Seòmar agus comataidhean

No, thank you.

Does the member believe that a statement of fantasy could be “Vote no to stay in the EU”?

It is not often that I agree with my colleague Jeremy Balfour, but I agree with his statement that we are in the last days of a dying nationalist Government—the one at Westminster.

The debate marks the publication of the seventh paper in the Scottish Government’s “Building a New Scotland” series. The first paper in the series set out a detailed analysis of the UK’s performance across a range of economic and social indicators relative to that of 10 European countries, including Norway, which is a member of EFTA, and Denmark, which is a full member of the EU. That analysis of the economic and social performance of the UK, and therefore that of Scotland within it, in comparison with 10 countries suggested overwhelmingly that independent countries of Scotland’s size do better. That is particularly true of independent countries of Scotland’s size in the internal market—be that via EFTA or as a full member of the EU.

Last summer, I stood atop the picturesque clifftop at Rosehearty, in my constituency, and looked across the North Sea. Aside from providing spectacular coastal scenery, those rocks are the closest point of our mainland to Norway. If members looked at the 16th century Carta marina map, they would be forgiven for thinking that Scotland was just a stone’s throw from Norway and Denmark. The first map of the Nordic countries to give details and place names greatly exaggerates our proximity, but our relative closeness in geography and culture has meant that, for many centuries, the commercial and social connections between Scotland and the rest of Europe—particularly its northern reaches—have gone from strength to strength.

It therefore came as a surprise to no one that Scotland voted by nearly two to one to remain in the European Union. Scotland is European. I have said that before, I say it again and I will continue to say it for as long as I have the privilege to be a representative in Scotland’s national Parliament, because the democratic will of Scotland will not be ignored.

This might be an inconvenient detail for the unionists, but remaining in the European Union is the clear will of the Scottish people. Scots now find that our membership of the internal market, our freedom of movement and the social, cultural and economic benefits that came with that have been stolen from us by a UK Government and an indifferent Westminster Opposition, which delivered us the hardest of Brexits on a vote that was won by the narrowest of margins south of the border and was based on many lies—lies about taking back control and about a Britain that is bursting at the seams.

The most egregious lie affected the coastal communities, which put their faith in the UK Government to deliver for them a sea of opportunity. When I spoke with fisheries stakeholders recently, I was given numerous examples of seafood-processing businesses that are still suffering the consequences of this denial of Scottish democracy, more than seven and a half years on from the vote. Some of those businesses are composed of up to 90 per cent migrant workers. Our loss of freedom of movement, coupled with hostile immigration policies, is threatening Scotland’s flagship industries.

We have all heard the stories of shellfish rotting on the way to European markets because of the new UK Government red tape, but it is not only fisheries that have been let down. Our farmers are being undercut by the few trade deals that the UK Government has managed to negotiate. We could not export our seed potatoes, and our soft fruits have been rotting on the vine at each harvest without adequate numbers of seasonal workers to pick them. All of us have heard about the hospitality sector’s woes because of staffing shortages. I have met hoteliers in my constituency, where the lack of chefs has been extraordinarily detrimental to local services.

Perhaps the saddest point of all is about the impact that Brexit will have on the futures of Scotland’s children. In the past couple of weeks, some of my children have been preparing their university applications, which has caused me to reflect on the opportunities that they might have in years to come. With the UK Government’s refusal to negotiate membership of the Erasmus+ programme, Westminster has deprived many young Scots of the opportunity to live, learn and exchange across the continent. I urge the Scottish Government to do all that it can to restore Scotland’s membership of that cross-border educational, social and cultural initiative, which does much to build friendships across borders and maintain lasting peace in Europe.

Independence offers Scotland the opportunity to rejoin the European Union and regain all that we have lost. Scotland’s history is interwoven with the histories of our European neighbours; Scotland’s present is as European as our past; and Scotland’s future is as an independent state in the European Union.

I am having flashbacks to smells of sour milk and cabbage, so I thank Rachael Hamilton for that.

I am delighted to take part in this debate on a subject that is very close to my heart—no pun intended. Today, I am, of course, speaking as an MSP, but I am also speaking as a mother who breastfed six children in very different circumstances. Each experience was unique. Although I loved it, it was sometimes fraught with significant—and painful—challenges.

Before I begin, I emphasise that I have the utmost respect for the varied choices and circumstances of all parents. Some face medical, physical or personal issues that make breastfeeding difficult or impossible. It is vital to remember that the ultimate goal is the child’s health and wellbeing; we must all embrace the “fed is best” principle. What matters most is that children are nourished, loved and cared for, whether through breastfeeding, formula feeding or a combination of both. In Scotland, we must strive to create an inclusive society in which everyone feels supported, irrespective of feeding choices.

In reflecting on my own journey, I cannot help but recognise how different each experience of postpartum motherhood was for me, particularly my first time as a mother, aged 16, in 1991, and my last, at the age of 36, in 2011. The societal landscape around breastfeeding and maternal support underwent a significant transformation over those two decades, but so did I, as an individual.

Navigating the challenges of breastfeeding as a young mother, aged 16, was daunting. The support and messaging around breastfeeding were different then, and advocating for myself, as a young person, in the face of those challenges was not always easy. I was more vulnerable, less informed and heavily reliant on the support systems around me. That is the reality for many first-time mothers, especially those in non-supportive environments, so the role of professional support in those formative stages cannot be overstated.

That experience starkly contrasted with my journey at age 36, when I found myself being more confident and assertive. The societal messaging around breastfeeding had evolved, and so had the support structures. More important, I had evolved, too. I was better equipped both emotionally and intellectually to advocate for my needs and those of my child.

The needs of each of my children were different, and my body responded differently each time. From feeding for three months to doing so for as long as two years with another of my children, what stood out was the incredible support that I received from midwives, health visitors and those in my circle.

I will go on to talk about why it ended a bit early, but one of the perks of breastfeeding is its convenience and, particularly, the cost.

The guidance, encouragement and expertise that I got from the professionals and my circle around me were vital, as they helped me not only to feed but to believe in my ability to nourish and nurture. That is vital, because I can attest to the fact that, unfortunately, the negative perceptions and a lack of understanding from those around me at one time in my life, coupled with my vulnerable postpartum state, led to a premature end to one of my breastfeeding journeys. I was disappointed with that, but it just shows how far support can take us.

Such contrasts and experiences highlight an essential aspect of our discussion: the varied needs of mothers at different stages of their lives. They underscore the importance of tailored support and recognising that a one-size-fits-all approach does not suffice. After all, every mother’s journey is unique, and our support systems must be flexible and responsive to those varying needs.

As we delve deeper into the subject of breastfeeding in Scotland, it is crucial to acknowledge and celebrate the Scottish Government’s commendable efforts and achievements in this policy area. The Scottish Government has not only recognised the importance of breastfeeding but taken concrete action to support it across the nation.

One of the most notable achievements is the significant investment of more than £9 million in breastfeeding initiatives. The Scottish Government has shown a strong commitment to enhancing breastfeeding support services. That funding has been instrumental in increasing breastfeeding rates and reducing inequalities in breastfeeding across Scotland, and it reflects a dedicated effort to ensure that all children, regardless of their background, have the best start in life.

Furthermore, the Government’s endorsement of the UNICEF UK baby friendly initiative and its integration of that initiative in maternal, neonatal and community settings have been game changing. By embedding that initiative in the NHS and in core nursing and maternity education curricula, Scotland has taken a comprehensive approach to improving the quality of care for mothers and babies. The initiative not only promotes breastfeeding but supports mothers in developing a strong bond with their babies, which is crucial for the overall wellbeing of mother and child.

In addition to those initiatives, the Scottish Government has actively worked towards creating a supportive environment for breastfeeding mothers in public spaces. The national breastfeeding friendly Scotland scheme, which encourages businesses and public spaces to welcome and support breastfeeding mothers, is testament to that effort. The initiative is a significant step in normalising breastfeeding in public and making society more inclusive and supportive of mothers’ choices.

Members should note that, although supporting breastfeeding in public is vital, calling for rooms where breastfeeding can be done in private adds to a mother’s choice. Last night, I asked my daughter, my first child, whom I had the honour and joy of seeing breastfeeding my two granddaughters—her two children—for her thoughts on the debate. She said that, ultimately, it was about support and choice. Although it is great to encourage breastfeeding in public, many women want to feed completely topless. Some have fussy feeders who wriggle and roll around and make a mess, which they find quite difficult to navigate in a public setting. Therefore, they prefer a private place, so it is essential to have that option.

I express my gratitude to the Scottish Government for its support and commitment to breastfeeding, because I know how important it is. Those efforts have not only made a significant difference to the lives of countless mothers and children but positioned Scotland as a leader in promoting and supporting breastfeeding.

The British Bill of Rights Bill has now been scrapped by the UK Government and there is also a bit of an on-going live debate about the European Convention on Human Rights. We are talking about the landscape: how does that atmosphere and the on-going debate affect possible human rights legislation in Scotland? Is that affecting your work in any way?

It is lovely to see the panel this morning. Apologies that I cannot be there in person.

You have touched on the new Scottish human rights legislation and I know that you have done quite a lot of work on it and that it is on-going. Can you reflect on that work so far? Do you see any strengths or weaknesses?

Research indicates that 10 per cent of children and young people have a clinically diagnosable mental health issue, which is about three children in every class. In particular, neurodivergent children and young people are struggling now, as Scotland faces a severe shortage of medication for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, which affects approximately 26,000 people. What can the Scottish Government do to address the issue?

Article 14 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads:

“Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.”

The United Kingdom played its part in drafting that declaration, which, today, the UK Government sadly undermines at each and every turn. It is important to remind ourselves, often, and without apology, of the context in which the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted—a world that was riven by violence and hatred, and full of displaced people and those fleeing persecution in the chaos that followed a war that we must, again and again, commit ourselves never to repeat.

As we look on from Scotland at the conflicts in Europe and the middle east, it is hard not to ponder the solemn reality that it could be us, our children and our friends, or, as is the case with the First Minister, our own relatives, who are affected. History tells us that these conflicts do not occur in a vacuum, and that we must play our part as a responsible member of the global community.

It is heartbreaking to witness the UK Government continuing its vindictive campaign against those who need our help most, despite what we see happening in the world right now. I want to take time today to dispel some of the myths that are peddled by the UK Government and its Conservative defenders here, in Scotland.

They say that we do not have enough room, but let us look at that a bit more closely. Many of Scotland’s communities, particularly in rural Scotland, already experience acute depopulation and labour market challenges, in part because of Brexit and the end of freedom of movement. Scotland is far from full, and we are ready to take our share of those seeking refuge, but we are unable to do so due to the fact that this is a reserved matter.

The UK Government must cease its culture wars, fulfil its international obligations and invest in tackling the asylum backlog. Providing additional staff and ensuring more humane and efficient processes could mean a system that is fit for purpose. Instead, it has spent hundreds of millions of pounds on its inhumane and illegal Rwanda policy, which has resulted in what, precisely? Not a single thing. It is an abhorrent and immoral waste of taxpayers’ money.

The Conservatives tell us that we are being overrun, often in the most inhumane ways. Former Prime Minister and now Foreign Secretary Lord Cameron once referred to

“a swarm of people coming across the Mediterranean.”

Sadly, he is not alone. A former Home Secretary has referred to migrants as a “hurricane” and an “invasion”.

The Conservatives are trying to normalise such dehumanising language. Othering the most vulnerable in society is one of the oldest and, in my view, most despicable tricks in the Tory handbook. That will not wash here, in Scotland, and we will see that reflected in the upcoming general election, when we will see an end to the Scottish Conservatives.

The Conservatives ask us how we will pay for all the migrants. People fleeing conflict and persecution and seeking asylum on our shores have much to offer our communities, culturally and economically. It is therefore a shame that the UK Government continues to deny those seeking asylum the right to work and to contribute to our country.

As is noted in the “Building a New Scotland” paper that looks specifically at migration, we know that leaving the European Union has cut off a valuable and ready supply of workers to fill key posts. There have been fewer births than deaths registered in Scotland since 2011, so it is clear that we need inward migration to ensure that our communities are vibrant, diverse and thriving and to support local economies and the public sector.

Last month, I met fisheries stakeholders to discuss the detrimental impact that the proposed UK Government immigration rules would have on the seafood processing sector. During that meeting, there were numerous examples of seafood processing businesses—some of which are based in my constituency—comprised of workforces of up to 90 per cent migrant workers. The one-size-fits-all, Britain-bursting-at-the-seams narrative simply does not ring true in Scotland. With a hostile governing party and an indifferent Opposition, it is clear that the only way for Scotland to have the levers to reverse projected population decline is in an independent country.

Although the Conservatives scream, “Stop the boats!”, and “dream” and “obsess” about front pages full of planes taking off to Rwanda, Scotland has a different dream; our dream is for an asylum system that is founded on equality, opportunity and community. Those three words are a bedrock for the Scottish Government in all that it does. I remind members that that could be us seeking asylum. If it were, would we not want those from whom we were seeking asylum to treat us with the fairness, dignity and respect that we deserve and to be treated as we would wish to be treated ourselves?

I have a follow-up question about what needs to be taken into consideration here. As we have heard, there are a few pieces of legislation that you feel should be considered as we are looking at this bill but, at the same time, we are being asked to put this in place as soon as possible. I seek your opinions on the specific acts that we should take into consideration. Are you willing to let time elapse as we do that?