Seòmar agus comataidhean

Will the First Minister join me and, I hope, the Parliament, in celebrating Poland’s national constitution day, which was yesterday—3 May—and which celebrates and commemorates the declaration and adoption of Poland’s first constitution on 3 May 1791? Will she do so in particular as Poland is doing so much these days to support its troubled neighbour, Ukraine?

I congratulate the member on securing the debate and in particular congratulate him on heeding my words earlier today. I wish the whips had the same reaction when I speak to them.

I recognise, as narrated in the motion, the courage of journalists killed in the line of duty, without whose bravery and professionalism we would often be unaware of the evils in this world through war, poverty and oppression in all its forms. I add the courage of the support teams they may have—the drivers, the photographers, the camera men and women, often unseen and unrecognised. In particular there are those who defy oppressive control in their own countries and pay for it with their freedom and their lives. Are we in the public worthy of their sacrifices? I hope so.

Today with the demise of the printed press and with 24-hour rolling news, the internet and Twitter, are we at risk of news fatigue at the very least? Has it become devalued by its very relentless accessibility and how it is delivered? If so, we do not deserve those journalists out in the field, whether at home or abroad, who try to tell us it as it is. The paper press has its agenda particularly in home affairs, but that has always been the case. The Daily Mail stands up for Boris; the Daily Record does not. The Daily Telegraph is his mouthpiece; The National supports independence. We each source our domestic news on paper or online from where it reflects our own values.

Where can we source news that at best can be objective and perhaps challenge our values? I turn to public broadcasting such as the BBC and Channel 4. They are not perfect. In my view, the Beeb bows too often to the establishment, be it on news of royal events—where does it reflect republican views?—or during wartime, when it can become jingoistic. I recall reporting during the Falklands war that turned my stomach with its smatterings of propaganda. It too frequently reports an English domestic agenda with only a nod in its UK slot to the devolved Governments. However, all in all it does not too bad a job.

Channel 4 is my news channel of choice. I watch to contrast with the reporting on the BBC, but then I am a bit of a news addict. It is interesting to see the distinction, not only in the choice of lead story but in the commentary. In my view, it is edgier, although I confess that I also like Tom Bradby’s style as an occasional news presenter on ITV. His facial expressions and asides may cross the reporting line for some but not for me.

However, we politicians are not normal folk when it comes to following or trying to make and influence the news. The old line is still a truth about the relationship between a reporter and a politician being that of the dog to the lamp post, although which is the lamp post is out for debate. I exclude from that local press such as the Peeblesshire News, The Southern Reporter, the Border Telegraph, the Midlothian View and the Midlothian Advertiser, all in my patch and all at risk. They are pretty even-handed towards their political representatives locally, whoever they are.

However, is the press as we know it on its last legs? Advertising, which sustains both the local and national paper press, has shifted to the internet, where it is cheaper and has a much broader reach, but if we rely on an unregulated Twitter, we end up with a Trump. If we lose press independence, qualified though it may be, look east to Russia. Back to public broadcasting, then, and the need for Channel 4 at the very least to remain in public hands. The cost of losing that independence of reporting is at a cost to our democracy.

Borders Buses has had to restrict its timetables—an essential service in my rural constituency—because of a shortage of bus drivers following Brexit. The United Kingdom Government refuses to place bus drivers on its shortage occupation list, as the UK Migration Advisory Committee does not consider that the occupation meets the threshold. That is completely wrong. Does the First Minister agree?

I am very sympathetic to the issue that Maurice Golden has raised, and I trail the fact that my proposal for a bill on the welfare of dogs is lodged today, so it is open for signing.

Further to the response from the minister, I believe that there are eight or so microchipping companies, and every puppy in Scotland has been microchipped. Is there a possibility of combining their data into one database for traceability?

The cabinet secretary will recall that I previously raised the issue of the census question on the use of Scots, which some constituents found unclear. He quite rightly directed me and others to consider the guidance, which is helpful. I ask the cabinet secretary to repeat some of the languages that come under the umbrella of Scots, so that people know what to put in. For Jackie Dunbar’s benefit, I can say that Doric is included.

I despair, listening to Richard Leonard, at Labour being prepared to prop up a Tory Government and a failed union yet again. No wonder Labour’s vote in Scotland is shrinking into the distance.

This a significant debate. It is not just about short-changing Scotland to the tune of £337 million of former European structural funds, and breaking a promise to ensure that post-Brexit Scotland would receive, as a minimum, the £549 million that it would have received. That is bad enough, but the UK Government has blatantly and deliberately set about undermining the principles of devolution.

That is also at odds with the UK Government’s own 2018 commitment to

“respect the devolution settlements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and … engage the devolved administrations to ensure the fund works for places across the UK.”

Alister Jack, the Tories’ spokesman in Scotland, said:

“We intend to work with the Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to facilitate collaborative work”.

“Collaborative” is a weasel word, because the UK Government has utterly bypassed the Scottish Government and has dealt directly with individual regions and councils. Does that matter? Of course it does. First, this is no UK gift or act of generosity; it is our money, garnered through our taxes, national insurance, VAT and so on. Secondly, it is a naked use of those funds by the Tories not only to undermine devolution but to stem the rising case for independence.

Consider this: Scotland voted to remain in the EU by a thumping 62 per cent. Boris’s “oven-ready” deal turned out to be a pig’s breakfast, and that £350 million a week for the national health service on the side of a bus was just that—something scribbled on the side of a bus.

When it comes to the NHS and the care sector, we have staff shortages directly as a consequence of Brexit—and we can add lorry drivers, bus drivers, additional red tape and lorries stacked up at ferry ports. It is yet another Boris boorach—he is an ace at those. All of that impacts on the economy. As for reclaiming our fishing waters, we might ask the Scottish fishing industry and processors about that as their produce languishes in those stationary lorry parks.

The actuality of Brexit is not done. I reference Northern Ireland, which also voted remain, by 56 per cent. It now has transborder issues with Éire and with the rest of the UK. There is also that border down the Irish Sea, which was not to be a border and, in Boris-speak, never was a border. After all, if he does not know what a party is, he will not know what a border is. Now he is trailing a piece of legislation to overturn the Brexit deal. By the way, whatever happened to Alister Jack’s tunnel under the Irish Sea—or was it a bridge? It has been abandoned, just like the commitment to respect and work with the devolved Governments.

Did the Scottish Government have plans in place to administer and allocate those former EU funds? Of course it did, but it was right to indicate well in advance:

“We do not know which funds will be replaced. We have no idea what conditions may be placed on the funding. We do not know how long the fund will be for or when it might start.”

Well, we ken noo.

We can add to that the UK’s levelling up fund, which has been referenced by others and which, in my patch, has placed Scottish Borders in priority group 1, with access to £20 million to assist areas with high deprivation.

Of course there is deprivation in the Borders, but what principle is in operation here? In Clackmannanshire, the rate of deprivation is 40 per cent, yet is not on the hit list. Why not? Perhaps because Borders has a Tory council and, in John Lamont, a Tory MP. It is all about helping your buddies and shoring up your vote; it is not about prioritising areas of high deprivation, so let us not kid on about that.

In a BBC interview, my friend Alister Jack gave the game away yet again, when he spoke about the formation of a new cabinet union strategy committee, headed by the Prime Minister, specifically to counter independence. He had the nerve to say:

“This is actually true devolution in practice. Scotland has two governments, and this is the United Kingdom Government spending money, new money, directly with local authorities.”

Here we go. Scotland directly opposed Brexit, yet the Tories ripped Scotland out of the EU, undemocratically. Scotland was told that if it voted yes in 2014 it would be ripped out of the European Union, but the unionists did it for us. Here the Tories have 31 MSPs to the SNP’s 64, and they have only six MPs from Scotland at Westminster, compared with our 45. Wherever we look on the Scottish political landscape, we see that it is undemocratic.

It is worth repeating that the people have spoken time and again. They have rejected the Conservatives and, indeed, Alister Jack, who acts like a colonial governor who is long past his sell-by date.

Failing at the ballot box, the Tories rely on English MPs to impose policies on Scotland and funnel funding for political purposes with no democratic mandate. In 2014, they argued against independence. Well, here we are. Thanks to the union, we are out of Europe. If the Tories think that Scottish people want to continue with this kind of Tory rule and all that it entails, why do they not agree with us and put that to the test with a referendum?

Here we go.

If the Conservative Party is so popular, why have only six Conservative MPs been representing Scotland since the most recent general election?

I welcome this short debate and acknowledge the concerns and anxieties of households that face energy costs and costs of living that are skyrocketing. I will not repeat all the mitigations that the cabinet secretary outlined in her opening speech, but I will say that they are required solely because of the oppressive policies of this Tory Government, which knows—and, by its actions, demonstrates that it could care less—about the poverty that it is inflicting on the most vulnerable in society.

This economic disaster can be traced right back to the days of the Liberal-Tory coalition of 2010 to 2015, when austerity was seen as a solution to the banks’ collapse. Billions were taken from health and local government budgets, attacking the standard of living of ordinary decent folk, while the rich got richer and the economy was encouraged to function on consumerism that was fuelled by low interest rates and credit, both commercial and individual.

It was a house of cards primed for collapse. Brexit was pursued in the middle of a pandemic, and an oven-ready deal turned out to be a pig’s breakfast, which has now been compounded by an energy crisis.

This economic house of cards is collapsing after nearly 12 years of Tory rule. Who will suffer? Not the chancellor and his tax-avoiding wife—who declared, as a non-domestic taxpayer, that she did not intend to permanently reside in the UK, which saved her millions in UK tax while the rest of us are paying hikes in national insurance and some are losing universal credit. Not Boris Johnson, who apparently does not know what a party is—although he did have £50 to pay that fine. Not heartless Priti Patel, who is paying to export miserable desperate souls to a country with dubious human rights. They are so removed from what is decent and the reality of ordinary lives that I despair.

It will, as always, be the pensioners, those on low pay, the disabled, the disadvantaged and the single-parent families who pay the price for the Tories’ selfishness and incompetence.

The solution offered by the Opposition parties here is to raid public funds from our health and education budgets to, once again, try to ease poverty that has come about entirely as a result of the actions of the UK Government. Much has been done by the Scottish Government, but mitigation has its limits. Already, £600 million a year is being spent on just that.

Do our people deserve this? Did they vote for this? Consider this: at the most recent UK election, in 2019, Labour returned one MP, the Liberals returned one MP, and the UK party of Government, the Tories, returned 6. The SNP has 45 MPs. In the 2021 Scottish Parliament election, the Tories returned 31 MSPs to the SNP’s 64. Throw in the 62 per cent vote to remain in the EU, and we can see that the people have spoken in election after election.

Independence would end the mitigation of the actions of Governments and consequences of policies that we did not vote for. For the first time in generations, we could run our own economy with the competence that is so lacking among the Tories, with the goal of a socially just society that protects the vulnerable, not the privileged.

It is time for mitigation to end. Surely, even the remnants of the Labour Party and the Liberals in here can see that, or will they keep propping up this failed UK Government, which has been rejected time and time again by the Scottish electorate?

Small communities in and around West Linton in my constituency have formed the West Linton area supports Ukraine group, with over 30 households signing up to the UK Government programme. However, to date, because of the sluggish visa process, which has been referred to, no Ukrainians have been allocated. Will the Scottish Government, through its welcome hubs, together with local authorities, when relocating families in rural communities, take account of the need to ensure that they have other refugee families relocated with them in order to provide them with additional support in adjusting to their new circumstances after such dramatic experiences?