Seòmar agus comataidhean

I will keep it very brief. I will quote Patrick Harvie, which I do not do often:

“Scotland has strong solidarity with Ukraine and is outraged at those who would abandon it to an aggressor”—[Official Report, 4 March 2025; c 16.]

Surely, by not giving it arms, we are doing exactly that.

Will the member take an intervention?

I am delighted to stand up and speak in the debate, even if it is to highlight some of the incredible things that I hear other parties saying. First, I put on the record that the MOD is a very important contributor to Scotland. It invests huge amounts of money—more than £2 billion a year—and our arms exports and weapons exports are incredibly important. I do not need to point out to members that Lossiemouth, which is in the region that I represent, has just benefited from a Boeing investment of more than £100 million.

I am sorry that Daniel Johnson is not in the chamber, but I recognise what he said about the importance of investing in our armed services and what the Labour Party is doing. I was pleased to hear him say that because, for too long, our armed services have been cut down. When I was a soldier, there were 138,000 soldiers in Germany; now, in the UK, fewer than 60,000 can be deployed. I am also pleased that the Scottish Labour amendment identifies that, without the type 26 frigate programme, Ferguson Marine would not be able to rely on having a future.

I struggle with the SNP’s policy, which is that the party supports diversifying from defence expenditure and defence industries but likes defence. It seems to me that you cannot have the two.

I would be delighted if Lorna Slater asked AI to articulate the Scottish Greens’ policies, because they seem completely incoherent. It seems that they support delivering first-field dressings to Ukraine but not giving soldiers the ability to defend themselves on the battlefield, which is ludicrous.

Let me be entirely clear: I believe that the first duty of every Government is ensuring the security of the country and the population. That will not be achieved by giving hugs and kisses to those who threaten us.

Let me be clear that the only place in the world that has benefited from a flower power revolution is Portugal, in 1974, when soldiers put carnations in their guns to prove that they were not going to fire at civilians. Every other country has to use bullets to defend itself and fight against aggression. Countries need weapons to defend themselves, and they need to be confident that their politicians will give them the ability to defend themselves.

In very short and simple terms, our armed forces need to walk softly but carry a stick in order to defend us against the growing turbulence across the world. One has only to look at Iran, North Korea, Russia and China as central places where division is being sowed.

I highlight some of the comments that we have heard about Ukraine. I will quote Lorna Slater and see whether she will stand up to defend this. On 5 March 2025, she said:

“Support for Ukraine is wide and deep. Not since the end of the cold war have Europe’s values been tested as they are being tested now. In the face of Russia’s aggression, however, we are resolute.”—[Official Report, 5 March 2025; c 93.]

We are resolute, but we do not seem to be resolute in providing Ukraine with the ability to defend itself. That is a completely mixed message.

John Swinney stood before us and said:

“Here in Scotland, we will, forever, stand with Ukraine.”—[Official Report, 4 March 2025; c 13.]

We will stand with Ukraine, but we will not defend it or allow it to defend itself.

Those are the sorts of mixed messages that we get. I have lots of other examples of that for lots of SNP members who have not turned up to the debate. The SNP wishes to diversify rather than defend the country. Let me say, as an ex-soldier, that that is pure hypocrisy and not understandable.

If Lorna Slater’s remarks were completely coherent, how will Ukraine defend itself against Russia if it does not have any weapons with which to do so? Is it just supposed to hug and kiss it out?

I have always joined with Fergus Ewing in calling for vaccinations to be returned to GPs in the Highlands, but NHS Highland seems to believe that the only place to deliver services is Raigmore hospital. That is why it has also pulled enhanced GP services across the Highlands. If NHS Highland cannot manage its finances, and as it appears that it will be £50 million in debt by the end of the year, is the answer to the problem that it should be put into special measures?

For clarification, I say to the Deputy First Minister that the last time that Ferguson Marine (Port Glasgow) reported to the committee was in October 2024. The only reason that we have the dates that we have now is because Ferguson Marine was threatened with being asked to come before the committee if it would not reply to our successive letters.

Andrew Miller, chairman of Ferguson Marine, sacked his first CEO because of delays and increasing costs. The second one whom he appointed left after six months. The latest one took over and had to announce further delays. Does the Deputy First Minister have confidence in Andrew Miller? I do not think that many other people do.

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on how Police Scotland shares information with other statutory bodies about vulnerable individuals. (S6O-04655)

I thank the cabinet secretary and the Deputy First Minister for meeting me and the families of the individuals who were killed or injured in Inverness in 2020. Subsequent to that meeting, I have identified that the police had no forms of concern relating to the accused, who had been previously arrested. The families and I have looked at the mental health and policing framework for collaboration and seen little that would compel the police to liaise more closely with partners such as national health service boards and councils.

What guarantee can the cabinet secretary give to assure the families that Police Scotland will learn from that incident and ensure that there is more joined-up action in future?

I stand to speak in this debate with sadness, because it is all about the ending of life. During life, there will never be a bigger decision than the decision either to take a life or to sanction the ending of life.

As a young soldier, my view was that death happened to other people, but age and cancer made me realise that death was inevitably coming closer, and I was forced to contemplate carefully how my life might end. That was not a comfortable or easy experience, and the bill brings all of that into sharp focus.

I speak not with any religious beliefs, but as a son, husband and father—and soon, I hope, a grandfather. Those are the things that drive me to ensure that what we do is right and they are the reason why I will always seek life.

I have attended many of the pro-assisted dying meetings and listened to why some people believe that they have the right to choose how and when they die.

Let us be clear that, if one has a terminal illness, knowing that one will automatically have access to the best palliative care is fundamental to feeling in control of one’s illness. Indeed, it gives one options, which is why I support Miles Briggs’s proposed bill to ensure the provision of proper palliative care. Indeed, my opinion is that the issue of proper palliative care was one of the key reasons why previous bills on assisted dying fell.

If one does not know that one has control, there is no doubt that one will look to get control, and that is, inevitably, what will drive some people to supporting the bill. To my mind, that is a form of coercion. Although the bill attempts to prevent all types of coercion, I believe that it fails.

I believe that there are three types of coercion—active, passive and state coercion. Although the bill may try to prevent open and active coercion, it does nothing to prevent passive coercion. The lack of sufficient palliative care will make people think about the potential cost of their private medical care and think that every penny that they spend on that care is one less for their family. It therefore will become a mix of passive and state coercion—as, in my opinion, was the imposition of the family farm tax. In that case, if you died quickly enough, then you could give your farm to your family tax free. The bill thus invites an early death and transforms the right to die into a duty to die—and, then, it becomes truly unacceptable.

This bill ensures that the NHS medical practitioner who delivers the as yet unspecified mix of drugs to the patient will remain with that person until they die. We know that there are no available drugs that have an on-label use to cause death. If there were, they would be used in countries that approve of the death penalty. The unapproved mixture will need to be accompanied by a strong anti-nausea drug—and I can vouch that some of those are not infallible.

I will, if I have time.