland Act 1998, which, clearly, we would not be able to do. The amendment in my name would, instead, reaffirm our commitment—across the whole chamber, I would hope—to support domestic and international law and the rules-based order, which is relevant in the case of the recently interdicted Russian shadow fleet vessel; our commitment to support the future of Greenland determined by Greenland and Denmark; and our commitment to Ukraine and a just peace to which its people are agreeable.
I move amendment S6M-20819.3, to leave out from “strongly” to end and insert:
“supports Scots law, international law and the rules-based order; respects the future of Greenland as a matter for the people of Greenland and Denmark; is unwavering in its solidarity with and support for Ukraine in the face of Russia’s illegal invasion; supports international sanctions against the Putin regime and the interdiction of its shadow fleet, and encourages the international community to secure a just peace acceptable to Ukraine.”
15:09
I was astonished but maybe not surprised to see the Scottish Green Party’s motion. It is like being back at a student union debate, with ranting about issues that are well outwith the remit of this Parliament.
I enjoyed my time in student union debates many, many decades ago, but this Parliament should be focusing on issues within its remit. We should be looking at, for example, the pitiful level of economic growth that we have in Scotland and across the United Kingdom and at what that means for living standards; the high cost of renewable energy driving up consumers’ bills; waiting times in the national health service; falling standards in education; or a soft-touch justice system.
We could have been debating any one of those topics this afternoon. Instead, the Greens come to us with a rant against the United States of America, our longest-standing and most reliable ally as a country, and a fundamental part of the NATO alliance.
If the Greens want to debate international affairs, why do they not attack the real rogue states? Where is the mention of China, with its myriad human rights abuses against ethnic and religious minorities, its attacks on free speech and its imprisonment of those who dare to speak out against the regime?
Will the member give way?
I am sorry, Mr Greer, but I have only four minutes, due to the Greens’ scheduling of the debate.
Where is the attack on Russia and on the evil Putin regime, which is sponsoring terrorism and has unleashed a horrific war on the innocent civilians of Ukraine that is approaching its fourth anniversary? Where is the Greens’ criticism of the terrorist state of Iran, which is oppressing its own people, murdering civilians who simply want to support democracy and free speech, and supporting terrorism in the middle east and elsewhere? Where is the concern for the victims of conflicts in countries such as Sudan and Myanmar, where hundreds of thousands of innocents have died?
I fully understand that there are concerns about aspects of Donald Trump’s presidency but, in comparison with what is happening elsewhere in the world, those pale into insignificance. The student-union obsessives of the Green Party are hitting the wrong target. When it comes to the situation with Venezuela, let us never forget that the Russians are importing Venezuelan oil in order to break sanctions. We should have no sympathy for sanction-breakers, in any circumstance.
The motion mentions Prestwick airport and its use by US military flights. Thank goodness that the US military is using Prestwick, and paying handsomely for that benefit. It means that the airport, which is in public hands, is at last now showing some profitability and benefitting the Scottish taxpayer. Banning US military flights would achieve nothing if those flights simply divert elsewhere, but it would cost the Scottish taxpayer millions of pounds.
Murdo Fraser will be aware of the vibrant engineering cluster at Prestwick airport, which is employing thousands and looking to create up to an additional 1,500 jobs. Does he agree that it would be a much more grown-up approach if we called for investment in apprenticeships in local colleges so that we could grow the local economy?
Mr Whittle makes an excellent point. If only we were more grown-up in this debate, that is what we could be discussing.
What concerns me is that the very same Green Party, which has such skewed priorities and is bringing back the politics of the student union to this Parliament, could find itself back in Government in a few weeks’ time. If the Scottish National Party were to end up as the largest party after May but short of a majority, Ross Greer and Gillian Mackay might be sitting around the Cabinet table, and the wording of the motion shows what will happen if they are driving Scottish Government policy.
When asked by Ross Greer on 28 January whether he would consider evicting US troops from Prestwick, the First Minister John Swinney did not immediately slap down that ludicrous idea but said that he would “consider” the matter. That is the danger that lies in store, and that is why Scotland should reject both the SNP and the Greens at the election in a few weeks’ time. At least the Scottish Conservatives will stand up for our economic interests, the defence of our country and the NATO alliance.
I move amendment S6M-20819.1, to leave out from “strongly” to end and insert:
“reaffirms its clear support for NATO as the cornerstone of collective defence and the foundation of transatlantic security; recognises that NATO has preserved peace among its members for more than 75 years and that the Alliance’s nuclear deterrent, including the strategic capability of the United States, has underpinned strategic stability among NATO members and deterred direct conflict between major nuclear powers in Europe for eight decades; recognises the United States as a central and enduring partner in safeguarding European security and acknowledges its leadership in providing the air mobility, logistics, intelligence and deterrence capabilities on which the Alliance relies; notes that military aircraft from NATO allies, including those of the United States, routinely and lawfully use Scottish airports such as Glasgow Prestwick Airport for refuelling and transit; further notes that such activity supports jobs, brings revenue and contributes to the financial sustainability of publicly owned airport infrastructure; rejects calls to withdraw cooperation from the country’s closest allies; calls on the Scottish Government to continue facilitating appropriate access for NATO partners to Scottish airport facilities in support of collective defence, national security and the long-term resilience of Scotland’s aviation assets, and regrets that the Scottish Green Party has chosen to use parliamentary time to debate these matters instead of raising the many devolved issues that require immediate attention.”
15:13
Last week, when I saw that we were due to debate external affairs, I certainly did not think that we would be debating a Scottish Green motion that would evict foreign nationals—and not just any foreign nationals, but US military personnel serving in our collective defence. Well, here we are.
Let me be unequivocal: we have a duty to protect our citizens and our allies, and any nation’s use of Scottish and UK infrastructure must be carried out in accordance with domestic and international law. We would expect that of our own armed forces overseas, and we rightly expect that of any nation using our infrastructure.
Scottish Labour is committed to taking sanctions against the Russian regime and maintaining our obligations that we have signed under international treaties. In 1949, the United Kingdom, under the leadership of Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee and Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, was one of the founding members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and we in the Labour Party remain committed to the principles of NATO.
Let us be clear what the motion that is before us means: it seeks to prevent the United States military from using Scottish airports. That would send a crystal clear and reckless statement that the Scottish Parliament is not interested in the collective defence of the United Kingdom, the European Union or, indeed, Scotland. A time of global instability is not the time to turn our backs on our NATO allies.
That is why I welcome the UK Government’s commitment to increase defence spending to 3 per cent of gross domestic product. That will support our security, but it will also support Ukraine and security on the continent of Europe, which is threatened by Putin’s aggression. It will help to boost skilled, unionised and high-wage jobs in Scotland’s defence industry, including at Prestwick airport, which is mentioned in the motion.
We can of course have different views on the policies and actions of the current US Administration, but our special relationship with the United States and its people is long-standing and vitally important and must be maintained.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will not take one now, but I will try to do so in my closing speech.
The one airport that is mentioned in the Scottish Greens’ motion on ending US military use is Prestwick. The airport is well known for handling military customers from NATO-aligned countries, most notably the Royal Air Force, the US Air Force and the Royal Canadian Air Force. The motion states that Prestwick airport has been used 560 times by the US military since 1 April 2025. I say respectfully that that is not exactly news. In fact, the US Air Force has used Prestwick airport since we were fighting together to defeat Nazi Germany in world war two, and it has been used by US planes to refuel for decades since then.
We should all be aware that, in 1960, the king of rock and roll, Elvis Presley, landed at Prestwick airport when he was a serving member of the US Army. I am glad that the Greens were not in charge then, as that would have prevented Elvis from making his only trip to the United Kingdom. To quote the man himself, we need a little less conversation and grandstanding from the Greens. Given that their motion is dangerous, virtue signalling and incompetent, it should be returned to sender.
Prestwick airport is also vital for jobs and the economy. As Sharon Dowey said, thousands of jobs are supported at the airport and it contributes nearly £0.25 billion of economic benefits to Scotland. We should not do anything that puts those jobs at risk.
Will the member give way?
I will try to take an intervention in my closing remarks.
At a time when global events threaten the stability of our democracy and security in Europe, we should be collaborating with our partners, not turning our backs on them. The motion completely undermines our efforts to keep our country safe. We will not support a motion that threatens the safety and security of our citizens, our country and our NATO allies.
I move amendment S6M-20819.2, to leave out from “strongly” to end and insert:
“acknowledges that any use by other nations of Scottish infrastructure must be done in accordance with domestic and international law; welcomes the role that both Scotland and Prestwick airport have played in supporting Ukraine against the Russian invasion; recognises the importance of Scotland’s strategic assets in supporting international security; affirms its support for the UK’s place in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and welcomes the UK Government commitment to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP in an era of global instability.”
15:17
I will start with a personal reflection. I have always struggled with aspects of NATO. As a Quaker, I am still navigating the tension that exists between an alliance that is built on the existence of a weapons system that I find horrifying and the undeniable success that that organisation has achieved in underwriting the peace that we all enjoy.
Fundamentally, I have reached the conclusion that I want NATO to succeed. As such, I am deeply troubled by the Trump Administration’s threats towards that organisation and our allies. I have watched in horror as he has undermined the alliances that have helped to prevent war, including a third world war, over the decades, and threatened Greenland and Canada, the homeland of my mother. I am appalled by his rhetoric and policies that harm democracy in his country and abroad.
However, here is the difference between my party and the Greens today: we do not confuse our dislike for one political figure with the long-term security interests of our country. It is just not serious politics to do otherwise. NATO has been the single most successful peacekeeping alliance in modern history. It has underpinned stability in Europe for more than 75 years. It has deterred aggression and protected small nations from being crushed by larger ones.
Will the member give way?
I am afraid that I do not have time.
Right now, NATO’s existence and collaboration with the US are central to the defence of Ukraine and Europe as a whole. Without the support of the United States, the future of Ukraine is bleak. We can wish that things were otherwise. We could hope that Europe alone could shoulder our security burdens tomorrow, but that is just not the case.
The reality is that American military support has been and continues to be decisive. The incongruity of the motion before us today is that, although Green MSPs would have us evict American service personnel from our shores, the fighting men and women of Ukraine would give their eye teeth to have US forces stationed there, which would offer the same security guarantees that our partnership with America has offered since the bombing of Pearl Harbor—a guarantee that has underwritten the long peace that we continue to enjoy to this day.
If we want Putin’s aggression to fail, we need that alliance to hold—we need NATO to succeed. Expelling US troops from Scotland would not strengthen peace; it would fracture an alliance at the precise moment that it needs unity. It would signal to Moscow that western resolve is weakening, and it would hand Donald Trump exactly what he wants—a narrative that Europe is retreating and that NATO is collapsing.
I refuse to play into that. I want NATO to succeed because I believe in our collective security. The animus that I hold for the current occupant of the White House is a matter of public record. I speak out against him, detest his agenda and even travelled to America to campaign against him. However, Trump is not America, and America is not Donald Trump. The promise of the United States is far greater than any single presidency.
The special relationship between our nations is old and strong enough to withstand the erratic and offensive policy agenda of a four-year Administration and the measured criticisms of politicians on this side of the Atlantic. Our relationship with America is vital for security, intelligence sharing, trade, scientific collaboration and global influence. That relationship must endure. We must hold our nerve and look to the near horizon, when our American cousins can come back to their senses and ensure that President Trump leaves office.
Foreign policy is about long-term national interest, not short-term moral theatre. At a time when authoritarianism is rising across the globe, this is not the moment to weaken the alliance that has kept Scotland, the UK and Europe secure for generations. We can and should be critical of the occupant of the White House. We can condemn actions that violate democratic values, but we must not dismantle the structures that keep our continent safe.
We move to the open debate.
15:22
Given the rise of fascism on the other side of the Atlantic, I want to highlight why this Parliament must exercise oversight over the use of publicly owned airports in the Highlands and Islands by the United States military. Those sites are operated by Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd on the Scottish Government’s behalf, and what happens at those airports is a matter of direct public accountability. We own those airports, and when they are used for foreign military operations without our knowledge, that is democratic failure.
The evidence is clear and documented: three US Air Force special operations aircraft landed at Wick John O’Groats airport ahead of a US-led military operation to seize a sanctioned Russian oil tanker. The planes arrived from Royal Air Force Mildenhall and departed roughly one hour later. Three U-28A aircraft then took off from Wick to directly support the seizure of the Marinera tanker. This morning, we heard the news that the captain of the tanker has been indicted in the United States.
The case shows how easily Scotland’s sovereignty can be bypassed. Twenty-eight soldiers were detained in the Moray Firth for weeks without charge, a Court of Session interdict was ignored and two men were removed from Scotland without proper legal process. If that can happen here with so little oversight, we must seriously question the unmonitored use of Highlands and Islands airports by the US military and ensure that Scotland’s infrastructure is never used for actions beyond democratic control.
Wick is routinely used by US military aircraft that need to refuel on transatlantic and Arctic routes, but there is currently no mechanism in place to distinguish the flights that are connected to sensitive operations. The incident was not isolated to Wick; the same operation involved at least two other HIAL airports. Benbecula airport hosted two US V-22 Osprey aircraft that were used for cargo and troop transport during the US military’s seizure of the Marinera, and Stornoway airport hosted a Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft that was used for surveillance and reconnaissance in US military operations.
Wick, Benbecula and Stornoway are three publicly owned airports. All three were used for one foreign military operation that was triggered by a President gone rogue. There was zero prior awareness from the Scottish Government. We own the airports, and the communities of the Highlands and Islands fund and rely on them. They deserve assurance that their public assets are not being used in ways that are contrary to Scotland’s values and legal responsibilities.
This is a pattern, not an anomaly. Our publicly funded infrastructure is being drawn into foreign military actions, and this Parliament is being kept in the dark. In the case of Wick, it was particularly galling for the community to see a lifeline resource being used in that way, given that local residents had been cut off from regular services since October and, even now, can travel only from Wick to Aberdeen.
Our communities deserve to live in peace. Residents in Lewis were so concerned by the noise of the military aircraft that they contacted the airport. At 99 decibels, the sound of a V-22 Osprey is similar to the sound of a chainsaw at close range and eight times louder than a typical helicopter.
All that was happening while Donald Trump openly threatened our NATO ally Greenland, while US-controlled nuclear weapons sit at Faslane and while the current US Administration grows ever more unpredictable. Scotland must not become an unmonitored military staging ground.
The evidence from Wick, Benbecula and Stornoway makes one thing absolutely clear: publicly owned airports in the Highlands and Islands are being used for military activity without sufficient accountability or alignment with Scotland’s legal and ethical standards. The communities of the Highlands and Islands deserve assurance that their public assets are not being used in a way that is contrary to Scotland’s values and legal responsibilities. The Parliament must ensure that such decisions are subject to scrutiny. Scotland’s publicly owned infrastructure must not be used for foreign military purposes without our knowledge or consent.
I will have to require members to stick to their speaking time allocations.
15:26
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I understand that not everyone in the chamber believes that we should be debating a subject matter of this nature. That is clear from Murdo Fraser’s opening remarks and his amendment, and it was clear last month when the Tories absconded from the debating chamber when the First Minister made a statement on the MV Bella 1. Ironically, if they had remained, they would have heard that the statement related directly to matters of devolved competence.
We should be prepared to debate, discuss and deliberate on this subject matter in the chamber. I do not dismiss the motion as student politics. Our national legislature should be prepared to take a position on international matters, so I thank the Greens for lodging their motion to enable this debate to take place. They were perfectly entitled to lodge the motion, and I have a lot of sympathy with much of it.
Donald Trump’s posturing and his repositioning of the United States through a mixture of an aggressive and assertive form of the Monroe doctrine and the threat of American isolationism in relation to Europe should be of the utmost concern to us. The prospect of the upending of long-held arrangements on mutual defence would be alarming at any time, but it is especially so at a time of crisis in eastern Europe.
Donald Trump and his Administration should rightly be criticised for his rhetoric on Greenland, the manner in which he intervened in Venezuela and the unilateral removal of the captain and the first officer of the MV Bella 1 when, as has been mentioned, the Court of Session had imposed an order banning the removal of its crew from Scottish jurisdiction. In each case, the First Minister has been clear that it does not seem as though the norms of international law have been respected or followed, and I agree with that perspective.
The only people who should determine the future of Greenland are the people of Greenland, and if there are concerns about the manner in which a state is operating—there clearly were concerns about the manner in which the Venezuelan Administration was operating—the solution cannot be to unilaterally remove the head of state and hold them captive in another country.
Murdo Fraser’s point about Russia using Venezuelan oil is not unreasonable, but we should also reflect on what Donald Trump has said since the intervention in Venezuela. He has been clear about utilising Venezuelan oil for the benefit of American companies. In mid-January, he said:
“We’re going to be extracting numbers in terms of oil like few people have seen”.
Therefore, a wider debate is needed about the motivations in that region.
Will Mr Hepburn take an intervention?
I will probably not be allowed to, because I am in the last minute of my speech. Is that right, Presiding Officer?
You can do what you want, but you will not get any time back.
Well, if I will not get any time back, I will do what I want and continue.
On the matter of upholding sanctions, I observe that, just last month, BBC verify reported that dozens of sanctioned Russian tankers have been able to sail through the English Channel unimpeded. There is much more that can be done within the law on this side of the Atlantic to ensure that sanctions are being properly applied.
It is right that we consider how our assets and infrastructure in Scotland are being utilised by international actors. We face challenges; the cabinet secretary was right to set out that Scotland is not a state party and is not signed up to international treaty obligations. We are not responsible for the entry and egress of air traffic through Scotland.
It is not unreasonable to criticise the Trump Administration—I have certainly done that—but it is unreasonable to demand things of the Scottish Government that it is unable to do. That is why I will support the Scottish Government’s amendment.
15:30
The Scottish Greens do not often secure time for Opposition debates in the Parliament and, on the strength of this motion, that is probably a blessed mercy. Opposition time should be used to confront the real challenges that we face in Scotland, such as our flatlining economy, education standards, drugs deaths that should—and do—shame a civilised country, violence against women and girls, a benefits bill that keeps growing while too many people remain out of work, and the decline of oil and gas, which has cost livelihoods and confidence in the north-east economy. Instead, we are invited to indulge in a symbolic gesture about Prestwick and to brand one of our closest allies a rogue state.
It would be absurd if it were not so irresponsible. War has returned to Europe. Russia’s aggression is not theoretical; it is real. Nations on NATO’s eastern flank are not posturing; they are seeking protection. In that context, the Greens believe that Scotland’s great contribution is to pick a fight with the Atlantic alliance. That is not serious politics—as Murdo Fraser once observed, it is “wired to the moon”.
Presidents come and go and personalities change. Donald Trump came, went, returned and will go again. Others will follow, but the alliance endures because it is bigger than any leader and more important than any electoral cycle. To casually label democratic allies as rogue states is not moral leadership; it is diplomatic vandalism. If that becomes the currency of international relations, trust will collapse, trade will suffer and working people will pay the price. Prosperity depends on stable alliances and open markets. That is not ideology; it is economic reality. However, that is perhaps an uncomfortable truth for a party with economic instincts that would take us back to the stone age.
NATO has preserved peace for more than 75 years. Its collective defence and nuclear deterrent, including the strategic capability of the United States, have underpinned stability in Europe for decades. That is not rhetoric; it is the hard architecture of peace. Because they dislike the current Administration in Washington, the Greens propose that this Parliament should grandstand, but alliances are not disposable, and they are not fashion accessories to be discarded when politics shifts. They are sustained through political cycles and maintained with seriousness and steadiness. The United States remains central to Europe’s security. Its intelligence, logistics, air mobility and deterrent capabilities are woven into NATO’s credibility. That is why countries that are under real threat seek closer integration with the alliance, not distance from it.
Then there is the matter of Prestwick. The issue concerns lawful and routine allied flights, revenue for a publicly owned airport, skilled Scottish jobs and infrastructure that strengthens national resilience. In one breath, the Greens speak of protecting public assets; in the next, they would jeopardise a key income stream for the sake of a cheap headline. That is not strategic thinking; it is gesture and student politics.
The motion is not about sovereignty and it is not about the law; it is about making a statement that will impress the Greens’ activists while doing nothing to enhance Scotland’s security or prosperity.
Scotland is a proud part of the United Kingdom, and Britain was a founding member of NATO. Collective defence is not optional; it is the bedrock of our security and our prosperity, on which our public services depend. The Scottish Parliament can indulge in ideological theatrics or behave with maturity in a dangerous world. I call on members to support the Conservative amendment and to reject the motion.
15:35
Let us be clear that this debate is a waste of parliamentary time. The Greens are using their final Opposition party debate of the parliamentary session, which could have been an opportunity to set out how they would fix housing, health, social care, transport or even the climate crisis, to debate instead something that the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government have absolutely no control over. This is childish gesture politics from a party that would be an absolute disaster for international security and diplomacy.
The Scottish Government does not have the power to implement what is being proposed. Defence and foreign policy are reserved matters. That is a simple constitutional fact, as the cabinet secretary has recognised—although I take it that he might wish that to be different.
I am confused as to why Mr Griffin thinks that it is outwith the Scottish Government’s competence to dictate the operations of an asset that it owns, when the Scottish Government has already done that. If it was outwith the Government’s competence to do that, how was it able to ban Israeli air force flights from the same airport?
Ross Greer should know that our airports are complying with international law, and we support that. The UK respects our international obligations, and NATO commitments endure beyond any individual leader—we support all of that, too. If a NATO ally needs to use infrastructure in Scotland, it is essential for our collective security that it is able to do so. Denying access would send a message that Scotland is not serious about the defence of Europe, the UK or itself, and it would raise serious concerns about our collective defence of the north Atlantic corridor, which is under extreme pressure from Russia at the moment. Prestwick airport plays a role in supporting allied operations. That includes support for Ukraine as it resists Vladimir Putin’s invasion.
The clear and obvious truth is that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin could not care less whether the motion passes or falls, because it would do nothing. In serious times, doing nothing and doing so very loudly is a hollow imitation of leadership. The people of Scotland will not care either. They want a Parliament that is focused on fixing public services and delivering shorter waiting times, access to a family doctor, proper mental health support, safer streets, better schools and action on the housing emergency. However, instead of serious policy, we have slogans. Instead of workable proposals, we seem to have lines from a late-night Reddit forum.
We live in serious times. Our duty is to defend international law and our treaty commitments, not throw our toys out of the pram. A Scottish Labour Government will instead commit to testing workable policies to reverse two decades of decline by restoring access to general practitioners, cutting waiting times, rebuilding community policing, banning mobile phones in classrooms and ending the housing emergency. That is serious government.
The Greens have clearly failed in office. Now they play politics with issues that are not toys. They cannot be trusted anywhere near Government. For Scotland’s security and the Scottish Parliament’s credibility, the motion should be rejected.
15:38
I refer members to paragraph 7(1) of part 1 of schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998, which states:
“International relations, including relations with territories outside the United Kingdom, the European Union (and their institutions) and other international organisations … are reserved matters.”
As a devolved legislature, we have substantial limitations on our exercise of power—would that it were otherwise. Do I wish that I could cock a snook at Donald Trump and his unholy Administration? Of course I do—probably along with many European leaders, including Sir Keir Starmer, who are all holding their collective noses as Trump blunders around the world. Do I think that he has destabilised the world order? Of course I do. Although he will not have it all his own way—as other international alliances, political and economic, are being formed, some of which are pretty unholy—he has debunked the long-standing myth that the UK has a special relationship with the US. He has caused Europe to pull up its socks and deal with Putin’s imperialistic ambitions.
In fact, Finland and Sweden joined NATO not only in the face of the invasion of Ukraine, but also because of the casual, confrontational and dismissive attitude of Trump to NATO. The Scottish Government has spoken out about the Russian invasion to absorb Ukraine and Trump’s ludicrous attempts to annex Canada and Greenland—straight from Putin’s playlist.
Destabilisation has a substantial impact on devolved issues. Let us think about the threat to energy supplies and the cost of energy, which is at the base of much inflation. Yes, I say to Stephen Kerr, Trump will go—but the world order will not return to the way that it was before his reign.
With regard to airports, there are not only the limitations of devolution; there are also other, reserved restrictions at play. Aircraft landing at any UK airport require permission from the UK Government, not the Scottish Government. Prestwick airport operates on a commercial basis, at arm’s length from the Scottish Government, and operational decisions regarding the day-to-day running of the airport are a matter for its management.
Do I wish that it were otherwise? Of course I do. Could it be otherwise? Of course it could. Small countries can make a difference, especially by sharing their sovereignty with others on a mutually beneficial basis. An independent Scotland in NATO, the EU and the United Nations could do just that.
I want to debunk another myth in relation to NATO membership. Of 32 NATO members, only the United States, the United Kingdom and France possess their own nuclear weapons. Five countries—Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey—host US nuclear weapons under a nuclear sharing arrangement. The majority of NATO nations, such as Canada, Norway and Poland, do not. There is nothing to prevent an independent Scotland, nuclear free, from being a member of the very important alliance called NATO.
We move to closing speeches.
15:41
As I close on behalf of Scottish Labour, I note that the lines of division in the debate have been very clear. Although the Scottish Greens spent their time attempting to undermine our international standing and security, the debate has provided a vital opportunity to reinforce why Scotland and the UK must remain a serious partner in a world in which our resolve continues to be tested by global events and global instability.
We on this side of the chamber will not forget that the United Kingdom, under Attlee and Bevan, helped to forge the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. That commitment to collective security is not a relic of the past, but a living necessity. To turn our backs on US military use of our Scottish airports would be to turn our backs on not only NATO and that alliance, but ourselves. It would play into the hands of our adversaries, who are the only ones who would gain from such a reckless act.
I spoke earlier, as did other members, about the economic importance of Prestwick airport. We are talking about 450 jobs directly at the airport, and also more than 3,300 full-time jobs in the cluster surrounding it. That contributes almost a quarter of a billion pounds in gross value added benefits to our country’s economy.
Asking why we should place more importance on some jobs over others is not a logical approach to supporting our economy, and it is irresponsible. Our foreign policy should not be dictated in this way by the Scottish Greens, who do not support NATO. As Alex Cole-Hamilton said, it also should not be dictated by their—or anyone’s—disdain for the occupant of the White House. Ironically, the Scottish Greens appear to be positioning themselves with others who wish to cast doubt on NATO and its importance during a period of increasing global instability.
It would be useful to get clarity on this, because it was not a position that Labour laid out a few weeks ago. I accept that, from Labour’s perspective, the US is a military ally of ours. However, does the Labour Party really believe that the US military should be allowed to breach Scots law and British sovereignty in its actions—which is exactly what it did a few weeks ago— or does the member at least agree that there should be consequences when our allies disrespect our domestic laws?
I do not accept that that is the case. As I said in my opening speech—I was crystal clear on this point, which is also in my amendment—we expect that any nation that uses Scottish or UK infrastructure should do so in accordance with domestic and international law. I could not be clearer about that. We also accept and support our international obligations, such as NATO, which is a treaty that was signed in 1949. We want to uphold that, but the Scottish Greens want to rip it up.
The cabinet secretary mentioned that we must not forget that four years ago, almost to the day, the democratic European nation of Ukraine was illegally invaded by Russia. It is important that we remember the role that Prestwick airport has played in supporting Ukraine’s efforts against Putin’s invasion.
When it suits them, the Scottish Greens often come to this chamber to complain about the Government not stepping in to save jobs in Scotland, but they would be happy to potentially put thousands of jobs at risk in and around Prestwick airport.
At a time when Scotland faces many challenges, it is disappointing to see the Scottish Greens use their parliamentary time to lecture us on defence and national security. They could have talked about the social care crisis, hospitals or ferries—they did not. After 19 years of the SNP, with the Greens playing a part in its failure, we need serious politics for serious times. To quote Elvis Presley once again, perhaps we should have a little less conversation from the Greens on issues that are not even in the competence of this Parliament, and maybe a little more action, please, on the real issues that our constituents face every day.
15:45
In summing up this debate for the Scottish Conservatives, I have to bring it all together and describe what the debate has been like. That is easy—it has been a complete waste of time. This has been a waste of valuable parliamentary time. Members of the Green Party and the SNP have recently rejected bills because the Parliament does not have enough time to consider them, but the Greens think that it is appropriate to sit here today and debate this issue. It is not.
Stephen Kerr was right to say that we could have spoken about housing, education, health, the economy or many other things. The Greens could have asked us to speak about the climate, but they did not want to.
Ross Greer rose—
I will give way if I have some time at the end of my speech.
They do not want to speak about the climate—no, no. They want to speak about reserved issues. As Christine Grahame said, the Scotland Act 1998 is very clear: it is not within the remit of this Parliament to discuss the issues in the motion being debated today.
I listened to Gillian Mackay. She gave a very serious speech, and I was sat here wondering whether she honestly believes that, across the Atlantic, Donald Trump is currently in the Oval office, and people are going to barge in and say, “President Trump! President Trump! You need to get to the situation room. Gillian Mackay said something nasty about you in Holyrood—we must change our policy across the globe!” She should not be so ridiculous. Not even people in Scotland are going to be interested in what the Greens are saying today, let alone President Trump.
I take exception to some of the speeches that have compared this debate to student union politicking. That does a great disservice to our student union debates across the country. People in universities will be very ashamed to be aligned to the Scottish Greens. Listening to some of the Scottish Green contributions, I thought that the children in my four-year-old son’s nursery would have a better debate on what they had for their snack each day than we have had today.
Ariane Burgess tried to paint a picture of the people in Wick being under the impression that some planes have been landing but not knowing anything about it. The people in Wick know what those planes are. They see them in the sky and see them landing and taking off. In the same debate that Ariane Burgess was trying to say that this is all happening covertly and no one knows about it, Gillian Mackay told us about a glossy brochure that has been produced for Prestwick airport about the very same thing. The activities cannot be both covert and advertised in a glossy brochure.
We have had some common sense and rational thinking from the likes of Sharon Dowey, who spoke about the thousands of jobs that would be under threat if the Green motion passed. Are the Greens going to go to the south of Scotland, to Prestwick and Ayr, and say, “Vote for us, because we are going to close Prestwick airport and stop these flights coming in”? As Murdo Fraser said, those are the only flights that are generating a profit at Prestwick airport. If the Green motion passes today, all of that, as Sharon Dowey said, will be lost—thousands of jobs and vital resources for the Scottish Government coffers from Prestwick airport.
That is what the Greens want. That is what they are happy with. How could they possibly have sat around their very small table to discuss topics to debate today and thought that this was the one that would attract them support in the election in a few weeks’ time?
I conclude—
Will the member give way?
I am sorry—I do not have time.
I conclude by saying that, although it is bad enough that they do this in Opposition, we can imagine how scary it would be if they were back in Government. We know that the SNP was happy to take the Greens into Government before; if it needs to, it will take them back in again. That would be not only a waste of time on Opposition debate days, but a worrying waste of Government time. That is a direction of travel that I do not want to see, which is why we should not only reject the Greens’ motion today, but reject them at the ballot box in May.
15:49
I thank colleagues for their contributions to the debate.
I am reminded of the fact that, as many members have said, it is almost four years to the day since Russia’s full-scale illegal invasion of Ukraine, which reminds us of the importance of global co-operation and the need for international law. It is right and proper that we can discuss such issues in Scotland’s national Parliament.
The Scottish Government and, I believe, all parties in the Parliament resolutely condemn Russia’s illegal war against Ukraine, as we have done since its invasion. We have a continuing commitment to achieving a strong, just and durable peace that ensures that Ukraine has a secure future and that deters any future Russian aggression.
We would back a properly constituted international peace plan that respects Ukrainian sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity, that is agreed by Ukraine and that restores peace in Europe. The Scottish Government remains absolutely committed to supporting Ukraine, not only until a just peace is secured, but through recovery and reconstruction to a brighter future beyond.
I will briefly respond to points that have been made in the debate. Concern has been raised about the actions taken in relation to the MV Bella 1, which is currently in Scottish waters. The First Minister made it clear in his statement to the Parliament that, although the Bella 1 was in Scottish waters, at no point were the UK or Scottish authorities in control of the vessel, and the Scottish authorities had no legal basis whatsoever for boarding the vessel at any time. The Scottish Government was informed that the two individuals had been removed from the Bella 1 by the United States after—not before—they had been removed from the vessel.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
I will in a second; I just want to finish this point.
The presence of the Bella 1 in Scottish waters emphasises the fact that international events directly impact on the responsibilities of the Scottish Government.
Does the cabinet secretary not agree that there should be consequences for foreign militaries that breach Scots law and UK sovereignty within our waters?
I would like to make the point in this way: if we are genuinely serious about dealing with Putin’s shadow fleet—I hope that we all are; I think that we all are—we need to get this right. I agree with Mr Greer on that point. We need to get this right, and that includes respecting Scots law.
The Scottish Government is committed to playing its full part in the defence of our country and the security of our allies. Glasgow Prestwick airport and certain HIAL airports are important stop-over points for many air forces, including the Royal Air Force and the air forces of other NATO partners, such as the United States and Canada. An important point that has not yet been put on the record is that non-UK military require to obtain diplomatic flight clearance from the UK Ministry of Defence in order to fly and land in UK airspace.
As members recognise, Glasgow Prestwick airport is an asset to the local and national economies. The airport plays a key role in infrastructure development in the Ayrshire region and supports a valuable aerospace cluster.
International uncertainty brings risk to us all—to our economy, to our communities and to our safety. We cannot insulate ourselves. We must be committed to stepping forward as a good global citizen. That is why I urge colleagues to agree to the amendment in my name. That amendment, which should garner support right across the chamber, reaffirms our commitment to supporting domestic and international law and the rules-based order, which is relevant in the case of the recently interdicted Russian shadow fleet vessel; supports the future of Greenland being determined by Greenland and Denmark; and reaffirms our commitment to Ukraine and a just peace that is acceptable to its people.
15:53
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.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. 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.
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.
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. 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. 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.
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. 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?
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. 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.
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. 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.
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.
Air ais
Portfolio Question TimeAir adhart
Mossmorran (Just Transition Fund)