Meeting of the Parliament 16 June 2026 [Draft]
I join others in congratulating Jenny Young on securing this evening’s debate to commemorate the political contribution of Jo Cox and to pay tribute to her legacy.
I was a member of the UK Parliament on the day that Jo Cox was killed. I was out visiting a secondary school that I had been working in right up until the election in May 2015. The school was not in my constituency; I was visiting former colleagues who were keen to catch up and pupils with whom I had built good relationships, and they had loads of questions about my life as an MP. It was a happy visit, with laughter, anecdotes and memories of my time with staff and pupils, which had ended on the day that the Scottish National Party swept into Westminster on a wave of support, the scale of which no one had predicted.
That day, I was in the class with my former secondary 2 pupils, and the teacher had been discussing how Westminster operates. He had played a clip, and as the clip ended, the television reverted to live broadcast. The news flashed up that an MP had been seriously injured following an attack, and the children’s levity came very abruptly to an end. Everybody was really shocked. For the children, it had been a very interesting visit from a former teacher who now seemed to have quite an exciting job, which then became a visit from a former teacher who now had what they perceived to be a really dangerous job.
Even from the initial reports, it seemed impossible to imagine—despite the deranged attack on Jo Cox and what she suffered—that she would not come through it. We certainly all hoped and prayed that she would. It was a very sombre time in the Commons when we reconvened the following Monday. All we could think about was, how could this happen? What does it say about the political climate in which we live? Inevitably, we wondered which one of us would be next.
Like many in the SNP group, Jo Cox had been elected only the preceding year, and, like many of us, she was still finding her feet and had been taken by surprise at the ferocious hatred that was being spouted out on social media platforms, where good intentions are twisted and misrepresented. It is a digital town square, complete with digital pitchforks, to attack and abuse anyone—especially politicians, but not just politicians—who raises their head even slightly above the parapet. We knew that it was only a matter of time before another such attack took place—and it did subsequently, claiming the life of David Amess, a long-standing MP who was respected and admired across the house.
I recall the five-year anniversary of Jo’s death and how her sister, Kim Leadbeater MP, led a debate in the House of Commons to celebrate her sister’s life and legacy while continuing to fight for the values that cost Jo Cox her life. Kim’s speech on that day, witnessed by her and Jo’s parents, was moving, inspiring, powerful and memorable. Ten years on, with two MPs murdered in the line of duty and countless others abused and subjected to intimidating tactics on social media, it is a good time to take stock of where we are, because politics has become increasingly divided by extremism. That is bad enough, but in that particular context we must all be more mindful of the language that we use and how we debate and interact with each other.
People often blame the nastiness that is spouted on the influence of social media. Members have done that today, and I completely understand why. However, I say this: social media does not operate in a vacuum. It gives me no pleasure to say that, sadly, some elements of the media need to have a care about their contribution to the creation in our virtual town squares of digital stocks and pitchforks that are increasingly the norm on social media. We all know that words—outpourings—can move or motivate others into deadly action. I say that because, when I was in the House of Commons, I did not meet one MP—not one—who had not suffered at least one death threat or a threat of some kind of physical harm. That is a terrible thing to say. When elected representatives in democratic nations are attacked and killed for their beliefs, it is our democratic values that are being attacked. Those values are too precious to lose without challenge from those of us who hold them dear.
The vast majority of elected representatives are in politics to stand up for ideals and better the lives of those we seek to represent. That is it. That is all. However, in some sections of the mainstream media, our motives are constantly questioned, our efforts constantly belittled and our visions constantly undermined through language that is nasty and excoriating, and that is the backdrop against which social media exists. To all politicians in this place and in all our democratic institutions, to everyone involved in the media—whether it be social, print or television—and to all those involved in the political process, I say that we should have a care with regard to how we speak to and about each other.
In this chamber and in wider society, we need to relearn how to disagree respectfully and not assume the worst of someone just because we disagree with their politics. Let us try to heal our politics, so that extremism cannot flourish.