The Scottish Greens voted against the motion, with party co-leader Patrick Harvie branding it “chaos for the sake of chaos”.
If it had passed, all ministers in the minority SNP government would have been forced to quit.
Opening the debate, Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar thanked Mr Yousaf for his service and wished him well, but said Scotland was “crying out for change” from the UK Conservative government and the SNP Scottish government.
He said the country needed “credible and effective leadership” to deal with “twin crises” in the economy and NHS.
More on Humza Yousaf
Related Topics:
Mr Sarwar added: “I have no confidence in the SNP’s ability to deliver that and that is why I am bringing this motion to parliament today.”
The outgoing first minister defended his government’s record, adding that in the 13 months he has spent in charge he had not “heard a single positive idea” from Scottish Labour.
Advertisement
Image: Anas Sarwar thanked Mr Yousaf for his service, but said Scotland was ‘crying out for change’. Pic: PA
Mr Yousaf added: “What I have heard is the deafening sound of principle after principle being thrown out of Anas Sarwar’s window.
“U-turning on the two-child cap, U-turning on the devolution of employment law, U-turning on the devolution of drug law, U-turning on his support for Waspi women.”
Mr Yousaf said pro-UK parties, in their “cosy Westminster alliance”, would be “terrified” of a vote of no confidence.
He added: “As I have found out only too well in the last few days, politics is definitely about the choices we choose to make.
“As a government, I am exceptionally proud of our choices.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Within hours of the powersharing deal with the Scottish Greens coming to an end last week, Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross announced he would be bringing a motion of no confidence in the first minister.
Angry over the way the party was dumped from government, the Scottish Greens announced its MSPs would be backing the motion.
Scottish Labour then announced it was planning a motion of no confidence in the Scottish government.
Mr Yousaf reached out to his political opponents in an effort to stem the uprising but conceded that he had “underestimated the level of hurt and upset” his actions had caused Scottish Green colleagues.
Follow Sky News on WhatsApp
Keep up with all the latest news from the UK and around the world by following Sky News
The Scottish Tories dropped their motion following Mr Yousaf’s resignation, but Scottish Labour pressed on as the party believes the decision on the next first minister should be put to the public.
Mr Yousaf intends to remain in post until his successor is announced.
Former deputy first minister John Swinney and ex-finance secretary Kate Forbes have emerged as potential frontrunners to throw their hat into the ring.
Image: Kate Forbes speaking to journalists earlier this week. Pic: PA
Mr Sarwar pointed to reports that Ms Forbes could struggle to appoint ministers and described Mr Swinney as “the finance secretary that broke the public finances and the worst education secretary in the history of the Scottish parliament”.
Mr Ross, whose party threw its support behind the Scottish Labour motion, was forced to apologise to Mr Swinney after referring to him as “not so honest John” in the Holyrood chamber.
Image: John Swinney at Holyrood on Tuesday. Pic: PA
Mr Ross was first reprimanded for referring to Mr Swinney as “honest John”, but when presiding officer Alison Johnstone reminded him not to use nicknames, he said: “Oh sorry, I thought it was on accuracy because it would be not so honest John with some of the things we’ve heard recently.”
Image: Douglas Ross (pictured) was first reprimanded for referring to Mr Swinney as ‘honest John’. Pic: PA
Apologising, Mr Ross said: “I will apologise. I’m very sorry for any hurt caused.”
The Scottish Tory leader added: “Whether we have a bitter battle or a cosy coronation to elect the next leader of the SNP, they will continue campaigning for independence and the Scottish people will continue to be failed by them.”
The economy will have to be “strong enough” for the government to U-turn on winter fuel payment cuts, the business secretary has said.
Jonathan Reynolds, talking to Beth Rigby on the Electoral Dysfunction podcast, also said the public would have to “wait for the actual budget” to make an announcement on it.
He and his ministers had insisted they would stick to their guns on the policy, even just hours before Sir Keir revealed his change of heart at Prime Minister’s Questions.
But Mr Reynolds revealed there is more at play to be able to change the policy.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:01
Winter fuel payment cuts to be reversed
“The economy has got to be strong enough to give you the capacity to make the kind of decisions people want us to see,” he said.
“We want people to know we’re listening.
“All the prime minister has said is ‘look, he’s listening, he’s aware of it.
“He wants a strong economy to be able to deliver for people.
“You’d have to wait for the actual budget to do that.”
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has looked into the government’s options after Sir Keir Starmer said he is considering changes to the cut to winter fuel payment (WFP).
The government could make a complete U-turn on removing the payment from pensioners not claiming pension credit so they all receive it again.
There could be a higher eligibility threshold. Households not claiming pension credit could apply directly for the winter fuel payment, reporting their income and other circumstances.
Or, all pensioner households could claim it but those above a certain income level could do a self-assessment tax return to pay some of it back as a higher income tax charge. This could be like child benefit, where the repayment is based on the higher income member of the household.
Instead of reducing pension credit by £1 for every £1 of income, it could be withdrawn more slowly to entitle more households to it, and therefore WFP.
At the moment, WFP is paid to households but if it was paid to individuals the government could means-test each pensioner, rather than their household. This could be based on an individual’s income, which the government already records for tax purposes. Individuals who have a low income could get the payment, even if their spouse is high income. This would mean low income couples getting twice as much, whereas each eligible house currently gets the same.
Instead of just those receiving pension credit getting WFP, the government could extend it to pensioners who claim means-tested welfare for housing or council tax support. A total of 430,000 renting households would be eligible at a cost of about £100m a year.
Pensioners not on pension credit but receiving disability credits could get WFP, extending eligibility to 1.8m households in England and Scotland at a cost of about £500m a year.
Pensioners living in a band A-C property could be automatically entitled to WFP, affected just over half (6.3m).
Chancellor Rachel Reeves has committed to just one major fiscal event a year, meaning just one annual budget in the autumn.
Autumn budgets normally take place in October, with the last one at the end of the month.
If this year’s budget is around the same date it will leave little time for the extra winter fuel payments to be made as they are paid between November and December.
You can listen to the full interview on tomorrow’s Electoral Dysfunction podcast
Semiconductors scored a rare exemption from US President Donald Trump’s aggressive reciprocal tariffs, but the relief is symbolic at best. Most semiconductors enter the US embedded in servers, GPUs, laptops, and smartphones.
The finished goods remain heavily tariffed, some with duties reaching up to 49%. The exemption looks good politically but delivers little practical benefit. Nvidia’s DGX systems, crucial for training advanced AI models, do not fall under the exempted HTS codes. Nvidia could pay effective tariffs nearing 40% on these vital components. Such costs threaten to stall critical AI infrastructure projects across the country.
Semiconductor tariffs may compromise the goal of the CHIPS Act. The act promised tens of billions of dollars in subsidies to support domestic chip manufacturing. Yet advanced lithography machines — key equipment from countries like the Netherlands and Japan — face 20%–24% tariffs. Ironically, tariffs designed to boost American production increase the cost of essential manufacturing equipment.
The effect of new tariffs is already slowing progress in critical supply chains — just as generative AI and large language models are gaining momentum across sectors like finance and defense. Any delays or cost increases now could blunt America’s technological advantage.
Indirect costs undermine exemptions for AI
Modern semiconductor supply chains are global and highly integrated. An exemption on raw silicon means nothing when servers, GPUs and other finished products face steep tariffs. Tariffs indirectly inflate costs, eliminating any competitive advantage from domestic manufacturing.
Indirect tariff costs hit high-end systems disproportionately hard. The effect ripples through AI model training, data center expansions and major infrastructure projects, significantly slowing the industry’s momentum.
Tariff impasse halts investment
So far, it’s clear that the US president’s tariff plan didn’t follow any conventional economic trends or calculated strategy. The uncertain tariff situation stalls investment decisions across the technology sector. Companies need predictable costs to justify large capital expenditures. Ongoing tariff volatility prevents them from committing resources to new data centers and manufacturing lines.
This mirrors the supply chain chaos of 2020. At that time, uncertainty caused massive order cancellations and slowed industry recovery for years. If tariff ambiguity continues, we could see similar waves of cancellations in 2025. This would further compound existing inventory and revenue issues in the semiconductor sector.
Domestic production is not optimal
The border argument for these tariffs is that they’re meant to boost domestic production. They do little, however, to encourage genuine domestic semiconductor production. Despite subsidies under the CHIPS Act, most US semiconductor companies still rely on international foundries for manufacturing. Instead, they face increased equipment and operational costs.
The idea that tariffs promote domestic production ignores the reality of global semiconductor manufacturing. Costs rise across the board, putting American companies at a disadvantage rather than offering protection.
AI projects face heightened risk
The blockchain and crypto sectors, particularly AI-driven projects, also feel the pinch. Projects depend heavily on GPUs and high-performance servers for mining, validating transactions and running decentralized AI computations. Increased hardware costs directly affect profitability and growth, potentially stalling innovation in blockchain applications.
AI developments have just started to pick up the pace in the blockchain and Web3 space. The industry saw increased interest from investors and VCs just a year ago. So, they are still on tighter budgets. Elevated costs can, however, lead to stagnation. We might see innovators and developers exiting the market. The ripple effect extends beyond the general technology sector and could threaten future digital economies.
Moreover, these cost pressures disproportionately affect startups and smaller tech firms. Industry giants can absorb additional expenses, but innovative, smaller players face existential threats. This dynamic risks stifling innovation at the grassroots level, harming the entire tech ecosystem.
What to expect
Semiconductors have momentarily escaped direct tariffs, but the exemption provides little benefit. Tariffs continue to hit finished products, driving up indirect costs across the industry. Instead of boosting domestic manufacturing, these tariffs create economic paralysis, stall critical infrastructure projects, and threaten America’s lead in AI innovation. Policymakers must acknowledge these realities and adjust their approach before irreversible damage is done to the nation’s technological future.
Opinion by: Ahmad Shadid of O.xyz.
This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.
California Representative Maxine Waters, ranking member of the US House Financial Services Committee, has announced plans to introduce legislation “to block [Donald] Trump’s memecoin and stop his crypto corruption.”
In a May 22 notice, Rep. Waters said the Stop Trading, Retention, and Unfair Market Payoffs (TRUMP) in Crypto Act of 2025 bill would be aimed at blocking the US President, Vice President, members of Congress, and their families from engaging in “crypto crime.” The US lawmaker referred to Trump and his wife, Melania, issuing personal memecoins in January, his family launching a stablecoin, USD1, through the crypto platform World Liberty Financial, and the president attempting to establish a national Bitcoin (BTC) reserve as his sons back a BTC mining venture.
“Donald Trump is preparing to dine with the top donors of his memecoin who’ve made him, and his family, richer,” said Waters, adding:
“Trump’s crypto con is not just a scam to target investors. It’s also a dangerous backdoor for selling influence over American policies to the highest foreign bidder.”
Waters’ bill was one of many actions announced to oppose the president’s dinner to reward memecoin holders. Senators Chris Murphy and Elizabeth Warren are expected to attend a press event with representatives for the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, and two Democratic organizations will protest at the Trump National Golf Club outside Washington, DC, where the memecoin dinner will be held.
This is a developing story, and further information will be added as it becomes available.