Meeting of the Parliament 11 November 2025
That is all very good from Kevin Stewart, but, unfortunately, some of us have a longer-term memory of what the SNP has been up to over the past four and a half years—certainly, in the time that I have been in this Parliament. If they wish, SNP members can disown Nicola Sturgeon, but she popped up last week and repeated all the same stuff that she said as First Minister. They can disown Humza Yousaf on the same basis, but the reality is the reality.
This is a debate that goes to the very heart of the future of Scotland’s economy. Are we going to go for commonsense economic principles? Are we going to go for economic growth? Are we going to put the people of Scotland first, or are we going to remain entrapped by the ideology of a fringe group of extremists who would like us to return to the stone age? That is the choice that we have to make.
I feel sorry for Ben Macpherson, because this is not his brief. I am a bit perplexed as to why he is the minister who is responding to the debate, other than the fact that the motion is about a university paper.
In that paper, Professor Paul de Leeuw—I think that that is how it is pronounced—writes that
“Sustaining Scotland as an energy powerhouse requires hard choices”,
and that,
“without intervention, Scotland’s supply chain and workforce will be impacted disproportionately.”
He also called for “honest and candid dialogue”.
Therefore, I welcome what Kevin Stewart said—I should make that clear—because we should be evidence led. I do not know how many speeches I have given in the Parliament in which I said that policy should be evidence led and based on fact, not fiction or fantasy. If we do not come up with a common UK policy framework on energy—one that achieves what we want it to achieve—in the words of Paul de Leeuw, we will be sacrificing our “energy resilience” and our national security.