European and External Relations Committee, 11 Dec 2007

Meeting date: Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Official Report 291KB pdf

---

Scottish Government's National Conversation

Good morning, and welcome to the ninth meeting of the European and External Relations Committee in this session. We have apologies from Ted Brocklebank. I think that Jackie Baillie will be attending, so I welcome her in advance to the meeting.

The first item on our agenda is to take evidence from the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing, Nicola Sturgeon, on the Scottish Government's white paper, "Choosing Scotland's Future". When the committee first considered its approach to the white paper at its meeting on 4 September, members agreed to write to the First Minister to seek clarification on a number of points. The Deputy First Minister responded and, at the committee's meeting on 30 October, members agreed to invite her to explore those issues in more detail.

We welcome Nicola Sturgeon, and her accompanying officials: Jan Marshall, deputy director of the constitutional and parliamentary secretariat; Gerald Byrne, head of the constitution unit; and Donald Cameron, head of the national conversation team. I invite Nicola Sturgeon to make an opening statement, and then we will move on to questions.

It is a pleasure to be here to talk about a matter that is so close to my own heart and, I know, close to the hearts of many members of the committee. I am grateful that the committee has given me the opportunity to come along and talk about the Government's national conversation, which, as members will recall, was launched on 14 August this year.

There is no doubt that, since devolution 10 years ago, people in Scotland have started to take much more direct responsibility for our own affairs. Within the constraints of the devolution settlement, it is undeniable that, nevertheless, there have been many changes and some considerable achievements. I am thinking, for example, of the long-overdue reform of land law, the smoking ban that led the way across the United Kingdom and the introduction of free personal care. Those are all considerable achievements that show what can be done when Scotland has the power to act.

Nevertheless, the Government believes that the constraints of the current devolution settlement have become more and more apparent over the 10 years since the Scotland Act 1998 was passed. The election of a Scottish National Party Government in May this year gives all of us in this Parliament, as well as people the length and breadth of the country, an opportunity to take stock and to look to the future.

For many years now, the debate about Scotland's constitutional future has tended to be very much polarised between independence on the one hand and the status quo on the other. It is no secret that I and my colleagues in the SNP—and, indeed, in the SNP Government—support the option of independence.

However, in launching the national conversation, we deliberately set out to engage people in a much wider debate about the responsibilities that they think the Parliament and the Scottish Government should have in the future. The Scottish Government believes in independence for Scotland, but we recognise that there are a range of different views across Scotland and in the Parliament. As well as setting out our support for independence, "Choosing Scotland's Future" includes other options for how our constitutional position could be developed. Above all else, the national conversation recognises clearly that the people of Scotland have an undeniable right to express their view on and to make decisions about their future.

In the first phase of the national conversation, activity has been based mostly on the website and blog. More than 345,000 hits and 25,000 downloads of the white paper make the national conversation website and blog among the most successful ever operated by any Government in the United Kingdom. I will say more about the next steps for the conversation in a couple of moments.

The conversation is about more than a website. It has also stimulated a considerable amount of media, academic and public debate and has provoked considerable interest from business, the voluntary sector and professional bodies across civic Scotland. Perhaps the biggest success of the conversation so far is its significant contribution to the conversion of the main Opposition party in the Parliament to the case for change. I agree that last week's debate in the Parliament was historic, if only for Labour's significant U-turn from implacable opposition to any change to a welcome, if belated, recognition of the need for a wholesale review of the powers of the Scottish Parliament.

Our objective in the first phase of the conversation was for Scotland to move from polarised debate to mature conversation. I believe that we have achieved that. The national conversation on Scotland's constitutional future is now firmly established. Despite our disagreements about the nature of the change that is required, all the political parties that are represented in the Parliament now agree that the status quo is no longer an option. That is a considerable achievement.

Having successfully established the national conversation, we plan three main elements in its second phase. First, the Government will lead debate across a range of big issues affecting the future of Scotland, including the economy, energy and the environment, Europe and foreign affairs, and defence. Secondly, the public will be enabled to express their views directly, building on the suggestions in the blog for public events. Thirdly, we will continue to address with the UK Government the issues and problems that we have identified—for example, broadcasting, elections, spending and taxation, compensation for farmers and firearms law—where further devolution now would allow us to meet Scotland's needs, instead of waiting for UK action. We are sure that many other issues—energy policy, climate change and the marine environment, to name just a few—will arise. We will also seek to extend the responsibility of Scotland in those areas, with the support of this Parliament, when that is required. Any responsible Government should take action to address those and other issues, as part of its normal day-to-day business. However, such actions also contribute to the national conversation, by illustrating in a real and practical way the importance of constitutional issues to our nation, both now and in the future.

Before I conclude, it is worth my contrasting the inclusive, open and wide-ranging nature of the national conversation with the constitutional commission that is proposed by the main Opposition parties. Although we welcome any contribution to the national conversation, we regret that the Parliament has agreed to establish a commission that deliberately excludes independence—not just the favoured option of the largest party in the Parliament, but the favoured option of a substantial proportion of the Scottish people. The national conversation lets all people across Scotland have their say, whereas the commission would restrict debate to an elite few and seek to dictate what could and could not be discussed. The national conversation purposely invites views on all the options for change, not just on the Government's preferred option, and does not limit those options, as the commission tries to do.

Although I welcome the commission, to an extent, and agree that its report will make a contribution to the conversation, its limited nature means that its work cannot replace the national conversation, which will continue to engage directly with the Scottish people over the months ahead, with the overall purpose of letting the people of Scotland decide their own future in a referendum.

When Jackie Baillie was the convener of the European and External Relations Committee, the committee wrote to the First Minister to ask about the timetable and format of the consultation. In your reply, you said:

"the Government will report to Parliament on the next steps in due course."

There was a Government statement in the intervening period about something being said about that on St Andrew's day. However, although there was a notable contribution to the constitutional debate by my leader on St Andrew's day, there was no announcement by the Government. What happened to it? Will it be forthcoming soon? I thought that the announcement was to be about the next stage of the consultation and, in particular, its format.

We will report to Parliament on the success of the first stage of the national conversation. This morning, I have given you some brief indications of the key elements of the next stage.

The national conversation is going incredibly well. There is an enormous appetite in Scotland to contribute to it. It is important that people have the maximum opportunity to make their views known and to contribute.

We are reflecting on the success of the first phase and will report to Parliament on the next stage of the national conversation in due course.

Can you give us any indication of when that might be?

I am not in a position to give you a date today, but I can say that it will be sooner rather than later.

Given that the Parliament last week voted clearly to reject the national conversation approach and, instead, voted for a Parliament-led process for the consideration of the constitution of Scotland, how can you justify the Government continuing to use public resources to promote something that the Parliament has rejected and which the Government has not asked the Parliament to endorse?

The difference between me and Iain Smith is that I believe that it is up to the people of Scotland to decide the constitutional future of our country. Parliament was absolutely entitled to vote in the way that it did last week, but I think that it is regrettable that the main Opposition parties came together to try to restrict the nature of the debate by purposefully and deliberately excluding one of the main options for Scotland's constitutional future, which is not only the option that is favoured by the largest party in the Parliament but the option that is favoured by a substantial proportion of the Scottish people. However, that is a matter for the three main Opposition parties. It is now for Parliament to determine how to take forward the resolution that was voted on last week. As I said, given the intentionally restricted nature of the commission, it cannot replace a wide-ranging conversation that enables discussion of all the options, but I welcome the contribution that the commission—should it develop—can make to the national conversation.

As we set out clearly in "Choosing Scotland's Future", we are open-minded about the prospect of a multi-option referendum. However, if there is to be such a referendum, those who propose an alternative to independence have an obligation to define that alternative. If the commission can help in that process, that will be welcome.

I hope that we agree that it is perfectly legitimate for members of the Parliament to hold different views. Every single one of those views is legitimate in its own right and everyone has a perfect right to express their own view. There is nothing wrong with the fact that Iain Smith and I hold different views. However, I hope that we can agree that the people who have the right to determine between those views are not any of us or even the parties that we represent, but the people of Scotland, in a democratic referendum.

You refer to a democratic referendum. The ballot box in elections is the fundamental aspect of democracy in the United Kingdom and Scotland. In May, people clearly voted against having a referendum on independence, as they voted two to one against the party that supported having such a referendum. The Scottish National Party may be the largest party in the Parliament, but its members are by no means in a majority—they are very much in a minority.

Last week, elected representatives who represent the other two thirds of the voters voted clearly on behalf of their electors to reject the Government's approach. At what point will the Government listen to elected members, agree to the democratic views of the Scottish people as expressed through the ballot box and accept that its national conversation is not the way in which the elected Parliament of the people of Scotland wants to proceed? When will it accept that we should seek a parliamentary approach to the issue and not an approach that is led by a minority Government?

The Government has clearly stated on its national conversation website that

"The overall aim of the Government is to gather support for a referendum in the course of this Parliament."

Its aim is not to have a debate but simply to gather support for a referendum.

The debate on Scotland's constitutional future will continue despite Iain Smith's obvious irritation. The people of Scotland will not be prepared to let those who do not like or support the legitimate cause of independence to impose limits on that discussion.

It is more than passing strange that a representative of the Liberal party, which supports referenda on almost every other constitutional issue, finds it so objectionable that the people of Scotland should be given the right to determine their constitutional future. The SNP will continue to argue the case for independence as a party and as a Government. That is its democratic right. Iain Smith is perfectly entitled to argue against the case that we make, but the most pertinent question is not what option anyone around this table proposes or supports—the fundamental and most pertinent question is: who has the right to decide? No one around this table does; rather, the people of Scotland have the right to decide. Given that people vote on a variety of issues in elections, the proper way to decide Scotland's constitutional future is by holding a referendum. Holding a referendum is often the proper way to decide a constitutional issue. If people such as Iain Smith are so confident that Scotland will reject independence, I cannot for the life of me think what they have to fear from a referendum that puts the question of independence to the test.

Some people have argued that establishing a constitutional commission is a spoiling tactic. From what you have said, I take it that the Government does not see things in that way and that it has a different view of the matter.

It is not for me to speculate on the motives of those who proposed and voted in favour of the motion that was debated last week, but Gil Paterson might be right. They may have been motivated more by the desire to adopt spoiling tactics rather than by the desire to make a constructive contribution. Nevertheless, the constitutional commission can make a contribution, despite what the motives of those people might have been. It cannot replace the national conversation because it seeks to exclude one of the main options for our country's constitutional future, but if it gives the Opposition parties that now accept that the status quo is not an option—I am pleased that they accept that, albeit that they do not support independence—the option to define better what on earth they are talking about in a way that will enable that to be put to the vote in a democratic referendum, I am sure that it will make a positive contribution.

When will the referendum take place?

The Government made it clear before the election and it has made it clear since that we intend to have a referendum by 2010.

I subscribe to Iain Smith's view that we had a verdict on independence from the Scottish people in May. However, if the minister is so confident, why should a referendum not be held now? Why should we wait until 2010?

We made it clear in the election campaign—I remind members that we won the election—that we wanted to have a referendum in 2010 for several reasons. We made it clear that the SNP wanted to build its credibility and reputation in government, and we are doing a very good job of that now, thank you very much.

It is important to allow the national conversation to proceed because the views that are expressed through it will impact on the range and precise wording of questions that could be put in a referendum. We have made it clear that we are open to a multi-option referendum, so it is only fair that we give the parties and interests in Scotland who want an option on the ballot paper other than the status quo and independence time to put that option together.

So the date is 2010.

I am not sure what part of my original answer you did not understand. It is the Government's intention to have a referendum in 2010. The question for the non-Government parties represented on the committee is whether they will vote for a referendum to give the people of Scotland the chance to decide their own constitutional future.

Will there be one referendum or two?

We plan to have one referendum. Of course, whether we have that referendum will depend on whether the other parties represented in the Parliament are prepared to give the people of Scotland the democratic right to choose or whether they want to take that decision away from them.

And the referendum would be on the principle of independence.

As politely as I can, I suggest to Irene Oldfather that, as well as asking questions, she listens to my answers. I have already said that we are prepared to consider a multi-option referendum that would test the opinion of the people of Scotland on their support for the status quo, for independence or for more powers for the Scottish Parliament. However, before that third option could be placed on a ballot paper, it would have to be better defined. I argue that the obligation to define it rests on those who put forward that argument.

The white paper rejects the idea of a second referendum on the detail. The first referendum would be on the principle of negotiating; why would you reject a second one on the detail?

Our view is that a second referendum is not required. If you want to make a submission to the national conversation to argue for a different position, we would be happy to receive it. However, our position is very clear.

So, with reference to Iain Smith's earlier line of questioning, it is okay for the Parliament rather than the Scottish people to decide on the detail, but only the people will have a say on the principle. That seems a converse argument.

The member may be confused, but I think that most reasonable people would think that the position is perfectly clear. The Scottish people should have the right to determine the constitutional future that they want, and the way to do that is through a referendum. The Government's position is that a single referendum is appropriate and that there would be no need for a second referendum. If any member wants to argue a contrary case, they are welcome to make a submission to the national conversation.

It is not just any member. Is the cabinet secretary aware of the position of University College London's constitution unit, which argues that the SNP's reasoning for not having a second referendum on the detail is extremely weak and inconsistent with what has happened in other areas?

I am aware that there are a range of views, and I am happy to consider them. It is interesting to note that the process that led to the establishment of this Parliament involved a single referendum. We have a clear precedent that the member, and anyone else whose views she wants to quote, would do well to reflect on.

I do not think that your party subscribed to that process.

You do not think my party subscribed to it, but I remember campaigning enthusiastically for a yes-yes vote in the referendum.

The only point that I would make is that there was a detailed proposal in the referendum in 1997. Is the analogy not with a potential second referendum rather than with a single referendum on the principle?

I do not agree—I think that the analogy is perfectly appropriate. However, I repeat that I am stating the views of the Government and my party, and it is open to any member to put forward their own views in a submission to the national conversation. That is how open and inclusive it is.

I call Alex Neil.

I want to ask a couple questions—

Sorry, convener, but I do not think that Irene Oldfather has finished her questions.

Have you not finished yet, Irene? Sorry.

I was just thinking that the constitutional convention springs to mind.

Does it? That is nice.

I will finish off that point before going on to a more substantive one. Is it not better for the reputation of government that a Government that was elected on a commitment to hold an independence referendum intends to keep that promise than that a Government in London that was elected on the back of a promise to have a referendum on the European constitution now refuses to hold it?

That is a fair point. As Alex Neil knows, this Government intends to keep all its promises to the Scottish people. One of those commitments was a referendum in 2010. That is a commitment that we want to keep—of course, it depends on support from other parties in the Parliament. The position of the UK Government on the referendum on the European Union constitution has been, and continues to be, all over the place.

I might wish to come back in later, but I have one further question for the moment. In the debate last Thursday morning, Wendy Alexander questioned the legality of the bill as outlined in the white paper. No doubt she is an expert on what is legal and what is not. I presume that the Scottish Government's legal opinion is that a bill with the wording that is outlined in the white paper is entirely legal and constitutional.

As Alex Neil is aware, it is the practice of Government—as it was of our predecessor Governments—not to confirm either the fact or the content of legal advice, and that is a rule that I will not breach today. In my view, a referendum is within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. The wording of that referendum would have to be drawn in such a way that ensured that it was within the competence of the Scottish Parliament.

I am coming in on the back of other people's questions, but it occurs to me that, during our previous debate on Europe, Linda Fabiani helpfully provided a legal view about the EU treaty and marine biological resources. Would it not be possible to—

I have just given you my view on our position. Undoubtedly, a consultative referendum—as all referendums in the UK have been—is within the competence of the Scottish Parliament.

I am interested in the process of engagement with the Scottish public, particularly by electronic means. Despite my youthful looks, I am always a bit sceptical about engagement using the internet, e-mails and so on, and about how reflective that is of people's views. I would like to build some confidence about the process. Did you mention 345,000 web hits?

Yes.

Are those unique hits, or could it be that 10,000 people visited the website 35 times, for instance?

Some people have probably visited the website more than once. I am not arguing that 345,000 individual people have visited the site—although I have no evidence that that is not the case. Given that I am perhaps more in tune with the modern age than John Park is, I understand that people tend to visit websites on more than one occasion.

Even taking that into account, our website has attracted unprecedented interest for a Government website. The national conversation continues to attract a great deal of interest, through the website and the blog, but also much more widely. The national conversation has provoked considerable debate and interest across civic Scotland, and I think that that is fantastic.

There is obviously an issue about people being able to access things on the web. What other engagement have you had with individuals? Have you had a lot of letters, phone calls and faxes? Have you entered into specific arrangements with any groups? The previous Executive undertook a lot of one-to-one engagement that involved civil servants working with groups on the Executive's future activities and helping people to develop their thinking around issues that were coming up. Have you undertaken anything like that?

In addition to the hits on the website and the downloads of the white paper, nearly 400 letters have been received. I said in my opening remarks that the first phase of the national conversation was very much about getting it established. Having a national conversation means less of a polarised debate between independence and the status quo, as it allows people to have their say. I suppose that it also establishes the principle that the status quo is not really the favoured option of very many people in Scotland.

I think that so far the national conversation has been incredibly successful. One strand of the next phase of the conversation—as I said to the convener, we will report to Parliament on the next phase in due course—will bring people more opportunities to engage directly through events. Parliament will, in due course, have the opportunity to comment on those plans and—I hope—make a contribution.

Convener, are we just looking at the process or can we go into the detail of the white paper?

You can do that now, if you want.

I will come back to it. I will let members talk about the process first.

I have a question on the business of a referendum. The minister generously outlined how the Government might be prepared to consider a multi-option referendum. However, one of those other options—the extension of the powers of the Parliament—was agreed by the Scottish people in the previous referendum. It was built into the 1997 white paper and into the Scotland Act 1998 that things can be moved out of the reserved powers schedule. That has already been agreed, and one wonders why we would need a referendum to agree something that has already been agreed in a referendum.

The only other option that I can think of that we might put into a referendum is the Liberal option of federalism, which is not something that Scotland could decide on its own anyway. We would have to ask the potential federal partners—whoever they may be—whether they wanted it as well.

Is there not an argument that the only thing that has not already been decided by referendum and that it is in Scotland's power to decide on its own is independence?

There is a strong argument for that; however, there is also a democratic argument to counterbalance it. The Parliament was established by democratic referendum. Technically, more powers can be added to those that the Parliament already has by amending the Scotland Act 1998. That would be a reasonable way to proceed in the case of relatively minor powers. However, if we are talking about substantial additions to the powers of the Parliament, given the fact that it was created by democratic referendum, the right way in which to determine the issue would be by democratic referendum.

It would be important that the people of Scotland had the opportunity to consider the range of powers that were proposed, whether they were adequate and, perhaps, the motivations of those who proposed them. I listened to David Cameron yesterday. It is very clear that, when he talks about changing the funding arrangements for the Scottish Parliament, he is talking about cutting the funding for the Scottish Parliament. There is a strong argument for ensuring that we can shine a light on such issues.

I repeat what I said earlier: the Government is open-minded on the matter. However, a key principle to which I hope everyone can sign up, regardless of their views on what the best constitutional option is, is that it is for the people of Scotland to decide. It is not for the SNP, Labour, the Liberals or the Tories to decide; it is for the people of Scotland to decide. I cannot for the life of me see what anybody has to fear or object to in that principle.

I just make the comment that that is a fairly generous view, given the fact that any referendum that has been held by any UK Government so far has presented the proposition on a take-it-or-leave it basis.

Whether there is a third option in a referendum depends very much on those who propose that as the best option. If they can define it in such a way that it can be put on the ballot paper, so be it. In the interests of democracy, we would be almost duty bound to allow the people of Scotland to have that as an option. However, if those who advocated that third option could not get their act together to define it, the referendum would perhaps be as we previously thought—a straight choice between the status quo and independence.

Lots of members want to come back in. That is the end of round one, as it were. I will let everyone come in a second time after Jackie Baillie has asked her questions.

I am happy to wait until committee members have had their shot.

Can the minister say whether it will be the end of the matter if the Scottish people firmly reject independence?

The SNP will not stop supporting independence. We have a right to support it because we think that it is the best future for the people of Scotland. However, the First Minister is on the record as saying that a referendum is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, which is a view that most people accept.

So we would not be in Quebec's situation of having a referendum every five or 10 years.

That is unlikely. It is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. It is not for me to speak for people in Quebec; it is for each country—

I am just—

I have stated it clearly. I am sorry if—

Once in a generation. Thank you.

The Welsh Assembly Government, led by Rhodri Morgan, has committed itself to the principle of a referendum. Is it not ironic that, in Wales, the Labour Party in government commits itself to consulting the people through a referendum and, in Scotland, it is dead against it?

Life is full of rich ironies, and that is certainly another one. I am at risk of repeating myself, but it is perfectly legitimate for us all to have different views on what is best for Scotland's future. That is democracy and it is reasonable. I do not agree with the other views that are expressed, but I absolutely respect them and the right of those who argue them to do so. However, the point of principle around which we should all be able to unite is that the people of Scotland are the ones who have the right to decide. The best way—the only way—to determine those issues is by referendum. That is a simple point of principle and, no matter how hard I try, I do not understand why people object to it, particularly people who were full in their support of a referendum to establish the Parliament.

I have two points. The first concerns a point that Irene Oldfather raised. My father was a great trade unionist and it is from that background that I consider myself a socialist. The idea that workers and trade unionists should give up a right because a parliamentary motion defeated it in some way is absurd. Workers' rights are workers' rights. Therefore, the argument that the SNP should give up its right to argue for independence just because folk do not vote for it at a given time is also absurd. Do you have any observations on that?

I am interested in engagement. I am showing my age, because high technology for me is switching a light bulb on, so engaging through modern means is not my thing.

You have come on a bit.

A bit, aye—I can click twice now.

We need to engage with people who are not focused on the internet, not only to find out what their views are, but because public meetings are the best way to develop an argument and work out a rounded way of coming to a conclusion. That is the best method of all. The campaign that unfolded for the referendum that set up the Parliament brought many folk into the debate and developed in such a way that it was unstoppable. I encourage you to get roadshows under way as soon as possible so that we can engage that part of Scottish society that does not click into the internet.

I do not deny that we are a parliamentary democracy but, not only in Scotland but throughout the UK, we have established through precedent over the past number of years that certain issues—constitutional issues in particular—should be decided by referendum. That applies to Scotland's future as well.

I have already said that events, roadshows and public meetings will be a key feature of the national conversation's next phase to broaden the opportunities for people to contribute. It is important that people are given the best possible opportunity to contribute and, if the success of the first stage is anything to go by, the next one will be even more successful.

You mentioned trade unions. It is interesting that, of the supportive contributions that have already been made to the national conversation, one is from Unison, which welcomed the inclusive, wide-ranging nature of the debate. That is welcome indeed.

I will go into specifics and my question is about a subject that interests Nicola Sturgeon. The white paper talks a bit about Scotland developing

"its own voice, and its own distinctive contribution, in the area of defence."

That probably refers to the shape of the army and the navy, but you will know that Scottish naval yards and dockyards depend on huge contracts from the UK Government. Have you considered what not being part of the UK might mean for those yards? What might that mean for the likes of Faslane, Rosyth and the two yards on the Clyde?

I hoped that we had moved beyond the scaremongering of the Scottish election campaign. I will take Govan shipyard in my constituency as an example. BAE Systems wins contracts because of the skill and aptitude of that yard's workforce and not because Scotland is a member of the United Kingdom. I have always thought and continue to think that it is an insult to the people who work in those industries to suggest that they would somehow be incapable of continuing to flourish if our country's constitutional position changed.

Defence and a range of issues that the national conversation touches on are policy matters. I can speak for my party's policy, but a range of views is held on specific issues, just as on the best option for Scotland's constitutional future. To debate all those issues is legitimate.

I acknowledge what you say. I have been part of a workforce that has had to become able to compete in a UK defence market, but it is important to recognise that those contracts are allocated together to UK yards and do not undergo a competitive tendering process.

The defence contracts that you talk about are allocated to BAE.

No—they are allocated to the alliance.

They are allocated to BAE and other companies in the alliance, which allocates the work to yards. It is a simple fact that the shipbuilding contracts could not be delivered without the contribution of Govan and Scotstoun shipyards.

Absolutely.

That is an important point to make.

The debates are legitimate. I say simply that, whatever their views are on Scotland's constitutional future, people in Scotland decisively rejected the scaremongering about independence that we heard during the Scottish election campaign. I hope that all members have moved on to a more mature approach than that.

I agree with you and that is why I am interested in the work that the Scottish Affairs Committee is doing on the impact of defence jobs on Scotland. Will the Scottish Government engage with that work and note that committee's report, which will be sober and the result of a correct process?

Of course. If the select committee invites the Scottish Government to contribute, I am sure that we will be more than happy to do so.

We have heard comments about democratic accountability and a referendum. Our party—the Liberal Democrats—did not support in 1997 a referendum on establishing the Scottish Parliament, because we believed that the Scottish people's will for the Scottish Constitutional Convention's recommendations had been established by the democratic vote in the 1997 general election.

No referendum has been held in the United Kingdom unless democratically elected representatives—MPs or MSPs—have supported it. We are now being asked to have a referendum when only a minority of MSPs support the proposition, which is not a democratic process in any democratic system.

I would like clarification about the legality of a referendum. Nicola Sturgeon said that the position was clear and that holding a referendum would be legal, but the paper says:

"The competence of the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a referendum would depend on the precise proposition in the referendum Bill, or any adjustments made to the competence of the Parliament before the Bill is introduced."

That is what Nicola Sturgeon said.

That is not what she said.

It is what I said.

Do you think that the draft referendum (Scotland) bill in the white paper would be within the Scottish Parliament's competence? Do you have clear legal advice on that?

On Iain Smith's first point, I stand corrected—we have identified an example of Liberal Democrat consistency. I still think that the Liberal Democrats' position on a referendum is wrong and that, whatever the arguments were before the referendum to establish this place was held, as the Parliament was established by democratic referendum, any changes should be made by democratic referendum. That is a point of principle that we can continue to debate. I will continue to struggle to understand the logic of Iain Smith's position.

On the issue of the competence of the referendum, in my view the draft referendum is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. If Iain Smith had been listening earlier, he would have heard me say that the referendum would of course require to be worded to ensure that it was within the legislative competence of the Parliament. If the legislative competence of the Parliament remains as it is, it will have to be within that. The other quote that Iain Smith read out was simply speculation that if the Parliament's legislative competence had changed in the intervening period, that would have to be taken into account as well.

I want to be perfectly clear. You are saying that, in your opinion, the referendum is within the legislative competence of the Parliament. I am asking whether that is the legal advice that you have had from the Scottish Executive. It is an important point.

I accept that it is an important point, but Iain Smith was—albeit for a rather brief period—a minister in the previous Administration, and he knows very well that it is a feature of the Scottish ministerial code that the fact and the content of legal advice should not be commented upon. What I am saying to him is that it is my view and that of the Government that a referendum is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. I cannot put it any more clearly than that.

This is the European and External Relations Committee, so perhaps it is appropriate that I should refer to the first sentence on page 23 of the white paper, which says:

"An independent Scotland would continue in the European Union and bear the burdens and fulfil the responsibilities of membership."

I will ask you about a couple of aspects of that, the first of which is how you see the process issue working out. I do not know whether you have any legal advice on that. The second is more to do with your general position on the European Union, given what the Government has been saying about the common fisheries policy. Some have suggested that the logic of your position on that is to withdraw from the CFP and therefore the EU. Will you comment on that sentence?

I will take that question in its two parts. First, it is the clear view of the Scottish National Party and the Government that Scotland would automatically be a member of the European Union upon independence. There is legal opinion to back that up. I do not think that the legal position is in any doubt. The political position is, arguably, clearer still. In an era in which the European Union is expanding, the idea that some members have bandied around in the past that Scotland would be cast out is incredible and does not bear sensible scrutiny. Scotland would automatically be a member of the European Union.

On the second part of your question, the SNP is enthusiastically pro-Europe. We always have been—certainly in modern times—and we will continue to be so. That does not mean that we are uncritical of everything that emanates from the European Union. We have made no bones about the fact that we are not overly fond of the common fisheries policy and that we have severe difficulties with the aspect of the proposed European constitution treaty—whatever you want to call it—that would enshrine exclusive competence over fisheries. We have made that position abundantly clear.

The minister said that Scotland would automatically become a member of the European Union.

Indeed I did.

You would not require to renegotiate.

No.

The minister thinks that other member states would just stand back and that, despite the financial and administrative changes involved, a process of renegotiation would not be required. Setting aside the legal argument, in relation to the political argument there could be no automatic right of application.

Despite what is perhaps the wishful thinking of the member, the legal and political arguments back up the view that I have expressed.

Do not all member states require to negotiate? What makes Scotland different?

In order to join the European Union for the first time, there is a process of negotiation—

So it is not automatic.

I was about to make a distinction between countries joining the European Union for the first time—a category to which Scotland does not belong—and Scotland, which is currently a member of the European Union and would continue to be a member upon independence. That is very clear, and—as I am sure the member, with her interest in European matters, is well aware—it is backed up by a considerable weight of legal opinion.

I am aware of the weight of legal opinion on the issue, but I am asking about the political situation. The United Kingdom is a member state of the European Union. Scotland is not, so it would not have an automatic right to join. The matter would have to be renegotiated.

I did my honours degree in international law. I do not remember all that I learned and am a bit rusty, but I remember the law of the successor states, which would clearly apply in this case. Scotland would assume the rights and responsibilities of the UK, which would include automatic membership of the European Union. The overwhelming weight of legal opinion backs up that view.

If anything, the politics of the matter are even stronger than the legal issues. The European Union has expanded considerably in recent years. I cannot find credible the argument that the European Union would not enthusiastically want to have oil-rich Scotland as a member. Members of the Parliament who make that argument are engaging more in wishful thinking than in an argument based on fact.

My problem is with the word "automatic". There would need to be a renegotiation process in relation to the financial and administrative issues.

With the greatest respect to the member, that is her view—a view with which I profoundly disagree.

I want to reinforce that point. Is it not the case that successive secretaries general of the European Commission, from Professor Emile Noël right through to the previous Irish secretary general—the top civil servants, who have no axe to grind—have stated categorically that the position that you have just outlined is the legal and political position on the governance of the European Union?

That is absolutely the case. I have referred to the weight of legal opinion and to the overwhelming political reality of the situation. I accept that many members of the Parliament do not support independence and I respect their right to hold that view. However, I always find it hard to fathom and to get my head around the position of those who seem to wish Scotland ill, if it chooses the option of independence, and who seem to take pleasure in predicting that we would be cast out and that all sorts of dreadful things would happen. I hope that, if Scotland chooses independence, all members of the Parliament will accept that it has the right to do so.

The other obvious point to underline is that, when Scotland votes to be independent, it will have the same constitutional relationship with the European Union as the rest of the United Kingdom, which will also automatically remain a member of the Union.

Indeed.

My point relates to the word "automatic". There would need to be a vote in the Council of Ministers.

Point me to the rule in any of the treaties of the European Union that says that.

Every country that has joined the European Union has been subject to a vote in the Council of Ministers.

Irene Oldfather seems to miss the point that we are already in the European Union. There is no provision in any of the Union's treaties to expel a member from it. I challenge Irene Oldfather to point me to the provision that backs up what she is saying.

The United Kingdom is a member of the European Union. As such, it has certain financial and administrative agreements within the Union.

We will inherit those.

Scotland would be in a different position.

How?

One at a time, please.

There would need to be a renegotiation in the Council of Ministers. It may well be that 27 countries would agree to Scotland's becoming a member, but the matter would have to go to the Council of Ministers.

Irene Oldfather is plainly wrong. How the UK's existing obligations to Europe were allocated between Scotland and the remainder of the United Kingdom would be a matter for negotiation between Scotland and the remainder of the United Kingdom, in the negotiations on independence. However, Irene Oldfather is simply wrong about our position in Europe. I note for the record that she has been unable to point to a single provision in any of the European Union treaties that backs up what she is saying.

We need to move on from this issue. Alasdair Morgan has spoken only once, so he may ask a brief question.

I will be brief. On the political point that Nicola Sturgeon has made, is it not a fact that, once the United Kingdom ceased to exist and Scotland became an independent member state—as would England, or whatever the part of the UK south of the border was called—the minister or whoever it was at the first meeting would be queuing up to shake the hand of the representative from Scotland? Whether they would be rushing forward quite so quickly to shake the hand of Gordon Brown or David Cameron is perhaps doubtful, but they would do that anyway because of the realpolitik of the situation.

The member puts it extremely well. I will not take up more time in repeating what he has said.

It is time to move on to Jackie Baillie, who has been sitting patiently for the duration.

I have been enjoying the debate, convener.

I want to pursue the point on the European Union, which is an important one. Nowhere in the Government's white paper can I find the assertion that entry to the EU is automatic, although I am willing to have it pointed out to me. Indeed, paragraph 3.18 of the white paper states:

"Negotiations would also be required concerning the terms of Scotland's (and the rest of the United Kingdom's) continuing membership of the European Union".

Do you accept that, as paragraph 3.18 says, a degree of negotiation would be required?

I have just made clear what we are referring to in that paragraph. Of course, negotiations would be required between Scotland and the rest of the UK, as part of the overall independence negotiations, about the allocations of the various responsibilities and obligations. I repeat—and I challenge anybody to provide evidence to overturn this argument—that Scotland's membership of the European Union would be automatic on our achieving independence. Why? Because we are already members of the European Union.

Paragraph 3.18 acknowledges—

I have just explained what that means.

—that you would have to negotiate with international bodies as well. There is an acceptance that we would be in uncertain territory. Although you may wish membership of the EU to be automatic, and others would agree that that is critical, that may not necessarily be the case. There is an element of doubt.

There is no doubt in my mind. I cannot speak for other members, but there is no doubt about that in my mind. I do not think that there is any legitimate doubt around the question of Scotland's continuing membership of the European Union, and I cannot help but conclude that those who want to cast doubt on that position are simply trying to make political arguments.

I hasten to assure you that I am not seeking to make political arguments. The issue is the need to have absolute certainty, and everybody would want the full facts to be out there.

Alex Neil has just recited the long list of legal opinions that back up our position.

It is political.

Well, whether it is legal or political, the fact remains.

One at a time, please.

The commission is not restricted as the cabinet secretary has said but will engage in the widest possible debate. I am glad that she welcomed that, even though it was a partial welcome.

Let us return to the referendum to establish the Parliament. The cabinet secretary will accept that that was accompanied by a very detailed white paper. The draft bill sets out a question that is only about negotiating independence. There is some merit in Irene Oldfather's argument about whether two questions would be valid and important in the circumstances—one question on the principle of the proposition and another on the form and content of the proposition. By your own admission in the white paper, because of issues of competence, the question can talk only about a negotiation—and there are, arguably, differences of opinion as to whether that is competent. I note the cabinet secretary's hesitation, but there are differences of opinion. It is arguable that the scope of the reservation does not include the competence of the Scottish Government to embark on negotiations, and the opposite is equally arguable.

Cabinet secretary, you will be aware of the case of Whaley v Watson, from 2000. I have asked you questions about it but have failed to get a response. The judgment in that case might lead one to conclude that the bill could be challenged in the courts. I accept that you are unable to comment on the fact and content of legal advice, but I wonder whether you think that what you have put in the draft bill is adequate?

The short answer to that is yes. I repeat what I have said before. A referendum is perfectly competent within the current powers of the Scottish Parliament. If it is not possible for the Scottish Parliament to consult the people of Scotland on the granting of more powers to the Parliament or independence, it is difficult to think of a greater argument for independence. My clear view is that a referendum such as that which is proposed would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament—I cannot put it any more clearly than that.

On the question whether there should be one referendum or two, I have made clear my views and those of the Government. I repeat what I said earlier. It is open to any member who wants to argue a different view to make a submission to the national conversation.

But why have you rejected that?

Rejected what?

The possibility of asking two questions.

I do not think that two questions are necessary. The SNP and the Government do not think that two questions are necessary. If other members want to argue a different view, they are perfectly free to do so.

In order to do that, it would be helpful to understand why you have rejected the idea of asking two questions.

The important principle in the referendum is to give people in Scotland the chance to choose the option that they want, to give their Government the mandate to negotiate an independence settlement. That is my clear view. It is a reasonable and sensible way in which to proceed; however, as I have said, we are interested in hearing a range of views, and people are free to submit any views that they want to.

If all that you seek to do in the first question is establish the principle, surely, if we believe in enabling the people of Scotland to express a view, we should return to them with a question on the form and content of the settlement as well. That is exactly what we did in the referendum to establish the Parliament.

I have stated my clear view. I say again that other members are perfectly free to put forward a different view, but my view and that of the party and Government that I represent is clear.

Okay. I just do not understand your reasoning.

I have one final question. What implications does the ruling in the case of Whaley v Watson, from 2000, have for what you are trying to do?

I have made clear my view on the legislative competence issue. Jackie Baillie might not like my answers, but she is not going to change them.

I am just looking for more content in your answers.

The proposed referendum is, in my view, within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. The ruling in the case that Jackie Baillie cites does not change my view on that. I appreciate that that is not the answer that she wants because—for reasons best known to herself—she opposes giving the people of Scotland the right to choose in a referendum. Nevertheless, that is my position and I have given a clear answer.

Does the cabinet secretary not think it strange that members are dead against the idea of having successive referenda if the first one goes against independence but keen on having successive referenda if the first one goes in favour of independence? Does she agree that, after independence had been achieved, it would be open to any party to stand on the basis of giving up Scottish independence if it thought that it would garner some votes by doing so?

I suspect that that would be unlikely to happen, as they would know that that would garner very few votes, if any. Nevertheless, the member makes some good points.

Does anyone want to make a final comment—preferably not on the European Union?

Can I just comment on the issue of the referendum? I understand that the process for a referendum would be similar to that which was followed for the referendum in 1997. We voted on the principle of establishing the Scottish Parliament and there was a separate question on whether the Parliament should have tax-raising powers. A white paper was published in advance of the referendum, which spelled out the detail. Similarly, a white paper spelling out what independence means to Scotland will be published prior to people voting. Just as in 1997, people will vote on the principle on the basis of the information contained in the white paper.

The two processes are perfectly analogous. The only difference is that all members around the table supported the previous referendum whereas—for reasons known only to themselves—some do not support this one. The precedent has been well established, and it is understood and well supported.

It is important to note—members ignore this at their electoral peril—that, although there is a wide range of views about the best option for the future of Scotland, there is overwhelming public support for the principle of deciding the issue in a referendum. That support is of the order of 80 per cent or more, including majority support among the supporters of all parties.

Which is slightly lower than the percentage of people who rejected the federalist party at the election in May.

I do not think that we should go into the detail of the opinion polls as they apply to the federalist party. Its members would not be happy to hear about that.

A good thing about having an SNP Government is that the party has an awful lot of resources at its disposal that it did not have in the past. Can you use those resources and come back to us to say how many countries want to give up their independence?

I think that I can answer that question right now, without spending any resources—

You have already done the research.

I cannot think of any country that, having won its independence, would want to give that up. I do not think that Scotland would be any different.

It is important to be clear. People are not necessarily opposed to referenda, and attempts to suggest that they are—[Interruption.]

Pick'n'mix referenda.

The Parliament was created on the basis of a referendum in 1997. There is no difficulty in principle with referenda. The fundamental difference is that you would be asking for the power to negotiate, not about the final form and content of the settlement. Without the end product, the referendum would not be analogous to what happened in 1997, when the end product was set out in detail in a white paper. That is a genuine concern, on which I ask the cabinet secretary to reflect—

There was a white paper in 1997 and a white paper is sitting in front of me right now. In 1997 the detail was determined and decided after the vote had been taken in principle in the referendum. What we propose is exactly the same as the process that was followed in 1997.

Jackie Baillie says that she is not opposed to referenda. It strikes me that she is opposed only to referenda in which she is frightened of the question that will be asked. I can think of no other reason why members would not be willing to test the issue through a vote of the Scottish people. If members are so confident in their assertions about independence, they will have nothing to fear.

We invited the responsible minister to bring the debate forward, but she was not willing to do so—

Will Jackie Baillie vote for it?

It might be worth the committee's while to compare the current white paper with the one that proposed the setting up of the Parliament. The current white paper is more like a constitutional law primer. It is full of coulds and ifs and maybes, rather than assertions about what would actually happen. The argument for a second referendum is worth thinking through.

I welcome the detailed scrutiny of the white paper by the committee and I very much hope that the committee will make a full submission to the national conversation. The committee has important points to make. I look forward to receiving its submission in due course.

We will consider what further work we will do on the matter. I want to take you back to the question on timing and format. You made it clear that you would like to hold the referendum in 2010. What implications would that have for the timing of the consultation's conclusion?

We would require to introduce legislation in sufficient time to enable the referendum to take place in 2010. I repeat my challenge to the members who are challenging us to bring forward legislation quickly: will they vote for it or will they seek to deny the Scottish people the right to choose? That is perhaps the biggest question of all. The consultation will conclude in good time for the legislation to be introduced, in good time to enable a referendum to be held in 2010.

As I said much earlier in the discussion, we will report to the Parliament in due course about the enormous success of phase 1 of the consultation and our plans for the next phase. I suspect that we will do that sooner rather than later.

We might have concerns about the timelines, not to mention other matters that have been raised. I hope that we will have a report on progress in the near future, as you indicated in your letter. In particular, I hope that you will provide further information about the nature of the consultation. We thank you for attending the meeting with your officials and hope that you agree to keep the committee updated and to attend again in person in due course.

I am happy to attend as often as you like. I am happy to talk about independence for as long as you want me to do—it is always a great pleasure, and I look forward to doing it again very soon.

I am glad that you enjoyed the experience. I am sure that we did, too. Thank you.

Meeting suspended.

On resuming—