Engagements
Now that we are getting into the afternoon, I ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02232)
As this is the first First Minister’s questions since the Commonwealth games, I take this opportunity to thank the people of Glasgow, every member of team Scotland, all their support staff and our wonderful Clyde-siders for all their efforts in making the games a magnificent show for the people of Scotland. [Applause.]
Measures to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
As someone who has lived and breathed the Commonwealth games for the last 10 years as both a family member and a citizen of Glasgow, I of course join the First Minister in endorsing everything that he has said about what a wonderful spectacle Glasgow and Scotland put on for the rest of the Commonwealth and the world.
In the increasingly unlikely event that Scotland votes yes and in the likely event that the First Minister is unable to agree a currency union with the rest of the United Kingdom, can the First Minister tell the people of Scotland: what is plan B?
Johann Lamont will find the answer on pages 110 and 111 of the white paper that we have put forward to the people of Scotland. [Interruption.]
Order.
I say to Johann Lamont that the reason why we are keeping the pound in a currency union and why we are so unambiguous about that is that we are appealing to the greatest authority of all—the sovereign will of the people of Scotland. I am sure that, after a yes vote in the referendum, Johann Lamont will be among those who accept that sovereign will of the people of Scotland. It is Scotland’s pound. It does not belong to George Osborne. It does not belong to Ed Balls. It is Scotland’s pound, and we are keeping it.
I do not know what Nicola Sturgeon made of that answer, but I dare say that I will read what she thought from an unnamed source in tomorrow’s papers.
Let me try again—maybe I will have more success than Alistair Darling in this regard. The First Minister has said on many occasions that he has a plan B, C, D, E and F if there is no currency union. It is clear, then, that he has entertained the possibility that the currency union might not happen, so he claims to have a range of other options. Will he please share with us what plan B is?
The options are on page 110 of the white paper. They are having the euro, which we do not support, or having a fixed or flexible exchange rate policy, which is perfectly viable but not as good as keeping sterling. The white paper also points out that we cannot be stopped from keeping the pound, because it is an internationally tradeable currency.
Now that I have had to inform Johann Lamont of page 110 of the white paper, will she not accept that the reason why the white paper puts forward the view that we should keep sterling in a formal currency union is that that is best for Scotland and best for the rest of the United Kingdom? It is our pound, and we are keeping it. [Applause.]
That might convince the First Minister’s back benchers, but it will not convince anybody who lives in the real world. The First Minister talks about Scotland’s sovereign mandate, but the Prime Minister of the rest of the United Kingdom will have a sovereign mandate to say no. It is not—[Interruption.]
Order. [Interruption.] Let us hear Ms Lamont.
It is not for the First Minister, no matter how limitless he thinks his powers are, to determine what is in the national interest of another country. That is not within his gift to decide.
The First Minister has been told by all the relevant UK politicians and by the civil servant running the Treasury that there will not be a currency union. The First Minister has said that he has a range of other options. I hope that the currency is not like the European Union legal advice that he said he had when, in fact, he did not.
Let us take the First Minister at his word when he says that he has a plan B. Can he please just share it with us and tell us what it is?
I just listed the four options that are on page 110 of the white paper. I was interested in Johann Lamont citing the Prime Minister of the nation saying no. Is that not precisely what Gordon Brown, the previous Prime Minister, warned about in the Daily Record of 2 June? He said:
“if the only propaganda that comes from the Conservatives is ‘Britain says No’, it’s bound to have a reaction in Scotland. It is bound to make people feel that people are talking down to us or are not taking us seriously or are trying to bully us.”
Perhaps Johann Lamont should take the advice of the previous Prime Minister as opposed to taking advice from the better together and no alliance and citing David Cameron, the Tory Prime Minister.
There are three reasons why what the Prime Minister, George Osborne and Ed Balls say now and what they say the day after a yes vote in the referendum are two entirely different things. First, there is the sovereign will of the Scottish people, and many people will respect the sovereign will of the Scottish people. Secondly, the plan is in the best interests of the people of Scotland, but it is also in the best interests of the rest of the United Kingdom. Businesses in the rest of the United Kingdom will not want to pay £600 million in transaction costs. Thirdly, Osborne, Balls and the Prime Minister are not saying that they can stop us using the pound; they are saying—now—that they want to keep for themselves the asset of the Bank of England, which was nationalised in 1946 and is an asset and a bank that holds some 26 per cent of UK debt. However, if they keep all the assets of the United Kingdom, they end up with all the liabilities of the United Kingdom, which—after the work of George Osborne and Alistair Darling—amount to £1.3 trillion of debt. [Interruption.]
Order.
So, we are expected to believe that, in the UK general election next year, George Osborne and Ed Balls are going to campaign around England saying, “The people of Scotland want to take their share of that liability, but we want to keep the Bank of England and give the people of Scotland a present of £5 billion a year.” That is why the best interests of Scotland—the sovereign will of the Scottish people—will prevail. It is our pound, and we are keeping it.
I am not surprised that the First Minister is quoting from the Daily Record in June, not the Daily Record today.
Three times today, and many times in the past two years, I have asked the First Minister about his plans for the currency. This is a serious matter for the people of Scotland. Each time, I get a response but never an answer to the questions that people are asking.
It is clear that the First Minister has a strategy to get Scotland to leave the United Kingdom, but what is becoming increasingly clear is that he does not have a plan for Scotland. Some of us remember what the First Minister used to say. Once, the pound was a “millstone” around Scotland’s neck, then the euro was Scotland’s choice. His former deputy Jim Sillars says that we should have a separate Scottish currency and that the First Minister’s plan is “stupidity on stilts”.
The First Minister says that he has a range of options and a plan B, C, D, E and F. Do the people of Scotland not deserve to know which one it will be? If he does not tell us, is it not clear that, although he might have a plan to break up the United Kingdom, he does not have a plan for Scotland or the future of families across this country?
I pointed out that the options are contained on page 110 of the white paper. [Interruption.] I answered this question two questions ago. I pointed out that there is the euro option, which we do not support. I pointed out the fixed or flexible exchange rate, which is a perfectly viable option but not as good as keeping sterling in a formal currency union. I pointed out that we cannot be stopped from using our own currency—that is not even the position of the Conservative Party. We cannot be stopped from using sterling. Not only have I said all those things twice today, they are on page 110 of the white paper.
We are appealing to the people of Scotland and their sovereign will in a referendum, which is why we are unambiguous. We think that the best position for Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom is to have a formal currency union. It is our pound and we are keeping it in the interests of the Scottish people.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
I add the heartfelt thanks of myself and my party to those of the First Minister to everyone who helped to put on such a fantastic Commonwealth games in Glasgow. I add to those who have been mentioned all the members of the police and the armed forces who helped to keep Scots and visitors safe throughout the duration of the games.
To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-02229)
No plans in the near future.
The First Minister is trying to lead the Scottish public up the garden path. He is trying to pretend to people that he could deliver a currency union with the rest of the United Kingdom if there were to be independence, but he knows that he could not. The First Minister often likes to pretend that he speaks for all of Scotland, but he is now claiming to speak for all of England, all of Wales and all of Northern Ireland, too. Can we all just take a step back? Will he admit to the people of Scotland in this chamber right now that, if there were to be a yes vote, a currency union would not be in his gift to give?
I have just set out the reasons why what is said the day after a yes vote in the referendum is different from what is being said now. I accept that, apparently, George Osborne and the Prime Minister have drawn a line in the sand on the matter. However, as Ruth Davidson well knows, lines in the sand have a habit of being washed away.
I welcomed Ruth Davidson’s revelation, quoted on 15 June in the Sunday Post, that she will back a currency union in the event of a yes vote
“if that is what is best for Scotland”.
I can only assume that Ruth Davidson was responding—as Johann Lamont did not seem to do—that she would accept the sovereign will of the Scottish people. Mind you, that shows less enthusiasm than the deputy leader of the Conservative Party, Jackson Carlaw, who is sitting alongside her. On 21 February, he said that, after a yes vote, he would “man the barricades” for the pound after independence. I say to Ruth Davidson and Jackson Carlaw that I will be there on the barricades with the Conservative Party.
It is a slightly kamikaze approach from the First Minister to quote newspapers today. We can all trade quotes. He is so predictable that I have in front of me the text of the interview in June to which he refers:
“I think we’ve got to have a look at what is best for Scotland. ... I think the monetary union we have is the best possible option for Scotland, which is why I’m fighting to keep it, as part of the United Kingdom.”
That is what I actually said.
The First Minister’s answer—[Interruption.]
Order. Settle down.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
We have had a nonsense-on-stilts argument that a sovereign will will make currency union happen. However, if the First Minister’s preferred option was a link with the dollar, a yes vote by Scotland would not mean that Barack Obama would have to submit to the sovereign will to have a currency union.
The First Minister’s other argument is that it would be in the rest of the UK’s interests to have a currency union, but let us look at that. The vast majority of people in England and Wales said in June that it would not be in their interests. The First Minister of Wales has said that it would not be in their interests. The permanent secretary to the Treasury has said that it would not be in the interests of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The chancellor, the shadow chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury have said that it would not be in their interests. The markets have said that it would not be in their interests.
I did not ask the First Minister to tell me anything about sovereign will or what is in the best interests of the rest of the UK; I asked him whether a currency union was in his gift. It is not, and all the wishing in the world does not make it so. If the First Minister cannot deliver—and he cannot—we are back where we started: needing not a range of options but a preferred plan B. He must have one, so what is it?
As the record will show, I have twice listed the currency options to Johann Lamont from page 110 of the white paper, but I can certainly do that again.
Talking of records, Ruth Davidson might come to regret reading out only that part of the quote and not what she said a couple of lines down. She was then asked what would happen if Scotland voted yes for independence and she said that she would back a currency union
“if that is what is best for Scotland”.
That is from the Sunday Post of 15 June. [Interruption.]
Ms Davidson!
The record is there; the full quotation is there. She knows very well what she said when she was asked what would happen in the event of a yes vote.
I anticipated that that was because Ruth Davidson acknowledged the importance of the Scottish people’s sovereign will. I have also said that that is not as enthusiastic as manning the barricades with her deputy leader sitting alongside her; nonetheless, it is quite important.
Ruth Davidson tries to give the impression that the argument that a currency union is best for the rest of the UK is held by me and me alone, despite the very substantial arguments. I noticed a letter in the Financial Times from Jim Spowart, the head of Intelligent Finance; Professor David Simpson, a highly distinguished Scottish economist; Angus Tulloch, Michelle Thomson, Professor Sir Donald MacKay, who was, for 25 years, the adviser to the Secretary of State for Scotland; Sir George Mathewson; and James Scott, the former chief executive of Scottish Financial Enterprise. The letter said:
“there is a positive outlook for the sector because ... the likelihood of a currency union is strong. It is not only in the best interests of Scotland and the rest of the UK but of our”—
financial sector—
“industry.”
I said that the issue is not whether Scotland could keep the pound. I assume that Ruth Davidson accepts, as Alistair Darling did the other night, that Scotland cannot be prevented from keeping the pound. We cannot be prevented from keeping an internationally tradable currency.
On the debt, there is now no doubt because the Treasury has accepted full liability for the debt. However, presumably the Conservative Party and the unionist coalition will in reasonableness accept that, if the Westminster Government tries to keep all the UK’s assets, such as the Bank of England, it will end up lumbered with the debt. I was making the point that it seems incredible that Ed Balls and George Osborne will go round campaigning in a UK general election telling the people of England that they were offered up to £5 billion-worth of debt interest payments but that they do not want that reasonable proposition, put forward by the people of Scotland, because they want to have exclusive control of the Bank of England. That is why what they say now and what they would say after a yes vote are two entirely different things; that is why it is our pound and we are keeping it.
We have a constituency question from David Stewart.
The First Minister will be well aware that Serco is to close its call centre in Brora, which will make all 21 local workers redundant. That is a devastating blow to a small rural community with a population of only 1,200. Will the First Minister agree to meet me and send a beacon of hope to all the affected families in the north?
I will arrange for that meeting. I saw the announcement. I know that Mr Swinney and his officials have been engaged on the matter but I will meet David Stewart and his constituents.
I agree with David Stewart. Although 21 jobs may sound like a relatively small number, in a small rural community, proportionately, it is a huge number. Such matters have to be a real concern for companies when they make such announcements. We will want to be sure that David Stewart’s constituents’ views are taken fully into account as we discuss with Serco how we can move forward on the issue.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-02228)
Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
Does the First Minister accept that he is not being fair to people in Scotland? He says he has an alternative currency plan but he cannot bring himself to describe its consequences. After a lifetime of campaigning for independence, when the big moment of truth came on Tuesday, he could not explain his currency plan in front of 1 million people. Surely he should have another go at an answer now. People in Scotland will not get another go in September, so please can the First Minister describe the consequences for Scotland of his alternative plan?
I have laid out on page 110 of the white paper that we could have the euro, which we do not support although previously the Liberal Democrats and I supported it. We could have a fixed and flexible exchange rate, which is perfectly viable but not as good as the option that is being proposed as plan A in the white paper. We cannot be prevented from using sterling. It is our currency and we cannot be prevented from keeping it.
I have also pointed out that the reason that the white paper puts it in those terms is that we are looking for the sovereign will of the Scottish people to back the plan to keep sterling in that currency union. I know that, as a Liberal Democrat, Willie Rennie will be first, if not to man the barricades, to accept that the sovereign will of the Scottish people should prevail. That is why it is in the white paper. That is why we are backing it. That is why it is our pound and we are keeping it.
The First Minister knows the page numbers off by heart, but he cannot answer the question. He often refers to the fiscal commission, but I suspect that most people do not have a copy of the fiscal commission handy at home. The names of its members are not on the leaflets that are sent to every house. People do not know what they recommend. They do not knock on doors; the First Minister does. The ideas are supposed to be his. What are they? Why can he not bring himself to give us a description of the consequences of his alternative? Why can he not give an answer?
I am glad that Willie Rennie mentioned the fiscal commission, which is made up of two Nobel laureates and two highly distinguished economists, but I was not talking about the fiscal commission. I was talking about the white paper and what is presented to the people of Scotland on page 110.
If I remember rightly, Willie Rennie was complaining about the amount that we were spending on promoting the white paper and on giving the information to the people of Scotland. How can he complain about it and then say that that information is not available?
On the consequences of other currency options, when Professor David Bell gave evidence to a committee in the Parliament, he pointed out:
“It is UK debt, not Scottish debt, and the UK has agreed that it will pay back that debt. That is the first thing to say.”—[Official Report, Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, 5 March 2014; c 4129.]
It might be extremely attractive for Scotland to be in a position in which the UK seized the financial assets but was not prepared to accept that that would mean that it had the liabilities as well. It would be extremely attractive for Scotland to be debt-free. We would be in balance of payments and budget surplus. However, that is not a reasonable position to take, which is why in the white paper we articulate that we are offering to pay our fair share and finance our fair share of the massive liabilities that have been built up by the likes of George Osborne. Of course, that is properly dependent upon us having a fair share of the assets.
That is an entirely reasonable and responsible proposition. It is the proposition that is in the white paper. That is why, as part of a formal currency union, it is our pound and we intend to keep it.
English National Health Service (Privatisation)
To ask the First Minister what impact privatisation of the NHS in England will have on the budget available to the Scottish Government. (S4F-02243)
This is extremely serious. As members in the chamber will know, our budget for public services in Scotland is currently allocated as a relative proportion of the spending in England as determined by the Barnett formula. The impact of an austerity and privatisation agenda being forced on the NHS in England will consequently see our budget eroded. For every £10 lost to the NHS in England, Scotland will lose approximately £1 in funding for public services. This is a serious question and a serious issue.
The idea that we can be immune from the privatisation agenda that is being pursued on the national health service by the Government in England is not reasonable considering the way in which Scotland is financed. The way to defend the national health service—our public national health service—is for us to have control of Scotland’s finances, so that we are not vulnerable to the privatisation and fragmentation that is being carried out in England.
Does the First Minister therefore agree that the only way that we can protect Scotland’s NHS from Westminster’s on-going austerity cuts and privatisation agenda and ensure that it remains true to its founding principle of providing healthcare that is free at the point of need and remains firmly in public hands is by voting yes on 18 September?
Yes, I do. One of Scotland’s prominent breast surgeons, Dr Philippa Whitford—someone who, as far as I know, has never previously been involved in politics—has spoken out so articulately on the issue precisely because she can see the danger to the NHS in Scotland, which is the consequence of privatisation south of the border.
We are fortunate that we have policy control of health, which has allowed us to protect our health service from the deeply damaging so-called reforms that Westminster Governments have made to the NHS in England over not just the past two or three years, but the past 15 years. Although devolution allows us to set a different policy, without independence our budget will be beholden to the whims of a privatisation agenda. That is why, to protect Scotland’s national public health service, we need independence and control of Scotland’s finances.
Given that, by its own admission, the Scottish Government has received £1.3 billion in consequentials from Westminster specifically for health during this parliamentary session alone, can the First Minister confirm when it was during the summer recess that the Scottish Government’s referendum advice became so desperate that ministers felt that their only recourse was to indulge in malicious, unsubstantiated, shameful and shabby scaremongering about the future of Scotland’s wholly devolved NHS as a public service, to which every party in this Parliament is profoundly committed?
We seem to have touched the raw nerve of the no campaign. We will take no lectures on scaremongering from a no campaign that is based entirely on scaremongering among the Scottish people.
The position is clear, and Jackson Carlaw of all people—given that he previously believed in fiscal autonomy for Scotland—understands it full well. He knows that every penny piece of consequentials for the health service has been passed on to the health service in Scotland. He also knows that the entire purpose of the privatisation agenda in England is to reduce public expenditure on the health service. Therefore, it follows that, if expenditure is reduced in England and we are still part of the Barnett formula, there will be less money available for public services in Scotland.
That is why the threat to Scotland’s public health service is real unless we control Scotland’s finances in the way that he once believed in, that we believe in and which the people of Scotland will back on 18 September.
First ScotRail (Fines)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to First ScotRail being fined more than £2 million since 2011 for running too few coaches in a practice known as “short-forming”. (S4F-02240)
That is a serious question, but we should remember that, this year, 99.7 per cent of trains ran with the planned capacity. That means that 0.3 per cent of trains did not meet capacity. In anyone’s terms, that is a strong performance. It is also a performance that is significantly better than when the previous Administration was in charge. In 2007, for example, the penalties for not meeting capacity that Mark Griffin mentioned totalled more than £830,000. The figure now stands at £574,000, which is a drop of 31 per cent on Labour’s record.
I and, I hope, everyone in the chamber would like 100 per cent of trains, rather than 99.7 per cent of them, to run with the planned capacity but, in fairness, Mark Griffin should reflect on the fact that the record this year, about which he is rightly concerned, is significantly better than it was when his party was in office.
Does the First Minister agree that a publicly owned rail operator that put the interests of customers and services before profit would be best placed to address issues such as short-forming? Will he support the proposals that were originally outlined by Scottish Labour’s devolution commission, which have now been adopted by the UK Labour Party, to allow publicly owned companies to bid for the ScotRail franchise? Does he agree that that is a good example of a progressive Scotland working within the UK leading to more progressive policies across Britain?
It is a pity that Labour did not think of changing the law when it was in government in Scotland. The member will have noted that I have spoken out publicly to say that the public provider of the east coast service should be able to bid publicly for that line.
It should be noted that the Scottish rail network has a 90 per cent satisfaction rating among passengers, in comparison with a figure of 82 per cent for the rest of the UK. There is still a lot more to do not only on the issue that Mark Griffin has examined but on investing in the rail network. Our investment includes £430 million in new rolling stock, which has funded 38 new class 380 trains.
I know and understand Mark Griffin’s concerns, but I think that he will agree that there is a substantial and reasonable level of satisfaction with the progress that is being made, although more progress still needs to be made.
“The Success of Small States”
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s position is on the Credit Suisse research institute report, “The Success of Small States”. (S4F-02244)
The Scottish Government welcomes the report by the Credit Suisse research institute, which highlights the very strong performance of small independent countries across a range of social and economic measures. The United Nations human development index is important because it does not look at economic performance alone; it looks across a range of social and economic criteria to evaluate and say how states should be judged.
The report adds to a great chorus of voices that agree that Scotland can be a successful independent nation. For example, Credit Suisse estimates in the report that Scotland would be ranked ahead of the United Kingdom on the UN human development index.
Is the First Minister aware that two key findings in the report are that economies of scale for larger countries do not necessarily benefit their populations and that funding public services in a small country costs less than it does in a large country? Does he agree that the report directly contradicts the scaremongering of the likes of Alistair Darling, who could not even bring himself to admit that Scotland could be a prosperous and successful independent nation?
The report adds a great deal of strength to the view that there is a substantial body of evidence that small countries in Europe and beyond are extremely successful economically. I think that we are reaching a consensus on such matters, are we not? We are reaching a consensus that Scotland can be a successful independent country. Surely nobody in the chamber disagrees with that. If anybody disagrees, they should speak up now.
Scotland can be a successful independent country. I take the silence as unanimity in the chamber. Let the message go out to the people of Scotland that, now that we have established that we can be, the question that is to be answered on 18 September is whether we should be. I think that the answer will be yes.
That ends First Minister’s question time. Members who are leaving the chamber should do so quickly and quietly; I will allow a few moments to ensure that that happens.
Previous
General Question Time