Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, November 14, 2013

Official Report 874KB pdf

---

Scottish Independence Referendum Bill

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-08239, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill.

14:51

I am very pleased to open this stage 3 debate on the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill, and I start by thanking everyone who has been involved in the development and scrutiny of this historic piece of legislation.

I thank all three parliamentary committees for their detailed scrutiny of the bill. In particular, I thank the Referendum (Scotland) Bill Committee and its clerks, under Bruce Crawford’s excellent convenership—[Applause.] I will not turn round to see if he is blushing.

The committee has made a significant contribution to the bill through its careful and balanced consideration. Whatever their political views, committee members have been meticulous in examining many complex aspects of electoral law to ensure that we have a robust legislative framework for a fair referendum and ultimately a result in which everyone can have confidence. The committee’s consensual approach is a testament to Parliament’s commitment to that aim, and I thank members for their support of the bill to date.

The bill has also benefited enormously from the level and quality of advice received from practitioners in this area. I am indebted to the electoral community in Scotland for its expert advice and guidance.

When the Government published “Your Scotland, Your Referendum” in January 2012, we said that the referendum would be run and regulated in the same way as any Scottish election, to the same standards and with the same guarantee of fairness. As we near the end of parliamentary consideration of the bill, I am confident that the detailed proposals that we have developed will achieve that aim.

By necessity, the bill is large and complex. It has drawn on existing electoral legislation, and we have made improvements where possible on the basis of lessons learned in recent polls. Electoral professionals, including the Electoral Management Board for Scotland, the elections working group of the Society of Local Authority Lawyers and Administrators, electoral registration officers and others have been an invaluable resource to help refine the provisions and ensure that the bill reflects best practice. We have also listened to and been guided by the views of the Electoral Commission, as we said that we would.

Electoral professionals and the Electoral Commission are the people who will run and oversee the referendum, so I am particularly pleased to note their confidence in the bill’s ability to provide them with the necessary framework to deliver a referendum that meets the highest international standards.

I also take this opportunity to thank again the more than 26,000 people who responded to our consultation last year and took the time to share their views on how the referendum should be run. My thanks also go to the independent researchers who undertook a professional and robust analysis of those responses in the face of considerable media scrutiny.

I also place on record my sincere thanks to my own officials in the bill team, who have done an absolutely sterling job not only on this bill but on the Scottish Independence Referendum (Franchise) Bill, which has already been passed by Parliament. They have worked incredibly hard in a very complex area, and I am very grateful to them for their work.

Before moving on to the substance of the bill, I want to say a final thank you to the former Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Moore, who, through his constructive approach to the Edinburgh agreement negotiations, paved with the Scottish Government the way to the point that we have reached today. He did a good job and although we have many differences of opinion, not least on what we want the outcome of the referendum to be, I think that his role in the process should be recorded and I place on record my thanks to him this afternoon. [Applause.]

In the year and a half since the Government’s consultation closed, the First Minister and I signed the Edinburgh agreement with David Cameron and Michael Moore to pave the way for a referendum that will be what we always said it would be: designed and delivered here in Scotland.

After consideration by both Parliaments, the section 30 order was made, confirming this Parliament’s right to legislate for the referendum. The Scottish Government has since introduced two referendum bills: the bill that we are debating this afternoon and the bill that became the recently enacted Scottish Independence Referendum (Franchise) Act 2013, which—let us remember—will enable for the very first time in a national poll 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the referendum.

The consensual process that has led us to where we are today—with two Governments on opposing sides of this very important national debate nevertheless coming together in the interests of the people we serve—offers a template for the negotiations that will follow a yes vote in next September’s referendum.

With regard to some of the changes that have been made to the bill as it has progressed through Parliament, the Scottish Government has listened carefully to the views of Parliament and stakeholders since we introduced the bill in March and, where it was right to do so, has amended the bill.

At stage 2, for example, we lodged amendments in response to concerns about the deadline for absent voting applications and to enable the children of service voters posted outside Scotland to vote in the referendum. We also supported a number of non-Government amendments that sought to clarify and improve certain aspects of the bill, including Liam McArthur’s amendment to the publishing restrictions during the 28-day purdah period.

The amendments that we considered earlier this afternoon are largely technical and drafting amendments to fine tune the bill’s provisions and ensure that they are as clear as possible. However, the amendments to the common plan arrangements were more substantial and again we have been mindful of the committee’s views in determining our approach.

At stage 2, several committee members raised concerns about how the common plan rules would achieve the desired balance between providing robust controls and transparency and enabling smaller campaigners to participate without undue burdens. Patrick Harvie, in particular, argued that latter point very persuasively. Although we did not agree with all the amendments, the debate was important and, notwithstanding various differences, I believe that the amendments agreed earlier today have improved the bill.

We did our best to respond to concerns expressed by Lewis Macdonald at stage 2 in relation to the attestation requirements for applications for emergency proxy votes by amending the bill to ensure greater continuity with existing arrangements. At every stage in the process, we have sought to adopt a consensual and constructive approach.

We must now turn our attention to the practical arrangements for delivering the referendum. In September, the Electoral Commission published its progress report on the preparations for the referendum, concluding that those preparations are

“currently on track for delivering a well-run referendum ... in the interests of the voter.”

The commission also commented that the bill provides sufficient clarity on roles and responsibilities in the referendum and on the rules for the conduct of the poll.

The convener of the Electoral Management Board, who will, of course, be the referendum’s chief counting officer, has with the board’s support started planning the referendum’s delivery, including the governance arrangements, project and performance management, guidance and areas where the chief counting officer might wish to make a direction, for example, in planning an overnight count. I am sure that all of us in the chamber welcome that very much. The Scottish Government will fund that work and will set out the financial resources that will be available to counting officers in a fees and charges order in the new year.

The Electoral Commission has confirmed that it is on course with its preparations for public awareness activities and has circulated draft campaign guidance to prospective campaigners. It is vital that voters have the information that they need to make a considered decision in the referendum. The Electoral Commission will provide factual, impartial information on how to vote and how to register to vote, but it will be for us, as campaigners, to set out the arguments on which the people of Scotland will make their decision.

The Scottish Government has already published a number of papers on how we would realise our vision for an independent Scotland, and we will publish the white paper on Scottish independence on 26 November. That will set out the overwhelming case for Scotland becoming an independent country and our proposals for using the powers of independence to build a Scotland that is more prosperous and fairer than it currently is. We will set out very clearly the choice that people will make in September next year.

I have no doubt that the debate will be passionate and, at times, heated—we have seen that already—but we all have a responsibility to ensure that the debate is of a high quality and that we present informed, constructive arguments to voters. We must continue the ethos of co-operation and consensus that has been demonstrated in our consideration of both referendum bills into a respectful, honest and fair debate from now right up until polling day.

We can be proud that we are today passing legislation that will put Scotland’s future into Scotland’s hands. I hope that the people of Scotland will seize that opportunity, seize that future and seize the prospect of a better Scotland with a resounding yes vote in September next year.

It gives me great pleasure to move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill be passed.

I call Drew Smith, who has eight minutes.

15:02

Scottish Labour welcomes the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill and we will vote yes at decision time this afternoon. [Interruption.]

Order, please.

I fear that, after decision time, the consensus may break down.

I echo the Deputy First Minister’s thanks to the various electoral professionals, to all those members of the public who engaged in the consultation and to everyone who has played a part in bringing us to this point.

The time has come for the question to be settled. Scotland’s constitutional future has been key to Scottish political debate all my life. I will name no names, but some members have been advocating the end of the union for even longer than that. No doubt, they are as keen as the rest of us to decide the matter once and for all.

The choice is either a separate Scotland or a continuing partnership with our nearest neighbours, the people with whom we share these islands and together with whom we have built the institutions that act as levellers in our society—our welfare state, our national health service and many of the things that people all over Britain are proud of. In many cases, those achievements have been won by a Labour movement across the United Kingdom, and we have no intention of either walking away from our collective achievements or abandoning others to face our collective problems alone.

As I have said before, I respect the right of nationalists to put the case for independence and the referendum provides an opportunity for us to make a positive choice, whether that is for independence from the UK or for partnership in the UK. Following the passing of the bill, it will be our responsibility alongside others to ensure that, while the political arguments are contested as the Deputy First Minister said, we treat each other as fellow Scots, each side pursuing its arguments in the interest of what we believe to be best for our country.

On this side, we believe that Scotland enjoys the best of both worlds. Decisions are made here on many of the day-to-day issues that concern voters most but, alongside that, we can share risk and resources between people to create a better society not just for Scots, but for all the people of Britain.

Up to now, the debate has concentrated on process issues such as when the referendum will be held, who will vote and even who will debate with whom on television. With the exception of the latter point, we are now past that stage. We all look forward to the white paper, as there is a need for answers on the issues of substance.

What would our currency be? If we are to retain the UK pound rather than, as used to be argued, adopt the euro—or introduce a Scots pound, as I am sure some on the Scottish National Party benches would prefer—how would that work without a pact between London and Edinburgh? On both Europe and pensions, the SNP’s position has been asserted many times but then contradicted almost as often. On energy markets, financial regulation, the benefits system, defence and even the monarchy, the SNP’s position has changed to such an extent that even the nationalists now argue for partnership with the UK.

Can the member give us a definite position on whether, if the UK continues, its currency will be the pound? If so, how long will it have the pound, or will it adopt the euro?

I am happy to confirm to Mr Mason, if he is confused, that the best way to keep the pound in the pockets of the people of Scotland is to remain in the United Kingdom.

The 2011 election and the Edinburgh agreement between the UK and Scottish Governments paved the way for this legislation. As an Opposition, despite our different position on the constitution, we have engaged with the Scottish Government constructively.

We have welcomed Nicola Sturgeon’s answers to our questions about the position of 16 and 17-year-olds living abroad with forces families. It is to the credit of both the Referendum (Scotland) Bill Committee and the Government that a solution to that issue has been found.

We have raised concerns about the common plan arrangements because we, too, want the campaign to be regulated to the highest international standards. Although we did not quite reach agreement on all the stage 3 amendments this afternoon, I welcome the Scottish Government’s acceptance of our stage 2 amendment, which prescribes a role for the Electoral Commission in providing guidance to the lead campaigners on the provisions of the bill.

I understand that the Referendum (Scotland) Bill Committee will meet shortly to consider secondary legislation arising from the Scottish Independence Referendum (Franchise) Act 2013. It would be remiss not to thank the committee’s convener, members and clerks, as well as the Government and its officials, for the work that the committee has done to date.

When the Deputy First Minister responds to the debate, can she perhaps say whether she believes that the committee could have a continued role in scrutinising the white paper? As the white paper will be ministers’ prospectus for a separate Scotland, it is vital that the Scottish Parliament has the opportunity to interrogate the issues properly. Does she believe that the Referendum (Scotland) Bill Committee and other committees—or, indeed, a special white paper committee—should lead that task by taking evidence from experts on what the SNP is proposing?

We hope that the white paper will address many issues in more detail than has been the case up till now. One such issue is the situation of the Clyde yards, which to my mind goes to the heart of the independence debate and the Scottish Government’s approach to it.

Despite the fact that the nationalists have been campaigning for a separate Scotland for nearly 90 years, they seem to have given little thought to some of the practical repercussions of their position. It seems to me that either they take the view that the jobs involved in building UK defence ships on the Clyde are a price worth paying for breaking up Britain, in which case they should be honest about that, or they believe that those workers can and should be redeployed on some other task, in which case they are duty bound to put forward a plan that is robust and open to scrutiny.

I may have missed this—I apologise if that is the case—but does Labour have a strategy or policy on shipbuilding on the Clyde? Is its intention that the Clyde should deal only with military orders? If so, who will pay for those, given that the UK is just about bankrupt and cannot afford to pay for the ships that are already on the stocks?

Actually, the previous Labour Government had a proud record on bringing work to the Clyde. However, we are more than happy to debate the issue of diversification of the order books of the Clyde yards. Given that both the Govan and Scotstoun yards are not only owned by a defence contractor but build defence ships, I would be interested to hear whether the Deputy First Minister put the case to BAE Systems that the yards should diversify their business into other types of ships and what response BAE Systems made to that.

In the wider debate, asking questions should not be viewed as a negative thing to do, so it is disappointing that, when an academic spoke out this week to express his view, a Scottish Government minister contacted his boss to complain. [Interruption.] SNP members may groan about that, but they should be embarrassed by the conduct of that minister.

This debate can and should be better than that. Rules and regulations such as those that we are debating in the bill will not, on their own, ensure good conduct of the campaign; nor will it be of any use for enforcement of those rules to take place afterwards, because this is a vote that no one would wish to see rerun.

I have mentioned that the debate has been central to Scottish politics all my life, which is why I support settling the matter next year. In the meantime, we do not want to see government exist only as a campaign. The Government has the power to change people’s lives in the here and now; it should not put Scotland on pause to concentrate only on independence because—[Interruption.]

Order, please.

In the meantime, people face challenges that are the responsibility of this Government—not after 2014 or 2016 but today and every day leading up to 18 September.

I think that my constituents accept that the Government has a particular constitutional ambition, but they do not accept that their everyday concerns are secondary to it, and neither do they believe in the convenience of every answer to every problem that Scots face just happening to be independence.

The choice facing Scotland next year is one between separation and partnership, independence and union. It does not matter what terms we use, but it does matter that the question that the bill provides for does not crowd out all the other issues to which answers need to be found.

Scotland is an old nation but the United Kingdom is still a young country. There is no inevitability in the progressiveness of one or the limitations of the other. To suggest as the yes campaign has up to now—the Deputy First Minister repeated this suggestion—that the UK is somehow uniquely incapable of change or progress is wrong. I fully believe that the people of Scotland will vote no next year not because they are against change or progress, but because change and progress are achieved not by a constitution but by people working together. On this side, we look forward to the people having their say.

15:11

When scrutinising the bill as a Referendum (Scotland) Bill Committee member, I was taken back to an experience at my primary school—that is not an allusion to either the Scottish Government or my committee colleagues. The occasion was a primary 7 Christmas party, or, as we liked to style it, dance. We had been learning all these marvellous Scottish country dances, I loved the music—I still do—there were interesting things emerging called boys, and I just could not wait to get to the dance.

Where are we going here?

My mother, on the other hand, was solely concerned with what I was going to wear and whether I possessed any presentable, never mind suitable, shoes. She was right, because that detail required thought and attention or the dance would not work. In a sense, we are in a similar situation: we are all caught up in the debate—the excitement of the referendum and the preparations for it.

Whatever side of the argument we are on, we are out there, taking part in debates and attending public meetings. We advance our views with passion, field the questions with vigour and deal with challenge robustly. There is excitement in the air. I love it—I guess that I am not alone—and I want to be in the thick of it: 18 September 2014 is right at the heart of my unionist calendar.

To happen, the referendum needs its own clothes and shoes; it cannot work without them. [Interruption.] John Swinney wants to participate. I will take an intervention.

No, it is okay. [Laughter.]

Order, please. If members want to participate they should request an intervention. If they do not do so, they should not participate from the sidelines.

A taciturn Mr Swinney—I am very glad that he was not at the school dance. [Laughter.]

Scrutinising the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill has been an essential and not unenjoyable task. Like the Deputy First Minister, I, too, thank our convener, Bruce Crawford, the clerk, Andrew Mylne, and his team, our advisers and the Scottish Parliament information centre. We may not have done a dashing white sergeant or a gay Gordons round the committee room, but we got there, and that was in no small measure down to our convener’s skilful and wise stewardship, together with impeccable guidance and attention to detail from the clerking team. Our SPICe advisers certainly kept us from straying down some cul-de-sacs. Although they may not have realised it, all of them, in their own way, produced the clothes and shoes to ensure that the rest of us can go to the ball.

The stage 1 report noted:

“The Committee is confident that its Stage 1 inquiry has enabled this important Bill to be subject to a wide-ranging and robust scrutiny process.”

However, it pointed out that

“some aspects of the Bill ... require adjustment ... and ... clarification”.

That was a neat summation of the position then. Stage 2 produced a constructive set of amendments that addressed the need for that adjustment and clarification, and that is how we have proceeded today.

I was sorry that Lewis Macdonald’s amendments were not accepted, because they would have enhanced the clarity of the bill. I regret that they failed. However, I welcome the Scottish Government’s amendments on the common plan and accept that they provide an important clarification.

The Deputy First Minister might remember that, at stage 1, I mentioned my continuing concern about the behaviour of Scottish Government quangos during the purdah and regulated periods. Indeed, she provided a welcome acknowledgement of those concerns and confirmed that the Scottish Government would issue guidance to relevant public bodies. She offered to provide to the committee a draft of the guidance, and as the committee continues in being even though the bill will be passed this evening, I ask her when that draft guidance is likely to be available.

Although the regulated and purdah periods are naturally the subject of focus, in my opinion—and I am not alone—the sooner that guidance is available, the better. It will provide reassurance to many people that those Government bodies are getting a steer and a framework in which to operate. We also need to know, because there may be some ambiguity about this, exactly which bodies she anticipates the guidance will cover. Perhaps she can clarify that.

Other than that, I support the bill. It delivers a workable mechanism for 18 September 2014. Like Drew Smith, I confidently expect that, on that date, Scotland will overwhelmingly reject separation from the rest of the United Kingdom.

15:16

I wonder whether I would most enjoy dancing strip the willow or the dashing white sergeant with Annabel Goldie. Perhaps that will happen one day.

Today, I speak not as the convener of the Referendum (Scotland) Bill Committee but as a Scottish National Party back bencher. In saying that, I thank the clerks and all my committee members who helped the scrutiny process. It was done very well.

Reaching the stage 3 debate on the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill—I like that and I will repeat it: the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill—has been a much more positive and encouraging experience than many of us might have predicted at the outset of the process, which began in January 2012 with the publication of the Scottish Government’s consultation paper.

Members might recall that, at that time, there were a great many stupid and silly scare stories about how the SNP was somehow hell-bent on gerrymandering the referendum process to fix the result that it wanted. The proof of the pudding is in the eating today. With the passing of the bill at decision time, those stories will have been proved just as silly and stupid as the Scottish Government claimed they were at the time.

Looking back over that period, I am reminded a lot of the hysteria that existed in some political and media circles about the advent of the SNP Government in 2007. Some predicted that the Government would not last a month, that it would certainly never get its budget passed and that it would be inherently unstable. Indeed, the four horsemen of the apocalypse could be seen riding towards Scotland apace.

Just like the silly and stupid scare stories around the referendum, those earlier predictions about the fate of the SNP Government never came to pass. What transpired was a period of stable and effective government that, in the circumstances, was unusual, if not unique, among western democracies. It was certainly unique when set alongside the churn and turmoil of political office that we see at Westminster, no matter whether there is coalition or majority government.

On the referendum, there were silly and stupid claims about the consultation on the bill, the question and even votes for 16 and 17-year-olds and service personnel. The Deputy First Minister rightly reminded the Parliament that the consultation attracted more than 26,000 responses, compared with only 2,857 responses to a similar exercise that the UK Government carried out.

The referendum question was submitted to the Electoral Commission and amended by that organisation, and it is now considered acceptable by all parties in the Parliament, contrary to what some of the doomsayers predicted at the outset.

That was all completed in a reasonable manner and with due regard to process, despite all the daft claims.

There was also much noise about the proposed date of the referendum but I believe, not unsurprisingly, that we will all support that proposed date when we reach decision time.

Of course, many of the scare stories—at least, those on the referendum process itself—ended with the signing of the historic Edinburgh agreement between the Scottish and UK Governments. That mature agreement, which was signed by both Governments, helped to lay the foundations for a parliamentary committee process that I believe was carried out in a highly effective and robust manner.

I acknowledge the significant role that was played by Michael Moore, the then Secretary of State for Scotland, in the drawing up of the Edinburgh agreement. The fact that the agreement was able to come into being was very much down to the constructive and reasonable approach that he and the Deputy First Minister adopted. I always found Michael Moore’s approach refreshingly candid and honest. He challenged when he needed to do so, but he always did so with the right tone and attitude. Talking of tone and attitude, I suspect that Michael Moore’s removal from office will soon become a matter of regret for Nick Clegg, if the recent performances of his self-styled bruiser are anything to go by.

The Edinburgh agreement has enabled the Scottish Government, the Referendum (Scotland) Bill Committee and the Parliament to have before them a bill that we can all endorse as fit for purpose and in which the people of Scotland can have confidence. As I said in the stage 1 debate, I was pleased to note that the Electoral Commission felt that the bill was

“a strong piece of legislation ... that truly puts the voter first”.—[Official Report, Referendum (Scotland) Bill Committee, 23 May 2013; c 421.]

I am delighted that, in the evidence that it has provided in advance of stage 3, the commission has confirmed its thoughts at that time.

During the stage 1 debate, I also said that we should ensure that the debate would be devoid of rancour and bitterness, and that

“If we can make it a debate that is about hope, aspiration and taking the people of Scotland forward, people from all parts of Scottish life will want to take part.”—[Official Report, 12 September 2013; c 22411.]

Other members who took part in that debate, including Annabel Goldie, Tavish Scott, Lewis Macdonald, Alex Johnstone and Patrick Harvie, picked up on that theme.

It is obvious, however, that those voices have not been heard, given that a scare story a day emanates from Westminster and project fear. On this historic day, I say, “Keep it coming.” That strategy is guaranteed to produce a diminishing return and will serve only to undermine the enthusiasm for the failing structure of the UK of those people who have yet to decide how to vote.

Meanwhile, we will be relentless in sending out our positive message, which is about trusting the people of Scotland by putting them in charge of the huge richness of their resources, both human and natural. Putting the people of Scotland in charge and ensuring that they get the Government that they vote for every time will help to eradicate the unacceptable levels of poverty and inequality that, shamefully, still exist in our nation, while we continue to spend untold billions on weapons of mass destruction.

I will put my money on aspiration and hope winning out over scaremongering and fear, and on trusting the people of Scotland to be in charge of their own destiny.

For the avoidance of doubt, I reiterate that there is sufficient time available for members to take up to six minutes. Indeed, it would be appreciated if members were able to take six minutes in the open debate.

15:22

My voice is on pause, so the wisest course of action might be not to take six minutes, but this is an important debate, so I wanted to speak in it.

We agree with the objective of the bill, which is to provide for a

“fair, open and truly democratic process which is conducted and regulated to the highest international standards”

in the lead-up to next year’s referendum, and I was pleased to receive a briefing from the Electoral Commission yesterday that indicated that it has confidence in the process that the bill will put in place.

We welcome some of the developments that have taken place during the bill’s consideration. We welcome the fact that the Scottish Government has extended the franchise for the referendum to include children of armed forces personnel living abroad who are aged 16 or 17. We are also pleased that the Scottish Government has responded to some of the concerns that were raised about the bill by ourselves, by other parties and by the Electoral Commission. I am slightly disappointed that there was not unanimity on the amendments that Lewis Macdonald moved earlier. The result of that is that the only people to vote no during today’s stage 3 consideration of amendments were SNP members, on amendments 56 and 57.

We support the bill because it provides the opportunity for the independence question to be settled. It is important that the result of the referendum is clear and accepted internationally so that Scotland can move forward—as part of the UK, we hope—with the question settled once and for all, or certainly for a generation.

We want the referendum campaign to be conducted fairly and transparently, with each side respecting the other. I have a fear, which I think that other people share, that although the procedures are now generally agreed to be right, the tone of the debate is sometimes in danger of going wrong.

I am doing Malcolm Chisholm a good turn. Because I respect him so much, I must ask him the following question. He used the phrase “once and for all” again. Does he believe that it is ever possible to settle any principled question once and for all?

I am sure that Margo MacDonald heard my qualification—I said that the question would be settled at least for a generation. I hope that we can agree on the latter, if not the former.

How we conduct the debate will be important not just for the next few months but for the months and years that follow the referendum. It is understandable that there is a great deal of emotion on both sides of the debate. That underlies a lot of the arguments that we use, particularly on the economic questions, which will be central to the referendum.

Notwithstanding the emotions, we should always remember—perhaps particularly on a day such as today, which is an important stage in the process—that the two sides on the question are not enemies. We all inhabit the same country and we share many values. We agree on many policies in other parts of the political debate. That applies in the chamber, where SNP and Labour members can agree in broad terms on the approaches to many aspects of domestic and even international policy but have a profound difference on the constitutional question.

The position is similar in the country. In many families, one member might be voting yes and another might be voting no. It is important that we conduct the debate without losing the friendships and positive relationships that we have in this country and in the chamber. We must say that today, because that will be important, not least to what will happen after the referendum. Whatever the result, we will all have to come together on 19 September 2014. Whatever the people decide, we will have to act on that. [Applause.]

We must not create a legacy of bitterness and hatred. We need to have a civilised debate, rather than warfare between two tribes.

Some time is available in the debate because the previous business concluded earlier than expected, so if members who did not previously indicate that they wanted to speak feel inclined to contribute, they can press their request-to-speak button now.

15:28

I am not a member of the Referendum (Scotland) Bill Committee, but I echo the cabinet secretary’s sentiments in drawing to our attention the hard work that all members of that committee have done, under Bruce Crawford’s stewardship. Everyone who has been involved in the process—whether through working on the Edinburgh agreement or through working on scrutiny of the bill in committee—should be congratulated. We owe them a debt of gratitude for allowing us to reach today’s conclusion. I remember that Annabelle Ewing spoke in the stage 1 debate about her great pleasure at being a member of the committee; I think that her mother echoed that pride at being involved in the process.

As I have been on the sidelines, I am glad to speak this afternoon. Like Malcolm Chisholm, I was interested in the Electoral Commission’s briefing for the stage 3 debate, which talks about the bill providing

“A well-run referendum which has the confidence of voters and campaigners”

and

“is underpinned by a clear and certain legal framework.”

I think that the bill provides a robust legislative framework that everyone can have confidence in, so I was somewhat disappointed to read in the press this week the suggestion from former forces minister Adam Ingram MP that an attempt might be made to reverse the yes decision in the two-year transition period between the vote in September 2014 and independence in 2016.

I draw Mr Ingram’s attention to the response in Glasgow this week to the proposal to raise the plinth for the statue of the Duke of Wellington, to prevent cones from being placed on the duke’s head. That demonstrates that once Scottish people have made up their minds on something it is a very brave person indeed who suggests that they cannot have their way. I caution against Mr Ingram’s proposed approach.

During the debate on Scotland’s independence, Opposition party members have often said that this 300-year-old union is the most successful partnership of nations in the world. Anne McGuire said something similar on “Scotland Tonight” this week when she was debating the issue.

I cannot help but wonder on what basis those members are judging success. We are the most unequal country in Europe and the fourth most unequal country in the developed world. We have the lowest male life expectancy, in parts of the east end of Glasgow. In my home town, after the closure of Ravenscraig, we had the highest male unemployment rate in Europe. We have been drawn into illegal wars. It might have been Anne McGuire’s appearance on television that reminded me that we have recently endured the closure of Remploy factories across our country. I do not regard those as measures of success. Scotland deserves and can afford a fairer society, and with the passing of the bill Scotland has the opportunity to choose a fairer society.

The other night on the news, Anne McGuire said that she hopes that the next UK Government will be a Labour Government. My hope for Scotland is that she has a Government that she votes for, which represents the values and choices of the Scottish people, so that we do not have foisted on us a UK Government that does not reflect how we want to be seen as a nation.

I will give an example that demonstrates why the issue is so important, from this week’s parliamentary business. On Tuesday, the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, Richard Lochhead, updated the Parliament on the European Union common agricultural policy budget. Had Scotland been a member state, as an independent nation in Europe, Scottish farmers and crofters would have received the full benefit of external convergence. It is clear that the UK’s uplift is the direct result of low payments in Scotland. Were it not for Scotland, there would be no uplift for the UK. Therefore, in the interests of justice, 100 per cent of the rebate should have come to Scotland’s farmers. The cabinet secretary said:

“During my time in this job, there have been many examples of UK policy undermining Scottish agriculture. I thought that Hilary Benn’s decision a few years ago not to compensate sheep farmers for foot-and-mouth disease was a low point, but this is even worse than that. The decision goes against the intentions of the EU, it defies the wishes of the Scottish Parliament and it takes away from Scottish farmers and crofters resources that should be theirs and on which their livelihoods depend. It is no surprise that Scottish farming and crofting leaders are bitterly disappointed by Mr Paterson’s decision.”—[Official Report, 12 November 2013; c 24261-2.]

That is just one reason why I think that this 300-year-old union no longer works in the interests of Scotland.

I conclude on a personal note. My son will be 17 at the time of the referendum and he will have an opportunity to vote for the first time. The opportunity to work with young people is one of the greatest privileges for me and for all my politician colleagues. Young people who are tackling sectarianism in our society, fundraising for hospitals and international aid, and advocating and supporting fair trade are more than capable of examining the issues around the referendum.

I want all Scotland’s young people to embrace the opportunity to ask the big questions. Where is Scotland’s place in the world? What values do I want my country to have? What are my priorities for my country’s future? I am glad that young people will have that opportunity next year.

15:34

Earlier, I met a Government minister from Jordan, who described to me the challenges of providing sanitation, water and food for the million and a half Syrian refugees that Jordan is dealing with, and of educating the hundreds of thousands of new children in Jordan’s schools. On days when we bandy round the word “historic”, we should probably think about those who are less fortunate than we are and who live in challenging circumstances, wherever they are around the globe.

I thank Andrew Mylne and his clerks to the Referendum (Scotland) Bill Committee, as well as the advisers, who gave the committee trenchant and helpful consideration during the bill process. I also thank Bruce Crawford for the way in which he convened the committee. Fairly, he made a political speech, much of which I enjoyed although not all of which I agreed with. I did not recognise his point about the manner in which the SNP wants to frame the debate. It is entirely fair for all of us who disagree with the proposition of separating Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom to question that very robustly indeed. Just because people question it does not mean that they are anti-Scottish or anything else. I agree with Mr Crawford’s point about raising the tone. Let us hope that that is what happens, rather than what we have seen from some in his party in just the past few days in respect of the current Secretary of State for Scotland.

I thank the Deputy First Minister for the tenor of her remarks and the fair manner in which she has conducted the bill process. I agree with her observations on the introduction of votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. I noted with great interest the decisive verdict that 16 and 17-year-olds came to in Aberdeenshire in the recent widely held plebiscite in schools. Interestingly, there was full engagement and, more to the point, a very interesting result in terms of what might happen next year.

Like others on the committee, I have raised a number of issues about the way in which the campaign will be fought and conducted. I make no bones about my concerns on the use of taxpayers’ money for what are clearly political activities. I think that that will happen and I do not see any way in which it will be stopped. After next September, there might be many deliberations on what happened and how it was done but, in my view, there is not much to prevent taxpayers’ money from being used in that way.

Will the member give way?

Will the member give way?

I will give way to Patrick Harvie.

Will Tavish Scott explain whether his concern about the use of taxpayers’ money for political purposes is directed at both Governments or only one?

It is directed at both. I made that point in the committee, but Mr Harvie did not support the measure that I proposed, and nor did anyone else for that matter. I hope that the member will reflect that I made that point about both Governments. Clearly, I was in a minority of one, although there is nothing particularly new there.

I also have deep concerns about how much taxpayers’ money will be used in the context of the white paper. From what we are told, it is clear that the white paper will be sent to every household in Scotland. I do not think that taxpayers’ money should be used—

Will the member take an intervention?

Let me make this point. The Deputy First Minister said that the white paper will be published shortly and, clearly, it is to be sent to every household in Scotland. I wonder whether it will be announced in the Parliament or to the media. I hope that the Presiding Officers will stand up firmly for the right of this Parliament to hear that major statement of Government policy first, before we hear it addressed to CNN, the BBC and The Scotsman, although I rather suspect that the media will be more important than a mere Parliament on a day like that.

I want to mention the historic questions that have been pushed by the Government and its back-bench members in relation to the alternative. I believe that the onus is on those of us who represent the best of both worlds—the continuance of Scotland within the United Kingdom—to make a strong case for more powers for this Parliament, as I have always done. From the day that I was elected to it, I have believed that the Parliament should be strengthened and its responsibilities augmented, and I hope that those who hold similar views can make that case in the coming months. I entirely concede to Bruce Crawford the point, which he has made to me on many occasions, that the onus is on those of us who make that case to come up with a plan. Personally, I am happy to accept that challenge.

The point intrigues me. The member claims that he has the best of both worlds. Does that mean by implication that the part of the British isles that left the British state has the worst of all worlds? Has Ireland got the worst of it?

I was speaking personally, but I take the wider and interesting political point that Ms MacDonald makes.

I hope that in future Scotland can move away from a centralised nationalist state—we have had a centralised state under the SNP—to a decentralised state that encourages local decision making and moves in a much more positive way to an exciting vision in which local people are involved in the decisions that they want to take. That is the Liberal Democrat future that I would like to see across Scotland. I do not and will never support institutions of state such as the centralised police force that we now have. Just yesterday, we saw a report from Audit Scotland that showed why I was right at the time to oppose that bad measure that the current Government introduced. I would rather that we debated those issues and had proper and robust discussions about them than spent all our time considering our constitution.

I finish with Malcolm Chisholm’s very fair observation that, whatever the result of the referendum—however our people decide where they wish to go after that determination in September next year—we must all consider that it will be our responsibility to work constructively together on the future of our nation.

A number of other members wish to contribute. Speeches should be between four and six minutes.

15:41

I did not plan to begin my speech by disappointing Tavish Scott, but I find that I will, because I will bandy about a certain term. I believe that today is a historic occasion. Surely we can all recognise the historic significance of putting in place the framework in which the people of our country will get to decide their future—whatever anyone thinks about what that future may be—notwithstanding what else is happening in the world and other matters that concern us all.

I have said that I think that today is a historic occasion. It also marks the end of the focus on procedural matters relating to the referendum. There has been some criticism that we have been too focused on procedure, but I suppose that we had to be by necessity. We can now focus by and large on the issues in the debate ahead of us on Scotland’s future. I suppose that most of us have already been engaged in that debate, and I hope to say a little bit about that later, but it is probably right to focus a little bit more on the process that we have gone through to get to the place that we are at today.

We must recognise that we were in a different place from where we are now. At stage 1, all members came together to agree the bill’s principles. I am not sure yet—indeed, none of us knows yet—what will happen tonight, but I hope that we will all likewise agree to pass the bill so that we all accept that it is right that Scotland has a referendum. There has not always been agreement.

I turn to what the leaders of other parties have previously said. In The Times of 3 September 2009, Iain Gray spoke against our having a referendum. Tavish Scott, too, opposed a referendum. In The Scotsman of 1 December 2009 he was quoted as saying:

“I will neither vote for independence, nor will I facilitate it.”

In The Scotsman on the same day, Annabel Goldie talked about the Scottish Government ditching its attempts to hold a referendum. The anti-independence parties were previously therefore anti-referendum parties. I do not think that any of us should fear putting the question to the people and I very much welcome the change in stance that we have seen. I recognise that those parties continue to oppose independence, but I welcome their support for the referendum.

Another part of the process that I want to touch on is the role of the Electoral Commission. There was concern that the Scottish Government would ignore its findings and there were demands that the Scottish Government sign up to its recommendations before it had even announced what its findings were. We now know, of course, that the Scottish Government has signed up to those recommendations, which are reflected in the bill before us. That ends the nonsense and accusations that were made. I firmly believe that the bill will deliver a fair referendum for the people of Scotland.

The SNP is consistently accused in the Parliament of having an obsession with independence, but I briefly reflect on the fact that the issue of independence is raised most frequently in debates and questioning of the Scottish Government by our opponents. It is somewhat ironic that we are the ones who are accused of having such an obsession. I am certainly not obsessed with independence or the trappings of statehood; I am obsessed with making Scotland a better place for my children. I want a Scotland that can tackle the problems of intergenerational poverty and help those who have the best of no worlds, let alone the best of both worlds. I want us to tackle the problem of young people having to seek opportunities elsewhere and leaving Scotland because the opportunities do not exist here.

I want us to avoid squandering our resources. Ian Macwhirter had an interesting column in today’s Herald about the consequences of allowing Westminster to continue to use our resources to underwrite its agenda, which we have not backed at the ballot box. I want us to tackle our voicelessness in the world. I want Scotland to be a more confident place. Above all, I want to ensure that Scotland always gets the Government that reflects the priorities and values of its people.

I appreciate and agree with Malcolm Chisholm’s point that many of those objectives are shared across the parties, but I and others in the chamber believe that we need independence to achieve the list of ambitions that I have just set out.

If there is a yes vote next year, I firmly believe that my children and my grandchildren, should I have any, will grow up asking what the issue was. For them, independence will be normal just as it is for most countries. I hope that they will grow up in a better Scotland, which depends on who is elected to form the Government of the day. Independence will give us the chance to make a better country.

This week’s Westminster vote on the bedroom tax demonstrates why I believe that to be the case. In that vote, 15 of 59 Scottish MPs did not bother to vote. That is almost a quarter of Scottish representatives at Westminster who did not vote on an issue that is causing great concern and is raised here regularly. Can we imagine any circumstances in which a quarter of the members of this legislature would not bother to turn up to vote on an issue of that importance? I cannot conceive of such circumstances.

I agree with Alan Miller, the chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, when he says that he cannot conceive of the circumstances in which the Parliament would even have legislated for something as pernicious as the bedroom tax. That is one reason why power over such matters should be vested with the Scottish Parliament.

I look forward to the debate ahead. Like Drew Smith, I hope that it is well informed and that we get better than we saw yesterday from the Secretary of State for Scotland when he asked how much it would cost to set up a new Scottish state from scratch. We know that independence will not be year zero, as Alistair Carmichael implied.

We also know the difference that devolution has made. If we fully equip this Parliament with those powers that are currently reserved to Westminster, I know that we can make a bigger difference. That will be the essence of our case in the future, and I look forward to making it between now and 18 September. Above all, I look forward to securing that yes vote next year.

15:47

I am absolutely delighted to be standing here after agreeing legislation that will allow us to have a referendum on Scottish independence, because that has been an aspiration for so many people. It is about having the right to elect our Government of choice and thus influence policy and direction, and it is about the decisions about Scotland’s future being made by the people who care most about Scotland: the people of Scotland.

In parliamentary terms, it seems like the independence referendum has been a long time coming. However, as Drew Smith said, those of us who believe in independence have been campaigning for it for decades. When someone has a vision and belief that things can be better and fairer, months, years and decades go past and despite the scare stories, the tactics, and project fear, the campaign continues.

During the decades that people have been campaigning, things have changed markedly in relatively recent years. Devolution came here in 1999 and it has been good for Scotland. Gains are made for people, their families and communities when decisions are taken in Scotland. From early on in our reconvened Parliament, and through successive Governments, there have been gains such as free personal care, assistance for veterans, the smoking ban and the rejection of the privatisation of the national health service in Scotland.

The converse of that is that there is a heavy cost when we leave decisions in the hands of Westminster. In the 2010 budget, 76 per cent of Scottish MPs voted against further austerity cuts, but they were still imposed on Scotland. In the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill, 81 per cent of Scottish MPs voted against welfare cuts, but they were still imposed on Scotland. Sixty-seven per cent of Scottish MPs voted against privatisation during the passage of the Postal Services Bill, and we all know what is happening there.

Sixty per cent of Scottish MPs voted against the replacement of Trident in 2007, yet the UK is pressing ahead with new nuclear weapons. The big thing is that only 36 per cent of voters in Scotland voted for the Tories and the Lib Dems, yet we got the coalition in Westminster with all the problems that it has brought for Scotland—and with a lot more yet to come down the line.

That is why I aspire to independence. It is about always getting the Government that Scotland chooses and putting Scotland’s future in Scotland’s hands.

Our opponents like to go on about it all being about the constitution. They say that we never talk about anything except the constitution. The reality is that it is about so much more than that. It is about using the constitution to have the ability to do more than mitigate the awful effects of welfare reform.

I have the privilege of sitting on the Referendum (Scotland) Bill Committee. However, I do not consider it a privilege to have to sit on the Welfare Reform Committee when the only powers that we have are to scrabble about for money to create a Scottish welfare fund to mitigate the excesses of a Government down south. Everything that that Government does is to deal with the problems that it perceives it has in a part of the United Kingdom towards which all the money is drawn down.

Will the member take an intervention?

No, I do not think so.

Independence is about the ability to do so much more. It is about having the ability to create policies to suit those that they most affect. It is about having the same opportunities as citizens of other small, independent, successful European nations that think it is normal to take their own decisions and to look after their own people. I think that is normal. That is the way I want things to be.

This week illustrates perfectly why independence is about not just the constitution, but the issues that affect Scots. Jamie Hepburn referred to this, too. At the start of the week, there was a sense that Labour and its leader down south, Ed Miliband, had grasped the reality of the bedroom tax and was going to take the Government on over it. Apparently, even the shadow Scottish secretary, Margaret Curran, thought that that was the case, because she wrote to the Lib Dems to try to shame them into coming and voting with Labour to get rid of the bedroom tax. On Tuesday, the reality became clear: Ed Miliband’s agenda was just another Westminster game. We have had our fill of Westminster games. A deal had been done, the coalition knew that it faced no threat and back here in Scotland people could only watch in disbelief. I, for one, am sick of it.

Will the member take an intervention?

No, thank you. I have heard enough over the years. I really do not want to hear any more.

You are also in your last 20 seconds.

I will finish, Presiding Officer. As one of Sir Walter Scott’s characters said of members of the previous Scottish Parliament—this is written on the Parliament wall—

“we could aye peeble them wi’ stanes when they werena gude bairns—But naebody’s nails can reach the length o’ Lunnon.”

That is absolutely true: they play the games down there and we can do nothing but sit and watch and shake our heads in despair.

When we started this journey we wanted a referendum made in Scotland. With the passage of the bill, we have that. Now I want to see us use it to return the full powers that this Parliament needs for Scotland’s future and to take us all forward.

15:54

I want to make a brief contribution to the debate, really in the form of an appeal about the way in which we conduct ourselves in the forthcoming referendum. Before I do, though, I want to thank all members for their work on the bill. Given the strong views that surround the referendum, it is remarkable that the process has been relatively consensual. It is perhaps the first and only consensual moment in the debate, so we should enjoy the occasion while it lasts.

One of the main purposes of the bill has been to set the regulatory framework around which the referendum campaign will be conducted. In that regard, it has done a good job. In the end, though, more important is our behaviour and the example that we set. The Deputy First Minister put it best in her opening remarks at stage 1, when she called on all sides to conduct

“a debate over the next 12 months that is respectful of one another’s deeply held views and devoid of rancour or abuse.”—[Official Report, 12 September 2013; c 22411.]

I doubt that any of us would disagree with that statement.

In turn, I hope that the minister would agree that it would not be acceptable for the Scottish Government to use its position to bully those who speak out against it. I raise that because, at the beginning of this week, there was a particularly unfortunate story about a Scottish Government minister who was accused of bullying academics at the University of Dundee because of their views on independence. I was surprised in this case, because I have always found the minister in question to be a decent person.

However, the most important point is that I was not surprised to read the story. Immediately, many other similar allegations sprang to mind. Clearly, all members here, if not necessarily the wider public, are aware of the behaviour of the so-called cybernats, from Mike Russell’s infamous researcher all the way through to Iain Gray’s treatment at the last election.

It is not just politicians who are subject to personal invective for daring to express their views.

Mr McIntosh used the expression “cybernats” to describe one side of the independence debate, demonising it compared with the other side. Does he agree that there are voices on both sides of the independence debate that are deeply irresponsible? To couch his point in language that suggests that only one side, and not the other, is irresponsible is to take the tribal approach that he said he wished to reject.

I will make that point later in my speech.

It is not just politicians who are subject to personal invective. The Olympic cyclist Sir Chris Hoy and the comedian Susan Calman have found themselves inadvertently in the firing line. The Government has developed an unfortunate reputation for trying to suppress or totally silence those who might hold an opposing view. For those who do not work in politics, it is difficult to deal with what can be vitriolic criticism.

The chief executive of Aggreko—not someone who I would imagine is easily intimidated—complained of unpleasant attacks and said explicitly that leading business figures would not speak out on independence for fear of the SNP pouring

“rains of bile and ire”

upon them.

Ruth Davidson reminded me of the occasion when Jim Wallace was bumped for Keith Brown at a Loganair anniversary dinner after the Scottish Government demanded a change. That last one made me laugh. If the SNP thinks that someone as pleasant and reasonable as Jim Wallace is the enemy, it really needs to get a new sense of perspective.

I am curious to know when Ken Macintosh will get to the bit when he is consensual in the way that he described at the start of his speech. We are still waiting. It is perhaps not the tone that we would expect from Ken Macintosh.

My point is that it is not the tone that we expect from the Government. There are people on all sides, but the Government holds power, controls the debate and sets the agenda for Parliament. It is particularly important for those who have power not to abuse that position. That is the point that I am making.

I have not had to search hard for examples. Many immediately sprang to mind when I read the story earlier this week.

In the interests of balance, I will not pretend that politicians and supporters of other parties are angels. We are all well aware of how easy it is to move from loyalty to one’s colleagues to tribalism and aggression. Presiding Officer, you have corrected members often enough for incorrectly using the term “you” when referring to opposition members in parliamentary debate to know how easy it is to move from objective political discussion to personal attack.

The worries that I highlight matter at all times to this Parliament, but they matter particularly for this referendum because we all want it to be an inclusive discussion. There is already a huge amount of national and international interest in the referendum and the vote is expected to engage the whole of Scotland. The current estimate is that turnout will be far higher than in other elections, so we will engage with people who do not normally get involved in politics.

I speak as someone who supports votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in all elections. One of the main reasons for that is that I worry deeply that so many young people no longer vote. Surely the message that we want to get across is that all views matter—that the political process is a way to engage and is not one to be decided by name calling.

Here is an opportunity to engage a whole new generation in the importance of decision making and in taking control of its own affairs, whether that be through independence or, as I hope, through the powers and benefits of devolution, through the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments.

It is up to all of us to ensure that the experience is rewarding and fulfilling and not one to be fearful or anxious about. If the minister addressed the point that Drew Smith made earlier, that would be one way of reassuring me. What will be the formal process through which the Parliament can engage with stakeholders, take evidence and test the contentions in the white paper in the coming months?

May I put it to Ken Macintosh that that is a matter for the Parliament? It is a matter for the committees. I will welcome maximum scrutiny of the white paper. It is going to be a wonderful document that will set out the overwhelming case for Scottish independence and I look forward to scrutiny of it. However, I cannot imagine Ken Macintosh’s reaction if I started to dictate to committees what their business should be.

Despite the terms in which that was put, I actually welcome the Deputy First Minister’s comments. They imply that there will be a parliamentary process, and that is something to be welcomed. [Interruption.] I do welcome that. I welcome the fact that we will take evidence.

I must ask you to wind up.

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

I thank colleagues and I look forward to a constructive debate over the next 307 days.

16:00

For my part, I am very privileged indeed to have been called to speak in this stage 3 debate on the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill. I say the word “privileged” deliberately, for there are many people who would have given their eye teeth to be standing here in my shoes today: people who did, indeed, till the soil. I pay tribute to each and every one of them, for this is indeed another historic day in the life of our Parliament and our country. How lucky we are to be part of the independence generation.

I too, as a member of the Referendum (Scotland) Bill Committee, pay tribute to the clerks, whose sterling service has ensured that we have been able to progress our work with due diligence and expeditiously. As other members have done, I mention our excellent convener, Bruce Crawford MSP, because the way in which he chaired our committee’s weekly proceedings was exemplary. He chaired them with competence, fairness and, importantly—I think that we would all agree across the parties—good humour.

With the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill likely to be passed later today, I believe that we can be assured that we will have a referendum process that is designed in Scotland for Scotland; that is fair and clear and has internationally recognised democratic best principles at its very heart; that has a clear date agreed—18 September next year—for the holding of the referendum; and that has a clear question agreed:

“Should Scotland be an independent country?”

That, indeed, is the key question each of us faces.

The question is not, “Could Scotland be an independent country?”, for the answer to that question is quite clear, as Scotland would be one of the richest countries in the developed world; rather, the question that is encapsulated in the bill is:

“Should Scotland be an independent country?”

The answer to that question—I would submit—has to be yes, for how can we ensure that all our vast resources are put to work for all our people if we do not take control over our own destiny? How can we ensure that we always get the Government that we vote for if we continue to be subject to the discredited Westminster system? How can we ensure that we are not part of the fourth most unequal society in the developed world, to which Clare Adamson rightly referred, if we fail to seize the historic opportunity that we have before us?

This is truly a once-in-a-lifetime chance. I believe that a new dawn indeed beckons for our country and our people. We have to decide: will we be content just to have the same old same old, or will we grasp this opportunity to build a better nation for future generations? I believe that for all those who live and work in Scotland—the people who care most about Scotland—this is indeed the time to be bold and have confidence in yourself, your family, your community and your country. This is the time to vote yes.

Before I close—I know that there are other speakers—I wish, with the chamber’s indulgence, to refer to something that I mentioned when I closed my remarks at stage 1. My mother, Winnie Ewing, famously said, further to her sensational victory in the Hamilton by-election in 1967:

“Stop the world, Scotland wants to get on.”

The world has been waiting patiently—the world is still waiting—but I truly believe that it will not be much longer now before Scotland rejoins the world and the community of nations.

16:05

Like many others, I thank the convener for his work in chairing the committee so well. I also thank the clerks; the witnesses who gave oral and written evidence to the committee, which was invaluable in our examination of the bill; the committee advisers, who did a sterling job in helping us through the process; and, of course, SPICe, which was also invaluable.

I want to pay particular attention to my fellow committee members. I think that we did a good job, in which we were full of respect for each other’s positions and concentrated on the bill and the work that we had to do, despite our differences on the central referendum question on independence itself.

Many people have said that this is a historic day because we are passing the bill. I agree. It is historic, but I also think that it is not very exciting. I do not mean that in a bad way; I say it because the whole process has been exceptionally well planned. The original bill that was introduced to the Parliament was very well drafted. Of course, there have been amendments to the bill as we have gone through the process and examined it in great detail, but the fact that it is not particularly exciting shows that the bill has been well planned and that the Government has done its job, and the committee has had a reasonably easy time in examining the process and procedures contained in the bill.

What a long way we have come since the 2011 election and the strident voices of the anti-independence parties, who said that they did not support independence and that they would not support a process to bring it about. I am glad that those voices have changed and that those parties have now decided that this is the right thing to do and accepted that the people of Scotland have the right to choose their own future. I am just sad that thus far they have failed to extend that logic to supporting that right across everything else. I cannot understand the logic of those who support Scotland having powers over health, but not welfare; over justice, but not defence; and over local tax, but not national tax. In my view, the arbitrary line that is drawn between devolved and reserved powers makes no sense whatsoever.

I cannot help but reflect on the difference between the relatively constructive and straightforward process that has surrounded the passage of the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill and, indeed, the Scottish Independence Referendum (Franchise) Bill, and the rather long and difficult debates—or, may I say, arguments—that took place around the most recent Scotland Bill. I served on the Scotland Bill Committee as well.

The fight to move us forward by such a small amount—by one inch—that surrounded the second Scotland Bill far exceeded anything that occurred during the passage of the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill. It is interesting that whereas we spent decades trying to get this place established, we spent a relatively short amount of time on the second Scotland Bill—although it was not the most constructive discussion that I have experienced. Despite the many protestations about support for devolution, more devolution and—among members of Tavish Scott’s party—home rule, the fact is that on every occasion that an amendment for additional power was lodged by SNP members, it was voted down by members who now say that they support lots of extra, new powers for the Parliament at some indistinct point in the future when, I suppose, they think that we might be ready.

Some issues around the bill raised questions. The question of purdah came up during the committee’s examination of the bill, and I welcome the Deputy First Minister’s clarity on that. We had questions about when the purdah period would fall, how long it should be and who it would cover. However, with the slight change that has been made even at stage 3, I think that we are in the right place with the length of the purdah period. It will also cover the right organisations. In short, I do not think that we need be concerned about that part of the bill.

As others have mentioned, there was a great deal of debate about campaign rules and spending limits in particular. Again, we are in the right place in that respect. I think that £7,500 is the right amount and that the level of constrictions on organisations not only allows us to be sure that the process is fair and transparent but lets organisations across the country get involved, take part and be part of this—I use the phrase again—historic process that we are undertaking.

I am very pleased that the question of designation of lead campaigners by the time we reach the 16-week period of the referendum was cleared up at stage 2. After all, it would have been a rather strange state of affairs if those organisations had not been in place that close to the referendum.

I recently had a conversation with a Slovenian woman whom I met on a bus in Vilnius in Lithuania. We got chatting because she recognised that I was not a Lithuanian; when I said that I was from Scotland, she immediately said that she had heard that there might be a referendum on independence here and asked whether that was correct. When I confirmed that it was, indeed, true, she was very excited by the prospect and thought it was an amazing thing to be happening in Scotland. After asking me a number of questions about the referendum—what was happening, who was saying what and what it would cover—she finally asked me what I thought the result would be. “What are the polls saying?”, she asked. I asked her what she thought they were saying and, without hesitation and with absolute confidence, she said, “100 per cent yes.” I said, “No, I wish it were.” When she guessed 90 per cent and then 80 per cent, I had to tell her the poll result that had been released just before I left for Lithuania. She was completely and utterly dumbfounded. She said that in her country it was unimaginable—

Will the member give way?

I am sorry but the member really needs to wind up.

I am just concluding, Presiding Officer.

The woman said that it was unimaginable that there would not be near unanimous support for running one’s own affairs. The fact that not being independent was unimaginable to that lady shows that, despite the scaremongering, independence is the normal state for peoples around the world. It is time that the people of Scotland took control of their own affairs—and they can do so by voting yes next September.

16:12

Like others, I begin by once again offering my thanks to everyone who contributed to the committee’s work as we moved through stages 1 and 2 of the two referendum bills.

As others have pointed out, the process has been broadly consensual. Although the political tensions between supporters and opponents of independence were not completely absent, they were tempered and constrained enough not to prevent us from carrying out our work effectively. Our convener chaired our proceedings with fairness and charm, and Annabel Goldie always wore highly suitable shoes. [Laughter.] She was consistently impressive on that score.

Tavish Scott told us that he was on occasion in a minority of one—all I can say is that I know the feeling. In fact, I would go further and recommend the experience to every member in the chamber. They should try it at least once or twice during their political careers.

The fact that we were able to be broadly consensual in committee has prompted many members to talk about the tone of our debate over the next 10 months and suggest that it should be respectful and of high quality. To be sure, we should be able to disagree respectfully, but we do not always manage to do that in politics and between political parties. However, I hope that we return to that respectful tone as often as we can. Indeed, it is the tone that the yes and no campaigners in this referendum should be aiming for if they are serious about persuading undecided voters because it is that and not some hostile and polarised debate that those voters will listen to.

It is hugely important that we get the legislation and the rules of the game right for the referendum and it is not only desirable but vital that we conduct it with agreed rules to ensure that the side that comes out with the result that it did not want is still willing to accept it. We need a meaningful referendum and, in that respect, losers’ consent is going to be very important.

The aftermath—jubilation on one side and feelings of defeat and disappointment on the other—will be a tough enough circumstance for Scottish politics to come together again in, and we cannot afford to add to that complexity with a contentious process. I am therefore very glad that all sides seem happy with the bill. Many of the issues were successfully addressed by the agreement between the Scottish and UK Governments, which set the initial tone that allowed the broadly consensual committee process that followed.

What comes next? The implementation. There was a good degree of confidence among committee members—as I hope there is among all members—in the mechanics and the administration. We have a good degree of confidence that the referendum will be conducted to a high standard and that the process will carry the confidence of the country. We also need compelling political arguments from both sides. I want both sides to bring compelling and testing arguments to the debate. The white paper that the Government will publish soon will, no doubt, set out the Scottish Government’s current position in great depth. Perhaps in slightly less depth, the Green Party will tomorrow launch its campaign for a green yes vote. Although I admit that tender heads may still be wondering about our decision to launch the campaign on the day after our work’s night out, the Green Party will set out its own case for a yes vote.

The radical independence conference that will take place later in the month will set out a wide range of views on the left of Scottish politics, and perhaps some compelling arguments that are not heard in the chamber will be heard at that conference. I would welcome views of the same breadth, depth and passion on the no side of the argument. I challenge the idea that Scotland is on pause. In fact, this has been one of the most exciting and creative times—not always in the chamber, but in wider political debate—in which organisations, whether or not they are strictly neutral, have been asking questions of both sides and setting out their agendas for the possibilities of independence. This has been one of the most creative times that I can remember in Scottish politics, and we should conduct the referendum campaigns in that spirit so that, whichever result the Scottish people choose, we have the momentum to take some of those creative ideas forward. I believe that we will be better placed to put them into practice if we get a yes vote, but I want the debate on both sides to be of that standard.

Above all, we must drive up participation. If we have compelling, creative and imaginative argument, we will see a strong turnout. Everybody agrees that the result should not be contingent on an arbitrary, fixed level of turnout, but that is not to say that turnout does not matter. Scotland’s political culture will be much healthier if we have all taken part in the decision together.

I close by echoing the sentiments that other members have expressed. The Scottish Independence Referendum Bill Committee should expand its remit and take evidence on the white paper. The subject committees will want to look at certain aspects, but the constitutional transitional questions also need scrutiny and all sides should be willing to have that debate on the record in committee over the coming months.

A number of members still wish to speak. From here on in, we are going to have speeches of four minutes in the hope that we can get through everybody.

16:18

I am pleased to speak in the debate on this historic day for the Scottish Parliament. It has been a privilege to be a member of the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill Committee, and I pass on my thanks to my fellow members of the committee, the advisers, the clerking team and all those who gave evidence to the committee.

An issue throughout the bill process has been the need for the approach to the bill to be beyond reproach, whatever the outcome next September. No matter which way members vote tonight, and no matter which way the electorate votes next September, the bill process has been transparent, inclusive and clear. Indeed, the briefing that we received from the Electoral Commission for today’s stage 3 debate states:

“Our overall view is that the Bill as amended currently meets this standard and reflects many of the recommendations that we made”.

The standard referred to is about having

“absolute clarity on the roles and responsibilities of those administering the referendum”.

Today, we will pass the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill. I welcome Labour’s commitment to vote yes tonight and I hope that I can encourage Labour members to vote yes next September as well. Tonight’s vote will take us a stage closer to the day when, I hope, the people of Scotland will choose to take responsibility for their own lives and for the future of Scotland.

Like everyone in the Parliament, I will campaign for what I believe in while respecting the fact that others will have their own position, with which I may disagree but to which they are entitled. The challenge for both sides in the debate is to rise to the occasion, to engender debate, to foster a greater understanding of the political process and to take the opportunity to encourage more people to take part both in the referendum and in future elections.

We all need to provide a clearer picture of what Scotland will look like in the event of a yes vote, or even a no vote, on 18 September. I look forward to the publication of the white paper on 26 November and I also look forward to reading the offerings from those campaign groups that will be encouraging a no vote. We need to know what the consequences would be for Scotland in the event of a no vote. On that point, I acknowledge the comments that Tavish Scott made earlier.

The referendum will provide the people of Scotland with the choice to make history. There can be no bigger political decision for electors than to decide on their political future as a nation. I look forward to Friday 19 September 2014 and to watching the rebirth of a nation knowing that I have played a part in that—my six-year-old daughter will have assisted, too—and knowing that many friends and fellow nationalists have helped as well. I will also know that those who are no longer with us have done their part in keeping the independence flame burning through some tough times for the national movement.

The phrase “standing on the shoulders of giants” can be utilised all too freely, but today we on these benches are standing on those shoulders. We have a responsibility to lost friends, as well as to our families and colleagues, to deliver our shared dream of an independent Scotland that can provide a better future and opportunities for our future generations. I will be delighted to vote yes tonight, and I cannot wait to vote yes on 18 September 2014.

16:22

I am privileged to be able to speak in this afternoon’s debate on the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill. I am sure that we will come together at 5 pm today to vote for a referendum on Scotland’s future that will ask people to choose that most fundamental of democratic principles—self-government. I firmly believe that, when the people of Scotland are asked whether we should be an independent country, they will give a resounding yes.

I welcome the non-tribal and constructive approach that, as we have heard, the Referendum (Scotland) Bill Committee took to scrutinising the bill. I very much hope that all parties—and, indeed, those of no party-political persuasion—will continue to take a non-tribal and constructive approach to the debate that will now follow and intensify.

At First Minister’s question time earlier today, in commenting on the future of Scotland when independent, Johann Lamont asked, “What is plan B?” In other words, what will any party do if it does not get its way? When, in the days ahead, the Scottish Government publishes its white paper on independence, there will be certainty and clarity about what an independent Scotland would look like and aspire to if, following a yes vote, an SNP Government is returned in the 2016 elections. As for plan B, without independence, there will be a commitment to continue to stand up for Scotland’s interests at every opportunity and, if given the honour, to continue to be a responsible Scottish Government.

However, the need for a plan B cuts both ways. The Labour Party contends that the only way to protect Scotland’s interest is to elect a UK Labour Party to a Westminster Government, which rarely, if ever, has Scotland on its radar never mind as a priority. The Labour Party plan A includes nuclear weapons and power, draining our oil and gas and other natural resources and sticking to Tory capital cuts to Scotland. That is a weak and ineffective proposition to put to the Scottish people.

What about plan B? That includes even more welfare reform and sticking to the bedroom tax. I was about to go through a long list of what plan B would mean, but the Labour Party would implement those measures, too, were it elected as the UK Government. Plan A is not satisfactory for the Scottish people and plan B is to play Russian roulette with Scotland’s future and to let the Tories loose on Scotland with a future UK Tory Government. That is unacceptable; it is why the referendum bill must be passed and why the people must vote yes in the independence referendum.

I will mention a couple of obvious things arising from my work in the Parliament that tell me on an elementary basis why we need independence. First, as deputy convener of the Health and Sport Committee, I know that every time there is a £1 million disinvestment from the health service in England, our committee is looking at £98,000 less spent on the Scottish health service. That is simply unacceptable.

On a local level, what else is unacceptable is that a wonderful group called Rosemount Workspace, which works with vulnerable young people furthest away from the labour market, cannot get some young people into education courses because of UK benefit rules. The UK Government will not change the rules; Angela Constance, the Minister for Youth Employment, would if she could. That is why I want independence—not as an end in and of itself but for the future of Scotland’s young people. I very much hope that Parliament comes together to take that next step in the journey to Scottish self-determination.

16:26

The Deputy First Minister said that the bill is large and complex. That is fair enough—but who cares about that? What we care about is the bill’s central core, which is the opportunity for Scots to face and to answer the core question that runs through all our politics. The bill gives us a chance to choose a future of which the boundaries, aspirations and achievements of Scots will be determined by the Scots themselves, with no excuse with which to blame anybody else.

Some Scots feel that the future is somehow a barter, and that if we stay a region of the United Kingdom, there will be a safety net—but safety nets can fail, too. If you fall into the safety net at the circus, you are not as big a draw as you are if you try without the safety net. I am for going without a safety net, because we have everything that we need to do that.

Other Scots see Scotland not alone, but certainly alongside and the equal legally of any other country in the world. Independence is important for our self-image because we will change from regionalists and those who are always a wee bit behind the fashion and the times, to being leaders, as other small countries are. That applies not only to the normal small countries that we always cite; members should think also about Singapore and what it has achieved. We may not like how they did it, but members should think about what it did with the numbers and its positioning. There are lots of examples that we can draw from.

I know that I will never regret voting yes. It will be my legacy to my grandchildren—there are 10 of them. We will be expecting them to pick up from where we leave off. We will have given them the opportunity to go for the highest standards of achievement and humanity—just the best. That is what they will aim for, if I vote yes, and that is why I will never regret voting yes.

I wonder how the people whom we call unionists—of course, most of them are not unionist; they just happen to be on the opposite side of the chamber—feel about their legacy? We know what their legacy is: 17 more years of fuel prices pitched higher than inflation and heaven knows how many more years of austerity. It is a crippling of ambition and it is a squeezing down of what we in Scotland might aspire to. That is the legacy that we take with the union. If they do not want to accept that, let us hear what the alternatives are, because there have been precious few alternatives voiced in the debate so far.

I ask those who are trying to be imaginative about what would happen post independence—the new relationships and partnerships that would be struck—to have a sense of context and timing. It will not all happen at once. Some things can happen the week after and others will take 10 years. They must be sensitive to that because first, they will lack credibility if they do not get it right and, secondly, they will frighten the horses—I mean, the opponents.

People ask whether they should vote for independence or union with their hearts or their heads. Like all Scots, their hearts are in the right place, so their heads will probably dictate that they should not vote themselves into poverty, fuel poverty—which I have talked about—and minority. If people think about it, their heads—not their hearts, which know that they are Scottish and need nothing else to think about—will tell them that. If they think about their future interests and those of their families, they will vote with their heads; they will vote yes and vote for an independent Scotland.

16:30

I am not a member of it, but I thank all members of the bill committee and the clerks for the excellent work that they have done and the hours that they put into the bill.

I am very proud to be one of the people in Parliament who are able to vote yes on the bill today and to vote yes in September next year. I echo my colleague Stuart McMillan’s comments about the many people—too many to mention—who are not here to see this day. We are standing on the shoulders of giants; if not for them, we would not be debating the bill today, so I pay tribute to them. Everyone knows many of the people whom I mean.

Margo MacDonald’s speech was excellent. We have all seen what has happened in Scotland; it has flourished under devolution, especially since 2007. No one can deny that the statesmanship of the First Minister and the economics that he has brought to the country are far beyond those of any other Prime Minister, never mind those of any other First Minister or Administration.

For some reason, unfortunately, Labour members in particular—[Interruption.] I hear the Labour members from the sidelines. It seems that Labour members just cannot stomach this. They just cannot stomach the fact that someone who does not agree with them—who does not agree with the union—can be so successful for the Parliament and can bring so many people from throughout the world to Parliament; the greatest number of ambassadors et al are coming to visit the Parliament. We should all be proud of that, but Labour members cannot get through the wall of thinking that because it was the SNP that did it, it cannot be good for Parliament or Scotland. Yes, that makes me angry, but it also makes me very sad.

I will tell members one thing that makes me even sadder, which is that what comes out—[Interruption.] Duncan McNeil is probably one of the people I mean, along with many others from the Labour benches. When we talk about shipbuilding, the Labour Party tells people to vote no and it says that, if they do not vote no, the yards will disappear from the Clyde. Let us just read what BAE Systems said about that.

Will Sandra White give way?

No.

The Ministry of Defence agrees that Glasgow is the most effective location to build type 26 ships. [Interruption.]

Order.

BAE said:

“BAE Systems has agreed with the UK Ministry of Defence that Glasgow would be the most effective location for the manufacture of the future Type 26 ships … the Company proposes to consolidate its shipbuilding operations in Glasgow”.

Do members know why BAE is doing that? It has said that it is because Glasgow has the best workforce—the one with the most experience.

Members should look at all the other countries in the world. We do not need only Ministry of Defence orders; we can build other ships. We can lead the nation but, once again, the people in the Labour Party see doom and failure at every single corner. It is a disgrace.

I will give more time to the one thing that really saddens me. As we speak, a lady in Pollok is being evicted from her house because of the bedroom tax. The Labour Party said that it would protect such people—that it would protect its constituents—but its MPs could not even turn up for a vote. I say to Labour members, shame on you. Shame on you.

16:35

I am not on the Referendum (Scotland) Bill Committee, but I commend it for its hard work on the bill. I welcome today’s debate and the debate that we will have in our communities. That debate is all about what we can do for our communities and what independence offers our communities.

I have been involved in politics for longer than I care to remember, but my motivations now are the same as they were when I came into politics. I want to bring about change, to make a difference and to make people’s lives better. That is why I support independence.

I believe in having a vision. Vision has been lacking in the speeches of Opposition members. Where is their vision? What is their idea for tackling head on the challenges that we face? Why do they not want us to take on more responsibility and see what we can do? Any daring to hope for a better future has been glaringly absent from their speeches. Is it wrong to work towards making the country better? Is it wrong to offer people in our communities something that can make a difference, instead of having academic debates, as Labour members continue to have in Westminster, when they can be bothered to turn up to vote? We need to do something that will make a difference to real people in the real world. Everything that I talk about relates to the people I represent. Members should believe that that is the way we have to go.

Like Jamie Hepburn, my motivation is to make a better life for our children and our nation. When I look at my own children, apart from feeling old I realise how much I want for them. I want them to have the ambition to be everything that they can be. I want them to look to the future without the Scottish cringe, and I want them to believe that they can achieve anything that they want to achieve. That is what I want.

I think that some Opposition members should start to feel more confident about themselves. We can all do that. It is a question of having the confidence to take on the powers of independence and to have meaningful debates in Parliament. I do not want to have debates such as the one that we are having now, in which members at opposite ends of the chamber are arguing about whether we should be part of a union that is well past its sell-by date, or part of new dynamic Scotland. I want us to debate what we are going to do. We need the powers of independence. The sooner Opposition members think that way and start to have discussions along those lines, the sooner we will be able to move our nation forward. That is what the public want. They want us to discuss Scotland’s future and to move things forward, rather than to sit here having academic debates.

What is the cost of Westminster? The cost to us of Westminster is more austerity: 76 per cent of Scottish MPs voted against further austerity cuts in the Finance Bill in 2010, but those cuts were imposed anyway. That is the cost of the union. The real-terms cut in the Scottish Government’s budget of 11 per cent over five years and the cut of 26 per cent in capital expenditure are what the union offers Scotland. It does not offer us ambition, nor does it offer us the future that we all want for our children and the children of others. What it offers us is Trident on the Clyde, at a cost of £163 million per year, which alone could pay for 4,500 teachers, 1,500 consultants, 33 primary schools, seven secondary schools—

Will George Adam give way?

The member is winding up.

That is what we should be debating. We should be talking about what we should do with that money and how we could build a better Scotland. The sooner Opposition members remember that, the sooner we will be able to say that Scotland is moving forward.

I call Rob Gibson. I can give you three minutes, Mr Gibson.

16:39

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer.

I am a member of the committee that brought us the bill and the opportunity to debate it.

The Electoral Commission, which I pursued for a detailed plan, has said that it is pleased that the Scottish Government has accepted many of the recommendations that it made in its report following the referendums in 2011. In other words, the bill represents an excellent way forward for a referendum in the eyes of our people and of the world.

Today’s debate sums up something of the problem that the country has. Project fear has failed to put up speakers on the side that says no. Most of the speakers have supported the bill and independence. Why will the other side not come out and argue the positive case for what it believes? This is the place where that should be done. I believe that that positive case is not being made because it is the unionists and Westminster rule—not anything that the Scottish Government has done—that have put Scotland on pause. It was the Westminster Government that handled the crash badly; it is unpicking the glue of what was the United Kingdom by dismantling the health service, going for nuclear weapons and deciding that we will have nuclear power stations, no matter what we want.

All those issues can be debated in the referendum campaign. All those issues are there for us to ensure that people in Scotland have a fair chance. We on our side of the case know that, when the Scots vote yes, they will always get the Government that they want.

As far as I am concerned, Scotland will be an exciting place to come to next year, to see the Commonwealth games, the homecoming, the Ryder cup and a new nation ready to take its place with the nations of the world. I support the bill.

We move to wind-up speeches. Annabel Goldie has four minutes.

16:41

In my opening speech, I raised some questions for the Deputy First Minister—[Interruption.] Oh—Mr Swinney is back among us and is having a wee chat. Does he want to intervene?

I am always ready to come to the rescue of Baroness Goldie when she gets into trouble. If she is having difficulty in filling her four minutes, perhaps she can tell us what propositions the Conservative Party will advance to improve the governance of Scotland, given its paltry failure over many years to deliver any form of stronger self-government for the people of Scotland.

The proposition is simple—it is called staying in the United Kingdom.

Members: Aw.

Order.

In all seriousness, I say to the Deputy First Minister that I would be grateful if she responded to the questions that I raised in my opening speech.

The Deputy First Minister referred—rightly—to the Edinburgh agreement, which was historic, pivotal and an exemplar of how a Westminster Government and a devolved Government can work together. The Deputy First Minister says that that reflects what could happen after a yes vote; I say that it is a shining example of how devolution can continue to work in the United Kingdom following a no vote.

Sandra White uttered the memorable phrase:

“Scotland has flourished under devolution”.

Let us all pin that to our lapels and not let it be forgotten.

The Deputy First Minister said that the white paper will present an overwhelming case for independence. Should that case not have been made by now? It has certainly been a long time coming. I will reserve judgment on the white paper and leave the enthusiasm to the Deputy First Minister.

The Deputy First Minister made an important point about the language and conduct of the debate, to which Bruce Crawford and I, and others, referred at stage 1. I was struck by what Bruce Crawford, Malcolm Chisholm, Ken Macintosh and Patrick Harvie said today. This is not about being consensual. How could it be? That would be an intellectual confusion. There will be passion, robustness, fire, flair and verve—they all have their place. However, intimidation, jeering and sneering do not in any circumstances have a place.

On the merits or demerits of the argument, assertion is not fact and repeated platitudes are not evidence. I know that the public want facts and evidence. I know that the public want clear language and that they want information and explanation, not provocation and confrontation.

Like others, I have attended public meetings. It might be uncomfortable for the SNP that it has emerged that more is known about the partnership that is the United Kingdom than is known about separation. People understand what the United Kingdom is; they understand what it means and what it has done. I have no doubt that that explains the polls to which Mr Maxwell referred.

Some might have no time for the United Kingdom and find nothing good in it, but others see virtues.

Will the member give way?

I am very tight for time, having given Mr Swinney a very generous intervention.

Other people see virtue in the United Kingdom’s capacity to influence, whether that is through our permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council, our being in the G7 and G8 groups of countries or our influence on the global stage, which Tavish Scott talked about. People understand that, because they see it happening. People very particularly understand the meaning and significance of our British armed forces. The recent remembrance commemorations poignantly underscore that. They understand what the pound is. They know that that is their currency in the United Kingdom and they want it.

All that means that the separation case and the white paper face a significant challenge. The white paper needs to set out the case for separation. It must not just detail the virtues that those who make the argument maintain are there but produce the blueprint as to how separation would work.

There is a huge sentiment in Scotland, which is shared by me and hundreds of thousands of other people, and which is the polar opposite of the sentiment that was expressed by Linda Fabiani and Annabelle Ewing. It is that people like being part of the United Kingdom and regard that as positive. Contrary to what SNP members argue, there are hundreds of thousands of non-SNP supporters throughout Scotland who want to keep the United Kingdom, and they place that above party politics.

That is why I am confident that next September people will vote for the proven, positive partnership that is the United Kingdom and reject separation.

16:46

The bill is a procedural bill, and the process has been concluded with a high degree of consensus, as is borne out not least by the record progress on amendments this afternoon. The bill will be passed without substantial division in a few minutes’ time.

Of course, that is only part of the story. The price that we have paid this afternoon for our willingness to compromise on amendments has been an endless queue of what I might generously describe as excited SNP speakers. Many made good points; some perhaps made less good points. What was perhaps most surprising was that Rob Gibson, speaking towards the end of the debate, decided to criticise us for indulging those speakers. Perhaps that is a sign of things to come.

Of course independence matters to the SNP. We know and expect that—that is part of the deal. However, for those of us who believe that Scotland’s best future is as part of the union, the referendum bill matters too. Next year’s vote represents, in our view, an opportunity to reaffirm Scotland’s firmest long-standing friendships and, at the same time, to move our country’s story on to a new phase.

Whether members think that that new phase is about the maturity of devolution, which has rightly been praised by members of all parties this afternoon, or independence, it is important that we get the ground rules for the referendum campaign right and agreed by all sides. Experience in other referendums shows that the results of the poll will be accepted by all sides, if all parties are engaged in defining who should be asked what and how.

On 26 November, we will have the white paper, which will set out the SNP Government’s vision for independence. Mr Macdonald talked about the new phase for devolution. Will the Labour Party and other unionist parties put their vision for the new phase of the union to the people before the referendum?

I promise Kevin Stewart that Labour’s plans for devolution will not be a secret and will indeed be made public at an early date.

Members: When?

Order.

I am glad to hear that the party of Government recognises the party that created the Scottish Parliament and is looking to us for a lead on the next phase of devolution. That is only as it should be.

We have agreement on how we go forward on the referendum, and what we have broadly agreed is to follow the Electoral Commission’s approach in ensuring fairness and transparency in elections and referendums across the UK.

At stage 2, I was reminded that in my submission to the Scottish Government’s consultation I said that we should follow the Electoral Commission’s lead on the rules that govern the conduct of the referendum. The bill, as amended, largely does that, with the one exception of the approach to absent voting. I expressed concern about that earlier this afternoon, and although Nicola Sturgeon did not accept my point I am glad that I did so. I am, after all, as interested as any other member is in how to get the vote out at elections, and not just at the referendum. It was a unique experience to be advised by Kevin Stewart on how to do that better. I am of course grateful and I will bear his advice in mind for future reference.

On absent voting, the genuinely novel aspects of the voting system will require specific guidance and impose new burdens, but I believe that the counting and electoral registration officers will be well able to meet those demands.

The other area of debate has been on spending to a common plan, on which we thought that the bill could reasonably be strengthened to ensure transparency and to avoid campaigning by proxy through organisations that are invented for that purpose. Again, the issue is one of balance, this time between enabling participation by as many campaigners as possible and ensuring that no one seeks to mislead voters. Ministers have acknowledged the importance of getting that balance right although, unlike others, they believe that the bill achieves that as it stands. It will now be all the more important that the Electoral Commission builds on the framework that is provided by the bill and brings forward clear guidance on how campaigners should account for work that is done as part of a common plan. That way, the letter of the law will be clearly understood and, I hope, its spirit will be respected, too.

So the stage is set and the rules are clear, and those who are charged with ensuring a fair and transparent process know what tools they will have to hand to carry out their tasks. Now the country will decide and the world will be watching.

Will the member give way?

Nobody who has been involved at any stage in the process could doubt its significance, which is why, as many members have said, the debate should be conducted in a respectful manner.

Will the member give way?

The member is in his last minute and he is not giving way.

It is important to say that Scottish men and women who take part in the debate should not lose the right to that respect on the basis that they are elected members of the Westminster Parliament. Those rules apply there, too.

It is not enough for Parliament to set the stage; it is also our job as members to scrutinise legislation, as we have done, and the wider policies and actions of the Scottish Government. That is why, at stage 1, we raised the issue of scrutiny of the white paper. Now that we have come to the point at which the referendum rules have been settled, decisions must soon be made about scrutiny of the white paper. There is a case to be made for that to be done by a committee of Parliament, constituted in a similar way to the Referendum (Scotland) Bill Committee. If ministers do not support that, I hope that they will tell us how they wish to proceed, so that the Parliament as a whole can come to a view.

The people of Scotland have a momentous decision to make, which we have enabled through the proceedings on the bill. Over the next few months, Parliament will have a role in ensuring that the proposals on which people will vote have been examined and interrogated, as we would do for any other measure. After all, that is what a Parliament is for, and it is through Parliament that the people of Scotland will continue to hold ministers to account, before and after the referendum.

16:52

The debate has been interesting and, in the main, good natured. It is fair to say that it has had its surreal moments. Annabel Goldie transported us back to her first primary school dance and the awakening of her awareness of the male of the species. Unfortunately, she returned to talking about the bill and we did not get to hear how that evening ended, but perhaps we will on another occasion.

Annabel Goldie also raised a serious question for me about the timing and extent of pre-referendum guidance. She will recall that I wrote to the Referendum (Scotland) Bill Committee on 22 June setting out the list of public bodies that are subject to the 28-day pre-referendum restrictions. The exact timing for the issuing of that guidance is yet to be decided, but it will be issued in good time to allow staff to familiarise themselves with it. As I have said previously, we will send a copy of the guidance to the Referendum (Scotland) Bill Committee. I hope that that answers Annabel Goldie’s point.

Bruce Crawford made a fine speech, setting out in simple but powerful terms the case for Scotland becoming an independent country. I take the opportunity to again place on record my gratitude and that of the Scottish Government to Bruce Crawford for the enormous role that he has played in the process. Many fine speeches have been made, including by Malcolm Chisholm, Stewart Maxwell, Patrick Harvie, Stuart McMillan, Bob Doris, Margo MacDonald, Sandra White, George Adam, Rob Gibson, Clare Adamson and Linda Fabiani—they made wonderful speeches. Some of the speeches have been of the highest quality, and I want to single out two.

The first was by Annabelle Ewing, who spoke about her mother. When I press my button to vote in a few minutes’ time, there will be many people in my mind who have contributed much to bringing us to the point that we are at today. One of them will be Annabelle Ewing’s mother: the fine, fantastic Winnie Ewing. When Winnie Ewing opened the Parliament, she reminded us that we lost our independence back in March 1707. If we vote yes next year, we can regain our independence in March 2016. I know that nobody will be happier on that day than Winnie Ewing. We pay tribute to her and others today.

I had hoped to speak in the debate. Brian Adam, who was elected in 2011, is one of the people who ought to have been here with us today to press their voting buttons. I am sure that the cabinet secretary would want to record her wish that Brian were still with us today to be able to vote for the bill at 5 o’clock.

I dearly wish that Brian Adam and many other people were with us today, but I am sure that we all, in enabling the people of Scotland to vote in a referendum, will do them and their memories justice.

The other speech that I want to highlight is that by Jamie Hepburn. I thought that he made a profound point and spoke for all SNP members in doing so. He said very clearly that, for us, independence is not an end in itself; it is a means to an end, and that end is a better Scotland. As he was speaking, it struck me that those who can be accused of being blinded by constitutional arguments in the debate are, in fact, Labour members. In truth, there is more that unites the SNP and Labour on many social and economic issues than divides us, but Labour is so wedded to the Westminster system that it would rather have a Tory Government dismantling our welfare state than have an independent Government doing something about inequality. I think that that position will fall apart over the next few months under the weight of its own absurdity, as more and more Labour voters realise that the way to achieve their political aspirations is not to remain with Westminster but to vote yes and have Scotland become an independent country.

That takes me to Drew Smith’s contribution. He started very well with the proud declaration that he will vote yes at decision time this afternoon. I think that he might find that he will get a taste for voting yes; I am sure that, in his heart, he would rather be there than where he went with his remarks. After that proud declaration about being a yes voter, it was downhill for him, because he characterised the debate as a choice between Scotland becoming a separate country or staying with Westminster. I ask him to look around the world. There are no separate countries in the world these days; there are independent countries—some 200 of them.

Will the Deputy First Minister give way?

Stewart Maxwell made an excellent speech about Lithuania. Those countries govern themselves. They look after their own interests and co-operate with their neighbours when that is appropriate. The choice that we face is between being like that—normal and independent, in charge of our own destiny, and getting Governments that we vote for—or continuing to be governed by a Tory Government at Westminster. If Drew Smith wants to defend that, he can be my guest.

I actually referred to independence and separation and made a point about language, but the main thing that I tried to cover in my speech was the tone of the debate. As to how I could ever be persuaded by the Deputy First Minister’s case, does she regret referring to her fellow Scot Alistair Carmichael as

“the Secretary of State against Scotland”?

Will we hear more of that in the campaign?

If there was any doubt at all that Westminster does not work for Scotland, that doubt was surely dispelled this week. Scottish Labour MPs at Westminster are so used to being outvoted that they do not even bother to turn up to vote on something as important as scrapping the bedroom tax. There we have it: the price of Westminster government. The Tories impose the bedroom tax and Labour does not even bother to try to protect Scotland from it. We need powers over welfare in this Parliament.

The vote next year is a choice. If we vote no, nothing changes. The Tories will continue to dismantle our welfare state. If we vote yes, we express confidence in ourselves and in future generations. We will take our future into our own hands. We will chart a new future and better direction for our country. That is what I believe people in Scotland will vote for and when that happens, no longer will the Tories impose the bedroom tax. This Parliament will be responsible for building that better Scotland that we want to see.

That is why I take so much pleasure in asking members across the chamber to pass the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill.