Engagements
In welcoming the First Minister back to his place, I ask him what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-00932)
I have written to the Government and the President of the United States, expressing the sympathy and solidarity of Scotland in relation to the extraordinary weather conditions that have engulfed the eastern seaboard.
Later today, I will have meetings to take forward this Government’s programmes for Scotland.
I am sure that in that letter, our sensibilities and sympathies go, too, to the people of America in these difficult times.
Last week, the Deputy First Minister’s spokesman said that there was a “cast-iron position” that an independent Scotland would retain the pound. I congratulate the First Minister on gaining such unequivocal agreement. When was the agreement with the Treasury and the Bank of England reached? When and where was it signed? When did negotiations start?
I am sure that even Johann Lamont has heard that the Secretary of State for Scotland pointed out that there was no legal bar to Scotland having sterling as its currency. The proposition that we put forward for a sterling zone is an extremely reasonable one. I am not certain what the Labour Party’s position is on what the currency of an independent Scotland should be, but we think that it suits the interests of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom to have a sterling zone.
In terms of Scotland’s interest, there is an argument for continuity of the sterling position. In terms of both countries’ interests, it is what would be called an optimal currency area in terms of the productivity of both countries—[Interruption.]
Order.
It is not my description; it is the description of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. [The First Minister has corrected this contribution. See end of report.]
Lastly, on the question of why it would be in the interests of the rest of the UK, revenues from Scotland’s resources would of course come to Scotland, but it would also afford some £40 billion protection to the balance of payments of the sterling zone. I think that the rest of the UK would be biting our hands off for Scotland to retain sterling membership.
In the First Minister’s own words, that was a very, very convincing response
“in terms of the debate”.
There is not a legal bar to a lot of things, but that is a different point altogether from a cast-iron guarantee. Hope, expectation and, “It would all be great if they could just agree with it,” are not the same as a cast-iron guarantee. Surely even the First Minister understands that.
Let me recap. According to the First Minister, we will be in the European Union, without having to apply, and we know that without asking any other member state or asking anyone for legal advice; we know that we will not have to have the euro, and we do not need to ask about that either; and we know that we will keep the pound, and we do not need to ask anyone about that either.
I ask the First Minister: without looking at the long-range forecast, what will the weather be like in an independent Scotland? [Laughter.]
Order.
In the interests of a serious debate on the issue, if Johann Lamont managed to cast her eye over the evidence of Graham Avery to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, she will recall that Graham Avery is a senior member of St Antony’s College, University of Oxford, a senior adviser to the European Policy Centre and an honorary director general of the European Commission. He points out that
“Scotland’s 5 million people, having been members of the EU for 40 years; have acquired rights as European citizens ... For practical and political reasons they could not be asked to leave the EU and apply for readmission”.
I know that this is very inconvenient for the political weather that is facing the Labour Party, but it does rather put the lie to the scaremongering campaign of Labour and its unionist colleagues in the Conservative Party.
In the interests of a serious debate, the First Minister ought to stop finding someone that he alleges agrees with him and quoting them in this place. There are many different positions on the matter, including that of the First Minister’s back bencher John Mason, who said on Tuesday that
“all these things are subject to negotiation”—[Official Report, 30 October 2012; c 12703.]
and they are not definite.
The charge at the First Minister’s door is that he asserts things for which he has no evidence.
It is about time that the First Minister got serious about the future of Scotland. The First Minister thinks that he can treat the people of Scotland like fools and that we will believe everything that he says when, after last week, no one trusts a word that he says.
I understand why the First Minister did not turn up to Tuesday’s debate to defend his reputation. It was because even he knows that he no longer has a reputation to defend.
What is it that the First Minister is so scared of that he cannot ask the Bank of England about the pound and cannot ask other EU members about Europe? Is it just that he cannot face the truth when he is presented with it?
On the question of sterling, I ask Johann Lamont to remember that we have set up a fiscal commission with two Nobel laureates in economics to pursue that matter. That seems to me to be a pretty serious contribution to the debate.
I have read out Graham Avery’s credentials. Given that he is an honorary director general of the European Commission, I suspect that he knows rather more about these issues than even Johann Lamont does.
On the issue of trust and the serious debate that Johann Lamont thinks that she wants to argue for, I point out that these matters have been tested not only in the Scottish elections last year but in the social attitudes survey, which tests the trust in the Scottish Government against the trust in the United Kingdom Government—that is running at 64 per cent compared with 24 per cent.
Of course, there is also the question that YouGov asked last week, which concerned who people trusted to stand up for Scotland. Johann Lamont’s figure was 6 per cent. Therefore, on behalf of the other 94 per cent of the people of Scotland, I say that the reason why people do not trust the Labour Party in Scotland is that it stood on manifesto commitments to defend the freeze on council tax, to defend free tuition and to defend free prescriptions and a free health service, yet Johann Lamont is in the middle of tearing up every single one of those commitments. Labour is the first political party to betray its commitments when it is in opposition—an extraordinary achievement.
If the Labour Party wants to regain the trust of the people, why not have that debate on the issues that face this country, and why not acknowledge that oil-rich, gas-rich, energy-rich and fishing-rich Scotland will be welcomed with open arms in the European Union?
In the debate about Scotland’s future, I stand with Campbell Christie in saying that, in tough times, we should look at competing good demands and ensure that those of us with the broadest shoulders are the ones who take the heaviest burden.
The First Minister says that he is setting up his fiscal group. However, surely it would have been an idea to pursue the matter of whether we are going to have the pound with the Bank of England and the Treasury. They are the people who will decide that matter.
Of course, the First Minister has long sought international profile and, my goodness, he has got it.
The Washington Post, the newspaper that exposed—[Interruption.]
Order.
Members may have read it.
The Washington Post, the newspaper that exposed Richard Nixon’s corruption, knows a chancer when it sees one—[Interruption.]
Order.
It has made a serious charge. The Washington Post said—[Interruption.] I am sure that Scottish National Party members have read this quote; I would like to share it with others. The Washington Post said:
“Mr. Salmond’s cheerful assurances that Scotland could quickly join the European Union while retaining the British pound as its currency remain to be tested; London would have a veto over both. EU states might demand that Scotland commit to the wobbly Euro; if the pound were split between two nations, it could become subject to the same troubles that have afflicted the European currency.”
These are serious matters being addressed by serious people. If The Washington Post can see that from Washington, why can the First Minister not see it from here?
Those who have read the editorial of The Washington Post will realise that it made almost as many mistakes on points of fact as Johann Lamont did in the week.
I welcome the contribution of newspapers in the United States of America to the Scottish political debate—The Washington Post is not alone. The Los Angeles Times of 22 October stated:
“Arguably the most important difference would be that an independent Scotland would be master of its own economy and natural resources.”
I very much agree with that. This quote from The Wall Street Journal is particularly apposite for Johann Lamont:
“All too often this debate rarely gets past the sneering view that Scotland would be too poor ... or too small to stand on its own two feet outside the U.K. But the claim that ... Scotland is a subsidy junkie has already been proved a myth. New accounts of revenue and expenditure from Treasury data show Scotland regularly gives more than it receives from U.K. coffers.”
If that is known and understood by The Wall Street Journal, why has that news not reached the Labour Party in Scotland?
I am fascinated by Johann Lamont’s approach to this serious political debate at this point in her leadership. I came across an interview that she did with The Guardian just a year ago in which she talked about her great frustration. She said:
“What I’m more frustrated by is the politics where you play the man not the politics”.
After a few weeks in which Johann Lamont has managed to call me stupid, Wee Eck, a sucker, devious and a corkscrew, given what she said in that interview it is no wonder that nobody believes a word that she says. [Applause.]
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-00929)
I have no plans to do so in the near future.
It is nice to see the First Minister back in his chair in the chamber. When he ducked out of the debate on Tuesday—a debate about his conduct—he avoided a sadly very necessary reminder that the nation needs to be able to trust when it comes to every aspect of his independence plan.
We know now that the First Minister has no legal basis for his claims about Scotland’s place in Europe. As for the economy, I repeat what the head of Scottish Financial Enterprise told a Lords committee last week—another appointment that the First Minister ducked. Owen Kelly said of the Scottish Government:
“It’s aimed at persuading, rather than providing”
an
“authoritative conclusion ... I struggle to see how they have the authority to tell us anything.”
That is Europe and the economy—what about defence? The First Minister says that an independent Scotland can be a fully committed member of NATO but kick the nuclear submarine fleet out of Faslane. Can he tell us what facts or advice he has sought or received to support that assertion?
Ruth Davidson will find the question of Scotland’s NATO membership published in the constitutional documents and the policy positions of the Scottish National Party. The argument for how a non-nuclear state can be a member of NATO surely is evidenced by the fact that 25 out of the 28 member countries of NATO are non-nuclear at present. So, we have the fact in the existence of 25 such countries.
I was extremely interested by the interview with Philip Hammond earlier this week, on “Good Morning Scotland” I think, in which in the space of one interview—actually, in the space of one question—he first said that he had no contingency plans for Scotland becoming independent and then at the same time said that he had contingency plans for every eventuality. I suspect that Ruth Davidson should use her extraordinary influence within the Conservative Party to follow the recommendations of the House of Commons select committee and suggest to Philip Hammond and the rest of the UK Government that it would be very wise indeed to have contingency plans, because I believe, as a majority in this chamber does, that Scotland will vote for independence in two years’ time and that nuclear weapons are on their way out of Scotland.
The First Minister’s answer on evidence for SNP policy is to look at an SNP policy document. Brilliant. That goes further than the non-answer that we got on Tuesday from his deputy leader.
I wrote to the First Minister—he may remember—about the legal position in relation to NATO. What I got back was a letter from a junior official saying that all will be revealed in 2013 and—wait for it—it will all be fully in accordance with the legal advice received by Scottish ministers. We know what that means. I asked the Ministry of Defence what discussions had taken place with the Scottish Government and what work has gone on to stand this up. The answer? None. There has been no contact between the Scottish Government and the MOD. There are no facts to support Mr Salmond’s claims.
It is not just the Conservatives who have noticed. The First Minister needs to look behind him: Jamie Hepburn said that it is “nigh-on impossible” to remove nuclear weapons under pressure from NATO; and Sandra White said that it is “hypocritical” to be anti-nuclear and pro-NATO. Perhaps Councillor Norman MacLeod summed up SNP policy best when he said that, on this and on other issues, it goes into “unsubstantiated assertion”. The nation owes Councillor MacLeod a debt of gratitude for summing up what we already know. Even the First Minister’s own side recognises that this First Minister asserts as facts things that he does not know to be true.
We know that we cannot trust the First Minister on defence, we know that we cannot trust him on the economy and we certainly cannot trust him on Europe. How can Scotland trust him on anything ever again?
As Ruth Davidson will recall, the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs concluded just a few days ago—incidentally, I do not agree with any of the types of politics of the members who contributed to its report—that of course it would be possible to remove nuclear weapons from Scotland. That committee includes a number of Conservative members. Obviously, it cannot include any Conservative members from Scotland because there are none outside Government at present, but that was the committee’s conclusion. My evidence was that 25 out of 28 NATO member countries are non-nuclear. That seems to me to be pretty convincing evidence.
As far as divisions in a party are concerned, I do not think that Ruth Davidson is in a splendid position to comment on that at present. The difference is that this party has open debate at its annual conference, whereas what happens in the Conservative Party is that there is a group of about 50 MPs intent on bringing down their Government at Westminster, and they seem to be doing a splendid job.
On Tuesday, of course, I was giving a speech on renewables policy to the renewableUK conference. At the same time, the UK minister John Hayes gave a speech, which he then did not give, which was then leaked to The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail, and which was then contradicted by his boss at 10.30 yesterday morning and by the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions. Today, his predecessor has entered the debate to disagree with his successor. In the context of the chaos and confusion on UK energy policy on Tuesday, I think that the policy of the Scottish National Party looks pretty firm and pretty consistent.
On the question of trust, I mentioned the 6 per cent who believe that Johann Lamont stands up for Scottish interests. Ruth Davidson is up there challenging—it was 5 per cent for her.
We will have a constituency question from Tavish Scott.
Is the First Minister aware that the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers is balloting the crews who serve on the Orkney and Shetland ferry service, that the islands potentially face industrial action over the Christmas holiday period and that that would have a devastating impact on families and students returning home for Christmas, on the goods and perishable products that need to move into the islands and, in particular, on the salmon, mussels and white fish that are exported from the islands at that key time for those industries?
Will the First Minister undertake to ensure that the Government looks into the issue, and makes sure that the strike does not happen, so that we can look forward to a Christmas without disruption?
The Government is aware of the possibility of industrial action, and it will do its utmost to avoid any such action, which would severely inconvenience people in the northern islands.
Of course, the RMT has balloted for industrial action a number of times recently, and many of those disputes have been settled. I am sure that all members in the chamber believe and hope that the latest dispute will be settled as well.
What discussions has the Scottish Government had with National Museums Scotland about the potential closure of the national museum of costume, which is vital to the local economy of Dumfries and Galloway in my region? That museum is part of a strong network involving the area’s tourism infrastructure, and its closure would be a serious loss to the local economy.
I am aware of the issue. I undertake that Fiona Hyslop, the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs, will contact Claudia Beamish. If Claudia Beamish seeks a meeting, that meeting will be granted so that the issue can be discussed in detail.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-00930)
Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
The First Minister and I agree that it would be unlikely that an independent Scotland would be excluded from the European Union.
Members: Unlikely?
I am afraid that the SNP has missed the point; the issue is the terms. Has the First Minister secured any agreements with the 27 countries of the European Union to show that they will approve his detailed terms for Scotland’s place in Europe?
I do not know whether Willie Rennie has caught up with today’s news that the Government at Westminster—I should not call it “his Government”—which he supports has confirmed that it will not take up the European Commission’s offer of advice on the matter. That puts him in a strange position, as far as clarity is concerned.
I referred Johann Lamont to Graham Avery’s paper a few moments ago. I refer Willie Rennie to it, too—in particular, to the second-last sentence, which states:
“Such solutions would, in fact, be in Scotland’s interest since it could expect to obtain a better deal as a member state with a full voice and vote in the EU than in the pre-independence period.”
That view, which is from an independent academic, seems to me to be a pretty strong statement of our belief that Scotland would be better as a member state of the European Union than it is as a subsidiary part of a state that does not—as I see from various events in the coalition Government—seem to be particularly enthusiastic about European Union membership, at the moment.
The First Minister must get agreement from 27 countries—not just the opinion of the European Commission. Mr Avery said that Scotland’s terms of membership would be subject to agreement with the 27 other Governments, so it is hard to believe that the First Minister does not have one single agreement. He clearly thinks that all 27 countries will just sign up to whatever he wants. The issue is not just about the specific legal advice that he did or did not ask for, or the academic opinion that he either cites or ignores: it is also about the domestic politics of other countries.
The First Minister might not like this, but other people now doubt what he says. They want to know—for sure—what they may lose, before they vote in any referendum. He has no agreements with other countries, so when does he expect to get them, or will it be “Vote first and ask questions later”?
I really suggest that Willie Rennie pay more attention when reading Graham Avery’s paper. The key point that it makes is that Scotland’s position will be negotiated from within the European Union. He also goes on to express the view—which I read out to Willie Rennie—that the position as an independent state would be rather better than the position that we have presently.
Why is that important to this debate? It is because it rather gives the lie, and the counterbalance, to the arguments of people whom Willie Rennie would not, I am sure, want to follow, because he says that he is absolutely sure that Scotland would become a member of the European Union. Was not it Lord Wallace who was, a few weeks ago, openly speculating about Scotland’s being shunned and put out of the European Union? Perhaps the Liberal Democrats should come to the chamber once they have a consistent policy among their few members in Scotland. At the moment—this is a fairly modest assertion—[Laughter.]
Order.
At the moment, there is a good deal of uncertainty about the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union. Why is that? It is because the partners in the UK coalition Government include a sizeable group of members who want to leave the European Union. Given that Willie Rennie is part of a party that is in government with a great deal of people—perhaps even Cabinet ministers—who want to leave the European Union, he is not in a good position to come to the chamber and lecture us on our European credentials. Scotland is a European nation and intends to stay one. Resource-rich, energy-rich and oil-rich Scotland will be welcomed in Europe.
As I mentioned the figures to the other two party leaders, I can hardly resist telling Willie Rennie that, while Johann Lamont got 6 per cent and Ruth Davidson 5 per cent, his total in the YouGov poll was 2 per cent.
Trident Replacment (Economic Benefits)
To ask the First Minister what the economic benefits for Scotland are of replacing Trident. (S4F-00945)
Scottish taxpayers currently pay £163 million a year towards the running of Trident. That money could be spent on 3,880 nurses, 4,527 teachers or a host of new schools and hospitals in our communities. That is even before we consider the extra £84 million a year that it is proposed be spent on the replacement for Trident over the next 15 years.
This week, the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Defence came up to Scotland and said that he had not even considered that the people of Scotland would vote yes in 2014, and that he plans to foist nuclear weapons on Scotland over the next 50 years. Half a century! Arrogance of that kind is typical of Tory ministers, who believe that they can continue to treat Scotland as a nuclear dump. They are not on.
I thank the First Minister for that interesting response. [Laughter.]
Order.
Does the First Minister agree that it is incumbent on all political leaders in Scotland to make their positions known? Yesterday, the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament criticised the Labour leader, Johann Lamont, for consistently failing to publicise her views on Trident. That was after one of her own front-bench members, Neil Findlay, claimed that renewal would be “economically incompetent”.
The Scottish Government’s position on Trident, unlike the Labour Party’s, is clear. Will the First Minister reiterate it in the hope that the majority of members will speak out and resist the development and dumping of nuclear arms in Scotland?
Not only the Scottish Government, but a majority of members have voted to get Trident out of Scotland. That opinion is shared across civic Scotland by the churches, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and civic society, who oppose Trident.
On the UK minister’s determination to foist nuclear weapons on Scotland over the next 50 years, I point out that, as I understand it—these things are an ever-moving feast—that policy is not even supported by one half of the Westminster coalition. The Scottish Government, the majority of the Parliament, a majority of the Scottish people and Scottish civic society do not want nuclear weapons to be renewed in Scotland, so cannot we declare as a people and a nation that enough is enough, and that we are not standing for it any more?
National Health Service (Financial Pressures)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the Audit Scotland report “NHS financial performance 2011/12”, which suggests real-terms budget reductions and growing financial pressures on the NHS. (S4F-00935)
As Jackie Baillie well knows, the Scottish Government has protected spending in the national health service and ensured that there will be above-real-terms resource funding increases from 2012-13 to 2014-15, just as we committed to do in our manifesto. That is reflected in an average uplift to the territorial health boards of 3.3 per cent in 2013-14, compared to the current Treasury deflator of 2.5 per cent.
The Audit Scotland report highlighted the fact that the NHS broke even and said:
“The relatively small surpluses achieved by boards at the year end highlight the careful management of the financial position”.
The First Minister’s response reminds me of NHS Lothian’s approach to waiting times, which involved a culture of strongly discouraging the reporting of bad news. I hope that the First Minister will not continue to be in denial about the problems that face the NHS.
Does the First Minister agree, therefore, that the cut of more than 2,500 in the number of nurses is having a direct impact not just on patient care, but on nurses? In today’s Edinburgh Evening News, we find out that in NHS Lothian 17,500 working days are lost among nurses alone because of stress, which is a record high. Is that not a wake-up call for the SNP and the First Minister?
Jackie Baillie knows that sickness absence across the NHS is much lower than it was when Labour was in government. She should also know that, on every indicator, the NHS in Scotland is performing at record levels, which is tribute to the nurses and doctors and every other worker in our national health service.
Jackie Baillie says that I am not a purveyor of bad news, and that is probably true, but she could never claim that title for herself. After all, it is less than a year since she assured us in a press statement that Scotland was
“the superbug capital of Europe”.
Unfortunately for Jackie Baillie, it was found out that the statistics that she relied on related to the period when Labour was in government in Scotland. I do not know—I am open to correction on this—whether Jackie Baillie has ever had the grace and courtesy to apologise for that slight on the NHS. The statistics that she used in claiming that Scotland was
“the superbug capital of Europe”
were based on a survey from 2007, when the Labour Party was in government. Although that was clearly a major mistake by Jackie Baillie, it is surely evidence for my contention that Jackie Baillie and bad news are never far separated.
Equal Pay
To ask the First Minister what progress is being made to ensure equal pay by employers subject to its public sector pay policy. (S4F-00940)
We are committed to ensuring that pay systems in the public sector are fair and non-discriminatory. Scotland has a strong record in the area. The gender pay gap is smaller and is closing more quickly in Scotland than it is in the rest of the UK. However, the gap still exists. I do not think that that is acceptable, so we will continue to work with key partners to address the issue.
I am grateful to the First Minister for his comments about protecting household incomes through equal pay and the social wage, in public sector pay policy. I note that there was a letter in the Sunday Herald a few weeks ago from Bob Holman, one of the Labour Party’s renowned anti-poverty campaigners, who considers that universal services are an essential part of Labour policy. Does the First Minister share my surprise that it seems that the SNP is now the only major political party that maintains that view?
That is certainly correct. Those services were considered to be vital in the Labour Party manifesto last year, when Johann Lamont was deputy leader of the party, but are now to be sacrificed in the new Labour policy review.
I think that the social wage is an important concept, as is the living wage, which helps us to close the gender gap in pay. The social wage is part of a social contract with society so that, in these tough times, people can see that the Government is doing its best to help them on things such as the council tax, prescription charges and free tuition. I would have hoped that that would carry the support of the vast majority in Parliament. I think that the Labour Party and Johann Lamont will find out to their cost that that desertion—not just of their manifesto, but of those key principles—will cost the Labour Party dear in Scottish politics in times to come.
Previous
General Question Time