The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-11116, in the name of Johann Lamont, on Scotland’s future. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible.
Johann Lamont, you have 10 minutes or thereby. Members will have to forgive me, but we are extraordinarily tight for time, so we will not be able to call the final speaker.
16:19
I hope that we can have a productive debate. The previous debate became very aggressive and unpleasant. We need to find a way of moving on to ensure that we see this as a creative and open place. The intention of the motion is to allow us to start exploring the possibilities and the options that this Parliament might progress over the next two years.
We know that we made history in Scotland on 18 September. We made a significant decision and, for the first time, it was a democratic decision of the people of Scotland that we should stay strong in the United Kingdom. We ought to resist the temptation to rewrite history. Instead, we should grasp the opportunity together to shape the future—a future of a strong Scottish Parliament inside the United Kingdom, responding to the priorities of people from across the country.
I know that we all remember the referendum debate in different ways, with different emphases and priorities. On one side, people looked at the issue of powers and at how to make the Parliament work effectively inside the United Kingdom, looking at what powers are consistent with the pooling and sharing of resources across the United Kingdom—the very heart of the argument for the United Kingdom. On the other side, there was discussion and debate about how we create a fairer and more equal Scotland, in which the national health service and childcare featured strongly as key areas that are precious and significant to people. People on both sides of the debate were wrestling with ensuring how to make progress on those issues—we know that they are significant for people far beyond this chamber.
It is important that we accept the result. We should not attempt to rewrite what that result meant. We should resist the temptation to suggest that the people who argued for yes were somehow robbed by the result, that people were duped or tricked or that we presume that people voted no not because they actively wanted to stay in the United Kingdom but because they were somehow fooled. It serves no one in Scotland well to encourage that idea.
We should not seek to redefine the vow that was made by the parties arguing to stay in the United Kingdom or try to misrepresent what it was talking about. I contend that it is not acceptable to identify powers that were not named in the vow of commitment—as the First Minister has done—in order to establish a sense of bad faith. That is simply not acceptable.
Will Johann Lamont clarify what she thinks that Gordon Brown meant when he talked about powers as near to federalism as possible in the context of the United Kingdom?
First, clearly he did not support independence and secondly, he believed in a strong Scotland inside the United Kingdom, sustaining the pooling and sharing of resources across the United Kingdom.
I was surprised that the two amendments to my motion were simply about powers, rather than being seen as an opportunity to talk about the other side of the agenda that I have identified. I understand that some people were committed to a yes vote with all their hearts and I say to them that there is a corrosiveness and cynicism in establishing a sense of bad faith in the mind of the public. All those new people who have come into politics deserve to hear better than that one whole side of the argument was entirely motivated by bad faith.
I agree with the sentiment that Johann Lamont expresses about people’s engagement and our need to respect that and take it seriously. Does she agree with the general thrust of my amendment—whether she is technically able to support it or not—that we need people not just to be involved but to have a chance to shape the process and that we must avoid it becoming a stitch-up between political parties?
Certainly, the work that we did on the devolution commission meant that, for more than two years, we were engaged with civic Scotland, the trade unions and the business community. All the proposals have been out there and people have been thinking about this over a long period. Of course we want people to be engaged, but equally we have a timetable that Patrick Harvie would reasonably expect us to deliver.
I understand the dilemma of some people in the Scottish National Party. By having to accept the democratic decision they have then to give meaning to that decision. It means that the focus must be on making devolution work in itself. The reality is that if people are not willing to let go of their constitutional project, the Parliament will be seen as a stepping stone, with the decision of the people to stay in the United Kingdom becoming a bridge to the position that the people soundly rejected. We need to move beyond that. We need to look at how we make this place work, rather than constantly talking about further powers.
I have been very clear: there will be more powers for the Parliament. The vow is something that I keep seriously in mind. It is, of course, consistent with our being part of the United Kingdom. However, my other argument, which we will not finish discussing today but which I hope that members will treat with respect, is that we must pursue the agenda of a fairer, more equal Scotland. Ever since the result of the referendum, I have said that where we can work together we will do so. We will work on securing powers, but we also need to work on the other side of the agenda.
Our commitment is to work with the Scottish Government and the Parliament where we can and to open up our thinking on actions and priorities to the people throughout Scotland who have become energised. I make that commitment, and I hope that other members can do so, too. The challenge for the Opposition is not to oppose for opposition’s sake; the challenge for the Scottish Government is not to focus simply on what might be, if we had more powers, and instead to focus on what it can do now.
Scotland has been on pause for the past two years, and it cannot be acceptable that we have to wait even longer for agreement on more powers. We understand that, pre-referendum, to make their case people had to say that only with independence could we make a difference. However, in the challenge of a post-referendum Scotland, “only with independence” is not good enough. We need to hear more about what can be done. We need to hear more about the art of the possible, right now.
In the next period, we need to refocus on a politics that has driven change throughout generations: a politics of justice—social, economic, environmental and educational—a politics of fairness and equality of access and opportunity, and a politics of integrity, whereby we seek to be open and honest in debates, respecting one another where we agree and where we disagree.
I regret that, in the amendments, the response to the challenges that we face seems to be to cling desperately to the language of the referendum battle, with a focus on the constitution rather than on the changes that we can make right now. Our motion was deliberately written in a wide enough way to offer an opportunity for us to come together and find common cause.
In the time that I have left, I will focus on two issues in that regard. First, the extent to which people care about the national health service and are concerned about any suggestion that it might be privatised was clear throughout the referendum period. We know that people want the NHS to work in their interests. We also know that there are huge challenges. It is not good enough to create the impression that everything in the NHS is fine and we do not need a review or any coming together to challenge that view.
We have said that we should come together, get rid of the party politics—the politicking and the dividing lines—and show that we are willing to listen to patients, staff in NHS organisations and people throughout the country, who are desperate for us to wrestle with the big problems in the service and find solutions. I hope that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing will respond to our offer to work co-operatively.
Secondly, childcare was a feature of the referendum debate. All members know that there are things that need to be done to support people in that regard. It cannot be good enough that people spend as much on childcare as they spend on their mortgages or that they have to consider whether they can afford to work, especially when we understand the economic importance of good childcare, as well as its social and educational importance.
Our suggestion is that we take a simple step, right now, by offering a childcare place to mums who are going to college. We can do that together, right now. We can continue together on a longer journey as we seek to cap the cost of childcare for families, using our abilities in the Parliament and beyond to make a difference.
In both areas, we can rise to the challenge. I hope that other members will think so, too. The reality is that, over the past two years, we have spent time, money, energy and effort on settling the decision on the constitution. We will put further energy into ensuring that we craft powers that make this place even stronger, but my plea is that in the next two years we spend as much time, money and energy on making visible progress on equality and working together on the big issues that were evident across the country during the debate.
You must close now, please.
Let us let go of our own political projects, so that we can have real debate where we differ and real creativity where we instinctively agree. Let us resist the counsel of despair that means that this place will simply be about rerunning a debate that was decided on 18 September. Let us have optimism and, over the next period, harness the energy that we saw in the referendum debate, to deliver equality and real progress for people throughout the country.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises that the settled will of the people of Scotland is to make devolution work with a strengthened Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom following the referendum on Scotland’s constitutional future on 18 September 2014, and acknowledges that people on both sides voted for change and that it is now incumbent on this parliament to work together to deliver a fairer, more equal Scotland.
I call Alex Neil to speak to amendment S4M-11116.1, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon. You have up to seven minutes.
16:30
Much has rightly been made of the remarkable shift that took place during the referendum campaign. The people of Scotland led an energised and engaging debate. The future of our nation was discussed with passion, vibrancy and wit across the country, and the balance of power shifted from politicians and political institutions to the people of Scotland. Ninety-seven per cent of those who were eligible to vote made sure that they were registered to vote and 85 per cent turned out to make their choice—a record for any election or referendum in these isles. That unprecedented engagement has fundamentally changed the political landscape in Scotland.
I accept—the Scottish Government accepts—that independence was not the choice, at that moment, of a majority of the Scottish people in the referendum. However, a no vote was not a vote for no change. Between the 45 per cent of the Scottish people who voted yes and those who were persuaded to vote no on the basis of the “vow” to deliver significant new powers for the Scottish Parliament, there is a powerful majority for substantial further constitutional change in Scotland. The Smith commission provides an opportunity to deliver that change, and the Scottish Government will work in good faith with Lord Smith and the other parties involved to secure the best possible deal for Scotland.
In the past few days, we have seen compelling evidence of what the people of Scotland see as real change. For example, in a Panelbase poll that was conducted last week, 66 per cent of respondents backed extensive new powers for the Scottish Parliament; 71 per cent backed “Control of all taxation”; 68 per cent backed
“Control of oil and gas tax revenues generated in Scottish waters”;
and 75 per cent backed
“Control of the welfare and benefits system”.
Our engagement with the Smith commission will therefore start from a position of arguing for change that lives up to the expectations of the Scottish people—change that will transform the ability of the Scottish Parliament to improve the economy and create jobs by giving us real levers to match economic policy to the specific circumstances of Scotland. We will demand change that will give the Scottish Parliament the tools to make Scotland a fairer and more equal society and protect us from unfair policies that are imposed from Westminster. We will also demand change that will enhance Scotland’s voice on the world stage and allow us to put forward Scotland’s interests where key decisions are being made.
A minute ago, I referred to the so-called “vow” that was made by the unionist parties in the last week of the referendum campaign. That vow sets a test of good faith for the unionist parties’ participation in the Smith process. The parties that opposed independence must enter the Smith commission process ready to move significantly beyond the limited powers that they offered early in the campaign and later in the campaign. They must demonstrate that they can live up to the language of “home rule”, “near federalism” and “devo max”. They must show that they are serious about giving this Parliament the tools to improve Scotland’s economy, support jobs, enhance our voice in the world and make Scotland a fairer, more equal society. In our view, the proposals that are currently on the table from Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats fall well short on all counts.
The cabinet secretary is four minutes into his speech. At what point is he going to talk about using the powers that he has to create a fairer, more equal Scotland instead of rehashing an argument that we have had for the past two years?
Johann Lamont clearly has not been listening to my speech. I certainly hope that we get the powers that mean that we do not need to implement the welfare policies that were outlined at the Labour and Tory conferences, which will be extremely damaging to the people of Scotland.
We must have the levers that are most fundamental to strengthening our economy and creating jobs. The current proposals leave most of the decisions on welfare and social protection in the hands of a Westminster Parliament that imposed the bedroom tax on Scotland and mean that the Scottish Parliament would be responsible for only between 20 and 30 per cent of the taxes raised in Scotland. That is not good enough for us or for Scotland.
I started my remarks by highlighting the energy that the public and civic society brought to the referendum debate and campaigns. That conversation with the people of Scotland did not end with the referendum. As Patrick Harvie rightly says, their voice must be heard in the work to deliver additional powers for the Scottish Parliament. We will support his amendment to our amendment because we fundamentally believe in what it says.
I am also delighted that Lord Smith has made engagement with wider civic society and the people of Scotland a priority in the work of his commission. I encourage everyone to make their voice heard as part of that process, because the people of Scotland are the guarantors of real change.
The Smith commission process sets a challenge for all the parties in the Scottish Parliament—[Interruption.]
Order.
That challenge, set by the Scottish people, is to deliver real change that will improve their lives, to bring decisions closer to the people that they affect and to work together across political boundaries.
Only by individually and collectively rising to those challenges can we secure the best deal for Scotland. Parties that fail that challenge, that lack ambition for Scotland or that fail to listen to the voices of people and grass-roots organisations in Scotland will pay a heavy price if they ignore the demands and wishes of the Scottish people, including people who voted no as well as people who voted yes.
I move amendment S4M-11116.1, to leave out from “recognises” to end and insert:
“recognises the result of the independence referendum; agrees on the need for a strengthened Scottish Parliament; acknowledges that people on both sides voted for change; notes the response to a recent Panelbase poll in which two thirds of respondents backed extensive new powers for the Parliament; agrees that the language, ‘devo-max’, ‘home rule’ and ‘near federalism’, used during the referendum campaign has raised expectations of significant change; agrees that the process commenced by The Smith Commission offers a real opportunity to deliver substantial further powers and responsibilities for the Parliament, and agrees that it is now incumbent on all parties to deliver on the clear promises made to the people of Scotland to ensure that Scotland has the powers needed to improve its economy, support jobs, enhance its voice in the world and make Scotland a fairer, greener, more equal society.”
I call Patrick Harvie to speak to and move amendment S4M-11116.1.1. Mr Harvie, you have up to five minutes. Less would be more, please.
16:37
I guess that, if we want to find the atmosphere that will allow us to explore the common ground, we all have a little way to go.
In a couple of days’ time, I will address my party’s annual conference. I am looking forward to having the opportunity to thank my party colleagues new and old, whether they have been involved in politics and activism for a long time or have just recently become engaged, for the spirit in which they conducted themselves during the debate.
Just as, over the years, I have found common ground on a range of different issues with the Labour Party, the Liberals, the SNP and even—once in a while—the Conservatives, my party had to find it in itself to campaign for the clear majority view in the party supporting a yes vote without ever disrespecting, or undermining the friendship that we have with, those in the party who voted no. There are people who voted no and have just joined the party as well, and I am really glad that our presence on the political landscape is still able to bridge that divide.
It was possible to take a clear, passionate and articulate point of view in the debate without disrespecting people who voted a different way. In my experience, the bulk of the debate was conducted in that way.
That wider public engagement—that re-engagement, that connection with politics—came about because there was a great big idea that transcended traditional party lines. It transcended the identity of any political party or political figure, large or small. The danger that we are in at the moment is that we could pull up the drawbridge again and say, “That’s that over and done with, the decision’s been made and politics is for politicians and the political parties again.” That is a profound danger and, whether someone voted yes or no, whether they are a campaigner, an activist, a journalist, a voter, or a writer about Scotland’s history or its future, it is a danger that we absolutely must avoid.
I am very happy that my party was invited to send a representative to the Smith commission, and that it has agreed that I am to be that representative. I am happy to have the chance to take part in that discussion, but let us be realistic. The breakneck timetable that has been decided on and which now has to be lived up to—it cannot be broken without betraying the trust of the people who listened to that promise—will allow next to no opportunity for people outside the political bubble to shape the process and the outcome, to have their say, be heard and make a difference. People turned out to vote in record numbers because they knew that the decision would make a difference in a way that all too often, many people feel, elections no longer do. If we want people still to feel that there is a reason to get involved—that their action and their voice can make a difference—we must avoid the view that the process is about political parties reaching a deal, being satisfied with the deal that they have made and simply implementing it.
There is still time. The time that is available to us for meaningful public participation is not the time in the run-up to 30 November, when Lord Smith will publish his report. The time that is available will come afterwards. A few weeks for people to fire in their views by the end of October, with a report being written by the end of November, is not enough time. However, it will be months before legislation passes through, presumably, both Parliaments to implement whatever comes out of the process. We should use those months creatively in ensuring that this is not just about meeting the needs of the people inside the political bubble; it is about taking away a little bit of power from ourselves—away from the political parties, big or little—and giving that power back to the public.
Is there room for common ground? Of course there is, but only if people on both sides of that yes-no divide are willing to move towards the common ground. We will not find the common ground if people dig in their heels and say, “This is what we’ve published already,” or, “This is what we need to live up to the vow.” If either side digs in their heels and says, “This is what has to happen,” we will not reach the common ground and we will have missed that opportunity.
If we begin with a discussion—not just between the five political parties and Lord Smith, or between the two Governments—on the purpose, as Johann Lamont rightly said, of sharing the wealth of the country more fairly, strengthening local communities and local economies to make decisions for themselves and speeding the transition to a sustainable Scotland, I believe that we will end up with a compelling set of powers that may not be independence and may well be beyond what some other people have already published but which will meet the needs of the people of Scotland.
I move amendment S4M-11116.1.1, to leave out from “a real opportunity” to “Parliament” and insert:
“an opportunity to deliver substantial further powers and responsibilities to the Parliament but that the commission must be followed by a period of meaningful public participation, given the severely limited time available for the public to engage with the commission itself”.
16:43
I offer the sympathies of the Conservative Party to the family and friends of Angus Macleod, who died yesterday. He was, for 35 years, an unchanging presence in Scottish politics at The Times in Scotland. I mention him now because on the issue of the constitution, he was an inquisitive, passionate, informed and rigorous journalist and I think that he will be missed by all members on all sides of the chamber. [Applause.]
We will support the Labour motion and we will not support either of the amendments. I congratulate the cabinet secretary on reading out the speech that appeared to have been prepared for him so adroitly, if without his usual passion. However, I wish to talk directly to the Government amendment. First, it says that we recognise
“the result of the independence referendum”.
Does the Scottish Government recognise that result? The Cabinet Secretary for Justice was out in Portobello on Saturday at a yes Scotland campaigning stall, campaigning for independence. I am not quite sure how one recognises the result and then campaigns away for independence as if the referendum were still to take place. Recognising the result means respecting it and moving on to the subsequent agenda.
The amendment then asks us to note
“the response to a recent Panelbase poll”
in the same sentence as the previous phrase. For goodness’ sake! We have just had a vote of 2.6 million people—85 per cent of a 97 per cent registered electorate—and we are asked to give almost equal weight to a Panelbase poll. There is no need to do that when we have had the most decisive political result in living memory, and certainly in my lifetime. There was an 11 per cent difference between yes and no in that poll, which is greater than anything I can recall, and on a huge turnout.
Thirdly, the SNP’s amendment says that we are
“to deliver on the clear promises made to the people of Scotland”.
Well, really. I have here a yes Scotland campaign leaflet, which says:
“Win an iPad”
and
“your chance to win one of 10 iPads.”
I looked up the rules, which said:
“The winners will be selected at random at 10:00 on Thursday 18 September 2014.
The winners will be informed via email within two weeks ... and the names of winners will be available on the Yes Scotland website.”
Three weeks later, the names are not there. The campaign cannot make small promises and not keep them and expect us to look to the Scottish Government and have it honour bigger promises.
We will debate the findings of the Smith commission when we return from recess. I have lodged a written question asking what assurances the Scottish Government will give that civil servants will not be used to support Scottish National Party political representatives in the work of the commission. The SNP is there not as primus inter pares, but on an equal footing with other political parties to contribute to the work of Lord Smith’s commission in the period ahead.
I will deal with two things in my final couple of minutes. First, I will develop something that I said in an earlier debate, which is that we must focus not just on the transfer of powers to this Parliament but on how we discharge those responsibilities and powers when we get them. Although representatives from the various political parties are working with Lord Smith, it is incumbent on this Parliament as a whole, across all parties and members, to prepare for the work of looking at exactly how we will ensure that the Parliament will undertake effective scrutiny and discharge those additional responsibilities effectively.
The worst thing of all would be for those powers to arrive here without us having properly and objectively, and without a party-political focus, considered how we will exercise that responsibility. We need to ensure that the people of Scotland not only see us with those responsibilities, but see us using the powers effectively and well for their benefit.
The member is in his final minute.
Finally, I will pick up on the sentiment that underpins Johann Lamont’s contribution to the debate. What her amendment says about acknowledging
“that people on both sides voted for change and that it is now incumbent on this parliament to work together”
is not about powers coming to the Scottish Parliament, but about the Parliament’s mindset.
Johann Lamont spoke about health in particular. A year ago, as the Scottish Conservative health spokesman, I said that we would set aside supporting the changes that we have seen down south coming from both the Blair and coalition Governments in favour of a publicly owned, funded health service here in Scotland. I would like to work with the Labour Party on developing those ideas. I am slightly concerned about simply divesting to a panel of experts the responsibility for the development of health policy, because ultimately we will be accountable for it and will have to deliver it.
The member must close, please.
However, we as a Parliament should equally be prepared to develop that sentiment in the time that lies ahead. We must now all work to ensure that Lord Smith’s commission works and that the proposals come forward, but as the Parliament we are effectively here to deliver those proposals thereafter.
16:48
In case there is any doubt, I say at the outset that I accept the result of the referendum. It was of course hugely disappointing for those of us who campaigned for a yes vote, but we placed our trust in the people of Scotland to make that decision and we have to respect the result. However, some of us, including me, represent areas that voted yes. I will certainly remember that in the work that I do as MSP for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, in which there is majority support for independence.
Despite my disappointment with the outcome, I have to say that the referendum campaign was the most invigorating and exciting political effort that I have ever had the privilege of being involved in. It resulted in massive political engagement that I have never seen before—the 85 per cent turnout testifies to that.
There is now a real interest in the political process—I could literally hear it in the streets during the campaign and I think that it continues. I believe that people in Scotland want, more than ever before, to be involved in the processes that affect their lives. One of the questions before us is how to sustain and foster that sense of civic engagement and how to empower people. I very much agree with Patrick Harvie’s points about the necessity of achieving that.
During the campaign, there was a clear sense that people want greater efforts to tackle inequalities in Scotland. In the on-going debate about Scotland’s future, we need to ensure that the Parliament is equipped to rise to that challenge. During the campaign, much was made of the powers that are coming to the Parliament through the Scotland Act 2012. Earlier today at the Finance Committee, Professor David Bell presented a paper to us that states that the 2012 act
“implicitly leaves income redistribution as a reserved issue for the UK Government”,
through the Scottish rate of income tax. We saw at the Tory conference that the Tories intend to redistribute income only up the way.
The Scotland Act 2012 also leaves decisions about social security out of our hands. The welfare reform process is set to push 100,000 more children in Scotland into poverty by 2020.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am afraid not—I do not have much time.
One hundred thousand disabled Scots will lose an average of £1,000 as a result of the switch from disability living allowance to the personal independence payment. If we are to meet the challenge of making Scotland a fairer place, we need to consider how the Parliament can be equipped with the tools to do that. The process of consideration of further devolution gives us the opportunity to do so.
During the referendum process, it was clear that there is huge appetite for the Parliament to become more empowered to make decisions for Scotland. There is overwhelming support for significant new powers for the Scottish Parliament. In the referendum, 1.6 million people—45 per cent of those who voted—voted for independence, so they were clearly voting for such change. The Ashcroft poll to which the cabinet secretary referred showed that 25 per cent of those who voted no did so on the basis that they believed that it would mean extra powers for the Scottish Parliament. It remains to be seen how far that will be the case and whether the demands will be satisfied, but we know that those people, too, were voting for change.
If we are serious about the people of Scotland being sovereign—I have heard the leader of the Labour Party refer to that previously—their voices must be heard in the debate. A recent Panelbase poll shows that 66 per cent of people believe in devo max and that there is substantial support for the devolution of a range of specific policy areas that are currently reserved and that could make a difference to our ability to improve lives in Scotland. For me, the Smith commission represents an opportunity to meet the aspirations of the Scottish people for enhanced powers in the Scottish Parliament. I hope that the Parliament will unite behind that and that the Smith commission can deliver.
16:52
The motion and the Government amendment refer to a “more equal” society. I will concentrate on that. There is no doubt that it is frequently mentioned in the Parliament. It definitely sounds good and as though it is the right thing to say but, unfortunately, although we might talk a fine game about fairness, equality and social justice, the inconvenient truth is that we do not deliver.
We sometimes spend an inordinate amount of time criticising one another and, frankly, we do not spend enough time praising what others have done. So, unusually for me, I want to put on record my thanks for everything that the SNP Government has done for me and my family. While I am at it, I suppose that I should register the thanks of all MSPs, every MP in Scotland, senior civil servants, the highly paid senior staff in local government and the health service, senior managers in colleges and universities, lawyers, doctors, accountants and the well-paid staff in the private sector. We all have cause to celebrate what has been done for us.
Our council tax has been frozen since the SNP came to power and we now all have free prescriptions. Our sons and daughters no longer have to make any financial contribution at any point for their university education, and that applies even to those who have the money and who choose to pay for their child’s school education. More extensive student loans are available to students, even the better-off, and those of us with young children will no longer have to pay for school meals in primaries 1 to 3. What have we got to complain about?
I suppose that, as long as we say that we are committed to a fairer and more equal society, that helps us to explain all that to our constituents, particularly those who have not gained anything. It is a shame that low-income households who receive full council tax benefit have not received an extra penny in all this time, but I suppose that that is a price worth paying to ensure fairness.
Those who are on low incomes or with certain chronic health problems have not gained at all financially from free prescriptions, but no doubt they will rejoice in our satisfaction, even though there may be less to spend on cancer treatments. I know that it may be frustrating for those from poorer backgrounds who might no longer be able to access a college place or for poorer students at university who might be angry at cuts to maintenance grants, but surely they recognise that we are building a fairer society, even though no extra money has been spent on them.
Low-income families who already receive free school meals in P1 to P3 will not receive a single extra penny with the new policy of free school meals, but everyone has to do their bit for a fairer and more equal society, and I am sure that they will not mind that education budgets across the country are being squeezed at the same time.
Bus fares have had to rise because of cuts by the Scottish Government to the grant that is given to bus operators to compensate for free concessionary travel. I know that it is causing hardship to hard-working commuters who rely on buses to get to work and who do not have access to a chauffeur-driven car, but they need to remember that everyone has to share the burden for a fairer and more equal society and that someone has to pay for the free concessionary travel.
In short, let us take satisfaction from everything that has been done for members in this Parliament and the thousands like us, and let us recognise that the talk, as opposed to the action, about fairness and equality has been supported by a broad coalition of Scottish civic society, and that for that we should be extremely grateful. Let us tell our poorer constituents who have not gained a single penny that today we are renewing our commitment to a fairer and more equal society, and that although they might not see any material benefit we are truly sincere in what we say, as always. It is just that we would rather be judged on our words than on our actions.
16:56
The referendum was the biggest democratic experience of my life. It gave the biggest democratic endorsement of any decision ever taken in this country, and we therefore need to respect that decision and ensure that we follow up on the range of commitments that we gave on both sides during the referendum, so that the country comes together as a result.
The debates and discussions during referendums are often more instructive than the actual result. There was anger and frustration, and there was also hope and ambition, and we have to capture the massive energy that existed during the referendum to change the way that we do politics and to ensure that we change Britain in the way that people expressed a desire for.
As Johann Lamont quite rightly said, we also need to focus on the big issues that people were talking about during the referendum: fairness, economic growth and opportunity for everyone right across society. We need to meet those challenges, and that is why this is a massive opportunity for us all to come together. For the first time ever, we have all parties in this Parliament, in Scottish politics, together in the one room. That has never happened before and in itself is a massive opportunity. Bringing together the 45 and the 55 is also an opportunity to ensure that they are engaged in the discussion going forward.
I would say that this country has never been better informed about its arrangements than it is now. We are in the best place possible to make a decision about our constitutional future. After a three-year debate, people know more about their constitution than they could ever really want to know, and that gives us a great opportunity to come up with a sustainable constitutional settlement that includes wider society, as it must do.
We must also ensure that the forces of constitutional conservatism that have defeated us on House of Lords reform, the alternative vote and various other reforms are defeated. We must use the energy of the referendum to make the big changes that people want. That is why I am delighted that Mike Moore and Tavish Scott have agreed to serve on the Smith commission. Those two individuals will follow through on the commitment that we gave in the referendum to ensure that there is substantial change. Mike Moore has a good track record on working across party boundaries to deliver the change that people want in this country.
We must ensure that powers are transferred to Scotland and down into communities. People in Shetland are as suspicious of Edinburgh as they are of London, and we need to make sure that we reflect the diversity that exists within Scotland as much as the diversity that exists in the United Kingdom. That is the commitment that the Liberal Democrats will give in the process. It is a big opportunity. Let us seize it.
16:59
It is interesting to have this Labour-led debate and to hear Labour members’ perspective on the outcome of the referendum and where Scotland goes from here. We have heard four unionist speakers today and they have made not one mention of one more power for this place. They have talked only about the powers that this “parish council”—to use Tony Blair’s description—already has.
There is absolutely no doubt that the better together parties went into a blind panic when they were confronted by the polling evidence that put yes in front of no. Until then, the better together campaign was quite confident that it would win comfortably.
Will the member give way?
I have only three minutes, so I will not.
A comfortable win for better together is what was suggested by the early polls that put support for independence at about 30 per cent. Because of that, the Westminster parties felt that there was no need to put devo max on the ballot paper. It was, therefore, truly remarkable that so many Scots made the journey to yes, and I believe that that was the position of the majority until the vow was made.
Oh, come on.
Order.
The vow was a panic reaction to the polling evidence, as was the intervention of Gordon Brown, who seemed to be making promises on the hoof.
The unionist parties would have loved the size of no vote that was suggested by the early polls, which would have resulted in the maintenance of the status quo and allowed them to return to their self-serving political elite in Westminster.
And you are not self-serving?
Dr Simpson, the speaker will be heard.
However, as others have mentioned, the huge turnout and the 45 per cent-55 per cent split, along with the promises that were made by better together, means that a rocket has been put up the red and green benches in Westminster, and nothing will remain the same in terms of governance in Scotland. I deplore the way in which the issue of more powers for Scotland has been linked to changes in England. That is a political game being played out before a Westminster election.
I await the delivery of devo max, as promised by members from all parties. Rory Stewart said that devo max will be delivered “without any conditions”. Gordon Brown’s statements have been quoted already. Danny Alexander said that we will get “home rule”, which, to the people of Scotland, means everything except defence and foreign affairs.
I look forward to this place having the power to ensure that, in future elections, our eloquent, articulate and well-informed 16 and 17-year-olds have the vote in all elections. I look forward to future generations benefiting from a decision to use finite resources—which are now being exploited—to finance the creation of a sovereign wealth fund.
The Labour motion speaks of the “settled will”. Yes, the people of Scotland have spoken. However, as others have mentioned, hundreds of thousands of people are now engaged and invigorated by the democratic process as a result of the referendum and will not let Westminster politicians continue as before. On these benches, we will continue to fight for what is best for the people of Scotland. However, the ball is now firmly in the court of the Westminster parties, and the eyes of Scotland are watching to see how they play it.
17:03
I add my voice to Johann Lamont’s plea to take the politics out of the NHS. Probably one of the lowest points in the referendum campaign was when the SNP suggested that people should vote yes to stop the privatisation of the NHS—even though, all the while, the SNP was itself increasing privatisation.
The NHS is a national treasure. It is one of the few policy areas where cross-party support is guaranteed. We all know that the NHS is creaking at the seams. Should it fail, we all fail. That is why we need a root-and-branch review of the NHS to ensure that it is fit for the 21st century.
We need to include community care in that review. Local authority budget cuts mean that councils are now charging for services that we always thought would be free. If people cannot receive the assistance that they require, they inevitably end up in emergency care. That puts a strain on accident and emergency departments. We now have weekly press stories of doctors warning of the crisis in their A and E departments.
We are also seeing an increase in bedblocking where there is no care available in the community. I recently met with the Crossroads charity in the Western Isles and was told that, if it is to meet its waiting list demand, it would have to double its service provision. However, it does not have the resources—or, indeed, the contracts—to do that.
We need to do something now. This is not a future problem; it is a current crisis in the NHS.
Service cuts have especially impacted on remote rural areas, where it inevitably costs more to deliver services. In Highland, endoscopy patients from Skye now need to travel to Inverness, which is a round trip of more than three hours. Pregnant women in Argyll need to go to Glasgow for ultrasound scans. Depending on family circumstances, that is hard enough when the scan is routine, but how difficult is it if there are complications? That is not shifting the balance of care closer to home; it is asking patients to set out on an expedition to access the care that they require.
While contracts are being issued to the private sector, there is also the creeping privatisation of NHS boards having to put more work to private contractors because they simply cannot cope otherwise. We read press releases about locums being flown in at eye-watering costs because of staff shortages. That is a false economy. We know that private care costs more, as does the reliance on bank and agency nursing.
We need a root-and-branch review of the NHS. We need an NHS that responds to local need, delivers services in a way that is compatible with geography and is designed in conjunction with local people. That is real devolution. We need an NHS that can cope with future pressures while providing compassion, and an NHS that is good enough to attract and retain the best practitioners in the world.
I appeal to the Scottish Government to heed the plea: we owe it to the whole of Scotland to deliver an NHS that is fit for the 21st century.
17:06
The Scottish independence referendum of 2014 delivered two clear outcomes: 45 per cent of Scots want total independence and all the powers of a normal nation; and 55 per cent want to remain part of the UK, but with substantial powers coming to this Parliament. We are told that up to 500,000 Scots voted no on the basis of the vow that was chiselled on to tablets of stone on the front page of the Daily Record during the last days of a panicking no campaign. That number is greater than the no majority, so we have a clear mandate for significant new powers, which the UK parties must deliver over this next chapter of Scotland’s story.
Will the member give way?
I will not be taking any interventions during a three-minute speech, I am afraid.
The early signs regarding the promises that were made are not good. The ink was hardly dry on that front page before we heard the leader of the Labour Party—a signatory to the vow—declaring, even before the count was finished, that he was for none of the Tory Prime Minister’s proposals to take the matter forward in the way described.
I, my daughter, who was voting for the first time, and many yes colleagues, who worked so hard for what we believed in, looked on in astonishment but with no real surprise at events as they unfolded on the morning of Friday 19 September. It must rank as the fastest U-turn in political history, and was immediately regarded as a complete betrayal of Scotland.
Muttering in the background was the predictable gaggle of Tory and Labour MPs lining up to rubbish the vow and the promise of new substantial powers for Scotland. Boris Johnson described the vow as a “reckless” promise. Christopher Chope said that it was something
“in inverted commas ... but that is not a guarantee that it would be implemented in the United Kingdom parliament.”
Even the respected Labour MP Jack Straw wants future such referendums to be made illegal and the union made permanent.
We should remember that those views are what current members of the UK Parliament think; we should just think about what is coming: the lunatics will arrive in the asylum to press their own agenda soon.
Mr Coffey, confine yourself to parliamentary language, please.
That gives us a picture of what Scotland will be up against, and of the coming resistance in the UK Parliament to delivering anything meaningful at all.
The infamous Gordon Brown petition must surely rank as one of the most ridiculous episodes in Scottish political history. Petitions usually call on others to deliver what they have promised; they do not usually involve people calling on themselves to deliver what they have themselves promised.
The Labour motion talks about
“the settled will of the people of Scotland”,
but I think that the will of the Scottish people is anything but settled. In Charles Stewart Parnell’s famous words,
“no man has the right to fix the boundary of a nation”,
and no person or party here can possibly say to the people of Scotland, “Thus far and no further.”
Generation yes is growing in numbers and confidence. Scotland is watching and waiting. As Parnell said, the people will decide when the time is right to recover our independence and to take Scotland forward to a place where she can realise her full potential.
We move to the closing speeches.
17:09
We are in a new debate—we have turned a page and it is a new chapter; the independence referendum debate is over—and, this early in a new debate, tone is one of the most important things to get right. I have no doubt that there are folk on all sides who get it wrong as well as some on all sides who get it right. I agree very strongly with what Johann Lamont said about the need for everyone to do something that is quite difficult in politics—find ways to work together towards common goals. We are often very bad at that. I have to say, though, that to get the tone so right in saying that and then to laugh along at Hugh Henry’s speech, which was one of the most cynical that I have ever heard in the Parliament, is not—
I struggle to see how it is cynical to make a comparison between what we say and what we do. All that SNP members have talked about this afternoon is new powers. Even with the powers that we have at the moment, we have turned our backs on the poorest in society.
I agree very much with some of the criticisms of SNP policies that Hugh Henry made—for example, I do not support the council tax freeze for many of the same reasons that he does not—but the tone of voice in which he made his comments was in no way designed to encourage people to work together and find the common ground. If we look at the failure of our political landscape to achieve, for example, a redistribution of wealth from rich to poor, we can see clearly that we need the powers and the political will to address that. Neither winning an election here nor winning an election at Westminster guarantees the political will or the outcome that we seek.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thank you.
I refer to Jackson Carlaw’s comments, too, to underline the fact that I can agree with him on more than just popular television. He talked about scrutiny. There are already concerns about the way in which scrutiny works in this Parliament, which was not designed for a single party majority. Whether we like that single party majority or are members of an Opposition party, the Parliament was not designed for it. If we are to gain substantial additional powers, we need to enhance parliamentary scrutiny, and I assure Jackson Carlaw that I will make the case for action on that. That we cannot determine our own scrutiny arrangements—many of them are set in the Scotland Act 1998—is as bizarre as the fact that we cannot expel a member who is convicted of domestic violence or change the voting age to 16, as most of us now want.
There are aspects of our democratic governance that go beyond questions of economic powers and welfare. Those questions are all profoundly important and we need to discuss them all if we want to close the wealth gap that has grown so obscenely large throughout the UK. However, those aspects of our governance ought be resolved here in this Parliament if the people of Scotland are to have a Parliament that does not run the risk of being brought into disrepute as a result of our having a member who has been convicted of serious offences and being unable to do anything about it.
There are a host of other issues, from energy to equality to transport, on which not only we as politicians but a host of other voices are already chipping in and saying that we can do things better if we put those proposals on the table in the discussion about where devolution goes next.
I close—
Do.
—by making a plea to all members not to pull up the drawbridge and pretend that this is all for us to decide. We must put it out there to the wider public as well.
17:13
The key message from today’s debate is outlined in the motion. It is about all of us having to work together, both with the powers that we already have and in relation to the powers that we seek through the Smith commission.
I agree with Willie Rennie, who spoke optimistically about the prospects for the Smith commission. Each of the five political parties have put forward to the commission two excellent candidates. The combination of those talents, allied with the chairing of Lord Smith, the good will of both Governments, the involvement of civic Scotland and a specific commitment to involve people up and down Scotland, means that the prospects for the Smith commission are good, and I think that we should have some faith in the process instead of speaking negatively about it from the sidelines.
There is a responsibility on the Scottish Government. In the opening speech for the Government, Alex Neil said that it is going to be constructive, that it will be part of the process and that it wants to make the process work. However, we then hear back bencher after back bencher after back bencher talking about “complete betrayal” and saying that there is not a vote for independence “at the moment” and that the majority were in favour of independence until the vow came along. People are either part of the process and will try to make it work, or they are not and will just carp from the sidelines. They cannot be both.
Can Gavin Brown assure the chamber that whatever comes out of the Smith commission will be passed in full, unamended, by the Westminster Parliament?
How can one individual MSP vouch for what five political parties will do in a certain process or for this or other Parliaments? The proposition that an individual MSP can vouch for all of that is absurd. What I can say, however, is that the process was begun within an hour of the announcement of the Fife result, which confirmed the result of the referendum. Within a week, Lord Smith of Kelvin was in this building, speaking to stakeholders, and within weeks of the referendum, the process itself has begun. I understand that the first formal meeting is set to take place in a few days’ time, on 14 October. A clear timetable and process have been outlined, and we should all be confident that everyone is putting their very best into it. Indeed, it is incumbent on us all, including the Scottish Government, to do our best to make it work but, as I have said, people are either part of the process or they are not part of it.
There was some talk of our having to start to take more seriously the powers that we already have or which we are already getting via the Scotland Act 2012. That is a really important point, and I want to dwell on one example in that regard. When the budget is announced tomorrow, we will hear the rates and bands for the land and buildings transaction tax, which was one of the first taxes to be devolved and will come in next April. We need to scrutinise that very carefully and look very closely at the projections, because getting it wrong could have a damaging effect on the economy and, in particular, the housing market in Scotland, and could lead to a shortfall in the public finances that this Parliament and this Government would have to make up in the financial year 2015-16.
We already have responsibilities, and we are getting more. However, it is up to us to step up to the plate and ensure that we deliver on those that we already have.
17:17
I begin by reiterating what I said in my opening speech: the Scottish Government accepts the result of the independence referendum, and we will participate positively in the Smith commission process to ensure that we increase the Parliament’s powers and use them to promote economic growth and a fairer society. That is the Scottish Government’s clear position.
If I may say so, I think that by far the best speech from the front benches of the three unionist parties came from Willie Rennie, who I think is trying to get the tone right and find a positive approach. As he pointed out, this is the first time in Scotland’s modern history that the five major political parties have got together in one room to have this kind of discussion.
Of course, I qualify that with the point that Patrick Harvie very rightly made that no matter what we agree as political parties we have to take the people with us and involve them in the process. They should not be simply handed the results of the discussions and the party politics.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
No, I do not have time.
Willie Rennie also talked about the 45 plus the 55. Part of our job in this Parliament is to ensure that those who voted yes and those who voted no in the referendum can take Scotland forward together not only on the powers agenda, but on the economic and social agendas.
We know that a significant number of people who voted no are very much in favour of this Parliament having substantially more powers than it has at the present time. In fact, I have here last week’s Wishaw Press, in which there is a headline from Frank Roy, the Labour MP for Motherwell and Wishaw, that says:
“Working together to deliver the promise made for devo max”.
That is from a Labour MP in Scotland. It is clear that he believes that the promise was devo max.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
I do not have time.
I believe that a lot of people in Scotland, including many people who voted no, believe that the promise and the vow were for devo max.
We will work constructively in the Smith commission. In her opening remarks, the leader of the Labour Party talked about the new politics. Patrick Harvie made a fair point. Obviously, the leader of the Labour Party has not told her back-bench MSPs about the new politics. We hear them laughing at the substantive points that are made.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
No. I do not have time. [Interruption.]
Order.
Unusually, I thought that Mr Carlaw’s speech was very disappointing in many aspects—for example, in his comparison between the independence referendum result and the Panelbase poll. The point is this: the referendum involved a yes or no to independence, but the point that has been made and the reason why the Panelbase poll was highlighted were to show, as Willie Rennie, Patrick Harvie and others have pointed out, that many people on the no side want to see substantial additional powers for the Scottish Parliament. Woe betide any politician in the Scottish Parliament or at Westminster who fails to keep the promise that they made to the Scottish people during the referendum campaign.
We have all agreed that we want to build on the unprecedented public engagement and interest in Scotland’s constitutional future to ensure that decisions are based, as far as possible, on the will of the Scottish people. Willie Rennie is right: let us try to find as much common ground as we possibly can. We as a Scottish Government will try to do that, but there has to be a will to recognise that there is a substantial demand among the people of Scotland for substantial additional powers.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Unfortunately, I do not have time.
It is therefore legitimate for us, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens and people in various organisations in Scotland, including the likes of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, to argue for substantial additional powers. Indeed, the Labour MP for Motherwell and Wishaw, Mr Roy, will no doubt put in a submission to the Smith commission that demands that devo max be delivered, as he says that that was promised to the Scottish people. Phrases such as “We’re going to give you home rule,” “We’re going to give you neo-federalism,” and “We’re going to give you devo max” cannot be used without delivering on those vows and promises to the Scottish people.
The fact that we are saying that does not mean that we will not co-operate. Of course we will make our contribution and participate in the Smith commission process. We will approach it in a very positive manner, as Willie Rennie is doing—I think that, so far, he has been the only unionist speaker in the debate who has done so—and as Mr Harvie and others are doing, but it is legitimate for people who voted yes and many people who voted no to demand what they were promised and what they believed they were promised.
It will not be the SNP or the SNP Government that will hold the politicians to account; it will be the Scottish people who will do so if they do not deliver on that promise.
17:24
This morning, Johann Lamont paid tribute to Angus Macleod on behalf of my party. I thank Jackson Carlaw for putting his comments in the Official Report, and I associate us with them.
For the past few years, the business of the Parliament has been preoccupied with one question. In the weeks that have followed the answer, our politics has continued to be dominated by constitutional issues. We have heard that over the past hour.
Labour members have always been clear that entrenching and enhancing devolution was our alternative to Scotland leaving the United Kingdom.
Scotland’s future should not be discussed without considering the powers of this Parliament and we are clear that the timetable that we set out before the referendum and the cross-party process that has begun must be held to. We are committed to delivering the powers for a purpose that we are pledged to. Although we cannot accept the redefinition that is offered in the amendments today, we will listen to the ideas of others who are committed to devolution in good faith. Where common ground can be found, we will join with others with differing visions of what this place should be.
The parameters of that future are set not by the Scottish Labour Party but the people of Scotland. It is they who have instructed us to continue devolution within the United Kingdom, not in competition to it. The challenge for us all cannot simply be what powers, but rather how power is to be used: in whose interest will it be exercised? Powers for politicians in Edinburgh rather than London is not good enough.
The story of Scotland’s referendum, beyond determining the people’s endorsement of Scotland’s place in the UK, was, as Patrick Harvie said, about the participation of people in our politics. Across our country, people have come together and discussed their hopes and aspirations for our society in a way that, as Willie Rennie said, never happened before. That can only be a good thing; in fact, it is a great thing.
Yet in the weeks following the referendum, and this afternoon, too much of the debate in this Parliament has taken place as if Scotland’s people did not come to a decision at all last month. Parliament, with 18 months of its current session to run, cannot spend week after week rerunning the referendum, blaming groups of our people for a result that did not suit our world view. We cannot accept a platform for a more powerful Parliament being built upon an argument that continues to pretend that this Parliament is powerless now; neither can the debate about how we make devolution work within the UK be transformed into a proxy for the same old arguments for a separate Scotland—the arguments that lost—being put again and again.
It has been said so often this year that we live in a historic time. For months it was said that we were about to take the biggest decision that our nation had ever faced. The year is not out; this parliamentary session is not out—the historic time has not yet passed. Our approach to the next period will determine Scotland’s future as profoundly as the votes of 2 million Scots on one side and 1.6 million Scots on the other.
This Parliament was established with hope for the future as its foundation stone. Taking responsibility for the affairs that are controlled from here is as important as negotiating the terms of our partnership with the rest of the UK. Both sides of the campaign argued that the success of devolution should drive us in our decision, whether to recreate this Parliament as an independent institution or to recreate it as a beacon of good democracy, passionate debate and informed deliberation within the union.
The challenge we face in the remaining time that we have here is just as important, whatever people’s views were—or whatever remaining view they have—of constitutional change. That is the common ground on which we should all now stand.
One moment, Mr Smith. There are an awful lot of private conversations going on. Can we hear Mr Smith sum up the debate, please?
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
The motion and amendments that we have debated reflect that change was the language of the campaign and that the people cannot now be put back in their place. The people who come to my surgery, as well as those who have never willingly listened to a political speech or attended a public meeting but who voted for the first time last month, have a similar demand of us who are privileged to serve here. They demand a politics not in the abstract but authentic to the real world that exists outside these walls.
How many times during a public debate did those of us on either side suggest some deficiency of the other side and watch people in the audience glaze over? The problem was put best to me by a wise man whom I met on the walkway outside his upper-floor flat in Braid Square, in the North Woodside area of Glasgow. He said, “The trouble with politicians is that you are all the same yet you spend all the time refusing to work together. The real issues become lost and the ordinary person is at a loss to understand you.”
Few of us here believe that we are all the same—our debate this afternoon has shown that—but when it comes to an inability to work together that man has a point. We are not all the same, but the challenges we face are. Over the last year, we have had a stream of reports about our NHS, which is being driven at full speed just to keep pace with the traffic of health inflation, demographic change and medical innovation. Too many of the staff who work in the service and the patients who rely on it, and their families, feel that signs along the road are being ignored and that those in the driving seat have no map to follow.
On childcare, we were all agreed in this chamber before the referendum that what we have now is not good enough. We may have different priorities about how we should tackle the problem, just as we have different views on the powers needed to make a difference, but can we not prove wrong those who believe that this parliamentary session will be remembered only for a referendum being held?
There is no bigger and more important response to all those who engaged in the debate on our nation’s future than to listen to what the people told us about the nation’s problems and resolve to act together to create the better Scotland that was being demanded in every conversation that took place.
The energy of the referendum and the willingness to debate ideas was the prize of the past few months—we cannot now let business as usual be the price. Tomorrow evening we will all go back to whichever part of the country sent us here and enjoy some rest and reflection. When we return, the Government will shortly have new leadership, and we will have precious few days to define our politics for the future.
I have said before that this Parliament needs to get back to work, but you have said, Presiding Officer, that it cannot go back to old ways of working. The constitutional question has dominated Scottish politics all my life and the referendum had dominated this parliamentary session. That question has been answered, and the answer must be heard.
I say to Gavin Brown that it is not just the SNP back benchers who have denied the referendum result. In this week’s Airdrie and Coatbridge Advertiser, Alex Neil talks about the referendum simply being a “staging post”. The referendum was not a staging post; the result was the decision of the people of Scotland and we must respect that decision.
Powers over health, childcare, tax, welfare and running our railways are important. Whether we talk about existing powers or new powers, let us argue not just to hold them but to make use of them with the purpose that united people on either side of the campaign: the power to make our country a better place.
Previous
PolicingNext
Business Motions