Parliament (Powers)
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S1M-3052, in the name of John Swinney, on the powers of the Scottish Parliament, and one amendment to that motion.
All of us who enter the Scottish Parliament have emerged from different political traditions and different parts of Scotland, with different backgrounds and different political interests. Although we disagree on many political issues, we are united on our core political motivation: each of us comes here with the objective of doing the best for the people we are elected to represent. This morning's debate, on the powers of the Scottish Parliament—an issue that is central to the arguments and concerns of the Scottish National Party—is a reflection of that motivation.
Members of the SNP believe that to do the best for the people we represent, we must establish the Parliament as a normal, independent Parliament that can decide on all the issues that confront the people of Scotland. We believe that we will be able to deliver on the ambitions of the people of Scotland and, in the process, address the social and economic problems of our country only when we have powers over the full range of policy areas. We start from the premise that our politics are based on the ambition of making Scotland the best that Scotland can be. We can achieve that only if we have the normal powers of an independent country.
In 1997, the Scottish people voted overwhelmingly to establish the first democratically elected Scottish Parliament in the history of our country.
Does the member acknowledge that in last year's general election, the Scottish people overwhelmingly rejected independence?
Undoubtedly, there was a general election last year. It had many outcomes, including the fact that the Labour party continued to govern with a minority of the vote. Labour was rejected at the last general election. I regret that that is the level of rubbish that Bristow Muldoon has to offer to a serious and mature debate about the politics of Scotland.
In 1997, the Scottish people voted overwhelmingly to establish the first democratically elected Scottish Parliament in our history. It was a truly momentous day and it was an historic step in the right direction, particularly for those of us who cherish the ideal of a free and independent Scotland that plays a full part in the community of nations. I recognise and respect the fact that the SNP was part of a broad national consensus for greater Scottish self-government. Parties across the spectrum joined together with the aim of returning power to the hands of the Scottish people. All of us—whatever party we are from—who campaigned tirelessly for the Parliament did so because we hoped it would improve dramatically the lives of millions of our fellow Scots.
I am proud of the SNP's role in that campaign because establishing the Scottish Parliament was a job worth doing. However, as I look around Scotland today, I can see that it is a job half-done. Of course the Parliament has made a difference—it has shone a light on a range of issues that were camouflaged by remote government from Westminster. Committees have undertaken valuable work in investigating serious issues and producing sound foundations for scrutiny of legislation. Parliament has greatly increased the transparency of the political decision-making process. Positive measures, which would never have reached the surface at Westminster, have been introduced to deal with problems in Scotland.
However, after three years of devolution, we have to be honest with ourselves and with the Scottish people. The Parliament has not made the dramatic difference to the country that most of us—from all parties—had hoped for. Expectations have not been met.
John Swinney has said much about the past three years of the Parliament. Is he prepared to apologise to the Scottish people for his behaviour and that of his party over the past three years? They have gret and girned in the Parliament and talked the Parliament down.
Duncan McNeil would know all about greetin and girnin—that is all that he ever does in the Parliament. I will not apologise for holding the Executive to account for failing to deliver on its promises to the people of Scotland—that is our right as the Opposition.
The reactions of the Executive and my party to the Executive's failure to meet the legitimate expectations of the people of Scotland have been very different.
Mr Swinney suggests that the Parliament does not have full control of its affairs. However, it has full control of issues such as education, health and transport in Scotland. Why has the Parliament not delivered on those issues?
The Parliament has not delivered on those expectations because the Executive has pursued a policy programme that has failed to deliver what it promised to the people of Scotland. Far too often, the Parliament carries the blame for the Lib-Lab coalition's failure to deliver what the public expect.
Three years into the life of the Scottish Parliament, politics has become a battle of ambition—a battle between those who believe that the people had a right to have such high expectations in 1997 and those who believe that the people had no such right. We know where the Labour party stands.
In February 2002, Douglas Alexander, the architect of new Labour's election campaign in 1999, wrote:
"The new constitutional arrangements reflect and meet the ambitions of the overwhelming majority of Scottish people."
That says it all. A third of Scottish children grow up in poverty, housing conditions are an affront to a decent society and we have virtually the worst economic growth rate in Europe, but Labour thinks that Scottish ambitions have been met. Our hospital waiting lists are up, waiting times are up and the number of hospital beds is down, but Labour thinks that Scottish ambitions have been met.
Do the nationalists still support the penny for Scotland campaign? Yes or no?
That must be intervention 4 on the crib sheet. If Rhona Brankin had followed any of the news coverage of the comments that I made yesterday, she would know that I made it clear that the SNP believes in taxation on the progressive principle and that we will set out our specific tax proposals before the Scottish Parliament elections. It will all be crystal clear before the elections—that should address Rhona Brankin's concerns.
Any party that can look around Scotland today and believe that we have reached the limit of our ambitions is not in touch with the ambitions of our country. My ambitions and the SNP's ambitions for Scotland are far higher. We want to create the best Scotland for everyone who lives here. We can create the best Scotland if we equip the Parliament with the full normal powers of independence.
However, even within the current powers of the Parliament there is no doubt that the SNP could create, not the best, but a better Scotland than the one in which we live today. By smarter use of the current powers, the SNP would make real improvements to the national health service. An SNP Government would tackle the fact that it is harder now to get a hospital bed in Scotland than it was before Labour came to power. Since the Lib-Lab coalition was formed in 1999, nearly 700 acute beds have been lost. An SNP Government would build new hospitals not to benefit private shareholders, but to benefit patients. The money that goes to private profit comes directly out of the budget for front-line services.
We could afford that building programme because we would set up a Scottish trust for public investment, which is our not-for-profit alternative to private finance initiatives and which underpinned our proposals in 1999. That approach has been used to resurrect the Railtrack company—a not-for-profit trust is to be set up in its place.
Does Mr Swinney agree with Andrew Wilson, who in an SNP paper on economic policy, says:
"Scotland is not in the political shape required at present to have an informed and mature debate about the role of government"
and various other economic matters? What does Mr Wilson mean by that?
The quality of Mr Brown's intervention—and of those from the Labour benches—has answered the question that Andrew Wilson poses in his paper. We are interested in a mature debate and we are leading a debate about the future of our country.
Will the member give way?
I will give way, but for the last time, as I must make progress.
How does all that enthusiasm for not-for-profit organisations translate into the SNP's being supposedly the most pro-enterprise party in Scotland?
It translates because we do not want to profiteer with the public purse. We want to ensure that money that should be spent on our hospital wards does not provide the profits of private shareholders.
The SNP's health proposals range beyond hospital construction to proposals to establish a national health inspectorate that would drive up standards in hospitals, to strengthen local health care co-operatives, to provide a new pay package for nurses and to tackle shortages in key specialties.
The SNP would cut class sizes for our youngest children to give them the best start in life. We would target that at some of the most deprived areas to maximise opportunity. In the fight against crime, the SNP has pioneered proposals for drug courts and new measures to tackle sex offenders. In the key matters of education, health and crime, the SNP—through smarter use of the existing powers—would create a better Scotland than the one that the Executive has presided over. However, that is not enough. I do not want just a better Scotland—I want the best Scotland that this country can be. We can achieve that ambition only if we take on the normal powers of a normal independent country.
I will set out exactly why independence is required in four key areas: first, to improve Scotland's economic performance; secondly, to tackle poverty; thirdly, to secure Scotland's rightful place in the international community; and fourthly, to take wise steps to protect our environment.
At the heart of the debate is the need to take decisions to transform our country's economic performance. Scotland's economic growth rate is among the worst in Europe. Yesterday, it was revealed that the Scottish economy grew by barely 0.5 per cent last year. In the past 10 years, it grew by an average of 2.1 per cent a year. In the UK, the rate was 2.4 per cent. In Norway, the rate was 3.8 per cent and in Ireland it was 6.9 per cent.
Poor growth might seem like a topic for academic discussion, but had Scotland grown at the same rate as Ireland in the past 30 years, Scotland's economy would have had at least £67 billion more, which would have generated £27 billion in taxation for investment in our vital public services. Scotland's economic performance is not some abstract matter. It is central to whether we generate sufficient wealth to expand our economy and invest in quality public services. Those who tell us that we have
"never had it so good"
and that the economy is in fine fettle must answer the question why Scotland's economy—in the United Kingdom—has lagged badly behind the performance of other parts of the UK and of many other European countries. The key economic questions for Scotland's policymakers are: how can we raise our appalling economic growth rate? How can we create maximum opportunity for those who are in work and for those who are out of work? How can we grow the tax base to provide first-class public services for the people of Scotland? No answers to those questions can be found by handing control of the economy to London. The responsibility for expanding the Scottish economy is Scottish and we should have the tools to take on that task.
Does Mr Swinney suggest that he will change SNP policy on giving Europe some financial control over our economy? Will he retain all control in Scotland?
I want to ensure that an independent Scottish Parliament would manage and direct the Scottish economy and would decide, in Scotland's interest, the matters on which it would co-operate with the European Union. That is a natural and normal position that countless European countries adopt.
Will the member give way?
Mr Johnstone will appreciate that I have much more to say.
The Parliament has limited powers to change economic conditions; the existing arrangements encourage us to leave such decisions to others. It is clear that the others are not delivering, so we need to take responsibility and decision-making power. We need independence to transform this country's economic performance from being among the worst to being the best.
With the full powers of independence, we would be able to tackle and overcome Scotland's core economic problems. We would be able to drive down business taxation and therefore stimulate growth. By that measure, we would give companies a competitive advantage, which would encourage indigenous businesses to expand their activities and encourage more people to start new businesses. That boost to competitiveness would encourage more investment in skills development, more priority being given to research and development and greater focus on exporting. That is the kick start that the Scottish economy requires, and it can come only with independence.
We could establish a fund for future generations to manage sensibly the revenues that come from the North sea and invest them for the long-term development of the Scottish economy and Scotland's infrastructure. We can learn again from Norway, where such resources have been locked away in a long-term fund. We could draw down an annual income and use that to benefit key projects to improve the Scottish economy's competitiveness.
We have suffered from an over-valued currency. Therefore, were the exchange rate to be corrected, the SNP would recommend to the people of Scotland that we should join the single currency to secure a currency that is in line with our interests. We suffer from a disastrous transport network. The SNP would invest in transport, free from the present spending squeeze. Taken together, those measures would boost growth, earnings and the tax revenue that is available for public services. Conversely, low growth and low earnings condemn hundreds of thousands of Scots to poverty and a life on benefits.
The route to getting Scots out of poverty—the second key reason why we need independence—does not lie in the hands of this Parliament with its current powers. The drive to expand our economy must be central to the drive to eradicate poverty. As the economy is growing at a miserly 0.6 per cent and the number of people in unemployment has increased by 14,000 in the past year, it is no wonder that child poverty is also increasing. With the full powers of independence, we would not only start the drive for growth, but rebalance the tax system to reduce the stealth tax burden on the poor. We would also base taxation on the ability to pay. By taking control of benefits, the minimum wage and training policy, we could also start to tackle the endemic poverty in many communities.
On the third key issue, we need the normal powers of an independent Parliament to secure Scotland's rightful place as a participant in international affairs. Many of our interests relate to decisions that are taken in the European Union, where ministers who had a direct say in negotiations at the Council of Ministers would protect the Scottish interest.
Under devolution, Scottish Executive ministers have attended just 11 per cent of the European meetings that they are entitled to attend. If we want to ensure that our distinctive voice is heard, we must be able to influence decisions directly at European level. In the pursuit of peace and co-operation with other countries, Scotland can have a powerful role in emulating the skill of other small countries, such as Ireland and Norway, in acting as brokers of peace in the trouble spots of the world and in helping the process of diplomacy.
The fourth important issue that needs independence is the environment. We can set targets and take valuable steps on recycling and other measures in the Scottish Parliament today, but developing a non-nuclear energy policy through which Scotland becomes a world leader in renewable technology is impossible because energy policy decisions are reserved to Westminster. However enthusiastic we might be about pursuing our international obligations as a clean and green society, we depend on decisions that are taken in London.
It is clear that Brian Wilson—the UK Minister for Industry, Energy and the Environment—is intent on building new nuclear power stations in Scotland. When those plans are produced, the SNP and others throughout Scotland will mount a vigorous campaign to stop that dangerous and expensive scheme. There is a much better way. Instead of being forced to oppose a London decision to expand nuclear power, an independent Parliament could focus on developing an energy policy to meet Scotland's energy needs. We could make such decisions ourselves. That would mean developing hydrogen power, wind and wave power and other renewable sources. On the Scottish Executive's figures, a renewables target of 50 per cent would be achievable if the powers and the will existed.
At the heart of that debate lies the central question whether we are prepared to accept a culture of political dependency on London or whether we will take charge of our decisions here. We must decide whether we are happy to be aware of the serious problems in Scotland's social and economic fabric, but to leave them for someone else to deal with. We should accept responsibility for those problems and sort them out. That was the challenge that the Scottish people put to us when the Parliament was established. The passage of time has shown that the Parliament does not have the powers to deal with those problems. We can either languish comfortably in our inability to deliver the dramatic change that is sought by the public, or we can take responsibility for making this country the best that it can be.
I have reached the final minute of my address to Parliament, which means that it is no longer possible for the First Minister to intervene during my speech on the powers of the Scottish Parliament. The Sunday Herald reported this week that the First Minister said that
"he would prefer to engage in a debate with the Conservatives over public services"
than debate with the SNP the future of Scotland. Of course he would—every political party in the western world would prefer to debate public services with the Conservatives. Such a debate might make the Government's record look respectable. When it comes to real political debate—a debate on the future of our country—the First Minister has nothing to contribute. He tells us to put up or shut up, so we put up and he does not speak up. He demands mature debate, but does not contribute to it.
The SNP has started a serious debate about the future of Scotland, which addresses the question of how we can make this country the best that it can be. I have set out our arguments and my colleagues will do likewise. If the First Minister does not want to participate, we will debate the issue with the people of Scotland.
I move,
That the Parliament notes that the Scottish Executive has not delivered the improvements in public services expected by the Scottish people; believes that the people of Scotland deserve better, and recognises that only with the full powers of independence will the Parliament have the ability to tackle and overcome Scotland's core economic and social problems.
The SNP motion that John Swinney has just moved claims that devolution is not delivering "improvements in public services" and that the only solution is independence. It is the same tired old nationalist story that we have heard so often, but it does not reflect reality.
The reality is that devolution is a success story. The Executive has set out a clear statement of its priorities and it is pursuing an ambitious and distinctive programme of legislation that allows us to implement those priorities. We are delivering real change and real achievements on the issues that matter to the people of Scotland.
For example, the Parliament has delivered for pensioners. On 1 July this year—exactly 3 years to the day after the Parliament assumed its powers—free personal care for the elderly will become a reality and will be followed a few months later by free off-peak local bus travel.
Will the minister give way?
No thank you. I like to get the introduction in first.
The Parliament has delivered an historic pay deal that will restore the professional status of teachers. We have delivered investment for young people's futures by abolishing tuition fees for students. The Parliament is delivering for people in rural areas who have spent all their lives—as did their parents and grandparents—working on the land for someone else's benefit. Land reform and feudal reform mean that their long held dreams can become reality.
Will the minister give way?
Not at the moment.
Let us not forget that devolution was not some strange idea that was foisted upon us by Westminster. On the contrary, the devolution settlement reflects what John Smith famously described as
"the settled will of the Scottish people".
The SNP might not like to hear that repeated, but I think that it bears repeating at this time. Devolution is also built on the hard work that was done over a number of years by the Scottish Constitutional Convention to develop a detailed blueprint for devolution that would command the widest possible support across the public and political spectrum in Scotland. Of course, the SNP did not contribute to that debate.
I thank the minister very much for taking my intervention. Is she arguing that the current list of reserved powers should be the list of reserved powers for ever and a day? Does she see the day—as did the late Donald Dewar—when some of those reserved powers, even within a unionist framework, should be transferred to this Parliament? If so, which powers would she like to see being transferred?
Mr Neil is welcome; I am happy to take his intervention.
The powers that we have are the powers that we work with. The SNP seems to want to concentrate on powers that we do not have. We want to work with the powers that we have and deliver with them.
As for the comments of Mr Dewar, I think that Mr Neil is referring to a quote that he and some of his colleagues often use. They quote Mr Dewar as having said that devolution was not an end in itself. He said that, but he went on to say that devolution was only a means of improving the lives of the people of Scotland. That is the position of this Executive.
Before Mr Neil intervened, I talked about the important work that was done by the Scottish Constitutional Convention. I was about to say that the SNP did not contribute to that process.
Will Patricia Ferguson give way?
No thank you. I will make progress.
I will say for the third time that the SNP did not contribute to that process. I have to say that it is news to some of us that the SNP campaigned hard for devolution, as Mr Swinney claimed. I campaigned for devolution in many parts of the country over a number of years and, in particular, during the referendum campaign. The SNP was conspicuous by its absence from the streets during that campaign and, of course, our Conservative colleagues campaigned vigorously against devolution.
I am grateful to the minister for accepting my intervention. She tells us that devolution has been an unremitting success story. Will she explain why child poverty is increasing?
I do not accept that.
It comes from the Executive's own data.
The premise that Mr Swinney is putting forward is not the case. Those of us who work daily in constituencies throughout the country know that that is not the case. We see the difference that the policies of this Government and our colleagues at Westminster are making, and will continue to make, to people's lives throughout the country. However, I do not claim that everything has been done; a lot has still to be done.
Let me remind the Conservatives and the SNP that the devolution settlement received the overwhelming support of the Scottish people in the 1997 referendum.
Will the minister give way?
No. I want to make progress.
There was no evidence during the referendum in 1997, and there is no evidence now, that any more than a small percentage of Scots want independence. They want the Parliament to make a success of the wide powers that it has been given. That is exactly what the Executive will do.
Mr Swinney paints a picture of gloom and doom.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No. I want to tell the chamber about Mr Swinney's picture of doom and gloom. He claims that we are not delivering improvements in public services. That is not a picture that I recognise. The Executive has no higher priority than delivering first-class public services and, during the Holyrood elections in May next year, we will be more than happy to be judged on that record.
I will turn to what we have done.
I thank the minister for giving way. Can she explain why, in 2002, just about every other western European nation enjoys a much higher standard of living than Scotland, despite their having less resources than Scotland and despite the fact that Scotland has had several Labour Governments?
Mr Lochhead need only consider predictors of economic growth such as the number of unemployed people. I do not know about Mr Lochhead's constituency, but that certainly matters to people in my constituency.
Can the minister tell us which constituency in Norway has higher unemployment than Maryhill?
Mr Gibson is continuing his habit of lobbying from behind, Presiding Officer. He referred to my constituency; I am the first to argue that unemployment in my constituency, as in many others, has not come down by as much as I want it to, but it has come down significantly since 1997. That is what the people of Scotland recognise.
The First Minister has made it clear that we have five overriding priorities. They are health, education, crime, transport and jobs. Those services bind us together as communities and impact directly on each of our lives. Those are the Executive's priorities for attention and action. Improving the lives of people in Scotland means improving the quality, accessibility and relevance of our public services. Since 1999, we have set about that task by focusing on the key areas of public service that have the greatest impact and in which improvement and effective delivery will make the greatest difference. Those are major public services, which we use and benefit from every day. They are key areas, which affect the lives of the people of Scotland.
We have made steady progress in our councils, our health boards and our police service. Work goes on every day to ensure that there is a nursery place for every 3 and 4-year-old and that our young people increase their success rates in literacy and numeracy. Work is done to ensure that more crime is solved, that more victims are protected, that more of us can get the health care that we need in our local communities and that we are safer when we travel on our roads. Work goes on to ensure that our bus, rail and ferry links work to make our journeys connect. However, there is more to do.
Will the minister give way?
I will not give way just now.
The Executive's response is to sit down with those who deliver services—whatever they are—and ask how we can do better. However, our partnership approach is not a neat trick to absolve us of responsibility. Government has a job to do.
I have taken a number of interventions and I need to press on.
Our job is to lay out the direction in which we want to go, identify the priorities, underpin them with legislation, make the best use of resources where necessary to improve delivery and lead the drive to improve standards.
Working together, we are investing in and rebuilding our public services around five key principles. The first is a clear focus on the needs of those who use and those who work in the services. The second is the introduction of national standards on which local excellence can be built, backed by inspection and accountability to ensure quality and continuous improvement across services and throughout the country.
The minister tells us that the Executive is putting great investment into many of our public services. Does she accept that the Executive has signed up totally to public-private partnerships and will she thank the Conservatives for the ideas that go along with PPPs?
Go on: thank the Tories.
I do not thank the Tories. I do not thank them for ignoring the work forces and the public services for 18 years and I do not thank them for the legacy that they left us, which we must try to improve.
The third of our five key principles is devolution of decision making to those who are best placed to make decisions.
I will not take an intervention from Mr Swinney; I am trying to press on.
Devolution of decision making enables doctors, nurses, teachers and head teachers to feel the measure of our confidence in them because we let them make the decisions that they need to make. The last two principles are improvement of conditions and working practices so that skilled staff can spend their time doing what they do best—delivering a quality public service—and the searching out of best value and making decisions that will get the best return for every public pound that we spend.
We are not talking about more targets or new initiatives; we are talking about delivering a service for patients or passengers—not for the system. We are not talking about glossy brochures or review groups; we mean to focus on tackling issues and to act when that will make a difference—
That is a massive change of policy.
It will save us some money.
It is a consistent approach and one that the SNP has obviously missed.
We are talking about using technology to free skilled staff from endless paperwork so that they can get on and do the job that they signed up to do. We are talking about nurses being trained to increase their clinical skills so that they can treat patients directly and thus free up doctors to concentrate on those who need their specialist skills. We are talking about speeding up our court system so that police officers do not waste time in court waiting rooms and so that the victims see justice delivered efficiently and fairly.
Will the minister give way?
No.
We are talking about providing resources and modernising conditions so that our teachers can get on with teaching.
The Government's job is to help those who deliver to do their job. That is not our only responsibility and it is not only our responsibility. We have a responsibility to use all the resources that we have—the public's resources—to the greatest effect. People are not really interested in how many billions we spend; they are interested in whether we are making things better in their daily lives. They are interested in whether those billions of pounds are making a difference. They are interested in repairs being made to their children's schools, in improved and modern facilities in their local hospitals or health centres, and in public transport that helps them get to where they want to be.
We will lead the process of best value and quality improvement that we expect from our councils, our health boards, our police service and the independent public bodies. We will focus on the priorities, find the best value for money and deliver real improvement.
Will the minister give way?
No. I am running out of time.
This summer, we will prepare our national spending plans for the next three years. We will apply the test of the five principles in our preparations and ensure that our resources are used to target improvements in health and education, to reduce crime and to strengthen our transport system and our economy. Those are the areas for which we are responsible to the people of Scotland. We want our resources and our efforts to make a difference for those who need it most.
Improving public services is a big job, and we know that we cannot do it on our own. Politicians make the decisions. We in Government know that some decisions are tough, but our decisions are informed by people who have first-hand experience of public services—the front-line staff and the managers. They have the skills, the expertise and the everyday experience of trying to get the job done and they have something else. They have a special quality: they have made a positive choice to work in public services. They have signed up to work as part of a service that makes a direct impact on the lives of others. They will go the extra mile, put in the extra effort and work the additional hours to ensure not only that the job is done, but that it is done well. Public service staff bring more than skills, talent and expertise to their work every day—they bring commitment. They bring commitment to saving, improving and building lives. That is a powerful force for good. Our job is to let them deliver, not to talk them down and not to denigrate what has been achieved.
In the short period since the Scottish Executive and Parliament came into being, devolution has made an enormous difference to the governance of Scotland. By the end of the first session, we will have passed more than 50 bills that reflect Scottish policies and Scottish priorities. The legislative programme covers the whole sweep of devolved powers. It has included major legislation on our key priority areas including health, education and criminal justice, not to mention the care of the elderly and the most radical restructuring of the social housing sector in Scotland for a generation. That achievement is all the greater because the vast majority of Scottish bills are tailored to meet Scottish needs and to tackle Scottish problems. One of the first fruits of devolution is an ambitious and wide-ranging programme of homegrown legislation that is tailored to our policies and priorities.
The legislative programme is only the most visible manifestation of the way in which devolution has changed the political landscape in Scotland. The establishment of the Parliament has brought about a massive increase in the process of scrutinising Government and holding it to account. The Parliament provides a forum for real democratic accountability in Scotland. Our devolved institutions are genuinely open and accountable and they are working well.
Yesterday, Mr Swinney said that the politics of grievance would not deliver the kind of Scotland that we all want. What have we heard so far today from Mr Swinney but grievance after grievance after grievance? Mr Swinney and his party have asked the Parliament to spend three hours this morning discussing his party's priority—independence. It is a priority to a minority of people outside the Parliament, but it is the SNP's one priority. The SNP wants us to spend three hours discussing it. Instead, the coalition Executive wants to talk about the issues that matter to the people of Scotland. They sent us here to do that. When we debate, we use their time. Our responsibility is to reflect their concerns.
Now is not the time to embark on further constitutional change.
Why not?
Devolution works—that is why not—and is here to stay. The overwhelming majority of Scots have no desire for independence. They want us to make a success of devolution. If they had wanted independence, they would have voted for it in a referendum called a general election. The SNP has had an opportunity to increase its share of the vote in general election after general election after Scottish Parliament election and has stunningly failed to do so every time.
I invite the Parliament to reject John Swinney's negative and sterile arguments and I confidently predict—[Interruption.]
Order.
That might have been the SNP members whingeing, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt.
I predict confidently that, in May 2003, the Scottish people will reaffirm their strong and consistent support for devolution as opposed to the false panacea of independence.
I move amendment S1M-3052.1, to leave out from "Scottish Executive" to end and insert:
"devolution settlement is right for Scotland, that wide powers have been devolved to the Scottish Executive and the Parliament and endorsed by Scottish voters in a referendum, that full use is being made of these powers to deliver the policies set out in the Programme for Government, and that these powers can deliver real improvements in the public services and help secure a strong and competitive economy."
The SNP's motion is interesting: I detect in it a growing sense of desperation. I seem to recall that, at the Scottish elections and in the early years of the Parliament, independence was the word that dare not speak its name for the SNP.
If I am not mistaken, at the SNP's previous leadership election, Mr Swinney represented the so-called gradualists in the party—the independence-by-stealth brigade—and Alex Neil led the forces of fundamentalism, who spoke of little else but independence. We all know who won that particular battle; but Mr Neil seems to have won the war. As next year's elections loom ever larger on the horizon, the SNP has gone back to the egg, blethering independence, to which it now clings like a child to a comfort blanket. The party ignores the reality that, although Scotland's constitutional position was the defining political issue in Scotland for many years, that was settled for the foreseeable future at the referendum in 1997. My party lost that particular argument, but we immediately made it clear that we accepted the decision of the people in Scotland. We committed ourselves to making the new constitutional settlement work in the interests of the people in Scotland and to representing important strands of Scottish opinion in the Parliament.
Those commitments do not mean that we cannot criticise the workings of the new Parliament; we have done so on a number of occasions. Although we accepted the broad principle, we are not signed up to every dot and comma of the Scotland Act 1998.
Will the member give way?
Only a fool—and I hope that this is not one coming—would regard that act as the epitome of constitutional perfection.
I am grateful to the leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party for giving way. He said that his party now accepted the principle of devolution. Why then, in response to a question posed during a radio interview a few months ago, did he say that he would campaign for a no-no vote?
If Mr Butler reads the transcript of that interview, he will see that I was asked whether I regretted voting the way I did in the referendum. I answered that I did not. I am proud of the way that I voted in the referendum and I am proud that, by putting the other side of the argument, I gave people in Scotland an opportunity to make a democratic decision. That is a very important part of the democratic process. Only a Stalinist would believe that everybody should think the same way.
We are prepared to consider reviewing the powers of the Parliament and, over time, to consider our relationship with Westminster in a rational manner. We start from the premise that any change must be made in a considered way and must involve all sections of Scottish opinion. We should not be in the business of tearing up the Scotland Act 1998 when the ink is barely dry—and I include in that the provisions relating to the size of the Parliament.
Will the member give way?
I think that Mr Gibson was first.
Mr McLetchie does not believe that change should come in the foreseeable future. Will he define "foreseeable future"? I have three children, aged nine, five and three. In the foreseeable future, they may want the opportunity to vote in an independence referendum. Mr McLetchie has spoken about choice. Will the Tories support calls for an independence referendum in the future? If so, when?
There is no demand at present for such a referendum. There is no consensus for such a referendum, and no conviction about the need for change. The question of a referendum is largely an irrelevance today, but if, at some future time, opinion were to change and there were to be a wide consensus that more powers should be sought, of course the matter might have to be put to some further determination. However, that day is so far in the future that I suspect that Mr Gibson will be nursing his grandchildren rather than his children before it comes along.
The SNP has decided to take the opposite approach to ours, partly because it has found it difficult to adapt to devolution. That confirms what many people suspect—that the only beneficiaries if devolution failed would be the nationalists. The nationalists are therefore attempting to convince people in Scotland that the answer to all our problems is to be found in independence, with all the turmoil that that would entail.
Will the member give way?
Sorry; I must move on.
The SNP's attempts serve to highlight the irrelevance of the SNP to the current political debate in Scotland—although I gather that they talk of little else but Scottish independence on the streets of Weatherfield.
People in Scotland want to know how we can improve our hospitals and schools, how we can reduce crime and how we can create greater opportunities for everyone in our society. I have very different ideas from the current Executive about how we should use the existing powers of the Parliament to improve people's lives, but I will at least give the Executive credit for attempting to come up with solutions within the framework. The frustrating thing about the nationalists is that, instead of engaging in the debate about what we can do, they act like the proverbial Irishman who, when asked how to get somewhere, always says, "I wouldn't start from here." We want to engage in a serious debate about the here and now, but the SNP is more interested in talking about some never-never land flowing with milk and honey where the grass is always greener.
As he is talking about Irishmen, may I ask Mr McLetchie why it is that no Irishman in the Republic of Ireland has ever reapplied for membership of the United Kingdom? If the union is so great and if independence is so bad, why are the Irish delighted to be independent?
We could debate Irish history for a very long time in the Parliament, but I think that Mr Neil would admit that the identification between the people of Scotland and England, and their links of family, business and culture, are probably far closer than any that ever existed between the people of the UK and Ireland as a whole. I think that he will find significant cultural differences.
The difficult questions for the SNP to answer are what it would do with extra powers and how such powers would make a difference to people in Scotland. That is where much of the SNP theory falls down. It is much easier to talk in abstract terms about the powers of the Parliament than in concrete terms about what to do with those powers. For one thing, doing the latter would risk exposing the fact that the nationalists do not offer a genuinely different approach from that of the Labour Government and the Lib-Lab Executive, both of which are failing Scotland. In this Parliament, we have seen the often bitter conflict between the Executive parties and the SNP, but there is no fundamental difference in political approach between them. They stand in the same place on the political spectrum. The SNP is simply a more extreme version of what is currently on offer. The nationalists offer people in Scotland a change of country, but they do not, in essence, offer a change in policy or direction.
That all helps to explain the SNP's credibility gap. In recent weeks, we have seen Andrew Wilson rushing round the boardrooms of Scotland telling incredulous businessmen why independence is good for them. We have even seen the preposterous sight of Mr Swinney on the set of "Coronation Street" explaining to bemused actors why independence will not affect their royalties as the programme will still be shown in Scotland, and explaining how independence will improve relations between Scotland and England.
If anything, John Swinney had an easier job than Andrew Wilson—after all, actors are used to suspending disbelief. Andrew Wilson may be persuasive, but he is rather up against it when he tries to rebrand his party as pro-business. That flies in the face of everything that his party has said and done in the past 20 years. Was not it the nationalists who once proclaimed themselves to be the true heirs of the red Clydesiders—not a group renowned for its warm support for the capitalist system? Is not it the SNP that is unremittingly hostile to the concept of using private finance to build new hospitals, schools and prisons? Is not it the SNP that, week in and week out, scorns the concept of partnership with the independent sector to deliver public services? How is that fear and loathing of the private sector, which pours down from the SNP benches, week in and week out, going to endear the SNP and the concept of independence to the Scottish business community? It is simply not going to happen. The policies of the nationalists over the years are hardly designed to appeal to that community.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
The SNP has been firmly wedded to the idea of tax and spend for so long that it is unsurprising that businesses fear that more tax-raising powers for the Parliament will inevitably mean higher taxes. The cause of every problem over the past 20 years has been put down to a lack of money and the solution has always been for individuals and businesses to hand over more of their hard-earned cash so that politicians can spend it on their behalf.
In my speech, I recounted the fact that, over the past 10 years—for most of which the Conservatives were in office—
No—for most of which Labour was in office.
For less than half of which the Conservatives were in office.
Oh okay—by a day! I will grant the Conservatives that.
Over the past 10 years, the economic growth rate of Scotland trailed that of the rest of the UK. If the Conservatives' economic management, their pro-business instincts and all the policies that they delivered while in office were so successful, why is Scotland's economic growth rate so poor in relation to the rest of the UK and our European counterparts?
In the first part of his question, Mr Swinney has already demonstrated his dodgy arithmetic. In its time in Government, the Conservative party transformed the economy of Scotland for the better. We have been building on that during the past five years.
It is all very well for Mr Wilson to go around greeting Scotland's business leaders as long lost friends, but he really should not be too surprised if they reject his advances. He comes bearing the gift of a promised cut in corporation tax, but businesses will rightly take that with a substantial pinch of salt. It is not as though those business leaders need particularly long memories to be aware of Mr Wilson's party's commitment to higher taxes. At the last Scottish elections, the SNP came up with the campaign for the so-called penny for Scotland, more accurately described as a penalty for being Scots. As yet I have heard no definitive statement from the SNP leadership to say that that policy has been withdrawn. Frankly, that sums up the incoherence of SNP arguments. Before the last elections the nationalists were once again making noises about lowering taxes on business. I recall the SNP's enthusiastic discovery of the Laffer curve—about 20 years after the rest of us. The SNP then promptly undermined that with its pledge to raise personal taxes.
Does Mr McLetchie not realise that his outdated approach to this question does not recognise the fact that business people are also private citizens in the same society, and that they too want good public services, which they do not want to be beggared through the Tories' approach of profiteering at public expense? Does he not recognise that business people want both a good economy and good public services, and that the only party in the Parliament that offers that is the SNP?
That is a bizarre interpretation of SNP policy. It is necessary to create wealth before we can have good-quality public services. Mr Wilson does not understand that two thirds of the businesses in this country are sole traders and partnerships, for which personal taxation is business taxation. Mr Wilson is standing to penalise them even more.
The SNP's latest enthusiasm is for the so-called theory of constraints, which supposedly can only be removed if the Scottish Parliament has more powers. That theory ignores the fact that the official policy of the SNP is to achieve so-called independence in Europe. As an independent country, Scotland would be in a far weaker position to do anything about the constraints imposed on our business by excessive European Union intervention. Moreover, it ill becomes the SNP to complain about a one-size-fits-all interest rate policy set in London by the Bank of England when it would sign up like a shot to a one-size-fits-all interest rate policy set in Frankfurt. So much for independence.
In any case, constraints could equally be imposed or retained by a Scottish Government. Removing those constraints requires a Government that is committed to lower taxes and lighter regulation. No one seriously believes that the SNP would ever form such a Government.
Will David McLetchie accept an intervention?
No, thank you. The latest Saul-to-Paul conversion among the SNP ranks is that of Mr Russell. He told us yesterday that the SNP was all in favour of diversity in education and the direct funding of schools by the Scottish Executive. Even pitiable converts to Scottish Tory policy such as Mr Russell are welcome, but that statement defies belief. The acid test for diversity and funding in schools was that of St Mary's Episcopal Primary School. The SNP failed that test miserably, as it fell meekly into line with the desires of Mr Galbraith and Mr McConnell to dragoon that successful school back into local authority control.
If the SNP wants to win new powers for the Parliament, it should overcome the credibility gap that is exemplified by the somersaults of Mr Wilson and Mr Russell. Its members talk about a close relationship between Scotland and England, but they are actually about souring that relationship.
There is far more to being British than having a soap opera in common. We have 400 years of history, our monarchy, our armed services, our common market, our single currency and our ties with family and friends across the UK. Those are the things that we work in partnership to preserve, and which we value. I believe that the majority of people in Scotland value them too. That shows the way ahead. If we want to have a debate about the powers of the Parliament we should hold one in a mature and rational way that engages everyone, not through this vanguard grandstanding from the SNP. I reject the motion.
I welcome the opportunity to address the motion lodged by the SNP. I should say at the outset that the Liberal Democrat group could not disagree more with the views that John Swinney expressed on independence. We feel that the SNP is completely failing the people of Scotland by not operating as an effective Opposition in this devolved Parliament. Why are we debating a hypothetical situation about increasing the powers of the Scottish Parliament when the SNP consistently refuses to debate properly the use of our current powers?
Will Mike Rumbles give way on that point?
Not after only 36 seconds; I will give way later.
The SNP does not discuss the level at which the Scottish budget should be set for fear of being found out. It promises tax cuts for businesses through business rates and corporation tax and tax cuts for individuals—with tax relief on do-it-yourself—yet its shadow spending ministers keep racking up the spending promises. Everyone except SNP members seems to know that we cannot get something for nothing. The SNP's answer to its problem of balancing the books seems simply to be that it wants bigger books. It does not add up.
The SNP pretends to be a business-friendly party, yet it decries any use of private funds to help in the delivery of public services.
Will Mike Rumbles reflect on his party's inability to balance the books, given the experience of the administration of Scottish Borders Council?
Shona Robison will be aware that it was the independent-led Scottish Borders Council that got into that mess. The council's administration is now led by the Liberal Democrats, and it is putting things right—supported, I should add, by the SNP group leader, at least until he was removed.
Instead of debating the issues that really matter to people, such as health, education, transport, the environment and jobs, we are having a debate about the only thing that holds the SNP together: independence. I do not often speak positively about what David McLetchie says, but he got it absolutely right when he spoke about the battle between Alex Neil and John Swinney.
Would Mike Rumbles include in his list of things that people really want to debate the Fur Farming (Prohibition) (Scotland) Bill, which a minister from his party introduced?
As Alasdair Morgan well knows, that measure was blocked from inclusion in a Sewel motion by the SNP. That is why we passed that bill.
We had the debate about independence back in June last year, when only 20 per cent of voters were persuaded. The SNP has a lot of work to do to persuade the other 80 per cent and, quite frankly, I cannot see it doing so.
What has the SNP done since its abysmal performance last June? It has produced two pamphlets, called "Talking Independence" and "Economic Policy And Positioning". Those documents contain some laughable assumptions, of which I would like to highlight a few. I hope that Andrew Wilson is listening.
The SNP wants to "double growth in GDP". Its recipe for achieving that is a simple one:
"Once Policy is focussed properly – growth will look after itself".
Well, that is a master stroke of economics. Even more magically,
"Closer co-operation with countries which all have higher GDP per capita and higher wages than Scotland, can only improve Scottish living standards."
In my view, that is the economic equivalent of telling someone that if they stand next to a beautiful person, they too will become beautiful. It is ridiculous.
Does Mr Rumbles not accept that part of the argument for joining the euro and being part of the European single market—which the Tories now seem to oppose—is that we gain from trade with other countries that are doing well? We trade with them; they grow; they buy our services. Is that not a good thing?
We can have that without independence.
The document "Talking Independence" asked 90 questions about independence. It was long on trivia, telling us that we would still be able to watch "EastEnders"—and we have already heard the references to "Coronation Street". It was short on detail but long on assumptions.
I take Mr Rumbles back to the question of growth. Yesterday, we heard that Scotland's economic growth last year was 0.6 per cent. Would Mr Rumbles care to set a figure for what he considers a desirable level of economic growth for Scotland? How on earth does he intend to reach that level in a devolved Scotland?
A desirable growth figure is as much growth as we could reasonably expect. It would be as ridiculous for me to name a figure as it would be for Mr Swinney to do so. What will markedly improve our position is entry into the euro as soon as practically possible.
I refer back to "Talking Independence", which states that the English would buy from the Scots shares in embassies and military bases. That is fantasy. The problem with the SNP's position on independence is that it appeals to the heart rather than to the head and the Scottish people are too smart for that.
I turn to the Conservatives, on whom I do not want to spend long. The Conservative position on the Parliament has been completely negative. Bill Butler asked David McLetchie whether he regretted the no-no position that the Conservatives took in the referendum. If the referendum were held now, would he vote yes-yes? That is the most important question and David McLetchie has consistently failed to answer it.
We have heard nothing but carping from the Conservatives. I received a leaflet through my letterbox on Monday called "Common Sense". The next heading was "Cutting the Parliament down to size." The trademark negativity of the Conservatives was all over the leaflet. I will leave the Conservatives now, because I do not want to shoot at an open goal all the time.
The motion claims that
"the Scottish Executive has not delivered the improvements in public services expected by the Scottish people".
Let us consider examples of what others have said. The National Union of Students said:
"In its short existence the Scottish Parliament has made significant improvements to the well-being of students and has the potential to do even more."
Kevin Dunion of Friends of the Earth Scotland said:
"When I listen to a news presenter introducing an item on student loans or care for the elderly and explaining that things are different in Scotland I think yes, devolution is doing something for us."
Jim Walker, the president of the National Farmers Union of Scotland, said:
"For the first time, Government has recognised the vital role of Scottish farmers as being the key to a whole range of other businesses and sectors which make up the rural economy."
Does Mike Rumbles think that it is appropriate that next week the Minister for Environment and Rural Development will try to give back to the UK Government responsibility for the examination of and processes involved in genetically modified crops? Is that taking responsibility? Is that what Liberal Democrat ministers mean by good devolution?
As far as I am aware, that is a load of nonsense that the SNP has stirred up.
Even The Scotsman—and I notice that it is listening just now—which is not usually noted for its supportive comments about the Parliament, said:
"Land Reform is flagship legislation which will change the face of Scotland and create a page in history."
For balance, a leader article in The Herald said:
"The Liberal Democrats have played a significant part in producing Scottish solutions for Scottish problems, most notably with the graduate endowment package replacing tuition fees, and free personal and nursing care for the elderly."
By working together in the Executive the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats have produced many more initiatives that are impacting directly on people's lives and Patricia Ferguson highlighted those earlier. They include the central heating initiative for the over-65s, the McCrone settlement for our teachers, land reform and the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill, which the Conservatives opposed. Far from welcoming those radical and far-reaching reforms, the SNP has often begrudged them and has carped in the vein of the motion before us today.
I turn to the SNP's record on McCrone. The SNP asked the Executive to justify the substantial additional cost to the taxpayer of setting up another so-called independent committee and later called on the McCrone committee to be abandoned. In November 1999, the SNP spokesperson said that the committee was going nowhere fast but, by June 2000, after she had seen the report, she paid tribute to the committee. In February, Mike Russell welcomed the decisive result of the yes ballot by the Educational Institute of Scotland. The SNP moaned about McCrone until it saw the results, at which point it promptly changed sides in the debate.
When the BBC announced its scoop on the possible takeover of Health Care International in Clydebank by the Executive, Alex Salmond was on the box on College Green outside the House of Commons welcoming the "nationalisation". However, Nicola Sturgeon was referring to it as incompetence on a staggering scale with private financiers profiteering at the expense of public services.
Many SNP MSPs signed Brian Monteith's motion that called for a joint bid for the Euro 2008 championships with Ireland. However, in January, John Swinney said at First Minister's questions that the SNP would have preferred a single national bid. Is that hypocrisy or is it just incompetence? I believe that John Swinney is honourable, so I put it down to simple SNP incompetence.
The problem for the SNP is that until it gets its act together, especially on its economic policies, it lacks credibility. SNP should stand for "Scotland's Nonsense Party"—the party that promises everything but can provide nothing. While the only thing that holds the SNP together is its dream of nirvana, the Executive parties—the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party—are working together constructively for the good government of Scotland on devolved issues.
The Executive is delivering for Scotland and, rather than carping or moaning about new powers for the Parliament, we are concerned with getting on with our programme of reform. I urge colleagues to reject the SNP motion.
We move to open debate, during which I encourage members to take interventions and engage in dialogue. Speeches can be up to five minutes long.
Members in the unionist parties should raise their sights and a good place to start would be by opening their eyes. People throughout Scotland are disappointed by the performance of the Parliament. That should be a matter of concern to each and every one of us. We all have a duty to ask how we can do better with the powers that we have and whether we have all the powers that we need to make a real difference to people's lives. The answers to those questions are fundamental to the future of our public services.
The constitutional debate in Scotland has never been abstract; it has always been about how we can make Scotland a better place in which to live and about how our politicians can better reflect Scottish people's aspirations. The Scottish people want, more than anything else, public services that they can be proud of and a health service that lives up to its founding ethos. The national health service—our most cherished public service—has not improved in the past three years; it has got worse. If Patricia Ferguson does not acknowledge that, I suggest that she gets out more and speaks to people in her constituency who are languishing on NHS waiting lists or to people in rural areas who cannot access a general practitioner. Those people will tell her that the NHS in Scotland has not improved in the past three years. That is why standing still or ducking the debate in the way that the First Minister has done this morning is simply not an option.
I am interested in having a debate about the future of public services with the SNP, so I wonder why the SNP is using three hours to talk about constitutional issues. Let us have the debate about public services. Nicola Sturgeon is right that that is the debate that people want us to have, but the SNP is not engaging in that debate and that is why people are questioning the Parliament.
If Des McNulty had taken a moment to read the motion, he would know that it refers to public services.
The future of public services depends on our ability to transform them, given the powers that we have. We are not even using to the full the powers that we have. For the benefit of Mike Rumbles, I will give an example of that. One of the biggest problems in our health service is a crippling staff shortage. We have not trained adequate numbers and it will take years to put that right. In the meantime, we are losing staff to other countries and are unable to attract staff here. However, if we wanted to, we could use our powers to enhance the UK pay recommendations. That would give Scotland a competitive edge in the health labour market, just as many health authorities south of the border have and are attracting our nurses as a result. The Scottish Executive refuses even to consider that. Our lack of power over social security and the economy affects our ability to improve the health service.
Will the member give way?
Not just now.
Patricia Ferguson mentioned free personal care. The Parliament decided to implement free personal care as a way of enhancing the benefits that old and vulnerable people in our society receive. However, because we do not have power over social security, we could not prevent London from punishing us for our decision to implement free personal care by taking away the benefits that old people in Scotland already received. London deprived the Parliament of £23 million of our own money.
I am happy to take an intervention from Mr Brown on that point.
Is not it the case that Scotland benefits from the UK Treasury in a disproportionate way as far as social security is concerned and that the amount raised by a UK 1p on tax is greater than the amount raised by a Scottish 1p on tax? Would not that double whammy be lost if Scotland left the union?
The whammy was London taking away £23 million of Scottish taxpayers' money because we had the temerity to introduce a policy that it did not agree with. That was absolutely absurd.
Let me mention another absurd situation. For the past three years, SNP members argued that the NHS was underfunded, whereas Lib-Lab members argued that it was not. Only now that Gordon Brown has admitted that the NHS has been chronically underfunded under Labour are we allowed extra money. In other words, we could not invest the money that we knew the health service needed until London said that it was okay to do so. That situation arose because we do not have the economic or fiscal powers to allow us to make that investment.
Anyone who doubts the need for the Parliament to have the full powers of an independent parliament should ask themselves how we are to lift children out of poverty or improve the health and life chances of everyone in Scotland if we do not have power over our tax and benefits system and the ability to grow our economy.
The Parliament is a job half done. Unless and until we complete that job and take responsibility, we will offer the people of our country second best when they deserve so much more.
Yesterday on "Good Morning Scotland", Brian Taylor reported the messages that John Swinney was giving his party. One message was that
"we should stop externalising our complaints"
and that the SNP should "stop moaning". It is obvious from the SNP's performance so far today that his party has not paid any attention to those messages—in fact, he paid no attention to them, either.
It is "Groundhog Day" again, with one difference: John Swinney plays the central character. He has learned nothing from experience, because the experience of last year's general election should have taught him that the people of Scotland are fed up with constitutional navel gazing. They want MSPs to start getting on with the job of improving people's prospects in life by dealing with issues such as health, education and jobs.
Mr McLetchie, who is no longer in the chamber, commented on Mr Swinney's visit last week to "Coronation Street". Perhaps he was there to look for a career change in preparation for the aftermath of next year's elections. It was obvious from some newspaper photographs that the actress who plays Sarah-Louise Platt did not have a clue who he was or what his job was. That comes as no surprise given that the same could be said of 90 per cent of the people of Scotland.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you. Not just now.
If Mr Swinney is looking for a move into showbiz, I suggest that the ideal role for him would be Victor Meldrew—the early years. I know that the character has been killed off, but there are plenty of precedents for prequels and I can think of no one better to play that role. I apologise to Richard Wilson for that suggestion.
There is no doubt that SNP members are the people to whom John Swinney should be trying to get across the message that they should stop moaning. Their second-favourite subject—moaning about the UK—is topped only by their favourite: his leadership, which they moan about in the coffee room behind the chamber.
We should have a debate about the Parliament's powers. We should also have a debate about the way in which the Executive and the Parliament are already delivering. I will concentrate on transport and health. The Transport (Scotland) Act 2001 was one of the first pieces of legislation to be passed by the Parliament. We have increased resources for transport and are investing in roads and public transport. The Scottish Executive has established the public transport fund and recently published its transport delivery plan, which sets out a number of key priorities for improving transport in Scotland over the next 10 years. Among the benefits for my constituents are funding for a new express bus service between Livingston and Edinburgh and the plans to increase capacity on the rail line. The local authority is increasing resources for and investment in local roads and, from October this year, every pensioner in my constituency will receive free bus services.
All those things are terrific, but does the member acknowledge that the balance of the evidence at yesterday's Transport and the Environment Committee meeting was in favour of the Parliament having control of the railways in Scotland? The question for Bristow Muldoon and the rest of the Labour party is, "If you trust Scotland with control of the roads, why do you not trust it with control of the railways?"
The Scottish Executive already has significant powers over the railways. I ask Mr Wilson to wait until the Transport and the Environment Committee has finished taking evidence on its inquiry into railways. A range of different views may emerge before we complete that inquiry, but we can improve the railways in Scotland within the devolution settlement. We do not need independence in order to be able to do so.
The Labour Government at Westminster has made resources available to the Parliament over the next five years that will enable us to build a first-class, world-class health service. Significant improvements are already taking place. The NHS is not perfect—no one says that it is. We can all find fault in certain areas, but the NHS is nowhere near as bad as the SNP or the Tories portray it. SNP members portray the NHS as a failing service because they want to reduce trust in public services to further their political ends, and the Tories want to privatise the NHS.
Bristow Muldoon is aware from the figures that have been released that 40 per cent of the waiting lists at St John's hospital in Livingston were deferred. Is that a symbol of a flourishing health service? Does he agree that the Parliament should have the power to decide whether it should invest in the health service? Without that power, we have had to wait for three years during which the health service has been neglected. The Parliament could have been, and should have been, investing in the health service, but we did not have—and still do not have—the power to do so.
That was a disgraceful statement from a member who continually runs down the health service. Ms Hyslop should be well aware of the fact that investment has gone into every GP service in my constituency, allowing the introduction of more services. She should also be aware of the brand-new health centre in West Calder and the new resource centre in Broxburn. Investment is going into the new accident and emergency service at St John's hospital, yet the SNP claims that the accident and emergency unit is going to close. The SNP is a disgrace and its members should stop running down our public services.
The Parliament has substantial powers, which we can use to enhance public services and increase economic prosperity in Scotland. The debate is not about independence; it is about Mr Swinney's attempts to cling on to his leadership. I assure him that, although many on his side of the chamber are already plotting for a successor, many on my side of the chamber hope that he continues in his job as leader of the Opposition for years to come.
It gives me much pleasure to participate in this debate. It comes as no surprise that independence, which is the raison d'être of the SNP, is the subject of the debate, because the star of Mr Neil—the leader from across the sea—is in the ascendancy and the fundamentalist wing of the SNP is back in control.
I do not for a moment doubt the sincerity of SNP members, but I take serious issue with the practical application of their views. The debate is taking place in a vacuum. Despite Mr Swinney's pretty sharp riposte to Bristow Muldoon, there is simply no support in Scotland for independence. Opinion polls, the general election result and every view that is worth listening to demonstrate clearly and beyond peradventure that the majority of people in Scotland do not seek independence.
I will take an intervention from Shona Robison, who was first.
Mr Aitken talks about levels of support. In order to refresh our memories, will he kindly remind the chamber of the level of support for the Tories among the Scottish public?
The level of support for the Conservative party among the Scottish public is as evidenced in by-elections. I remind Shona Robison that the by-election that took place in Stirling last week went extremely well for us.
Let me move on to address the arguments for and against—
Will the member give way?
I will not take an intervention, as I want to make one or two points.
There is only one argument in favour of independence and I fully concede and acknowledge that it is a potent one. I speak of the argument of emotionalism. Many members of the chamber are patriotic Scots, but arguing for independence solely on the basis of emotionalism is not realistic. The arguments against independence can also be emotional—one's emotional attachment to the union, for example.
There are also wider economic arguments. Perhaps the most potent argument against independence is the performance of the SNP group within the Parliament. At best, the SNP's economic policy is inconsistent to the point of incoherence.
Will the member take an intervention?
Let me finish the point first. On every subject, the gut reaction and Pavlovian response of every SNP spokesperson is to throw more money at the problem. They commit their party to expenditures as if there were no tomorrow. There would indeed be no tomorrow if the SNP were in charge.
Will the member give way?
I give way to Mr Crawford.
If the union has been so good for Scotland, will the member explain why our economic growth has been slower than the rest of the UK's year in, year out, for the past 30 years?
That is a complex argument, which I would take on if time were available. One reason for Scotland's lack of competitiveness is the fact that our colleagues in the Labour party have controlled much of Scotland's economics over the past 50 years. The effects of their control are apparent for all to see.
I want to get back to dealing with the SNP, which throws about theoretical money like metaphorical confetti. Where is the money to come from? Even if one were to accept Mr Swinney's argument about projected growth—which I do not—there would still be a massive deficit. In short, Scotland would become a high-spend, high-tax economy, with the most tangible results being a fall in investment, a flight of capital, a drain in confidence and a haemorrhage of talent as ambitious people voted with their feet. Scotland would become a land fit only for social workers and their clients.
Patricia Ferguson's speech portrayed a picture of contemporary Scotland and of the Executive's performance that few would recognise. However, she raised one argument that is perfectly valid. It is unarguable that the current will of the Scottish people is as defined in the Scotland Act 1998. Frankly, it is nonsense to suggest, as is being suggested, that we should revisit the constitutional position after only three years.
Will the member give way?
I give way to Mr Neil.
I will allow this intervention, but I have a long list of people who wish to speak, so I will keep the remaining speeches to about five minutes.
Is the member aware that the First Minister has been invited by the European Committee of the Regions to submit a report on the future constitution of Europe? Is not that an ideal opportunity for Scotland to assert its position in Europe instead of accepting the regional-provincial position that we have at present?
The First Minister need not spend a lot of time on his submission. It is quite clear that the status quo is the position that should be adhered to.
In conclusion, there may well be disappointment with the performance of the Parliament. John Swinney was correct to underline the fact that, in the public mind, the odium for the Executive's actions and follies is directed at the Parliament rather than at the Executive in isolation. I accept that we must look at the problem of perception. However, on any rational judgment, it is far too soon to make any further constitutional changes. The SNP motion should be rejected emphatically.
I am delighted to take part in the debate. It is interesting to note from Mr Aitken's final comments that he fears higher tax, lower revenues, a reducing tax base, the flight of capital, the flight of business and people voting with their feet. Where has he been for the past 50 years? That is precisely the experience that Scotland has had within the UK. Scotland has had a flight of capital, of talented people and of our potential. The debate is about how we bridge the gap between our mediocre national performance and our unlimited national potential.
The great problem with post-war Scottish politics has been the cosy consensus whereby people from all parties—I repeat, all parties—have focused only on the symptoms of our national decline without trying to attack the guts of the root problem. That is what we must do. That is the responsibility with which the people have charged us.
Although devolution is a step in the right direction, the great tragedy of it is that it gives us no new and effective powers to deal with the issues. Devolution heightens our expectations but dashes them on the rocks of delivery. We want to extend the logic of devolution to its conclusion, which is independence. If we can trust Scotland with half the powers, which is what we have at present, why not trust it with all the powers? The performance of the Scottish economy is at present mediocre.
Will the member take an intervention?
Not at the moment.
Jack McConnell, the absent First Minister, said yesterday that the Scottish economy was "getting better". If Mr McConnell were to look at the growth figures that were announced yesterday, he would see that Scotland's growth is at half the level of the previous quarter, at a third of the long-term trend rate and at a third of the UK rate. Manufacturing is in meltdown. The construction industry is in recession. Since 1995, we have created one job for every 175 that are created in the United Kingdom. Our employment rate is lower than that of the UK. A total of 51,000 fewer people are employed in Scotland than would be if we kept pace with the rest of the UK. The number of new deal starts is down. For the year to April, unemployment is up by 14,000 and employment is down by 21,000. If that is "getting better", I would not like to see what Mr McConnell might define as "getting worse".
I will take an intervention in one moment. The reality is that, until Labour politicians recognise the harsh reality of life in Scotland, we will not be able to focus on providing a solution.
I give way to Mrs Eadie, who came first.
Does Andrew Wilson care to say on which country the SNP would most like to model an independent Scotland? Is it Ireland, which has the highest inflation in the European Union and a high-tax regime?
Helen Eadie makes a super point. It is interesting that all the countries that she might have mentioned—Ireland, Sweden, Portugal, Denmark, Austria, Luxembourg and the Netherlands—are growing faster and have lower unemployment than Scotland. All those countries would be great models. The last model that we would want to copy is the present municipal model of Labour in Scotland.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thank you.
The reality is that we must focus on turning round our national performance. Incidentally, in another great move yesterday, Mr McConnell said:
"We are fully committed to the challenge of increasing the long-term growth rate of the Scottish economy."
Excellent. Now that, after a month of debating the matter, we are agreed, let us focus on how we get there.
I am willing to say—and I look for a quid pro quo from the other side—that the efforts on the supply side are good and are focused in the right direction. Some of the efforts to upskill Scotland are excellent, but what we must now do is complete the job. Devolution is half done; we must give ourselves all the powers to deliver.
Mr Fitzpatrick can take his seat.
The reality is that there is a hole in the economic bucket, out of which are flowing talent, wages, profit, business investment and our growth rate.
I suggest that Mr Fitzpatrick take his seat, otherwise he will get tired.
London and the south-east of England have a number of metropolitan advantages over Scotland. London is the centre of capital, of business and of power. One must go to London to access the sources of capital and the sources of business and marketing expertise. London is the centre of government and the centre of media. It is an international transport hub, which has the volume of wealthy consumers. London has all those things, yet we are locked into the same uniform fiscal regime, which locks in our disadvantages and, as a result, reduces our growth rate.
Britain has the most centralised tax regime in the developed western world. Britain collects more tax centrally than any other regime in the European Union or any other country in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. That must change. Even those members who are obsessed by the idea of being wedded to the British constitution should allow themselves to think about reforming the tax position. Unless Scotland's economy gets a tax advantage, it will not break out of the cycle of low growth. In recent weeks, Tom Farmer, who is one of Scotland's most successful business people, has agreed with that. Only this week, Jim McCall of Clyde Blowers, which is one of Scotland's most successful companies, also agreed with that position.
Scots want the Parliament to take on more control and responsibility. They recognise that our national performance is mediocre and they want it to change. The issue is about trusting ourselves. The Labour party, which has trusted the people of Scotland only with the limited powers that that party can control, wants to use those powers to address only the symptoms of the national decline that it has delivered. I ask: if roads, why not rail? If elderly care, why not pensions? If housing, why not housing benefit? If education, why not the tax powers to fund it?
In a speech in Cork in 1886, Charles Parnell said:
"No man has the right to fix the boundary to the march of a nation; no man has a right to say to his country ‘thus far shalt thou go and no further.' We have never attempted to fix the ne plus ultra to the progress of Ireland's nationhood, and we never shall."
The SNP does not want to limit Scotland's progress, but the Labour party does. I suggest that Scotland's potential is great. It is time to make our performance match it.
Following that speech, I suggest that Mr Wilson take a leaf out of Duncan Hamilton's book and consider going back to university to attend a postgraduate course in economics.
Every time there is a difficult decision to be made in the chamber and we are required to make up our minds about how we achieve the delivery of service, the SNP either sits on both sides of the argument or sinks into irrelevance by going back to a separatist agenda, which no responsible opinion in Scotland takes seriously and few voters care about. There is a debate in Scotland. As I said to Nicola Sturgeon, it is a debate about how we can deliver better public services. My party stands four-square behind that agenda. We stand, as we always have, for tackling inequality and promoting social justice.
To be fair to the Conservatives, they have a recognisable stance too: that self-interest can act as the driver of economic growth and social change. The expression of Conservative policy has been softened since 1980s Thatcherism, when ministers embraced the philosophy that greed is good and hell mend the consequences. If Iain Duncan Smith has had a genuine conversion—not on the road to Damascus, but while tramping the streets of Easterhouse—that is to be welcomed, but we expect a distinctively Conservative viewpoint to emerge out of that process.
The nationalists have no principles and no policies that unify them other than the shibboleth of constitutional change. John Swinney's comments at the end of his speech gave the game away. The real debate in Scotland is about public services and, in particular, better delivery and better targeting of public services to meet the needs and aspirations of the people of Scotland. Yet every time we have a debate about how to deliver improvements in public services, all the nationalists do is whinge. Nicola Sturgeon is the embodiment of the nationalist whinge. John Swinney has a wee bit to go to beat her.
We all agree on the need to improve public services, but does the member concede that we will never get the level of public services that we need unless we achieve a much higher level of economic growth than we are achieving at the moment in Scotland?
I am happy to talk about how we can improve economic growth, because it is an axiom of government that it needs to deliver improved economic growth to deliver improved public services. What do SNP members' promises contribute to the debate in this Parliament on how to do that? They are incredible promises, ranging from Mr Kenny MacAskill's early promise to spend £900 million on roads, to Mr John Swinney's promise to rebuild Scotland's infrastructure while rejecting the use of private sector capital and expertise, to some of the more bizarre schemes that people such as Mike Russell have come up with, expenditure on which can only be at the expense of mainstream provision. It is mainstream public services that people are interested in, that is, what happens to schools, hospitals and communities and how we can improve the housing stock. Those are the issues.
The nationalists come to us today and spend three hours not talking about those issues. They do not even tell us where they stand on major issues such as taxation. All they are talking about is the powers of the Parliament, when the real debate is how we can use the existing powers of the Parliament to improve the lives of the people of Scotland.
Will the member give way?
No, I want to carry on. Sorry about that.
The issue is that the party that is based on the politics of identity has an identity crisis. SNP members are confused about where they stand on key issues, and especially on how they would take forward the delivery of public services. Kenny Gibson and Nicola Sturgeon are in favour of the Glasgow housing stock transfer, while Sandra White and Dorothy-Grace Elder have been going around Glasgow hanging on to the coat tails of Tommy Sheridan.
In education, John Swinney's root-and-branch opposition to private finance would have meant no expenditure to overhaul secondary schools in Glasgow. The investment of £200 million to improve education in Scotland's most deprived council area would have been sacrificed, and sacrificed to what? Sacrificed to the internal critics in his own party, whom he needs to square to stay where he is. At the same time, SNP councils—where they exist—are scrambling to get to the front of the queue for the next bit of private finance. Hypocrisy and humbug: that is what we get from the SNP.
Nicola Sturgeon denounced the possible takeover of HCI, but the great promise that it holds is the speeding up of the modernisation of hospital services in Glasgow. The most important issue for my constituents is for them to get better health care, but Nicola says, "No way." The people of Clydebank will not forget—I will keep reminding them—the attitude of the SNP on that issue.
Will the member give way?
No.
The next step that those people take is to have Richard Lochhead arguing constantly, week after week, that the north-east is not getting enough health resources. Where does he want to take the resources from? Does he want to take them from my constituency? Does he want to take them from Lanarkshire? Does he want to take them from Ayrshire? Own up. There is a limited amount of money. How is it going to be distributed? More cannot be given in one place without taking it from somewhere else. That is the reality of the financial situation. The SNP is suffering a crisis of identity.
Will the member give way?
No, the member is over time.
The SNP needs to grow up and recognise that people want improved public services. To be blunt, the SNP is irrelevant.
We are getting to the nub of the dispute in this debate, which is between the mystical view of Andrew Wilson that there is no limit to the march of a nation and the emphasis on public services and the delivery of good things for Scotland, which is the hallmark of the other side of the argument.
This is an important debate and it deserves to be taken seriously. It is a serious matter when a major party of state tries to pull down the structures of the state and replace them with something else. Of course, there are times when that is necessary—when the state is so far out of touch with public aspirations that such change is needed—but that usually happens at the end of a war or other period of great upheaval. The onus of proof is on the SNP to make the case, at a time when its support in the most recent test of public opinion—the general election—was at 21 per cent of the vote.
The SNP case has two components: an emotional case, which Bill Aitken was right to refer to, which is that Scotland is a nation and should have all the attributes of a normal state; and an economic argument, which is that Scotland will be better off economically with independence. The emotional case is a perfectly reasonable one to make, but behind John Swinney's reasonableness it is fuelled by the claptrap of freedom songs, Bannockburn ceremonies, the SNP whinge and a strongly ambivalent attitude towards England. No doubt that is why Andrew Wilson has made the curious suggestion that people in Scotland should support England at football and why John Swinney has to look uncomfortable on the set of "Coronation Street".
Also essential to the emotional case is the arrogance common to all nationalist parties that says that all true Scots support independence and the cause of "Scotland's Party" and that everyone else is somewhat lacking in patriotism and public spirit. It is not the normal state for a nation state to be independent. Throughout Europe there are examples of historic nations that are parts of federal structures which work extremely well.
There is a clear difference between being one of 14 Länder in Germany, where no land dominates the rest, and our position in the United Kingdom, where we are faced by titanic England which, with 85 per cent of the votes in the House of Commons, can overrule at any stage the rest of the UK. There is no comparison between federalism in Germany and the unitary state in the UK.
That view arises if one takes the dividing point as being solely national identity, but it does not arise if the dividing point is the interests of various parts of the United Kingdom, including the outlying regions of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Another example is Spain, where the situation is different again.
The economic case for the SNP is subsidiary to the emotional case. Andrew Wilson kindly laid it out for us in his recent paper, "Economic Policy and Positioning". It is a revealing document, as Mike Rumbles demonstrated well. Most of it could have been written by Gordon Brown, such as the bits about sustainable investment and interest rates being higher in Europe. Some of it could be supported by many of us who have argued the case for going into the euro. But beyond that, I was hard pushed to identify anything new, beyond a recycling of the tired old "Scotland's oil" campaign.
The SNP says that it will agree a national target for improving Scotland's underlying rate of growth and that we need to attract and create new income and wealth and to grow the tax base to fund better services. Few people in the chamber would disagree with much of that, but the trick is how to do it. The SNP provides two suggestions. The first is that an SNP Government will invite the top 500 UK companies to open separate Scottish headquarters. Bully for them. That is going to happen. We can see the picture.
Will the member give way?
No, I need to make progress.
Secondly, the SNP says that it will reduce taxes in key growth areas. There might be a case for that, although it is far less relevant than the approach taken by Liberal Democrats and the Executive of trying to improve the skills base in Scotland. It is, however, part of the yawning chasm at the heart of SNP policy. Tax cuts in one area have to paid for by tax increases elsewhere, by cuts in public services or by growth.
The SNP argument about growth is somewhat circular. Growth needs independence and independence needs growth. It is an assertion, not something that has been proved. One magic wave of Andrew Wilson's wand and all will be well. Andrew Wilson said that Scotland is not in the political shape required for an informed and mature debate on those issues. I respectfully suggest to Andrew Wilson that it is the SNP that is not in shape for the debate. I further suggest that the SNP has clearly demonstrated this morning why there is no solid case for independence and why they should go back to the drawing board. I support the amendment.
There comes a time in politics when politicians have to stop looking back to the previous election and start looking forward to the one that is in front of them. They cross that rubicon and there is no demarcation line—it just occurs. It is clear that the 1999 election is behind us and that 2003 beckons. As in political life, so must it be in national life. We must move on.
As a nation we have moved on culturally. Our literature is no longer restricted to the culture of the kailyard, where time was frozen either in 1707 at best or perhaps later in 1745. Our writers have managed to recognise that we are a modern nation in the 21st century, that the kailyard is history. They have moved on to address the needs and wants of our country, warts and all. Numerous authors testify to that: not just Kelman and Welsh but others such as Alan Warner and Laura Hird. They recognise that Scotland has moved on. They have changed and adapted. We must move on.
Politically, we must recognise that Thatcherism is in the past and in the past it must remain. We had 18 hard years of vindictive rule. Nobody can take away from the fact that those years were dreadful, no matter what those on the Conservative benches might say. Margaret Thatcher is now muted and we must also be muted. The question is not "How did we get into this situation?" but "How are we going to get ourselves out of the mess we are in?" The tragedy is that the harking back to the past is not from the SNP but from the Labour party, which, five years and two elections on, puts the blame on one woman and her Government in London. We now recognise that, as we have moved on culturally, so we must move on politically. We have to address that.
We also have to recognise, as our writers have, that many of our nation's problems were not created by legislation brought in by Margaret Thatcher or any other Westminster Government. They are matters that we have to address. Our problems might have underlying social and economic causes, but the reason that we have a Buckfast culture or a diet of deep-fried Mars bars is not down to any legislation that has been imposed upon us by a Westminster Government. It is down to the failure of every one of us in the nation to address and change matters.
The Finns have done so. They have not just turned around their economy, they have turned around their health service, not by seeking assistance from Russia or Sweden—the Governments that ruled them historically—but by recognising that they would only make Finland a better place by addressing their problems themselves. We must do that.
As we move towards the election, we must also recognise that our powers are not able to deal with the problems that we face. Much has been said about our powers. I noticed what Phil Gallie was saying. Let us analyse matters. At present, we have a Parliament that is in charge of recycling but cannot address packaging. We go from the sublime to the ridiculous. We are in charge of road transport but not rail or aviation, no matter what Phil Gallie might have said.
A recent example is the city of Edinburgh. We are in charge of criminal justice. Imitation firearms are a cause of concern not only for those who live in the city but for the constabulary. When I made inquiries about what action is being taken, I was told that firearms are a reserved matter. How can we be in charge of criminal justice but not that, when 20 years as a criminal defence lawyer tell me that drugs and firearms are fundamental to the cause of serious crime? If we cannot address issues such as drugs and firearms, how can we claim to be in charge of criminal justice in Scotland?
We also worry—and we debated it in Parliament yesterday—about the problem of turning people on to the body politic. We have worries about voting turnout. All parties in the chamber regretted what happened in 2001. We worry about what has happened in France as it goes into an election, in terms of the effect on nations and what can happen if people do not vote.
As we go into the 2003 election, every one of us will be out canvassing for votes individually and collectively for our parties. What message will we give to people when we go to their doors and they ask, "What about tax?" and we say, "Sorry, that's a reserved matter." "What about social security? I'm bothered about that." "Oh, that's no for us either." "What about foreign affairs and immigration?" "No that either." They are going to say "What's the point of voting for you if you can't address the needs and wants of our nation?"
Will the member take an intervention?
Those are issues that people will be interested in voting on in the next election. It gives me no pleasure because the turnout will affect all of us and it fundamentally affects the democratic will of our society. We all lose if people fail to vote. That is why we have to stop the whingeing jock culture that Patricia Ferguson was right to comment on. It is up to us to address our problems, not to hark back and put the blame on the Tories, who have been out of power for five years.
Will the member give way?
I am winding up and do not have time to take an intervention.
David McLetchie—who is no longer in the chamber—went on about the benefits of what has been contributed to Scotland by Britain. I have no doubt that there has been a substantial contribution and we have played our part. However, we must consider what is so great about being British when one third of the people live in poverty, when one third of the children born in this land are facing a life of poverty and despair and when we have endemic crime, drunkenness and drug abuse in a section of the population. We must be ashamed of that.
Other nations discover oil. We are the only country in the world to discover oil and find ourselves getting poorer. When other countries discover oil, they can make the desert bloom. We discovered oil and, under the control of the unionist coalitions, we created an industrial desert in too many parts of our land.
It is time to stop whingeing, time to give the Parliament powers, and time to take control and change things for the better.
I am tempted to say "Here endeth the lesson" when we get such a rant from Mr MacAskill.
We need to talk about the policy that dare not speak its name—the SNP's policy on defence and foreign security. A debate about independence should be a grown-up debate. The first role and duty of a state is to secure itself. However, we do not hear that from the SNP; nor do we ever hear any concrete policies on devolved issues or reserved matters.
We should examine the issue. One of Mr Swinney's problems is that he recognises that the SNP's policy of withdrawal from NATO is against the wishes of the majority of people in the UK and Scotland. All we have to do is go to the ex-Soviet bloc and ask people there what they feel about NATO. Everyone in the countries that are queuing up to join the European Union says that membership of NATO is as important as—if not more important than—membership of the EU.
The SNP's lunatic members—and although their MSPs sit here in suits, we have all met on doorsteps those nutters who have been looking for jobs or something to latch on to—will say that they are all for a Marxist state and that NATO is evil. The reason that they give for not wanting to join NATO is that it is a nuclear alliance, but when the European defence force was proposed, the SNP could not wait to be a part of it, although at least two of its members are members of the nuclear alliance.
Will the member give way?
No, I will come to you in a minute.
A nation can be a semi-member of NATO without relinquishing nuclear control, as the French were for 50 years.
Will the member give way?
As we get closer to home, perhaps we should consider the conventional forces that the SNP has proposed in some of its past pamphlets. Not surprisingly, we do not see those pamphlets any more. We all remember Lieutenant Colonel Crawford, the SNP's military adviser and an SNP candidate in a number of elections. He said that, having got rid of Trident, a good way to guarantee our defence would be to switch to chemical weapons. We all remember that. That was a good one. The SNP's policy on human rights is "Let's have chemical weapons—much cheaper than Trident—and never mind the consequences for jobs".
The Trident issue is important. If you ask the SNP why it objects to Trident, it says that it wants to get rid of nuclear weapons. What would happen if Trident were moved to Newcastle? What would happen if the nuclear weapons that the English decided to keep, as would be their right, were moved just south of the border? Of course, the target area for a nuclear attack would be the same, and Scotland would still be affected if there were any accidents. Would the SNP go to war with the English if it wanted them to move their nuclear weapons further south? The SNP never thinks through such issues.
As for conventional forces, the SNP said in a previous pamphlet that it would keep all Scottish regiments, but would not have any real foreign policy to back them up. What would the nationalists do about our commitments to Northern Ireland? They are always silent on that point. Would an independent Scotland stop its soldiers taking up their peacekeeping role in Northern Ireland? Many Scottish regiments—indeed, many Scots—believe that it is important to get to the bottom of Northern Ireland's problems, but the SNP would probably just wash its hands of the matter and leave the country.
What would the SNP do about Scotland's peacekeeping duties? What soldiers would it send and where would it send them? If it had no command structure or ability to transport soldiers all over the world, how would the soldiers get to where they were going? Of course, they would probably catch a lift with an English aircraft carrier, but the SNP would not dare mention that.
As any military expert or general knows, the best course of action for a country that shares a similar culture and a common language and territory with another is to form a military alliance with that country. That ensures the country's security and allows both areas to take advantage of the other's assets. Guess what? We have already had such an alliance with England for years and years. Will we have to split ourselves apart so much that we will even have to take a different approach to defence? I believe that our approach up to now has worked to the common good.
Nicola Sturgeon visited Govan when defence contracts and jobs were under threat. The SNP says that it wants both independence and a smaller defence force—which of course would be the inevitable result of independence, because it would not be able to afford anything more than a blow-up boat. However, I guarantee that all the nationalists will be down at Govan, campaigning for aircraft carriers to be built in Scotland when the Ministry of Defence decides to whom it should award the contracts.
The SNP does not tell the people who work in Govan that, under its stewardship of an independent Scotland, they would not have a single job in its defence industry. [Interruption.]
Order.
In the end, it is all just hot air and false promises. Big boys' rules mean grown-up politics. An independent Scotland would need foreign and defence policies, which are matters that the SNP is not even prepared to discuss. I therefore support the amendment.
Of course, this is a matter for members, but I think that when speeches are longer than five minutes, it is reasonable to take at least one intervention.
Someone once said that socialism is the language of priorities. How true that is. The Labour party's priority both in the Scottish Parliament and at Westminster is to tackle social exclusion, and the efforts of the other parties must be judged against that priority's criteria. However, the nationalists' priorities are navel-gazing and arguing about our constitution. What will that do for social inclusion?
The same question must be asked about the SNP's policy of separation. The Labour party is not afraid of constitutional change where it will bring clear benefits to our people. Although devolution throughout the UK has long been Labour policy, it was based on clear, costed evidence of its benefits. What would separation do for the social inclusion agenda? Rewriting the constitution will do nothing in itself, and the risks of separation appear to far outweigh the unsubstantiated claims for it.
If the member is so concerned about social inclusion, why is child poverty rising? Would it not be more appropriate for Scotland to have all the available powers to deal with such issues?
We already have all the powers that we need in that regard, and are dealing with that problem.
The people of Scotland and Britain need stability to deal with such issues. After enduring Tory rule for 20 years—and I use the word "endured" advisedly—we cannot allow chaos to rule for another 20. The SNP's priority of separation would risk that stability. The SNP's pledge to race to separation as quickly as possible, and certainly within the term of the next Scottish Parliament, is irresponsible and misguided. I might have agreed if it had pledged to eradicate poverty as quickly as possible instead. Labour has made social inclusion its priority. We deliver free central heating for the elderly; separation would deliver only constitutional wrangling.
Will the member tell us why the level of child poverty is 30 per cent in Scotland but only 2 per cent in Sweden?
The UK and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been delivering more on this issue. Young single parents have come to my home and told me that they have received big awards through the working families tax credit. They have £200 a month extra in their pay packet. Gordon Brown's working families tax credit is doing something for families who receive no money any other way; it is tackling poverty and delivering for Scotland.
Colleagues, the combined strength of the UK economy, guided by Gordon Brown's sound management, has given Scotland far more resources to tackle social exclusion than it would otherwise have had. We have had the best budget in recent years, and it addresses all these issues. I am proud of what Gordon Brown is doing about world debt, poverty and the issues that affect real people.
Spending is rising to record levels. Arguments have raged over whether Scotland subsidises the rest of the UK or vice versa. The latest research suggests that Scotland would be left with a £4 billion deficit after separation, which would do immeasurable damage to Scotland's poorest communities. We would have to say goodbye to the nursery places for all three-year-olds that the Executive has created and to thousands of student places.
If Helen Eadie is so proud of Labour's record—and if she is particularly proud of the Fife chancellor and the Fife MSPs—will she explain why, the day after Gordon Brown's budget, the Labour party lost a seat to the SNP in the Thornton, Stenton and Finglassie council by-election?
I was party to that election. [Laughter.]
Order.
We fight bravely in Fife. Gordon Brown and my Fife colleagues bear no shame, despite what SNP members might say. Our policies speak for themselves. As for by-elections, we know all about the recent losses that the SNP has suffered. It is supposed to be at its peak, but what about the seat that it lost at the last general election? What about all the seats that it has lost in by-elections? What about Dumfries and Galloway? The SNP is not winning seats all across Scotland. We need only read the national newspapers to see that John Swinney and his colleagues are not riding in on a storm as they claim.
The people of Scotland are listening to Gordon Brown and are seeing how Labour is delivering on housing, central heating and child care across Scotland. While Labour eradicates child poverty, the SNP seeks to eradicate the very UK that gives us the economic strength to increase prosperity. The SNP can draw up as many wish lists of spending on social inclusion as it wants; however, it will first have to prove that separation would somehow give us more, not fewer, resources.
Government needs to be free of distractions to get on with the job of tackling social exclusion. Separation would be the biggest distraction going, and would create a national headache that no one who remained in Scotland would be free of. For starters, what would happen to North sea oil, the national insurance fund and rail links between Scotland and England?
This Parliament has the powers to tackle social exclusion. Labour has already used them to employ more doctors and nurses and to begin the biggest hospital building programme in the history of the NHS. Voters know that and want a Government that will get on with the job, which is perhaps why SNP support fell at the last election and Labour support increased. The SNP should stop whingeing and instead come up with constructive proposals that will help end social exclusion in Scotland as a priority.
I thought that it was rather strange that Ben Wallace's speech—which, given his posture, seemed to be directed solely towards Bristow Muldoon—dismissed the SNP's arguments for increased powers for the Parliament. It was especially ironic given that Ben Wallace will be leaving this Parliament at the next election to try to get a Westminster seat, because he thinks that all the big, important matters are decided down at Westminster.
I want to deal with the dependency culture that we have in Scotland and on which Labour power in Scotland depends to a great extent. Scottish Labour politicians rely on depressing the ambitions of the Scottish people. Clearly, they had to do that for the 18 years when they were in Opposition, given their total failure in that position, but they continue to do so as they struggle to make up excuses for whatever policies are foisted on them by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown from south of the Border.
Nowhere was that dependency more obvious than in the reaction of Labour back benchers to the recent budget. In 2003-04, Scotland will send to the Treasury £1.1 billion in extra taxation. That is made up of about £400 million that is our share of the 10 per cent windfall levy on oil companies and just under £700 million from national insurance increases and the freeze on the taxable allowances on personal taxation. That is something that did not get much attention in the budget—I wonder why. In return, our increased share of expenditure will be £344 million. Let us work out the arithmetic. We send £1.1 billion down and get £344 million back, which amounts to a net outflow to London of £750 million extra as a result of the budget. Yet Labour back benchers were salivating at the budget. They were ecstatic at the prospect of how much of our own money Gordon Brown would be giving us back, but we are being done to the tune of an extra £750 million.
Andrew Wilson has argued the case for taxation to be controlled in Scotland. Let us look at current business taxation. Gordon Brown spent a large part of his speech telling us all the great things that he would do for small businesses, always omitting to tell us, of course, that 75 per cent of small businesses in Scotland would not benefit one whit because they are unincorporated businesses. Such businesses will suffer from the national insurance contribution increases, but they will get none of the small business benefits that Gordon Brown was going on about and none of the research and development credits.
I cannot believe Labour's poverty of ambition. Even with devolution, we could have some kind of fiscal autonomy that would make a difference for businesses in Scotland and therefore for the whole economy and everyone else in the country. Surely the whole spirit of devolution is divergence. Goodness knows how many times I heard Brian Wilson say in the House of Commons that devolution was about doing things differently. Divergence can take account of the different needs, aspirations and philosophy that we have in Scotland, but what do we have instead? We have a uniform taxation system and a spending system that is governed by the Barnett formula, which is explicitly designed to produce convergence on expenditure per head of population. It is nonsense. In devolution, we have a government structure that is, apparently, designed to foster divergence, but we have a taxation and spending system that is designed to foster convergence. Which do people want?
Will Alasdair Morgan give way?
Not at this stage.
The arrangement that I have described assumes that public spending needs are identical in Scotland and south of the border, but we know that they are not. It assumes that service delivery costs are identical in Scotland and south of the border, but they are not. It also assumes that public choice about the role and extent of public services in Scotland is the same as it is south of the border, but it is not.
It is interesting to note that the coalition partners support fiscal independence. Which Malcolm Bruce was it, I wonder—surely not the MP for Gordon—who said on 7 April 2000:
"The Scottish Parliament itself will not be able to meet the aspirations of the Scottish people … until it has control over their own revenues"?
We know that Brian Monteith supports fiscal autonomy, because he said in The Herald the previous year:
"I think the answer lies in us considering full fiscal freedom for the Scottish Parliament".
There was also support from Mr Monteith's Westminster colleague, David Davies MP, who was then chairman of the Public Accounts Committee but has since moved on to higher things and is now chairman of the Tory party. He said:
"The best plan would be to place certain taxes under the control of the Scottish Parliament. Prime candidates would be income tax, council tax … I would add a share of UK customs and somewhere between 66 and 99% of revenue from North sea oil."
Well, of course, we say thank you very much to the Tory party for that.
Even the Scottish Constitutional Convention, which Patricia Ferguson mentioned earlier, said in its document, "Towards a Scottish Parliament", that the current block-grant method of funding
"would be a minimalist approach which is neither radical in concept nor conducive to accountability as it would effectively mean that the Parliament would be more accountable to Westminster than the Scottish people".
That says it all.
The onus is on the unionists to explain why we should not be independent, when every other country of Scotland's size in Europe is independent. Why is independence the norm? Why should not we be independent and enjoy the same benefits that those countries enjoy?
In the interests of getting in as many members as possible, I would be grateful if the remaining speakers could confine their remarks to four minutes.
It is interesting that, rather than talk about the direction of our economy or the future of our public services, the SNP has opted to occupy three hours of parliamentary time to talk independence. John Swinney's motion makes passing reference to public services and the economy, but it is clear to everybody that those are not the SNP's priorities.
We must ask why the SNP has called this debate today. At a time of global instability and uncertainty, what makes independence such a big priority for the SNP? I shall tell members what I think today's debate is really about. Members on the nationalist benches probably will not like this, but it seems to me that the debate is more about boosting the flagging support for John Swinney on his own party benches than it is about debating the real issues affecting Scotland today. John Swinney, the Rev I M Jolly of Scottish politics, whinges constantly about Scots being a pack of whingers. Rather than tackling the problems that are faced by ordinary families, the SNP is talking independence today because that is the only issue that can unite its battling left-wing and right-wing factions.
Will Rhona Brankin give way?
I will give way to Andrew Wilson when I get on to talking about the economy, because it will be quite interesting to debate that matter with him, but I will carry on just now.
I want, in particular, to talk about the empty vessel that is SNP economic policy. The SNP claims that, under independence, surplus oil revenues would be used to establish a North sea oil fund—in spite of the fact that at no time in the past decade has North sea oil revenue been greater than Scotland's borrowing requirements. It is time for the SNP to face the fact that there is no excess revenue for an oil fund.
Is not it time that Rhona Brankin raised her game? She should stop personalising serious constitutional arguments and answer this question. The Labour party initiated devolution debates in the House of Commons during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, because that constitutional mechanism was required to get Scottish solutions to Scottish problems. Why was it perfectly right for the Labour party to do that, whereas we are denigrated for doing precisely the same thing to extend Scottish solutions to Scottish problems?
Many of us fought for many years to achieve a Scottish Parliament, but the SNP was never part of that fight and I deprecate that. We now have Scottish solutions to Scottish problems. We must now seek to develop that.
Will Rhona Brankin give way?
I want to get on with my speech.
The SNP's 1997 manifesto said that Scotland's share of the UK debt burden was £4 billion. Interestingly, the SNP made no such claim in its 1999 manifesto. I call on the SNP to come clean and acknowledge that Scotland has a fiscal deficit that punches a massive hole in the SNP's independence wish list. Let us look at the SNP's plans for public service trusts in an independent Scotland. When we look behind Andrew Wilson's smoke and mirrors, we see the harsh reality that the plan simply would not work. An SNP Administration in an independent Scotland would have to borrow heavily to fund its spending plans and would, as a consequence, burden future generations with massive debt repayments.
What do we hear about the cost of separation? How much will it cost to have a separate army, navy and air force, not to mention the diplomatic missions that will be set up across the globe? How much would the SNP pay for all those embassies? I am sorry that the SNP seems to be more interested in building embassies in Ecuador and consulates in Cameroon than it is in investing in Scotland's schools and hospitals.
Let us contrast that warped sense of priorities with Wendy Alexander's plans for Scotland's economy under our Labour-led Executive. Only yesterday, she set out the strategy for economic growth. That strategy is important, as we face a crucial choice between building our own skills-led economy or remaining reliant on the failed strategy of competing with eastern Europe and Asia to attract inward investment.
Will the member give way?
The member is closing and will not give way. She has spoken for four and a half minutes.
That is where the SNP's new policy of tax cuts for business falls down. The SNP is convinced that copying the 1980s Irish model and making Scotland a low-tax, low-labour location would cure the ills of the Scottish economy, but it would not. The way ahead is through a modern economy that is built on skills. Scotland should not be a low-wage location that offers short-term, quick-fix sweeteners to potential investors.
Andrew Wilson should get out into the real world and speak to business people. I speak to many business people and none of them sings the praises of independence. On the contrary, they tell me that they fear that separation will create instability and uncertainty for businesses, especially those for which the English market is particularly important.
I ask members to reject the self-indulgent political posturing in the SNP's motion. We should get back to the real work of delivering a modern, competitive and sustainable economy for Scotland.
I expected to hear a riveting, keynote and devastatingly brilliant speech from Mr Swinney on why we should become independent, but I was disappointed by his contribution. He seemed to focus on the phrase
"smarter use of the existing powers".
That is saying nothing more than that we should hold the current lot accountable in the chamber, which is what we constantly try to do.
I want to pick up on some points that Mr Swinney made. He had the usual wallop at nuclear power. Everybody understands that nuclear power contributes a huge percentage of the power that we need to run our economy.
Will the member give way?
In a moment.
We welcome the development of renewable energy, but it will not be here in time. The SNP should accept that nuclear power is not necessarily bad. The issue concerns new technology. Like nuclear bombs, nuclear power is just a bandwagon. I do not like nuclear bombs, but this is about keeping peace.
There is a good connection between nuclear generation and nuclear power through the bomb. Does the member accept the figures in a publication by the Electricity Association, which says that nuclear power makes up only 28 per cent of the registered capacity in Scotland? In 2010, when the next power station runs out at Hunterston, unless the Executive ups the ante in respect of targets that are set for renewables, the door will be opened to new nuclear power in Scotland. That is the real problem that we face.
In other words, the member agrees with what I said. We need nuclear power to fuel our economy in the shorter term.
Patricia Ferguson spoke about devolution delivering. There has not been devolution from the Labour party. Everything is centrally controlled. We are over-governed and over-regulated, which is a turn-off for business. The latest fiasco, which hit the press today, concerns problems with the e-tourism project. The area tourist boards are being told that if they do not sign up, they will not get their money. Such central control is damaging.
The Labour benches are the biggest threat to devolution. If Labour members acted as they should in respect of devolution, we might move on to consider the drivers of our economy.
Will the member give way?
Not just now.
Let us consider some things that the Government claims are being delivered through devolution. I do not have to say anything more about health. Everybody is waiting for everything. More money is not the solution. Power should be decentralised to people to enable them to spend and focus on the services that are best delivered locally. I do not see that being done. If anything, Mr Swinney should have talked about that, but he did not.
The rural economy is in great difficulty. Could the SNP in an independent Scotland turn around the rural economy overnight? I do not think so; there would be no chance of that. On education, the SNP has said nothing about how it would revitalise the school building programme and give teachers time to upgrade the quality and standard of teaching. We heard nothing about that. The list goes on and on.
The truth is that there has to be an acceptance in economic debates that, without wealth creation, no social spend is available. Only the Conservatives accept that. There have been glimmers from Andrew Wilson of odd thoughts here and there. They are not terribly cohesive, although no doubt they will be in due course. Where will the money come from? This is the first time that the SNP has not told the chamber that oil will pay for everything. Where will the money come from if everything is put into public control, private capital is not invested and people do not take risks to generate the wealth that we need to go forward?
I realise that time is tight. The SNP should come up clearly and quickly with a properly spelt-out alternative on how it would generate the economy. It should not whinge on. What tools would it give? The SNP talks a lot about freedom. What freedom will there be for those who will invest and create the wealth and jobs that will provide all the good things that Scotland wants? A negative approach and whingeing about the UK not delivering in Scotland are nonsense. The Barnett formula was designed for one purpose—to assist Scotland when its economy was down. We need to hear from the SNP and the Labour party about maximising the additional public funding that is available through the Barnett formula. They should not waste that opportunity and should get stuck in.
I want to tackle a real issue—the problem of the constriction of the Scotland Act 1998 on our justice system. It should be borne in mind that the justice system is one of the few areas of jurisdiction that remained intact, despite the shabby union of the Parliaments.
Of course, certain areas in an independent nation will remain a matter of consensus and sometimes binding agreement between fellow independent nations if there is mutually beneficial concern—for example, environment laws and employment laws.
To demonstrate the anomalies of the Scotland Act 1998, I want to speak about the reserved matter of the benefits system. Incidentally, in recent evidence to the Justice 1 Committee, the Prison Service Union disclosed that 60 per cent of prison officers at Kilmarnock prison are on state benefits, so taxpayers subsidise the commercial profits of Premier Prisons Ltd.
There is the recent and appalling example of new Labour's threat to remove child benefit from those whose offspring commit offences. The announcement was extraordinary. If Margaret Thatcher had made it, the press and those on the Labour benches would have yelled. Where are the Liberal Democrats on the issue? Who knows? Who cares? The suggestion was outrageous and demonstrated how far new Labour has moved to the right—even beyond Mrs Thatcher.
When young people offend, a multitude of social and deprivational problems are often in the background. When I was a teacher, I recall an eight-year-old child in the playground who was not only born to fail, but born to offend. Everyone knew that his family gave him no chance. The last thing that his family needed, with seven children, was the removal of its benefits. The Parliament has no power over that.
Will the member give way?
No. I do not want to hear the member.
People in poverty or on the edge of poverty should not have such a threat hanging over their heads. The income of such people is a million miles away from ministerial salaries. However, if the proposal were to become law, the Parliament could do nothing about it, although I suspect that the Parliament and Scotland would not want any truck with it.
The threat to remove housing benefit from persistently disruptive neighbours is another example. The idea sounds neat and good, so why not? I represented somebody who had a terrible neighbour. In the pleadings, we found out that the neighbour had a mental disorder, but was not so badly mentally disabled as to be sectioned. I, and the lawyer who acted for her, had to manage the situation carefully. Under the proposals, who would make a distinction for her? Her housing benefits might be removed, although she would have no control over what she was doing. The proposals are outrageous, but the Parliament could do nothing about them if they became law down south.
Those are two small but potent examples of why we need control of the benefits system in Scotland. The Parliament should be able to reflect a just and socially caring Scotland, which is more than 300 miles away from the Blair London body politic and its drive to foist right-wing politics on a left-of-centre Scotland.
It will come as no surprise that I express pride in belonging to a party that faces up to the responsibility of power and shares it with our coalition partners to deliver, for the people of Scotland, greater access to all levels of education, free personal care, and a massive investment in housing that goes directly to some of the most marginalised people in Scotland.
We do not want to be complacent, because there is still much to do. We contrast our record—of parties working together to make the Parliament a success that delivers—with the failure of the SNP's basic mission.
Will the member give way?
No, thank you.
The SNP has failed to progress the case for independence. The SNP has also failed as a parliamentary group, because it promised to make the Parliament a success but takes every opportunity to talk the Parliament down. The SNP has a failed leader who does not and cannot stand up to his detractors on the SNP benches; nor can he stand up for his loyal supporters who are being picked off every weekend and whose political careers are being ended. He says nothing in their defence. He gives no word of public sympathy and no word of condemnation when the cliques end the careers of our colleagues in the Parliament.
The SNP is aware of its failure and realises that the people of Scotland reject anti-English rhetoric and the politics of grievance. Bulldog Wilson is not present, but the sight of him in an England top at the world cup will not convince people that the SNP has changed—as we have heard this morning, it has not. No communication strategy, however sophisticated, will convince people that the SNP has changed or seeks to make the devolved settlement a success.
The SNP must put aside the constitutional arguments and the excuse that we cannot achieve anything unless we achieve independence. The SNP must work to make the Parliament a success. That is the only way in which it will gain the respect of the Scottish people and deliver for them.
I will give Alex Neil two minutes, if he can use them.
It is a great pity that those on the Labour benches could not rise to the occasion, because what we are talking about is the future of Scotland and the future of our people.
I want to concentrate my remarks on the European dimension, which has been barely mentioned by the unionist parties. Although we went into the union with the United Kingdom, we must recognise that we are all now part of a much bigger union—the European Union.
Ten, 20, or 30 years ago, many of the major decisions on economics, agriculture, fishing and trade, and on matters such as education, employment law and social security law were made in London. Perhaps in those days it made sense for us to go to London. However, it is now a fact of life that 60 per cent of the legislation that goes through Westminster emanates from the European Union through the European Commission or the Council of Ministers.
This nation of Scotland must reassess its position in the context of the European Union and have no concept of separatism, no barriers to trade, and no concept of barriers to the movement of people or capital within the European Union, which currently has 15 members but will soon have 27.
What should Scotland's position be? Should we be a provincial Parliament with limited power that can do only small things for our people? If not, should we be like the Dáil, the Parliament in Brussels, the Parliament in Lisbon, and the Parliament in Vienna and be able to do things for our people? There is no reserved power at Westminster under schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 that covers any subject in which Westminster's governance of Scotland would be superior in any way to Scottish governance of Scotland through an independent Parliament.
The other aspect of independence is that we would be at the top table, not only arguing for our self-interest, but making a positive contribution to the development of Europe and the European Union. The members on the unionist benches must waken up, lift their eyes, and raise their horizons because, sooner or later, Scotland will rise and be a nation again.
It would not have been the debate that it has been if we had not had that wee burst at the end. My apologies to other members who hoped that they might squeeze in at the tail-end. It is not possible to call any more members.
We move to the closing speeches. I invite Pauline McNeill to close for the Labour party. She has six minutes.
I hope that the SNP feels a lot better this morning, having had three hours in which to complain. That is proof of the pudding.
When will the penny for Scotland drop for the SNP that the people have rejected, in successive elections, the different constitutional arrangement of independence? I hope that the SNP will accept that message. I challenge the SNP to say whether, if it loses the 2003 elections, it will accept once and for all that Scots are content with the constitutional arrangement. I invite any SNP member to answer that challenge.
Will the member give way?
Is Gil Paterson's intervention in response to my challenge? I ask him to say yes or no to my question of whether the SNP, if it loses the 2003 election, will accept that Scots are content with the constitutional arrangement.
The Labour party spent 18 years taking on the Tories. Did the Labour party accept every election that the Tories won?
I did not expect Mr Paterson or any SNP member to rise to my challenge.
It is a fact that the SNP was not party to the Scottish Constitutional Convention that established the blueprint for devolution. Many Scots value the Parliament's powers and structure, including the committee system. Even the Tories and the Scottish Socialist Party, whose ideas we oppose, accept the reality of the constitutional settlement.
John Swinney said that he wants the best that Scotland can be. [Interruption.]
Order on the back benches.
I'll haud the jaickets.
The member who is holding the floor is entitled to speak without members having a separate debate across the back benches.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
John Swinney said that he wants the best that Scotland can be. Who would not want that? The question is who and what can deliver that Scotland. Can it be done by an independent Scotland that is separate from our long-standing partners in the UK and dependent on a volatile commodity? Or can it be done by a devolved Parliament that has powers over public services, health, education, transport and crime within a stable UK framework, which gets the best from two Parliaments?
Ben Wallace was right to draw out the contradictions. Where would we be if we were not within a UK framework when it comes to shipbuilding in Scotland? We would not have been able to secure the orders in Scotstoun and Govan if Scotland were independent.
I have no doubt, Mr Paterson, that in 2003 the Scottish people will reward those parties that make the devolution settlement work. We have the lowest levels of inflation and the lowest levels of unemployment ever. In my constituency of Glasgow Kelvin, 3,550 workers have benefited from the minimum wage and unemployment is down by 11 per cent. The people like and want stability and that is what they have.
John Swinney made the biggest mistake of all by claiming that the SNP will not blame others for failure and that the nationalists will stop whingeing. I do not believe that the members who sit behind Mr Swinney—the 35 members and 30 spokespersons—will stop using Parliament's resources to complain.
Alasdair Morgan referred to Ben Wallace's choice of going to another Parliament. Mr Morgan's previous party leader made that choice. There is a contradiction for the SNP in that fact.
The SNP complains even when Labour delivers the biggest ever investment in the NHS. Even on the day that Parliament voted for free personal care, the SNP could not join in with the clapping. I remember that well.
As Patricia Ferguson outlined earlier, devolution has delivered. I will refer to some of our flagship policies. First, there is land reform, which is a policy that should not be underestimated; its impact on rural communities will be lasting because the Land Reform (Scotland) Bill boldly proposes a dramatic change to Scottish property rights that favours rural communities and their development. There will be statutory confirmation of existing rights of access, which is fundamental to achieving a fair Scotland. If we had waited for the SNP to deliver land reform through independence, land reform would never have happened.
The Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000, which is an important piece of legislation that affects 10,000 Scots, is the result of devolution delivering. I have had numerous letters from pensioners who are delighted with the installation of central heating in Glasgow tenements because they have never had any permanent form of heating. From this October, free bus travel for pensioners, for which many Labour members have campaigned, will be implemented. This Parliament will foot the bill for that important policy.
Will the member give way?
No.
The challenge of reforming the NHS is not an easy one. The issue is not all about cash; it is also about ideas and managing, and Labour is making the difference. The economics of independence are a dream compared with the reality of the investment that Labour has put in place through its budget last week.
Nicola Sturgeon appeared to argue for a separate pay review for Scottish nurses. I represented the nursing profession for more than 10 years and I can tell her that we always argued against a separate pay structure, performance-related pay and English nurses being paid more than Scottish nurses, because that would lead to a divided work force and a divided NHS.
Will the member give way?
No. The member is in her last minute.
We have £20 billion or so each year to spend in Scotland. Thanks to the stability of the UK economy, as created by our Labour Chancellor, Gordon Brown, Scotland has been allocated additional sums of money to invest in public services. Literally millions of pounds, although the figure is, as yet, uncommitted, have been allocated to the goal of fixing Scotland's railways and Waverley station, which needs more platforms so we can have more trains on the tracks.
Kenny MacAskill asked what we are going to tell people on the doorsteps if we cannot talk about tax because it is reserved. I point out to him that that is what we have been saying on people's doorsteps for many years and they have still rejected independence. We will continue to say that on the doorsteps.
I urge the SNP to accept the true will of the Scottish people, which is to have a devolved Scotland within the UK. I ask the SNP to join in the real debate, which is about improving schools, hospitals, criminal justice, social justice and our railways. It is not too late to join in.
I do not fault the SNP for bringing a motion on independence to the chamber, because independence is the reason for the party's existence and is the principle that it stands behind. I believe that if everyone in the chamber—particularly the Liberal Democrats—stood by the principles that they talked about in election campaigns, politicians would perhaps be viewed in a better light. That said, I emphasise that I do not agree with the nationalists' motion. I am a staunch unionist and see the benefits of the union. However, it is fair that we should occasionally debate the issue of independence.
The former Scottish Office Tory minister, Allan Stewart, said that independence in Europe was far preferable to unionists than devolution. Does Phil Gallie agree?
I cannot say that I have always agreed with everything that Allan Stewart has said, although he is a good friend and colleague. I would go further and say that I would not want to identify myself too closely with anything to do with Europe, but that is another argument.
The Conservatives accept that, in the past, we argued against the establishment of the Scottish Parliament—we make no apologies for having done so. As Gil Paterson pointed out during Pauline McNeill's speech, we fought against it for the 18 years that we were in Government because we felt that it was unnecessary and would not bring about benefits. We thought that it would produce bureaucracy, add to the cost of running Scotland and take money away from services. To an extent, we have been proved right on those issues—witness the fact that the number of ministers that it takes to run Scotland has risen from five to 20. I do not believe that that is a good deal.
To Mike Rumbles, I say once again that we seek efficiency from the Scottish Parliament in the running of Scotland's affairs. We argued that devolution would be a threat to Scotland's block grant. Our funding benefits from our partnership in the union. The funding arrangement is based not on a handout approach but on the fact that Scotland's geography and spread of population mean that it takes more money to run the affairs of Scotland than it takes to run those of the rest of the UK. When you are in a partnership, you have to accept that such an arrangement is part of the deal.
The Scottish Parliament is here and the Scottish Conservatives' view is that, within the present constitution, under the umbrella of Westminster, and with the responsibilities that the Scottish Parliament has, we will do all that we possibly can to make the Parliament work.
Does Phil Gallie agree with David Davis, his UK party chairman, that the Scottish Parliament should have much greater power over many areas of taxation?
No. One of the reasons why I did not give my support to the campaign of David Davis, who is a friend of mine and whose views I respect, is that I think that he went too far on that issue and on the issue of setting up English regional Parliaments. I disagree with David Davis. It is right that members of parties are able to have differences. There is no problem with that at all.
We send parliamentarians to Westminster to look after our affairs and we should be proud of the fact that, in the previous Conservative Administration and in the Labour Administration, Scottish ministers have had more than their rightful share of places in the Westminster Cabinet. That means that MPs from Scotland have a fantastic say in the major affairs to which many SNP members referred.
Will Mr Gallie answer the question that David McLetchie refused to answer? If the referendum were held again, would he vote yes, yes?
I do not think that there is any chance that such a referendum will be held.
One of the reasons for my decision to vote against the SNP's motion is that I think that the nationalists are presenting their proposals too early. We need to give people in Scotland confidence in the Scottish Parliament. Perhaps because of the actions of the Scottish Executive or because of some of the issues that the Parliament chooses to debate, there is not a great deal of respect outside the chamber for what goes on here. Every member should be concerned about that. That is the issue that we should address, instead of worrying about further change and more responsibilities.
John Swinney talked about doing better in relation to education and health. He is right. We should be talking about that, not about expanding our responsibilities, at least until we can manage our present responsibilities properly. That is a fundamental point.
John Swinney talked about Ireland. Ireland was fortunate. When it joined the EU, its finances were such that it had to be assisted considerably from the European kitty, into which the UK made a net input while most other nations took money out. That was the foundation of Ireland's success. Now, the interest rate that has been set for the EU does not suit the Irish economy, and that is causing problems. We should think about that when we consider issues relating to Europe. I cannot understand why SNP members feel that we must have independence from Westminster but go hell-bent into Europe. The constraints that they complain about in relation to Westminster would be placed on them by Brussels. That is a weakness in the SNP's argument in the eyes of the electorate.
Patricia Ferguson talked about delivery. John Swinney referred to a lessening of delivery in areas such as health and roads, which have become a massive problem. There are issues to do with how budgets are spent and how funding is allocated to local authorities. Those are the issues that people in Scotland want to see addressed. I was pleased with John Swinney's suggestion that the Conservatives looked after those issues much better in Westminster than Labour and the Liberals are doing now in the Scottish Executive.
We in the Conservatives will not close our eyes to a change in the responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament in the future. If we see a power that could come from Westminster to the Parliament to allow the Scottish Parliament to perform better, we will not simply put our heads in the sand and say no. We will consider the options, talk to our Westminster colleagues and perhaps, somewhere along the line, go along with a change. However, that change will be limited and it will have to be proved to be of benefit to Scotland.
It is difficult to sum up such a wide-ranging debate, which has been interesting in parts. In my view, it is unnecessary and wholly inappropriate to talk about reopening the devolution settlement. In September 1997, the Scottish people endorsed by an overwhelming majority the detailed plans for devolution, which were closely modelled on the proposals drawn up by the Scottish Constitutional Convention over several years. Those proposals represented strong consensus across the public, political and civic spectrum in Scotland.
It is no exaggeration to say that devolution is the biggest constitutional change in Scotland for 300 years. It is an idea whose time had come and the settlement is working. Indeed, it is remarkable how quickly and smoothly our fledgling institutions have put down strong roots—perhaps to the disappointment of those who did not wish them well in the first place.
Of course, we have not got everything right first time, but no one should underestimate the scale of what has been achieved. The devolution settlement works and it is here to stay. The partnership between Labour and the Liberal Democrats has provided a platform for stable and effective government and an ambitious and radical legislative programme. Across the spectrum of issues that matter to the Scottish people, the Executive is developing and implementing distinctive policies, tailored to the needs of the people.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the minister said that there is no need to reopen the devolution settlement. Is he saying that federalism is dead as far as the Liberal Democrats are concerned? Look at the faces of his Liberal Democrat colleagues. Have the Liberal Democrats ditched federalism, which was one of the core principles of the party's policy? Does the minister think that no further constitutional change is possible?
I said that it was inappropriate to reopen the devolution settlement at this stage. Of course there can be constitutional developments in the future—constitutional developments are happening all the time. There is nothing—
Will the member give way?
Will the member give way?
No. I must move on. There is no question but that the Parliament is making a real difference. Let me give members a few examples. We are improving the educational opportunity for our children by lowering class sizes for our youngest pupils and delivering free nursery places for all four-year-olds and three-year-olds whose parents want such places. We have introduced the McCrone settlement for teachers. Members, including Mike Rumbles, have mentioned the fact that we have been making homes warmer for the elderly and needy through the central heating initiative. Duncan McNeil mentioned the investments that we have made in housing. We have trebled the number of one-stop clinics that provide health care in communities and we have increased the number of nurses in training. Robert Brown emphasised the on-going importance of increasing skills in our economy. We have increased the number of front-line junior doctors in our hospitals and have reduced their working hours. Patricia Ferguson mentioned the major development of free personal care.
Devolution is not an end in itself, but a means of improving the lives of the people of Scotland. That is the challenge that we have embarked upon and that is our overriding goal. We set out our stall in the partnership agreement and the programme for government. Those committed us to an ambitious—unprecedented in Scottish terms—programme of legislation to deliver clear objectives.
First and foremost, those objectives included delivering modern, cost-effective public services that are aimed in particular at making improvements in health, education, crime, transport and jobs. They also included bringing about democratic renewal of the political process according to the principles of openness, accessibility and accountability that underpinned the consultative steering group's work.
I am a bit confused, because in Scotland, the Liberals seem heavily in favour of private finance initiatives, yet in England, they oppose PFIs.
I am sorry about the member's self-induced confusion. We take a practical approach to the implementation of PFI/PPP.
The Executive's objectives have included fostering a modern, competitive economy by encouraging a culture of enterprise and a knowledge-driven economy. We want to build a Parliament that speaks for the whole of Scotland, works for all the people of Scotland and commands support from every corner of Scotland, from Shetland to the Borders. Perhaps most important, the Executive's objective is to promote social justice and tackle social exclusion in all its insidious forms.
Those are the tasks that we have set ourselves. We can show solid, tangible progress. Since July 1999, the Parliament has passed 35 Executive bills across the range of devolved matters. Some of them have been mentioned. They include the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000, which I am proud to have been involved with when I served on the Justice and Home Affairs Committee. Other pieces of legislation include the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Act 2002, the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill—which was supported by all members bar the Tories—and the Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc (Scotland) Act 2000, to mention but four.
That legislation has introduced major reforms in health and education and has modernised public services. Legislation has dealt with housing and criminal justice and has abolished student fees. We should not forget that, before devolution, we would have been lucky to have parliamentary time for more than one or two bills a year. The advent of the Scottish Parliament has allowed us to do much more, and the benefits of that are beginning to be felt. No member should underestimate the achievements.
The world has moved on, but the SNP is stuck in the same old groove. As many members have said, although the overwhelming majority of Scots vote at election after election for parties that reject independence, the SNP continues to pretend that independence is somehow the answer to every problem. SNP members do not answer hard questions. As Bill Aitken said, whenever a problem arises, the SNP says that it would throw money at it, but it cannot say how it would raise that money.
The SNP has said nothing about the costs and consequences of dismantling common machinery such as the system for pensions and benefits, or about the consequences for our armed forces and defence industries. I must agree with some—only some—of Ben Wallace's comments.
Bruce Crawford asked about genetically modified crops. He referred to the Scotland Act 1998 (Agency Arrangements) (Specification) (No 2) Order 2002, which was made under section 93 of the Scotland Act 1998 and returns devolved powers on GM crops. The order proposes to authorise specialist scientists in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to undertake administrative functions on our behalf. The order does not return responsibility for decisions about GM crops to Whitehall. The Minister for Environment and Rural Development will appear before the Transport and the Environment Committee on 8 May to argue forcefully against annulment of the order.
Does the minister agree that the order will transfer the functions under regulation 14 of the Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) Regulations 1992, which means that the UK Government will be able to
"examine an application for a consent to release genetically modified organisms for its conformity with the requirements"
of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the 1992 regulations and to
"evaluate the risks posed by the proposed release"?
By handing responsibility over to the UK Government, Ross Finnie will become simply a rubber-stamping minister.
I do not agree in the slightest. The minister will—
That is what the regulations say. Has Euan Robson read them?
Order.
Ross Finnie will explain the position to the Transport and the Environment Committee. It is nonsense to suggest that anything other than GMO releases in Scotland will not remain the responsibility of Scottish ministers.
In 1997, the people of Scotland confirmed overwhelmingly that they wanted devolution and that they wanted the Scottish Executive and the Parliament to work closely and effectively in co-operation with the Westminster Parliament and the UK Government. That is precisely the situation that we have and it is working for the benefit of the Scottish people. We have developed and are delivering distinctive policies on education, health, jobs and enterprise and on promoting social inclusion, open government and equal opportunities.
The devolution settlement is working well. We have been given wide powers and we are making full use of them in the Parliament to deliver the policies set out in the programme for government.
What a dire performance the minister gave in his closing speech. At least the Tories have an argument—I do not agree with it, but at least their opposition to independence is grounded in strongly held belief. I detected a possible movement in both David McLetchie's opening remarks and Phil Gallie's closing speech. That is welcome. However, what has been most fascinating this morning is that—it is fair to say this—the Labour leadership has bottled the debate. Frankly, the quality of the Labour and Liberal Democrat speeches tells us why they have bottled it; it is because they have nothing to say.
The member should consider the point that I made earlier. We are not going to sit through three hours of extra whingeing from the SNP when ministers could be doing the job that they are meant to do, which is to deliver for the people of Scotland. I am pleased that Ms Cunningham can treat the debate that she and her party have engineered with the flippancy that her body language has just shown.
The Executive parties now appear to equate criticism with whingeing. What is fascinating is what that gives away about their attitude to politics, which is that there should be no criticism. They want a one-party state, in which nobody says that anything that the Executive does is wrong. That is the truth about their position.
I am fascinated by the Liberal Democrat position in the debate. The Liberal Democrats appear to have ditched their policy on federalism, although Euan Robson tried desperately to fix his mistake by amending his position at a very late stage.
As one of the few members of the Parliament who has experience of another national culture, I know that one of the things about Scotland that immediately strikes visitors is the sense of self-deprecation, which in Scotland often goes too far and becomes flat-out negativity. Some fine stock phrases give the game away. They include, "better the devil you know" and "it's aye been that way." Those are two phrases that sum up a whole frame of mind, which frankly has been encouraged by too many of our so-called leaders in the past. We have heard similar sentiments expressed today. It has been easier for Scots to list the ways in which a good idea might fail, and therefore should not even be tried, than for them to have a go.
Scotland is not unique in that attitude. It has been the case in other countries, which have managed to turn the "can't do culture" around into a "can do" culture. They have thrived as a result. It is always instructive to listen to a debate such as this morning's and count the ways in which it is said that Scotland can't, instead of the ways in which she can.
Today, however, we have not heard much in the way of reasons why Scotland can't. The most striking characteristic of the debate has been the poverty of argument from Labour and the Liberal Democrats. It has been characterised by feeble interventions and speeches that said very little, if anything at all. Some of them were profoundly silly. I am grateful to Robert Brown for the startling new theory that other countries are different. Until he said that, it had never occurred to me. Bristow Muldoon's speech was incomprehensible. When members come to the chamber, they should at least make an effort to make speeches that say or mean something.
The Tories said that the argument for independence is about emotionalism. If I have one criticism of what they have said in defence of themselves, it is that they proceeded to defend the union on the same emotional basis. The Tories cannot criticise the gander when the goose is using the same sauce—they should be honest about that.
A lot of what has been going on this morning has been about attacking SNP policies. That is fair enough and we do not have a problem with that, but that is not attacking independence. The assumption that is being made is that all that someone has to do is to attack an SNP policy and somehow they have attacked independence. That is a basic misunderstanding of the entire situation and it betrays the intellectual vacuity of the arguments of the other parties.
Rhona Brankin made a fascinating speech about Scotland's apparently debt-burdened economy. She has obviously not read Cathy Jamieson's so-called tough questions, from which it is clear that Labour is fast abandoning the black hole and the deficit.
Like all members, I am often asked why I got involved in politics. I dare say that many members have wryly asked themselves that question from time to time. I asked it at least three times during Labour speeches this morning. It is a fair question. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction about politics and politicians in general. People assume that most politicians are in politics for themselves. The answer to that cynicism is, of course, "the vision thing" and "the bigger picture". The SNP certainly has that. Our vision is of independence and the power that it can give to the people of Scotland to take control of their own destiny.
It is true that, in some areas, the devolution settlement allows us almost, if not quite, total control. My colleagues have already spoken about a number of those areas. I will touch on justice. We cannot be trusted to make decisions about the classification of drugs and firearms, which is a little bit odd, but, if we want to, we can pretty much do anything else that we choose in criminal and civil justice. That should afford us the opportunity to initiate, innovate and make up our own minds about the approach that we wish to take in Scotland to problems in Scotland, even though those problems are not unique to Scotland or even the United Kingdom. Indeed, in some areas, that is exactly what has happened, which makes Mike Rumbles's silly speech a complete waste of time.
The truth is that the SNP has acknowledged good ideas when they have been produced—particularly when the Executive has nicked those good ideas from the SNP in the first place. The truth is that the Executive has taken on board SNP initiatives and we thank it for acknowledging that many good ideas come from our party. However, this week, we have seen how that can be set at nothing by a diktat from the Prime Minister—not even a decision by the Westminster Parliament—that would effectively turn benefits offices into courts and roll judge and jury into one. The Scottish Parliament has responsibility for tackling crime in Scotland, but social security is unambiguously a reserved matter. That means that we in Scotland are powerless to stop the Prime Minister's plan to remove child benefit and housing benefit from low-income parents of young offenders. How on earth does that fit in with the strategy that the Executive might have on youth crime and youth disorder? The benefits system cannot and must not be allowed to replace the criminal justice system, but how can this Parliament stop the rollercoaster, assuming that the plan survives today's elections in England?
What is the role of Alex Salmond in Westminster, if not to address the very issues that Roseanna Cunningham has been raising?
I promise Mike Rumbles that the SNP will address those issues in Westminster. Crime is a devolved matter. By his intervention, the Prime Minister is driving a coach and horses through Scotland's criminal justice system. Ultimately, the way to stop such intrusions into the devolved area is for the Parliament to have control over the reserved area—social security—as it would if it were an independent Parliament.
Even within the existing framework, the SNP would do a better job than the Labour and Liberal Democrat Executive. On the subject of justice alone, I can mention SNP policies that have been brought forward—policies on drug courts, measures to tackle sex offenders and compensation orders, which are one of the ways in which the SNP would begin to address parental responsibility in a more sensible and responsible fashion than Tony Blair currently proposes.
The SNP would make the greatest improvement where it is needed—in the delivery of public services. That topic has been the default moan of Labour members in the debate. None has moaned more than Des McNulty. The SNP has talked consistently this morning about public services and the failure of the Parliament to deliver what the people of Scotland want in the way of public services.
Why, in the three years of the Parliament, has no SNP member proposed and got through a committee a single change in the budget in any area? Not a single proposal has the SNP made.
If proposals have not gone through it is probably because the Executive parties have a built-in majority on committees and are rather loth ever to take on any ideas from the SNP, regardless of how good they are.
Scotland's future must be based on strong public services. That is why we are making what I call our "local pact with the people". The five key principles of public service delivery are: that it be locally delivered; that it be public; that it be accountable; that it be consumer-oriented; and that it be transparent. When private profit is taken from public services, precious resources that should be directed towards front-line services are siphoned off.
The Executive's record on public services has been appalling. It amounts to a massive extension of the privatisation programme that Labour vehemently opposed when the Tories began it. Our proposals, which involve a not-for-profit trust, would ensure that the work that needs to be done would be done—but with the big differences that the assets and the control would stay in public hands and that all the money would be invested in services, with no cream skimmed off the top. The SNP would, under the present system, do a better job of delivering the sort of Scotland that Scots want; but that would be only second best because, to make things work in Scotland, we need independence. In that framework, we could tackle the core problems rather than simply apply a soothing balm to the symptoms.
We are giving the people of Scotland a positive, upbeat message that concentrates on their ability to take control of their future. Independence is about giving the people of Scotland the power that they need to tackle the real inequalities in our society and to make the changes that must be made. Policy autonomy is all very well in areas such as health, education and justice, but budgets are constrained by what Westminster deems appropriate. And even policy autonomy can go only so far. No one can seriously argue that it is possible to build a coherent transport infrastructure when we can build roads but not railways.
Independence is not the threat that some of the timorous beasties on the Labour benches seem to think. It is truly about an end to dependency. It is Scotland's single greatest opportunity. Independence can be the key to Scotland's future as a go-ahead economy and a can-do society, where the root causes of inequality can be addressed and a true equality of opportunity attained. That is what the SNP wants. It is apparent that that is not what Labour wants.