Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am delighted that we have touched on that issue, and I appreciate that media coverage has changed with the passage of time. Will the cabinet secretary congratulate journalists who are currently in Ukraine? They are dodging bullets, but they are not dodging the truth.

Reading the Tory motion and the Labour amendment, I have to wonder what planet—indeed, what UK—they live in. Some speeches reminded me of groundhog day—2014 and “better together”, when Scots were told that, if they voted yes, they would be thrown out of the European Union. We all know what happened after that—we are out.

To state the obvious, for its spending purse, this Government depends almost entirely on the Barnett formula and any consequentials that flow from what the UK Government additionally spends on its domestic responsibilities. Our tax-raising powers are limited, and most people in Scotland pay less tax than people in England do. However, we all pay extra UK national insurance, which is a tax, and people on universal credit have lost the £40 per week that was delivered during Covid. Most of those people are working.

Reference has rightly been made to the Scottish Fiscal Commission but not to the fact that it has independently verified that our budget has decreased by 5.2 per cent in real terms between 2021-22 and 2022-23. The Scottish Fiscal Commission has also confirmed a further 1 per cent real-terms reduction in 2025-26. We are and will remain at the economic mercy of the UK Government until such time as we are independent of it.

I congratulate Graeme Dey on securing the debate and Stuart McMillan for his able delivery of Graeme Dey’s speech.

As you know, this is my second contribution in a short time in a debate about the Falklands war. There will therefore be some overlap.

I am pleased that the debate is focused on the men and women who went to that war—some never to return. It was a war that took place thousands of miles away and was fought over a territory that practically none of us had heard of until we heard the drumbeats of war. Was the war necessary? Did it resolve once and for all the tensions and dispute about sovereignty? I will consider those questions later in my speech.

First, let me emphasise my regard for all service personnel who found themselves in that conflict, and especially for those who were on the front line. I express sincere sadness and regret for all the lives that were lost, and for the people—British, Argentinian and the islands’ civilians—who were injured, both physically and mentally. Death and injury do not discriminate. I recognise that damage—physical and emotional—endures among survivors to this day. I also acknowledge the professionalism and courage of our armed forces.

The toll was this: three Falkland Islanders died and a total of 904 military personnel were killed in the conflict. Of those, 255 were British military personnel and 649 were Argentinian. British forces reported that 775 service people were wounded in the war, with 115 being captured between April and June. Meanwhile, 1,657 were reported wounded among Argentina’s military personnel and more than 11,000 were captured.

I recall how horrified I was 40 years ago—I said this in the previous debate—as I travelled on the bus to my law studies, to hear passengers in front of me cheering that we should “Bash the Argies!” Jingoism had a field day, which was fuelled in particular by The Sun newspaper, which took a bloodthirsty stance from the start, gambling that that would pay off in increased circulation. It did. It invited readers to sponsor Sidewinder missiles and offered free “Sink the Argies” computer games. It splashed its front poster page with “We’ll Smash ‘Em” printed over pictures of Winston Churchill and a bulldog. It even urged the Government to reject an offer of peace talks from the Argentine military regime, with the headline “Stick it up your junta”.

War is not a desk game to be played out in print and the media, distant from the reality and responsibility of the real war—the cold, the fear on a bloody and unforgiving landscape, and the junta sending young conscript infantry into battle, often unfed and lacking even basic equipment, including proper footwear.

I am glad that Jackson Carlaw referred to the press coverage, because that coverage was, as we know, highly censored. All the significant news 40 years ago, good or bad, was announced or leaked from London. Reporters in the south Atlantic had the sour experience of hearing their news being broken on the BBC World Service. Reports were censored, delayed and occasionally lost. When relations between the press and the Royal Navy on board the HMS Hermes were at their worst, Michael Nicholson of ITN and Peter Archer of the Press Association prefaced their bulletins with the rider that they were being censored—which was, itself, censored.

There was, I believe, an opportunity to resolve the dispute about sovereignty of the Falklands by diplomacy. It might have failed, but it was not given enough time and space. I know I was not alone in having grave concerns about launching into that war and about how it was conducted. There was the sinking of the General Belgrano, the Argentinian cruiser. Was it sailing to or out of the exclusion zone? That is still under dispute. The retaliation came days later, of course, with the sinking of the HMS Sheffield off the coast of the Falkland Islands, which killed 20 men. There was no going back after that.

Was there a failure of intelligence to see the Argentinian threat on the horizon? Was diplomacy exhausted? I quote from an article in The Times, which said:

“The British Government was aware of an Argentine threat to the Falkland Islands for almost a year before they were invaded.”

I return to the lives that were lost and damaged. They must not be forgotten. I have not forgotten them, but I have also not forgotten how the loss of those lives might—just might—have been prevented had intelligence and diplomacy been tested first and taken to their limits, before our armed forces were put into a conflict.

I will finish on this. They are the words of a Welsh guardsman who spoke earlier today and who was aboard the Sir Galahad, which was a troop ship that was attacked by Argentine fighter jets on 8 June 1982 as it sat unprotected. The explosion and fire on board the Sir Galahad at Bluff Cove killed 48 men, including 32 Welsh Guards, and dozens of men were injured, some being horribly burned. When he was asked whether he thought that the war had been worth while, he replied, as a soldier would:

“Ours not to reason why, ours but to do or die.”

As politicians—after that loss of lives, loss of futures, and the scars of injury and trauma on those who served—even today, as sovereignty of the Falklands remains disputed, it is ours to reason why.

Will the member give way?

Oh—that is lovely. I am pleased to speak in the debate, although it will be with a tinge of irony.

Before I press on, I advise Mr Whitfield that I will have plenty to say about the Scottish Borders.

Why do I say “a tinge of irony”? Some members who were here a couple of sessions back might recall my failed member’s bill to extend the Pentland hills regional park to cover the southern part of the Pentlands. The Scottish Government, Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberals opposed it, although I am pleased to acknowledge that the Greens gave me support. There was also resistance and opposition from the farming community and local authorities, which I understand—I will return to that.

Regional parks are just an administrative animal and far less intrusive than national parks, with the planning and other legal protections that they may bestow, so I am pleased to see the change of political heart across the chamber. From previous experience, I know some of the challenges ahead.

The debate is a bit of a bidding war between the various speakers, but I am up for a bidding war. I am confident that the Scottish Borders and Midlothian will be successful not least because of the groundwork by Mr Whitfield’s campaign for a Scottish Borders national park, which has already commissioned and received an independent feasibility study, to which he referred and which confirmed that the proposal satisfies all the criteria for a national park. I thank Malcolm Dickson for his briefing to me on that.

In passing, I have sympathy for my old hunting ground, Galloway. To be frank, I see no reason for there not to be two national parks in the south of Scotland. I am sure that they would be ably supported by South of Scotland Enterprise. However, my priority is my own patch, not for selfish reasons—heaven forfend—but for the reasons that follow.

This is the sales pitch. The advantage of the Borders and Midlothian is plain to see. As the area is close to, and under pressure from, a growing city population and the surrounding towns, pressure to expand building further into our green heritage increases. That has been accelerated by Covid, which has led many people to seek literally greener fields. The area’s landscape, history and culture are a valuable asset, but that asset needs the protection, as well as the economic advantages, of national park status.

The proposal ticks all the boxes for the aims of a national park under the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000. For example, the first aim is

“to conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area”.

We have the Roman site at Trimontium, where 15,000 Romans were posted, and now the recently modernised museum, as well as Abbotsford at Melrose—Sir Walter Scott’s pad.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am going to shock Finlay Carson: I agree with him.

We also have the great tapestry of Scotland at Galashiels and the wonderful building for it. The town is also the home of “Coulter’s Candy” or “Ally Bally Bee”, which was devised by Robert Colthart, a mischievous worker in Gala who got into lots of trouble. It is a wonderful story.

We also have the common ridings, which go right across the Borders and Midlothian, coal mining heritage at Newtongrange and Gorebridge and paper making in Penicuik. All that is from the past. There is the bonnie High Street of Peebles, which harks back to our high streets of yore with many small independent shops.

On promoting

“sustainable use of the natural resources of the area”,

members should think of all the cycling and walking routes throughout the Borders and extended hill walking. I am thinking of the southern upland way, the source of the great River Tweed at Tweedsmuir and the Pentland hills, which are under extreme pressure. The area is alive with a vast diversity of animal and plant life. We even have resident golden eagles in a secret place.

I could write a book on the assets of the area and may well do so when it becomes a national park. There is my optimism, which is rooted in evidence.

It is also important that the area is accessible to major populations through rail, road and bus links. Being just a few miles south of Edinburgh makes it a democratic choice for a national park. Bordering with the north of England means that it will bring tourists and, I hope, accelerate the extension of the Borders railway.

There will be challenges and concerns, as I mentioned earlier in reference to my Pentland Hills Regional Park Boundary Bill, especially from the farming community. My goodness, I understand that community’s concerns. Farmers are the front-line custodians of the landscape, but it is a working landscape, so they must be at the forefront of any consultation. However, I hope that they will see that they can benefit from the protections and economic opportunities to diversify that a national park would provide.

There you have it: biodiversity, blissful landscapes and accessibility.

I listened carefully to what my colleague Fergus Ewing said about the practicalities of a national park and the residents of the area, who deserve to be happy where they live. It is important that we learn from the current national parks and do not repeat mistakes.

However, I again say: cast your vote for the Borders and Midlothian, and if you have a second choice, pop in Galloway.

It is very gracious of you, Mr Carson. As I am going to write, with you and others, to Professor Russel Griggs of South of Scotland Enterprise, could you put it on the record that your second choice for a national park would be the Borders and Midlothian? I understand your first choice, but can you state your plan B?

Will the member take an intervention now?

Will the minister take an intervention?