JOHN Swinney has called on the UK Government to immediately recognise the state of Palestine.
On Tuesday, Prime Minister Keir Starmer pledged to recognise Palestine in September after France declared it would be doing so.
Starmer is understood to have told an emergency Cabinet meeting earlier in the week that the UK would recognise the Palestinian state if Israel failed to meet a list of demands.
This included committing to a two-state solution, and end the annexation of Palestinian land in the West Bank, as well as taking steps to end the “appalling situation in Gaza” if it hopes to stop recognition from going ahead.
In a readout from the meeting in Downing Street, Starmer said that he believed it necessary because of the "diminishing prospect of a peace process towards a two-state solution".
Swinney has said there should be “no ifs” and that the declaration should be made now.
In a video posted on social media, the First Minister said: “Let’s talk about Palestine.
“The UK Prime Minister has said that Palestine should be a sovereign state ‘if’
“There’s no ifs about it for me.
“There has to be a Palestinian sovereign state declared now. There has to be a ceasefire in the Middle East.
The State of Palestine must be recognised now — not bargained over. No conditions, no delays. Here’s why 👇 pic.twitter.com/K1E23A5Kp8
— John Swinney (@JohnSwinney) July 31, 2025
“There has to be a ceasefire delivered to the starving people of Gaza, and Israel has got to remove the roadblocks to everything now.
“The people of Gaza have suffered immeasurably, we need peace, we need a two state solution, we need it now.
“No ifs.”
It comes after a group of legal figures in the House of Lords claimed that the UK recognising [[Palestine]] would not be compatible with international law, citing a Pan-American treaty from 1933 – to which the UK was not a signatory.
There are several signatories of the Montevideo Convention who recognised Palestine as a state.
An expert debunked this, explaining to The National that it was a “cynical ploy” by peers and a “ludicrous” interpretation of the treaty.
