Plenary, 03 Sep 2009

Meeting date: Thursday, September 3, 2009

Official Report 734KB pdf

---

Scottish Government's Programme

The next item of business is the debate on the Scottish Government's programme.

It is traditional to begin this response with some amusing words of welcome back from recess, but I fear that circumstances have rather undermined the new-term feeling and I suspect that most of us feel like we have never really been away.

Indeed, that sense of one parliamentary term blurring into another might be compounded by the fact that, when we examine the programme for government that the First Minister announced last year, we find that only five of the 15 bills that were announced were taken through the Parliament in that year. Seven of them are still with us and a couple of them have reappeared in this year's programme. Those include the children's hearings bill, which is so incompetent that it has been delayed already—before its announcement in the programme. That must be some kind of record.

Looking back, last year's flagship bill was, of course, the council tax abolition bill. It was trailed extensively and with the usual bravado and bluster, but—alas—it was a flagship that was already holed below the waterline. A few weeks later it sank without trace, to the relief of business, trade unions and the families who had faced a 25 per cent hike in their income tax bills. Now that was action to support Scotland's economy. The truth is that this Government's record of delivery on its programmes is poor indeed. It famously brings forward little substantial legislation, and much of that is then delayed, botched or just plain dropped. Therefore, we should take this programme with a large pinch of salt.

This year's flagship bill—the referendum bill—was also pre-announced last year. It starts with even less support than the late, unlamented council tax abolition bill had last year. The First Minister's coy hints about multi-options are just game playing, when he should be governing. The test of a Government programme must surely be the extent to which it addresses the crucial matters that face our country. We are in the middle of a recession, so the measure of this year's programme should be how it protects and creates jobs, helps Scots through the economic downturn and prepares us to move ahead when the upturn comes. As lain McMillan of the Confederation of British Industry said earlier this week:

"The overriding challenge to our politicians is simple—test all policies against a single benchmark: will it make Scotland a better place to create jobs and wealth as the economic recovery takes hold?"

We should all take that test seriously. The Scottish National Party should take it seriously, but nowhere more so than in the showpiece of this programme for government: the referendum bill. If ever a piece of legislation failed to reach that benchmark, it is that bill.

This is about priorities. What good is the referendum bill to the men and women across Scotland who have lost their jobs or live in fear of losing their jobs? What help is it to those who are worried about losing their home? What use is it to the young men and women who fear that they will have no future if they cannot get the apprenticeship or training place that they so badly need?

I am grateful to Mr Gray for giving way. He mentioned the fact that every initiative should be tested against the measure of whether it contributes to economic growth and economic recovery. Does he therefore consider the Chancellor of the Exchequer's forthcoming public spending application of £521 million of cuts to the Scottish budget the right thing to do at a time when we need economic recovery?

The action that the chancellor took over the past year to save and preserve our financial services system, including the two biggest banks in Scotland, is the only thing that has given us the opportunity to move forward. We have benefited from it and are part of it, and we should use that to move forward. I will say more about that.

As the banking crisis deepened last year, Alex Salmond's analysis and pronouncements became ever more eccentric. From, "Don't panic, our banks are sound," and, "Spivs and speculators did it," to the bizarre claim that the First Minister would extend £100 billion of credit in an independent Scotland—overblown, ill-informed and just plain wrong.

It was indeed Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling who took firm and decisive action to reflate the banks and prevent the collapse of our financial system. That action is working. Moreover, it took Labour, on these Opposition benches, to come up with an action plan for how devolution could be used to help Scottish families weather the worst of the global economic storm: fast-tracking capital expenditure; giving more help for home owners facing repossession; restarting public-private partnerships to remove the blockage in public building that was caused by the Scottish Futures Trust; ditching the local income tax; and restoring adult apprenticeship numbers. Those are just five of the 15 practical suggestions that we made while the SNP stood frozen in the glare of the crisis. That is the core of the economic recovery programme that the First Minister has just boasted about. I am glad that he has implemented it. If he had thought of it, that might have been something to boast about.

There is worse, because at every turn the SNP Government has undermined its own economic recovery plans. Yes, it accelerated housing budgets, but it changed, changed again and changed back housing association grant arrangements, so that months went by and housing associations could not build. Accelerated capital investment is a good thing, but the Government then lost another year of school and hospital building in trying to make its Scottish Futures Trust work. In two years, the Government lost £2 billion of public sector infrastructure from the PPP pipeline and tore 20,000 jobs out of the construction industry.

The problem is not just in construction, however. Last week, I visited the Borders, the centre of Scotland's textile industry, which employs 17,000 Scots and is worth £1 billion to the economy—and it is paying people off. David Breckenridge, the chair of the Scottish Textile Industry Association, has declared himself staggered at ministers' inability to grasp what is happening and what is needed. Referring to Scottish ministers, he said that

"ministers dissemble and refer to an ‘economic recovery programme' which is bereft of tangible support for businesses."

The First Minister should not have been telling us today what he has done; he should have been announcing new measures on the economy—for example, wage and training subsidies such as those that are already in place in Wales, top-ups for firms that take on new employees, or support for companies that use short-time working to keep staff on through the hard times rather than paying them off.

Last week, I also visited Borders College's excellent new campus in Galashiels, where I was told that two thirds of last year's first-year apprentices will not be coming back, because they have been laid off. The First Minister promised that that would not happen. Action should have been announced today to begin to make good the promise made to redundant apprentices that they can complete their training. The adopt an apprentice scheme is just not working.

I am glad that Iain Gray went to Borders College, which I opened a few months ago. Of course, he seems to have missed the succession of announcements on new apprenticeships that were made across the summer. I have a very specific question for him. Does he agree with the Government's analysis that accelerating capital spending into this year was a good thing? Should the same exercise be repeated next year so that there is no downturn in vital capital expenditure—yes or no?

Accelerating capital investment this year was a good thing, of course—we suggested it. However, the First Minister must first demonstrate that he can turn that money into schools and hospitals; then he can talk about bringing forward further capital investment. I am delighted that the First Minister opened the campus at Galashiels, because it was a Labour-led Administration that gave the college £30 million to build it. That is capital investment doing what it is supposed to do.

There are examples of what can be done, and Falkirk Council is showing the way. Its insistence on providing training places for young people with no other prospects, both in a proportion of its own vacancies and in contracts that it lets, is working. It has put 300 youngsters on the path to a future. The Government should be telling us how it will roll that out across councils and across the public sector.

Of course, action on the economy does not always require legislation, except when we come to the opportunities presented by the budget bill. Last year, the Government needed two attempts at a budget bill, exactly because it would not agree to measures to support the economy quickly enough. However, in the end, the bill included 8,000 more apprenticeships, £50 million funding for those who lose or face losing their jobs and £60 million for our town centres. We showed last year that we are willing to work towards a budget that serves Scotland's needs. I only hope that, this year, ministers will do that first time round, in good time and in good faith. They should have started today by giving priority to new plans on the economy and jobs.

People who face repossession have real fears. Almost three months ago, the First Minister conceded that, yes, Scottish families have less protection from repossession than those south of the border. I offered to bring Labour MSPs back to Parliament over the recess to support the Government and to get the legislation passed as quickly as possible, but that offer was declined. Every day that passes puts more Scottish families at risk and under pressure. When will the debtor protection bill actually become law, not just warm and weaselly words of comfort?

Like the First Minister, I spent the summer out and about across Scotland—although I travel a bit lighter and certainly more cheaply. In many towns, I joined knife crime campaigners to collect signatures for our petition. I was taken aback by what I found. Outside one supermarket in Glasgow, the first three people I stopped all had close family members who had been knife crime victims. The next day in Greenock, the first person I met was the mother of a young man who was murdered a year ago this month. The second was a football team-mate of Damien Muir, who was stabbed by an assailant on bail for a previous knife attack. The programme for government should include action on knife crime, including the introduction of minimum sentences to send the message that anyone who carries a knife will go to jail. That would make Scotland safer.

Also during the summer, we had the report on the tragic death of Brandon Muir. I have said that even that tragedy is transcended by that of the 20,000 children who live with drug-dependent parents and the perhaps 100,000 children who live with alcohol-dependent parents. We do not how many children are living the way that Brandon Muir lived. I want us to re-examine the circumstances in which we remove children from harm. I accept that the Government and local authorities are trying to fix the system where there are not enough social workers or procedures are failing, but we also need to change the system. Barnardo's, Professor Neil McKeganey and many Scots agree with me. The programme for government should include action now on that issue.

Of course, we will be able to support some of the bills in the programme for government. Colleagues will talk more about those in the course of the debate. On bills such as the budget bill and the alcohol bill, we are willing to look for consensus if the Government is willing seriously to seek it. However, our priorities every day will be jobs and the economy; crime and support for the victims of crime; and a refusal to accept that children should be at danger in their home in a modern Scotland. Those should be the Government's priorities every day as well.

Today we have had not so much a programme for government bound together by a common theme as a rambling list of 13 bills, which range from the feeble to the fantasy. Not for the first time has that happened under this First Minister.

Last year, Alex Salmond said that Scotland would judge harshly any MSP who voted to retain the council tax. We did not even get the chance. The First Minister blinked and threw in the towel. In the face of strong opposition from organisations all over Scotland, he abandoned his discredited local income tax before the bill was even published. It went from being the SNP's flagship to an abandoned pedalo in the blink of an eye.

I warn Alex Salmond that, far from it being the Opposition parties who will be judged harshly on the council tax, he and his SNP Government are the ones who will be judged harshly for breaking yet another promise. This Salmond Government simply cannot be trusted. It has a list of broken promises as large as Mr Salmond's ego—yes, we are talking magnitude here. In 2007, he conned the voters into voting for him, but he should be very wary of trying to pull that stunt again.

Whereas last year the First Minister's legislative obsession was local income tax, this year his new legislative obsession is separation. That will go the same way as last year's obsession—absolutely nowhere. Last year, the vast majority of Scots were against his discredited local income tax. That was why he was forced to abandon a vote on the issue. This year, the vast majority of Scots are against separation. By his own logic, Alex Salmond should abandon that bill too. He knows full well that, just like his discredited local income tax, separation will be rejected by the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people. Whatever else Scotland needs, we do not need Alex Salmond's referendum.

Will the member give way?

I want to make progress.

Scotland needs a Government that is prepared to face up to the big challenges and a First Minister who is prepared to take the tough decisions. We need a Government that is focused on economic recovery, not constitutional vandalism. We need a Government that is focused on reforming our public sector, not wrecking our political partnership. We need a Government that is focused on restoring Scotland's battered international reputation.

On the constitution, Alex Salmond is on the extremes of Scottish politics. Let me take something right on the chin: the Conservatives were on the extremes of the constitutional debate in the 1990s, when we opposed a Scottish Parliament. We are now well and truly back in the main stream once again. We are the party that understands devolution. We know that there needs to be a basis of mutual respect between Governments and Parliaments—something that the SNP and Labour do not understand. Alex Salmond is a lone voice representing a minority view, but his obsession with independence is harmful to the best interests of the people of Scotland.

My final point on this unnecessary and opportunistic piece of legislation is that Mr Salmond knows that he has no chance of getting the referendum bill through. As a result, he wants to fiddle it to tempt the Liberal Democrats to join his team. He thinks that, by offering more powers as an option, he will split the unionist vote and come steaming through the middle to take his independence prize. My message to Mr Salmond is that he should stop the smoke and mirrors and just ditch the bill.

I turn to the real challenges. For some time now, I have been warning about the consequences of what Labour has done to this country through record levels of borrowing that will saddle future generations with massive debts. I have challenged the First Minister on how he will respond to Labour's £500 million budget squeeze. Where will he take the tough decisions? What will he cut? I have yet to get an answer to that from the First Minister. In fact, we have had a silence that Gordon Brown would be proud of.

Gordon Brown's Government may well be in its death-throes, but Labour's debt—and the harsh impact that paying it back will have on devolved spending—will be with us for years. Tackling Labour's debt while protecting the public services that we all value will be the Scottish Government's main responsibility this year and next. It will also be the main responsibility of whoever is in government from 2011.

Only this morning economists from the University of Glasgow said that, because of Labour's recession, Scotland's budget will be cut by £2.5 billion over the next four years. If this Salmond Government, rather than deal with that situation, chooses simply to ignore it or to make political capital out of it, Scotland will be in big trouble. Being First Minister is about more than just turning up to open everything in sight and pressing for independence. The First Minister has a job to do. From the evidence of his legislative programme, he is ducking that responsibility. Although Labour has created this mess, we must all play our part in getting out of it. That requires leadership from the Government, not parochial party posturing.

Where in the First Minister's statement are the signs of a Government that is willing to take the tough decisions that we need to reform public services to make them sustainable and affordable while we repay Labour's mountain of debt? Where are the plans for real public sector reform? We heard no serious announcements on reform today. That will make it all the more difficult to improve our public services in the future.

Where was the announcement about the reform of Scottish Water? The organisation does not need to sit in the public sector, where it consumes almost £200 million of public funds every year. The Scottish Conservatives would take Scottish Water out of state control. Will the First Minister support us?

Alex Salmond had a choice to make in framing his legislative programme and, typically, he ducked it. He chose posturing rather than public service reform. That is not good enough, because Scotland is facing unprecedented challenges.

Will the member give way?

I will first continue this point.

Alex Salmond said that

"a glass ceiling threatens Scotland's progress."

What utter rubbish. Having a self-indulgent leader who is unable to take tough decisions is what threatens Scotland's progress.

On public service reform, Ms Goldie's only proposal was for the privatisation of Scottish Water. In the interests of open debate and consensus, will she share some other ideas with Parliament about what else she would do to reform public services?

I am just coming to an example of a glaring problem to which we must attend, the scope of which is absolutely devastating. Every week nearly 500 people go bankrupt, and every minute of every hour of every working day someone in Scotland loses their job.

Let me take one public service—education. Education in Scotland was once the envy of the world, and it can be so again, but where in the First Minister's statement are the measures that will allow that to happen? Where are the proposals to tackle the 1 million teaching days that are lost to truancy each year in Scotland or the increasing number of attacks on teachers in school? Where are the measures that focus on discipline and rigorous testing of the basics, and which allow parents a greater say in their children's education?

The member should begin to wind up.

Why is the future of 680,000 children less important to this Government than a dodgy referendum? Education is calling out for public sector reform. My party is prepared to look at that and to explain our thinking.

We need leadership, not showmanship. It is not credible for the First Minister in one breath to call for blanket minimum pricing on alcohol and in the next to argue against job losses in the Scottish whisky industry. My party is proud of the achievements that we have made possible in this Parliament. Without us, there would not have been the increase in the number of police officers of which Mr Salmond boasts. My party is proud of the contribution that it has made to helping small businesses, which, without our intervention, would have been paying more rates in the midst of Labour's recession.

I have one conclusion. Recent events have confirmed that Alex Salmond did not step up to the mark on the international stage. Today, he has failed to step up to the mark on the domestic stage.

Amid the hustle and bustle of politics over the past few weeks, it is worth pausing to consider how events and memories come together. In his widely acclaimed eulogy to his fallen brother, Robert, in New York in 1968, the late Ted Kennedy said:

"My brother need not be idealised, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life; to be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it."

Today is the 70th anniversary of Britain going to war in Europe; 70 years on, our troops are still at war. Two brave Scottish soldiers lost their lives this week in Afghanistan; another did so today. In the most extraordinary week of the past 10 years, perhaps we should take some time to reflect on a war that continues and the Scots who are involved in it.

I am grateful to the First Minister for advance sight of his statement, but I hope that after the past fortnight, the parliamentary authorities and the Parliamentary Bureau will discover some backbone in handling this Government's approach to Parliament. I cannot say that I am holding my breath.

The First Minister's statement to Parliament used to be a significant event. That is no longer the case. It is not even called a statement on the legislative programme. To describe it as such would be a challenge even for the highly talented SNP spin machine. This Government no longer stands for change—it is all desk management now. On the crucial challenges of our day—the need to tackle recession, to deal with a budget crisis and to promote reform of the public sector—the Government is stalled. Despite its bold rhetoric of this time last year, this Government lacks the commitment and desire to see through major reforms.

On reform of the children's hearings system, it is back to the drawing board. The Government lost a statutory instrument in committee this week because ministers did not tell MSPs that there were live proceedings in the Court of Session. That is not very competent.

I suspect that reform of crofting will never see the committee corridor. This week, the minister responsible lectured the crofting counties. I can tell Parliament that that went down like a lead balloon. If the Government wants to work with people, it needs a new phrase book.

Public service reform is bogged down, as the number of people who work in Mr Salmond's quangos reaches an all-time high. How the SNP made fun of previous bonfires of public sector bodies, but the SNP's record is laughable. A record number of new brass plates have been put on the same doors in the same buildings; the same well-paid bosses and the same policies are in place. The record that the SNP will defend will be one of even more people working for the Government.

The main task of this Government—and of any Government—is to tackle recession, lift people back into work and get the banks lending again. The economy shrunk by 0.8 per cent between April and June. Economists predict a 3 per cent decline in 2009. In July, public debt reached £800 billion or 56.8 per cent of gross domestic product, which is the highest level on record. Unemployment in Scotland is rising faster than in the rest of the country.

As the recession bites in Scotland, the SNP has taken apart the local enterprise networks, completely emasculated Highlands and Islands Enterprise and narrowed Scottish Enterprise's role. No plans have been announced to reverse that. GDP in the Highlands will fall by 2.8 per cent this year. The Highland board will be rebuilt in the future, but not by the SNP.

On the biggest financial issue of the past year—banking—the SNP was ominously quiet. It did not support Vince Cable or my call for those taxpayer-owned monoliths to be broken up to help customers, competition and Scottish business. The First Minister agreed with Gordon Brown—the First Minister called the Lloyds takeover of HBOS the "deal of the century". That takeover has been an utter disaster for the taxpayer, for the customer and for every business that cannot get credit and therefore cannot get the economy moving again. They expect to have the support of their Government. From Lerwick to Linlithgow, bank branches in Scotland will close in the coming months. Deal of the century? I think not.

As far as driving our economy is concerned, Labour has put up fuel three times in a year, which has hit every Scottish motorist. Worst hit have been those in rural and island areas. Jim Murphy briefed The Press and Journal that he would introduce a pilot to cut costs in Argyll and then denied it. What has the SNP done? We could have agreed on rural fuel, but it was a Liberal Democrat motion, not a Government one, that called for action. A freedom of information request shows that the Scottish Government did not respond when it had the chance to do so. Why does the Government not use the European levers that are available, which would enable credit to be provided to small businesses?

We will support the Government when it concentrates on people's jobs, on the recession and on credit for business. We will not support the Government when the SNP's internal party politics are more important than the country. The referendum is about the SNP. The recession and jobs are about Scotland. We will put Scotland before the SNP.

There are legislative reforms that should command support across Parliament, but the SNP approach is to centralise, control and dictate. That is not our approach. On housing, we need to kick-start building work and help joiners, bricklayers and plumbers, but the SNP's legislative proposal is about centralising, controlling and dictating to Scotland's housing associations.

It is clear where the Government wants to go on policing—it wants to have one Scottish police force. We can tell how wrong that would be because Labour wants to do exactly the same. Convening a national policing board that would be chaired by the justice secretary is a slippery slope towards a single Scottish police service.

In previous statements, Mr Salmond said that reforming local government finance would be the hallmark of his term in office and that the council tax would be swept away. No legislation was produced, never mind introduced. This time last year, the SNP warned that people would harshly judge any MSP who voted to keep the council tax. That was fighting talk, but the Cabinet voted to keep the council tax. We should be told why.

I want a Government that proposes real change, that has the courage to argue for what it believes in and that wants to reform, change and improve the place of our people, but which will trust people to make decisions free from the grip of the centre. Mr Salmond's statement showed that on those tests, his Government is failing.

We move to the open debate.

Like the First Minister, I was delighted to note this week that there are now 1,000 more police officers in Scotland than there were when the SNP took the reins of government in 2007. That represents the fulfilment—ahead of schedule—of another election promise, and it is a mark of the effectiveness of this SNP Government.

The election of the SNP more than two years ago did not change just who was in government; it changed the way in which we are governed. Scottish ministers now lead the country, make space for Scotland in the world and stand up for Scotland's interests. The third programme for government will take Scotland further forward. Its aspirations are to make Scotland a better and fairer place, and to build the foundations of a more successful, responsible and confident country.

I am pleased that the national conversation will come to a climax with the referendum bill, as was laid out in the manifesto on which we were elected—we are bringing it on exactly on timetable. The national conversation has engaged people throughout Scotland: there has been standing room only at some events, and responses have flooded in. Scotland's people delivered devolution by referendum—they have the right to be heard again. There are understandable differences of opinion about the constitutional direction that Scotland should take—that is healthy—but surely no member would not defend and support democracy. Who among us would deny the democratic right of a nation to choose its own future? Who would deny the right of citizens or subjects to cast their votes for that future? Scotland is moving forward, and it is for the Scottish people to decide how far and how fast it should do so.

While seeking to move our nation forward on the constitution, the SNP Government also intends to move forward Scotland's legal profession. It intends to review and renew the framework within which that profession operates. I am sure that that will be supported across the chamber. The key points are to maintain access to justice and to ensure that the integrity of Scotland's legal system is protected. That is an important piece of work.

The same applies to the debtor protection bill and the debt and family homes bill. Such bills may not create big headlines, but they will deliver improvements in the law on debt. Such legislation can show our Parliament at its best. In considering such bills, members across political divides work solidly and constructively in committees to ensure good outcomes. SNP ministers have shown their willingness to engage with committees, which I am sure will continue.

There are also proposed bills on crofting reform and on wildlife and the natural environment, further legislation on alcohol, and the Forth crossing bill. I am delighted that there will be a housing bill, which must finally end the right to buy new social housing and extend the opportunities for pressured area status. Those are sensible ways to preserve public investment in housing and to work towards everyone having a decent roof over their head.

I acknowledge that Linda Fabiani has a record of supporting housing associations. Does she share my concern about the proposal to open up registered social landlords to private companies that are entitled to distribute and make profits? Surely that is a break with the past that she would resist, as I do.

I contend that the Labour Party broke with the past when it extended the right to buy to housing associations some years ago.

In the housing bill, there will be amending provisions for ancient monuments and listed buildings that are informed by the excellent work that the Historic Environment Advisory Council for Scotland has carried out.

The proposed introduction of patients' rights legislation and legislation to reform the children's hearings system are particularly welcome. Both will improve services for people who are at their most vulnerable. I am sure that many colleagues in the chamber will expand on those themes.

In commending her Government for dealing with patients' rights, will Linda Fabiani also commend the Conservatives, who were the first to bring in a patients charter in Scotland that gave patients rights and responsibilities?

I commend my Government for working as a minority Government with other parties around the chamber. It has often worked with the Conservatives in that context. One role of Government is that it should continue things, just as it should innovate—a Government should look back and see how things can be improved. The Scottish Government works innovatively and continues things that have happened in the past.

In addition to the bills that I have mentioned, seven bills are already making their way through the system. As in this year's programme, there are elements of legislative housekeeping. However, some of the legislation—in train and in prospect—is radical. It looks to the future and finds Scottish ways of dealing with Scottish issues.

The programme for government—the legislative outline that we are debating—is a continuation of the path on which the SNP set out two years ago. It is a necessary refreshment of government in Scotland. The mere administration of Scotland—which for far too long we had through the Scottish Office and then, with a couple of exceptions, from the Scottish Executive coalition for eight years—is now genuine government for Scotland. The Scottish Government is engaging with Scotland and the wider world. Recent events have shown that Scottish ministers can, and do, face extremely difficult situations. They meet those situations head on and take the correct decisions.

Parliament and the Government that has been appointed from within it are proving that Scotland can rule itself. That is what has been achieved over the past two years. The programme for government gives me confidence that improvement will continue.

I commend to Parliament the referendum bill and the rest of the programme for government. May we legislate in harmony.

In June, Parliament approved what ministers like to claim is world-leading legislation on climate change. The Climate Change (Scotland) Bill set challenging targets and created expectations that action would speedily follow. I have no doubt that officials are working behind the scenes to introduce statutory instruments to meet the various deadlines in that bill. One of the deeply disappointing things in the legislative programme that we are discussing is the lack of follow-up to that bill. There was no evidence in the First Minister's statement that his Government has altered either its legislative programme or its longer-term spending programme in the light of the climate change obligations. We will have to wait and see what changes will be in the budget for next year, when it is published shortly.

However, for the First Minister and his party, it is business as usual. Pride of place this year goes to an unnecessary and unwanted independence referendum. At a time when economic uncertainty and environmental considerations are dominant concerns among the people of Scotland, the SNP is offering a bill that animates only its committed supporters, although it does not animate them much: barely half the SNP members turned up to listen to the First Minister's statement.

The First Minister enjoys talking about Scotland's green energy potential. However, apart from giving a list of his visits, he had nothing new to say about what he will do to turn that potential into new technologies and green jobs. Security of energy supply is an issue that dominates energy debates in every other country in Europe and throughout the world, but it has not been highlighted because of the Government's blinkered approach to nuclear power. Why waste time talking about energy if there is nothing to say?

In June, we discussed the urgent need for measures to reduce emissions from energy generation, energy efficiency, and transport and land use, especially in the agricultural sector. We agreed that mitigation is not a key priority for the distant future, but something that should be tackled now, if we are to make our contribution to halting global warming.

However, no new primary legislation has been proposed to address any of those matters. We are to have a housing bill, but not one that will address the carbon footprint of our housing or its residents. Given the contribution that is expected from the housing sector in the Government's climate change delivery plan, could not legislation have been proposed to help to drive change?

We are to have a transport bill, but not one that takes forward any of the mitigation options that are suggested in the recently published Atkins report. The SNP's insistence on a road-only replacement bridge across the Forth is inconsistent with its professed transport policies. At a time when priority should be given to measures that would help to reduce car use, Labour members have grave doubts about whether a road-only replacement bridge is an appropriate response to the transport needs of the residents of Fife and the Lothians. Yet again, we have received no indication from the Scottish Government about how that project will be funded and the impact that its funding will have on other transport schemes. Will the bill have a financial memorandum? If so, what will it say? There has been nothing from the Government on that.

Of course, we recognise the need to address the consequences of the deterioration of the existing Forth crossing, but the Government has failed to publish not only financial information, but the professional advice that it says it sought from international experts. It has not alleviated the concerns that have been expressed by residents who will be affected, and there are clear inconsistencies in its approach to the replacement bridge, use of the existing bridge and the balance between public and private transport.

In the meantime, before the bridge soaks up the lion's share of infrastructure investment in Scotland, there have been spending cuts in cycling infrastructure, in safer streets and in support for additional bus services. Of course, legislation may not be needed to promote walking and cycling or to increase bus use. It may be more appropriate to increase the funding that is available for such measures, which may deliver results more quickly. The fact that the First Minister's speech made no mention of transport—other than the new bridge—or of mitigation, leads me to believe that the delivery, as opposed to the trumpeting, of the Government's commitments to tackling climate change does not figure greatly in the Government's list of priorities.

It is clear from everything that has been done and said by the Government that short-term political considerations, rather than policies that are based on sound analysis, will continue to prevail in prioritisation of the Government's transport infrastructure programme. Moreover, those considerations will prevent the introduction of key measures that the Government's own research, which was published last Friday without any fanfare, suggests are needed if we are to measure up to the challenge of reducing emissions from the transport budget.

The campaigners for a Scottish Parliament based their case on the need for legislative powers. Ten years on, we have a Scottish Government that appears reluctant to use the Parliament for the purpose for which it was intended. As Iain Gray said, the programme before us does not address the concerns of the people of Scotland or progress the measures that are needed to meet our commitments on climate change. It is geared towards shielding the exercise of power from democratic influence in the Parliament. Why else would the SNP try to govern without legislating?

A lot was said yesterday about difficult choices. In his statement, the First Minister referred to difficult budget choices. The economic downturn, the pressure on public finances and the impossibility of meeting the costs of current commitments mean that hard choices are being faced by every minister. A responsible Government would examine the options and use its legislative powers to put forward its proposals. A responsible Opposition would then use the legislative process to advance its own ideas, with both sides seeking consensus. To a large degree, that is what happened in the passage of the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill. However, the Government seems determined to avoid a similar process happening this year.

We face big challenges in Scotland. There are big issues ahead of us; yet, the Government has a bankrupt and minimal programme. We need to address not just transport, energy and climate change issues, but a whole series of other issues, which will be highlighted by my colleagues. The SNP Government is determined to exclude Parliament from that process by presenting a minimal legislative programme. We need to change that situation, and it will be changed in 2011. In the time between now and then, we will make our best efforts to hold the Government to account not just for what it is doing, but for what it is not doing.

I welcome this opportunity to speak in the debate on the Government's legislative programme—such as it is. I will comment on some of the priorities that seem to have been identified by the First Minister this morning.

The First Minister has obviously failed to notice that we are in the deepest economic crisis that this country has perhaps seen within living memory. The consequences of debt that exceeds in real terms that which existed at the end of the second world war are things that the United Kingdom and all its people will have to deal with over a period of time, and will endure a great deal of hardship in the process. The idea that Scottish independence is, for some reason, the solution to all the problems displays a level of naivety that the vast majority of the Scottish people will find difficult to understand.

The truth is that when people are losing their jobs daily and when, every day, small businessmen are giving up their unequal struggle and are finding alternative means to keep their heads above water, it is inevitable that they will focus on the key elements of daily life. The aspirations of a Government in Scotland that wants independence will become less and less attractive to many of Scotland's people.

I know that many people within the Conservative party—Michael Forsyth has been named—think that this would be the right time for a referendum, because it would kill the idea of independence stone dead for many years. I understand why some people hold that view, but I do not agree with it. I believe that the economic recovery of the United Kingdom—and that of Scotland as part of the United Kingdom—is the main priority that we politicians must face. We must tackle that challenge head on before we begin to deal with the airy ideas of those who would make Scotland a separate country and split it off from its main markets.

Will Alex Johnstone explain the source of his faith that the incoming Conservative Government at Westminster will close the gap in economic performance between Scotland and the rest of the UK? That is something that no previous Government has managed to do.

The statistics show that Scotland did relatively well in comparison with the UK averages between 1988 and 1991—a period in which Scotland had a great deal of which to boast. Many politicians—although not in the Conservative party—choose to forget the positives of that time and instead to concentrate on the negatives from other times.

I will speak about one or two key elements of what the Government has proposed today with which I have a serious problem. The proposed housing bill has been mentioned. I will not go into great detail on that. However, the First Minister's stated objective to end the right to buy—which seems to have attracted support from several corners of the chamber—is something that I find wholly unacceptable. As I go around communities in Scotland, I find that the safest, most sustainable communities anywhere are those where a large proportion of the traditional council houses have now become the property of their occupiers. Those are the kind of communities that I want to be created in the future.

Will the member give way?

I am afraid that I cannot. I need to make progress.

I believe that, if we are to have safe and sustainable communities in the future, we must not only create the opportunity for individuals to find affordable rented housing, but where possible create communities that mix rented and owner-occupied housing. The right to buy council property in Scotland achieved that in spades, and we should not ignore the opportunity that it affords us in the future. If we cannot go down that road, we must produce a housing bill that will deliver some alternative means of creating mixed-ownership communities, which will ensure that we have safe, sustainable communities in the long term.

I will also say a little about the Government's proposals to discourage alcohol consumption. I have had particularly close contact with one company on the issue of minimum pricing. In the north-east of Scotland, not far from my home, is the Fettercairn distillery, which is owned by Whyte & Mackay. The distillery produces a local malt but it is not marketed heavily. The bulk of the distillery's production goes into Whyte & Mackay's blend or own-brand products that sell in all our supermarkets. If the minimum price is set too high, there will be a closing up of the price gap between the products that the company produces. The price gap between the product that is sold to the supermarkets for their own brands and the product that goes into the Whyte & Mackay blend, which is also widely sold, will close up. In turn, the price gap that exists between that blend and other products will also close up. That will undermine the distillery's market and will threaten jobs in some of the weakest parts of our community. All that is being done in the name of health at a time when there is no evidence to suggest that it is our whisky companies that are responsible for the problem.

Will Alex Johnstone concede that whisky will not be affected by minimum pricing? Furthermore, is he arguing that the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and all four chief medical officers in the UK are wrong in saying that minimum pricing would help to prevent alcohol misuse? If not, what does he suggest we do to tackle that problem, which is costing us dear?

Mr Johnstone, you should keep your eye on the time.

I am opposed to minimum pricing. However, I am asking that, if the Government cannot be dissuaded from its minimum pricing policy, the price be set at a level that will not impact on essential local industries in areas where we need to protect jobs.

Some aspects of Alex Salmond's demeanour seem to indicate that he plans to do to Scotland what Derek Hatton did to Liverpool: he wants to turn Scotland into a country in which he provokes dispute and discord. He is willing to see the economy of Scotland sacrificed, undermined or underperforming simply to prove that Scotland would be better off independent. I do not accept that argument and will not support any measure that takes us down that road. I believe that Scotland's place is in the union and that we must ensure that the economy recovers before we begin to consider the SNP's flippant attitudes towards independence, constitutional reform or any other reform.

The Government's programme should have been a programme to re-energise Scotland's economy. Instead, in the face of continued recession, our nationalist Government puts party before country and focuses on a doomed referendum bill. Alex Salmond says that his Government was elected with a popular mandate for a referendum. The Opposition parties, which represent the majority of seats in this Parliament, stood on manifestos that made clear our opposition to that referendum, so the majority of representatives in Scotland's Parliament were elected on a popular mandate of opposition to a referendum. The issue is quite simple.

Liberal Democrats prefer to focus on the issues that matter to Scots—health, the economy, justice and education. On education in particular, we listened in vain to the First Minister's statement for anything that we could welcome. Indeed, for some time we have looked in vain to the Government for something to welcome in education, in which we have seen more broken promises and U-turns than in any other policy area.

As we speak, many of Scotland's children are sitting in crumbling schools, with no news of when money will be available to fix them. Many of Scotland's parents will be wondering why, when they dropped their children off at school this morning, it was not to a class of 18 children, as they had been promised. Many of Scotland's students will be preparing for a new year at college or university and worrying about how they will support themselves until the end of their courses, and many of Scotland's bright and enthusiastic newly qualified teachers are sitting at home watching Jeremy Kyle.

In fact, the SNP has failed to deliver on so many of its promises that it is difficult to know where to begin. Perhaps I should begin at the start, in primary 1, where just 13 per cent of children are in classes of 18 or fewer, and progress towards the target is now actually slowing down. However, that is no surprise. A Government that can lose 1,000 teachers in one year—a record slump—should not be relied on to deliver class size promises.

Now, the Government is ordering universities to slash their intake for teaching courses, and talented students are being turned away from teacher-training places. The loss of those individuals from the teaching profession will mean that the SNP's legacy of failure on education will last well beyond its limited years in power. There will be a lost generation of teachers, thanks to Alex Salmond's Government.

Scottish Liberal Democrats have continually warned the Government that local authorities were struggling with their education budgets and class size targets. Where is the legislation to back up the class sizes pledge in the face of legal challenges? Where is the investment? Figures from last March show a decrease in revenue expenditure on secondary education, which is critical for our future.

The problem can only get worse in the coming term, as SNP's cuts and the economic downturn hit councils hard. That is without even mentioning the delays of up to a decade that the SNP Government has caused in the building and refurbishment of schools. We know that, because of the SNP's delay and failure around the Scottish Futures Trust, our construction industry has been hit hard, and many councils will not receive final payments until 2018, when many of the pupils who are currently in school will long since have left—an entire generation let down by the SNP Government.

The truth is that the SNP is in disarray when it comes to education legislation. In our first week back, we have heard the announcement of a delay in children's hearings legislation and we have seen a committee defeat on a related Scottish statutory instrument. We have also heard in the Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee evidence on the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Bill that left many of us wondering, for at least part of the meeting, what benefits the legislation would actually achieve for service users. Further, only yesterday in this chamber, we were debating another SNP U-turn on the legislative presumption against closure of rural schools.

For those who have already left school, things are not much better. Colleges are turning away record numbers of applicants. Just last week, the Liberal Democrats revealed the true extent of student hardship across Scotland, with applications for hardship funds reaching a new high of 14,386 in 2008-09. However, the SNP Government remains fixated on replacing loans with grants, and is doing nothing to tackle immediate hardship. I am not sure whether that is because of guilt at having abandoned its earlier undeliverable pledge to drop student debt altogether.

We think that there is a better way to address student hardship right now, which is why we have joined forces with the Conservatives and Labour, as well as with NUS Scotland, to call for a new approach. What is on offer is £30 million, not the £2 billion that it would have cost to dump the debt. We think that that £30 million can be used for a £500 increase in grant for the poorest students, which will bring them up to the minimum income of £7,000, which we support. It will also give each student access to an extra £200 of student loan, so they do not have to incur as much commercial debt, and will enable £2 million to be channelled into hardship and child care funds. Those suggestions have cross-party support and are designed to help a generation of students right now. We will discuss them with the cabinet secretary this afternoon. I hope that she is ready to listen, because we are ready to talk and listen to her.

The Government also promised better local support for young people through a reformed children's hearings system. However, after delay upon delay, it brought out plans that raised such serious concerns among children's panel members and chairs that the Government has been sent back to the drawing board to think again. It would be churlish of me not to welcome the fact that the Government is prepared to do that, so I absolutely do so. However, it is unfortunate that the consultation was not conducted properly and that the Government did not get it right first time. However, we are all supportive of the children's hearings system, and it is more important that we get this right.

An issue that is particularly important to me, as the constituency member who represents South Queensferry, Kirkliston and the surrounding areas, is the new Forth crossing, which is also important to my constituents and everyone else in Scotland. There is insufficient time today to detail all my concerns about the proposals and the process to date. Let us just say that the ministers who are responsible for the matter are well aware of many of those concerns, as I have articulated them to them on many occasions. I have concerns about some of the detail of the proposals on the sites for the construction compounds, on road access and on compensation for my constituents, but I am also broadly disappointed in the Government's short-sighted approach, which has resulted in plans for a road-only crossing rather than the multimodal crossing that we were expecting. I am also disappointed that my view that a tunnel would be preferable—which was the option that was favoured by the vast majority of my constituents—was cast aside.

I urge the minister to learn from the mistakes that have been made, and ensure that residents are informed and consulted properly. The new crossing will have a massive impact on South Queensferry. The MSPs who will sit on the committee that will consider the bill have quite a challenge before them when it comes to examining funding costs.

Finally, I would like the Government to consider procurement in order to ensure that the contractors who are given the tender do not hold clients to ransom at tremendous cost to the taxpayer, and that they have a good Scottish track record of working with others.

I begin my remarks by focusing on the upcoming bill on alcohol.

In 2004, I was appointed as the SNP spokesperson on public health by the now Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing. It was around that time that I started to look seriously at the damage that alcohol abuse was doing to Scotland. Although I thought that I had a reasonable idea of what was going on, l was shocked by the extent of the problem that we were faced with. Over the past five years, things have only got worse.

Billions of pounds are wasted on health and justice services as a result of alcohol abuse, but more important is the damage that is done to individuals, families and communities. For far too long, our society has been only too happy to demand action on the scourge of illegal drugs while ignoring the catastrophe of legal drugs. We finally took action on smoking, and I am delighted that we are now facing up to the issue of alcohol abuse.

As public health spokesperson, I took policy resolutions to the SNP conferences between 2004 and 2006, asking the party to support a range of public health measures including a ban on smoking in public places, a cut in the drink-drive limit, an end to the off-trade's use of alcohol as a loss-leader and the abolition of cheap drink promotions in both the on and off-trade.

A few short years ago, it was tough to make the argument that we should tackle alcohol abuse and the resultant problems, but we have moved on and I hope that we now all accept that it is time for action.

The introduction of a minimum price per unit of alcohol will target the type of strong, cheap drink that is particularly being abused. Alcohol sales are price-sensitive and, with alcohol now half the cost that it was a generation ago in real terms, I believe that we must reverse a pricing trend that has contributed to the devastation that we see in too many of our town centres and communities, as well as in our courts and hospitals.

Last Saturday night, in advance of this debate, I took the opportunity to spend several hours with the police in Paisley—I would like to thank the officers for their help in arranging that visit. They confirmed the fact that cheap drink that is bought from the off-trade is a considerable problem, and that the drinks of choice fell into the cheap and strong category at which minimum pricing is targeted. They mentioned cheap, large bottles of cider and supermarket vodka, and they related a story of a boy who spent a night in accident and emergency after his first taste of alcohol—or perhaps, I should say, his first bucket of cheap booze from his local supermarket.

I am sure that some members will trot out the usual lame arguments about why we should not interfere with the supermarkets and the off-sales right to trade, but the sale of alcohol cannot be compared with the sale of tins of soup or packets of washing powder. The likely effect of a two-for-one promotion on washing powder might be cleaner clothes, but the same offer on alcohol might mean a visit to A and E, a night in the cells or something much worse.

We might also hear the well-worn argument that the problem has nothing to do with price, given that countries such as Spain or Italy do not have such problems. However, although it is true that there are different issues and different cultures in those countries, it would be wrong to claim that they have no such problems. New laws have very recently been introduced in parts of Italy to ban drinking in the street and to impose fines on the parents of children who are found to be drinking. Those laws are being brought in because Italy is facing a rising tide of problems as a result of alcohol abuse. Although countries on the continent may be lagging behind us in this area, they are facing similar and growing problems.

When we come to consider the bill, I ask members to look at who supports and who opposes the measures, and their reasons for doing so. I have no doubt that opposition will come from the supermarkets, but it is clear that support will come from the medical profession, the police and even those who represent the on-trade and who realise that it is the irresponsible promotion of cheap, strong drink by some in the off-trade that fuels many of the problems that we face.

I urge the Government to stand firm and be bold with its proposals on tackling alcohol abuse, particularly on the minimum price. It must be set at a price that has the desired effect, as anything less would be a missed opportunity. I say to Alex Johnstone that setting a minimum price so low that it has no effect is frankly laughable.

I turn briefly to the housing bill that will be introduced. I was privileged to be able to work as a minister on the housing bill proposals that are now being brought forward, and I am delighted that there will finally be an end to the right to buy for new-build social housing. I accept that that policy has had some positive impact—in producing some more mixed communities, for example—but the downside has been enormous. The loss of thousands of some of the highest-quality rented housing stock to future generations has been detrimental to our efforts to house people who are in desperate need of a home. The change in the bill redresses the balance and will be widely welcomed.

However, that alone will not solve the problems that we face. I am delighted that the latest figures for house building show that the SNP Scottish Government is building more social rented houses than the previous Lib-Lab Executive, and that we are seeing the start of a new generation of council houses.

Will the member concede that the Scottish National Party's council house building programme will in no way match the Conservative Government's programme, part of which was financed from the proceeds of sale under the right to buy?

I am happy to concede that the previous Labour-Lib Dem Executive at no point built the same number of houses as the previous Tory Government did in 1995. That is true, and it shows how desperate things have become in the past 10 years.

The Scottish Government's programme includes a wide-ranging package of bills that are designed for the benefit of the people of Scotland, and I look forward to the successful passage of those bills through the Parliament.

Before I attempt to dissuade the Government from its foolish referendum policy, I want to say how glad I am that it overestimated the £500 million that Labour will keep from it. I have figured out that £3.3 million is going spare, which suits me fine for the capital city grant. I thought I would get that in quickly.

Why on earth is the Government persisting in bringing forward a referendum bill? It knows that it cannot get the thing through. It does not really have to stand on the dignity of its manifesto commitment; these days, people outside the Parliament like politicians who are able to say, "Whoops—I got that one wrong, and I'd like to change it." Why does the Government not do that? It did so with the local income tax, and, as far as I am aware, its rating has not gone down in the opinion polls.

Unfortunately, the SNP has tactically boxed itself into a corner. It confused—as the Deputy First Minister and I once discussed—a tactic with a policy or strategy. It is a tactic that one would only use to pursue a campaign, and the Government will not manage to deploy it properly, so it should forget it. The time is not right, as umpteen members in the chamber have said. People are not concerned with that just now; it is not their priority.

The Government has not done enough to inform people in Scotland of what independence feels like, what it actually is and how it applies to them in their small corner of the world. Not nearly enough work is being done to get the Parliament to start thinking constitutionally. I do not see why the SNP feels that it has to shoulder the whole burden now, because there are members on all sides of the chamber who agree that the present set-up is not satisfactory. We need to explore together how we can advance the Parliament.

I would like there to be sovereign powers, because I am certain that that is the best delivery mechanism for the policies of any of the parties in the Parliament that might be elected to Government. There is much more common ground among current members of the Parliament than they allow themselves to express, but the constitutional question has become so enmeshed with party politics that members cannot concede that their party opponent might have a good idea. The aspirations that the First Minister outlined this morning were noble: the sort of standards that we should set ourselves and the targets for which we should aim. I do not believe that any member in the chamber disagreed with those aspirations, but they could not say, "Oh, I agree with that," because they were in the wrong party. I would like the SNP to drop the whole idea of forcing people into a position that their experience of being an MSP has possibly taken them out of, if ever they were in it.

We waste time in party politicking when the world is marching ahead. The world is setting up all sorts of new institutions and forms of co-operation, and methods of delivering services for people. We should be thinking about that, but we cannot do so properly if we are too busy playing ducks and drakes in the chamber over a constitutional question that is still very academic for most people outside the Parliament. They do not view it as the delivery mechanism for policies, and I sometimes think that the SNP does not either.

We heard from Annabel Goldie, who thinks that it will all happen when David Cameron gets into power. That will be another false dawn. I have nothing against the man, but he is operating in a system that has been failing us for a very long time now. It has kept us relatively successful, but I do not want to be relatively successful compared to some regions in the United Kingdom. I want us to be optimally successful: as successful as we possibly can be.

We know that the Westminster model does not deliver that, so I cannot see why Alex Johnstone persists—och well, perhaps I can. Perhaps he will relax a bit in the next session of Parliament when he, along with Annabel Goldie, realises that David Cameron does not have all the answers.

Des McNulty made an excellent speech in which he pointed out some of the things that we could and should be doing. I wonder whether he will be as enthusiastic and feel that those things are as feasible when the Tories are in power. He should be thinking structurally rather than along party-political lines; I certainly agreed with much of what he said.

I wish that the SNP had stuck to explaining that sovereign power for Scotland would deliver customised policies for Scotland. That is what we need, as it is obvious not only that our economy is different, but that even our society has diverged so much from the way in which society south of the border has developed. We have different potential and different futures, but that does not mean that we have to separate—for goodness' sake, the Government should get that out of the lexicon. People are interested not in separating, but in finding new ways of working together to their mutual advantage.

That is how we should be talking in the chamber. We can still fall out over whether, as Margaret Smith said, the SNP's education policies are rubbish—some of them are, but not all—but we can separate discussion of that particular specific from the constitutional question. I wish the SNP would do that. It should perhaps take a tip from someone who has been through quite a number of referendums: just forget this one.

This year's programme for government is another unambitious one—the third in succession. The central aim of any Government at this difficult time should be to do everything possible to boost economic recovery to help small businesses and ordinary families that are struggling and nervous about their future. They look to both Governments—the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government—to prioritise their issues.

The Government will be judged on its concern for the person on the street—the first-time home buyer, the struggling small business, the person who unexpectedly becomes unemployed in the twilight of their career, and the school leaver who is now competing against more applicants than usual to get into higher education. A recession with global trends, a global impact and worldwide ramifications is not the time to reduce our focus to asking the public whether Scotland should look inwards and be independent from the UK by divorcing ourselves from the union that has protected Scotland's interests during the global recession.

This is not the time for a referendum on whether the SNP Government should be given a mandate to enter negotiations to take Scotland out of the United Kingdom. It is a time to pull out all the stops and give Scotland's economic recovery every possible chance, to get back on track and to return to strength. No distraction from that goal is justified or supported in the Parliament. The people out there want their Government to govern for the people and not for the party. The masses out there are not lobbying the Scottish Parliament for a referendum. There have been no petitions and no campaigns. The single obstacle to independence is the lack of support from the Scottish people, not the Opposition parties.

People are petitioning the Scottish Parliament on issues such as the rights of disabled people, better housing, hospital cleanliness and knife crime. There are no petitions for a referendum on independence. The SNP chickened out with a no-thanks response. It did not really suit its carefully crafted timetable. It thinks that it can woo the Scottish public into feeling patriotic on St Andrew's day and voting for independence. Margo MacDonald wrote in her column yesterday that it is a strategy and not a policy. She is right. It is a tactic. Whatever reason the SNP has for its 2010 timing, we can be sure that it is for its own ends.

The SNP is desperately trying to force an interest where one does not exist. The nationalist conversation has persuaded no one of the need for independence.

Will the member give way?

Support for independence has actually fallen. It has never risen above—

Will the member give way?

If Mike Russell gives me a chance to develop the point, I will be delighted to take an intervention.

The nationalist conversation has not yet persuaded anyone that support for independence has risen. Indeed, it has fallen. It has never really risen above a third of those who have been asked for their view.

I simply wanted to repeat my invitation to every Labour member who raises the issue, as none has attended a national conversation event. They are prescient about what takes place. If they attend an event, I think everybody will listen to them. Unfortunately, they have not been to any, so they do not know.

We were told earlier that there is standing room only. I do not really believe it.

Despite the 40 meetings around the country and the fact that the Government has made the nationalist conversation its centrepiece, Mike Russell cannot get away from the fact that it has not shifted public opinion one iota. If anything, the current climate has resulted in more Scots supporting the union, perhaps with some changes. We call for the Government to end this waste of public money. Its monologue is impressing no one.

It was indeed Mike Russell who said that the current economic circumstances make the case for Scotland to have more say in its own affairs even more urgent and compelling, but the only person I can find out there who agrees with him is Michael Forsyth. The First Minister says that there is a consensus for change. That may be true, but the consensus is for Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom. Devolution is still the settled will of the Scottish people and we believe that it will continue to be so for the foreseeable future, although there is a consensus that we should work towards stronger devolution. In the form of the Calman commission recommendations, there is work that can be taken forward as a package of measures to improve our governance of Scotland, but they are not a menu of convenience from which the SNP can cherry pick the measures that suit its purpose—we on this side of the chamber will not allow that. New powers for Scotland, new financial arrangements, more accountability, borrowing powers—there is some consensus on those issues and we should take them forward, but not for the SNP's ends.

Will the member say what would satisfy her as regards an improvement in Scottish life and our economy if the powers that she advocates were introduced? Would she be like Alex Johnstone and want just a relative improvement or would she want something much better than that?

It is easy to answer that. Whatever the powers of the Parliament are, or are changed to be, I, like everyone else, want the most successful Scotland that we can have.

That leads me to an important point. The Scottish Parliament led the way on issues such as the smoking ban and climate change, but we did not need independence to do that. In case the SNP has not noticed, those achievements, which were mentioned in the First Minister's statement, came about through devolution. The suggestion that we can be proud Scots only if Scotland is an independent nation is nonsense, if not insulting. It is suggested that we can choose to exploit our massive renewable energy potential only if we have independence, but that is certainly not a fact. Tell that to those who work on renewable energy in Scottish universities and collaborate with English universities within a UK framework.

Margo MacDonald is right to say that the SNP's tactics are about what is in its own interests. To discredit the union is part of its propaganda campaign. It says that Scotland faces cuts, but the reason why the SNP cannot fulfil its promises is its own behaviour. As Gordon Brewer said on "Newsnight" when he was questioning the finance minister, the SNP is not batting with a straight bat on this one.

I will concentrate my remarks on the proposed referendum bill. We all know that independence for Scotland is the objective of the Scottish National Party and that it is intent on pursuing a referendum as its favoured way of securing independence. Unfortunately for the SNP, the desire to break up the United Kingdom is not shared by the majority of people in Scotland and, as a result, a clear minority of votes cast at the most recent Scottish Parliament election were for the SNP—I repeat, a clear minority. That is reflected in the current minority Government.

This morning, the First Minister outrageously and entirely wrongly said that his Government has a mandate from the people to introduce such a bill and that the Parliament should not stand in his way. We are used to arrogance from Mr Salmond, but that takes the biscuit. What arrogance to treat the people's Parliament and the people of Scotland with such contempt. Mr Salmond does not have a mandate of any kind from the people of Scotland. It was the Parliament that was elected by the people. The First Minister was elected by the Parliament, and what a mistake that has turned out to be.

Will the member acknowledge that a clear majority of the Scottish public and a majority of Liberal Democrat voters support being given the right to choose in a referendum?

What absolute nonsense. If we asked the people of Scotland whether they would like to change the future of the country by armed insurrection or by a referendum, I think that they might choose the latter. What the member says is complete nonsense. [Interruption.]

Earlier, Annabel Goldie talked about the lack of a majority in Parliament for the abolition of the council tax. [Interruption.]

Order.

On 11 February, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth said:

"In short, we cannot put together a stable majority to enable us successfully to steer detailed local income tax legislation through this Parliament. Indeed, Parliament's vote in December last year made it clear that there is no consensus on the best way forward for local taxation.

The Cabinet has therefore decided not to introduce legislation to abolish the unfair council tax and replace it with a local income tax".—[Official Report, 11 February 2009; c 14896.]

As someone who supports the abolition of the council tax and its replacement with a local income tax, I regret that the cabinet secretary felt it necessary to drop the proposed legislation. However, I appreciate his pragmatism on the matter and accept that at the present time there is no parliamentary majority for abolishing the council tax. It therefore makes sense for the Government and the Parliament to spend our limited time on matters that can make a difference to the people of Scotland. Unfortunately, as we have heard today, the SNP Government is not acting pragmatically on the issue of the referendum; instead, it is bulldozing ahead with it dogmatically.

The SNP knows that it will lose a vote on the referendum. After all, it has done so already. Less than six months ago, our Parliament voted by a clear majority for an amendment that I lodged calling

"on the Scottish Government to concentrate its efforts on economic recovery and abandon its divisive plans for a Referendum Bill for the remainder of its term of office."

It is a matter of sincere regret and disappointment that the minority SNP Administration has, once again, chosen to disregard the clear will of Parliament. The contempt—and I use that word correctly—that the nationalists have consistently shown Parliament and the people of Scotland on this and other issues by ignoring parliamentary votes is to the detriment of not only Parliament as an institution but the people of Scotland. I remind Mr Russell that we serve those people.

Will the member give way?

I will, in a moment.

The parliamentary time and, of course, monetary costs associated with taking forward a bill that the Government knows has no hope of being passed could be put to better use in taking forward measures to aid economic recovery and to improve the lives of millions of people throughout Scotland.

Although the Government sometimes forgets the fact, we live in a representative parliamentary democracy. Anyone who wanted the United Kingdom to be broken up had the opportunity to vote for it by supporting the SNP at the previous elections. Two years ago, more than two thirds of those who exercised their right to vote chose not to vote for the SNP and for the break-up of the UK. Those of us who were returned to this Parliament by the people have a duty to respect the clear view expressed at that election that the break-up of the UK is not wanted; indeed, as I have already said, the Parliament did so six months ago. The SNP continues to ignore the Scottish people's wishes.

Will the member give way?

I am afraid that I am in my last minute.

It is all right, Mr Rumbles. You can give way if you wish.

I have already nailed my colours to the mast. For the reasons that I outlined in my speech, I do not think that there should be a referendum. That said, does the member accept that we have a difficulty as a result of the habit of referring back to the manifesto and claiming that that is what people voted for? Of course, I do not think that that is what they voted for, but I presume that that difficulty is shared by all the parties in the chamber. My plea to them is, "Get out o' it!" After all, we are in the 21st century; no one expects them to keep stupid promises.

Mr Rumbles, you should keep your eye on the time now.

Oh come on, Presiding Officer! Can I respond to the intervention? [Laughter.] When people vote for the parties in the Parliament, they expect them to keep their promises. That is a fundamental part of parliamentary democracy. However, the parties must recognise that if they cannot get support for an issue it is fair enough to drop it.

We are being told that the proposed referendum bill is the flagship of the SNP. I compare it to the Swedish flagship, the Vasa. When, in 1628, the ship started out on its maiden voyage, the beaches around Stockholm were filled with spectators, among them foreign diplomats and the equivalent of the modern media pack. This maiden voyage was to be an act of propaganda for the ambitious Swedish leader Gustavus Adolphus. The ship set sail, fired a salute and, after only a few minutes of sailing, began to heel over. She righted herself slightly—then heeled over again. Water began to gush in through the open gunports and the mighty warship suddenly sank. This flagship referendum bill is the homegrown product of our First Minister's personal ambition. Just like the Vasa, it is an act of vainglorious propaganda—something that Mike Russell is, of course, very much used to—and it, too, will sink before it ever leaves the harbour.

That concludes the morning part of the debate, which will continue this afternoon.