Scotland’s Future
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S4M-01678, in the name of Johann Lamont, on Scotland’s future.
Time is very tight. To allow me to get in everybody who wants to speak, I ask members please to keep to their time limits. I call Johann Lamont to speak to and move the motion. Ms Lamont, you have 15 minutes—sorry, 14 minutes.
09:15
Did I hear a sigh of relief when the timing was reduced? [Laughter.]
I am proud to have the opportunity to lead in this debate for Labour on the future for Scotland—a country that we all hold dear. For the avoidance of doubt, I now formally move the motion in my name.
We know that this Parliament was built as a means to an end, and that end was social justice for the people of our country. Yet here we are again debating whether the constitution is an end in itself.
Scotland is my country: the nation that shaped me and taught me my values. It is a nation whose achievements inspired and inspire me, and a community whose failings drive me and my overwhelming desire to fight for social justice and equality.
Let me say this at the outset of the debate: the commitment of no one in this chamber, or outwith it, to Scotland should be doubted because of their position on the constitutional question. My belief in Scotland remaining in the United Kingdom is based on my patriotic belief that Scotland’s interests are best served by being in the United Kingdom.
The First Minister once said that he had no problem with those who believe in Scotland being part of the United Kingdom as a matter of principle. He can therefore have no problem with me, because for me the principle of co-operation, solidarity and social justice knowing no borders is at the heart of my beliefs. I am disturbed that, while Mr Salmond has declared his willingness to work with the UK Government, the tone of his amendment to the motion is one of arrogant prescription for how that should be done.
Let me say to the First Minister, for all those Scots who no longer live in Scotland, who are working away from this country, who have family ties to this country and who are proud of their heritage, that they will be offended by the idea that their commitment to Scotland is less than that of those who live in Scotland.
I do not question the patriotism of those who believe that our nation—[Interruption.] I will repeat myself: I do not question the patriotism of those who believe that our nation would be better if it withdrew from the United Kingdom, and I trust that they will not question the patriotism of those who believe that our interests are best served by continuing to work in partnership and strengthened co-operation with our neighbours.
The member mentions a number of issues of political principle. Is she entirely comfortable with her quote in today’s Herald that on the subject of Scotland’s future she is “on the same page” as the Tories?
I am very comfortable with the fact that that is the only thing on which I agree with the Tories. On the other hand, the member’s party went through the lobbies with the Tories to deliver Thatcher to Scotland, and I would not have wanted the accolade that the member’s finance minister achieved when David McLetchie said that a Scottish National Party budget was the next best thing to a Tory one. I know where the principle lies.
Similarly, questioning how, where and why there is injustice in this country is not talking Scotland down but the first sign of our driving ambition to make our nation better.
After the SNP’s historic victory in May, the First Minister told us that there would be a referendum on Scotland leaving the United Kingdom, and that was no surprise. He certainly has the mandate, although to say in a throwaway line in a leaders’ debate four days before polling that he intended it to be held in the second half of the parliamentary session is not a manifesto commitment, and he knows it. Indeed, at the outset of the campaign, he pledged to hold the referendum sooner rather than later, and we encourage him to do so.
As Labour—the only party of radical constitutional change—[Laughter.]
Let me finish my point. The test is not what we say we are going to do; it is what we deliver. I repeat, as Labour is the only party of radical constitutional change and has actually delivered constitutional change, let me remind the chamber that we did it by means of a process that is something of a blueprint for how things should be done here. Donald Dewar led the way. Although the Scottish National Party and the Tories decided not to join us, he was instrumental in setting up the Scottish Constitutional Convention, which was open to all parties and all sections of civic Scotland and Scottish society.
After the landslide of 1997—possibly an even greater one than that of the First Minister—Donald Dewar was again inclusive, even drawing in Mr Salmond, who had refused to be part of the convention. Then there was another really important part of the process. Donald Dewar acted—swiftly and decisively. Within four months we had a referendum and within two years we had this Parliament. We should contrast that with the First Minister’s commitment to constitutional change. He has been in power for four and a half years, but we have no referendum. We now have four consultations but, for all the talk, precious little action. [Interruption.]
The SNP really ought to listen. It took Donald Dewar four months to hold a referendum and two years to establish a Parliament. In contrast, after more than four years, all Alex Salmond can say is that he has achieved the publication of four documents and has named a season in which he might consider holding a referendum. I can understand that happening when Alex Salmond was in the minority, even though he refused our support then, but why the delay? That is what people do not understand. Why the delay, when he has an unprecedented majority? Why the need for another thousand days? It makes no sense to those of us who understand how to deliver constitutional change, and I cannot imagine that it makes much sense to his back benchers, either.
When it comes to constitutional change, where Donald Dewar delivers—four months; two years—Alex Salmond dithers, and we are going to wait at least another 1,000 days. What is he frightened of? He tells us that he can get any legislation he likes passed in this Parliament. He has the mandate. He has the majority. Surely it cannot be that he does not have the courage to face the verdict of the Scottish people. He says that independence will be the cure of all Scotland’s ills and that our economy will be transformed by what his spin doctors say are job-creating powers. His finance minister says that we will be the sixth-richest nation on earth and that Scotland will be free—are we allowed to say that word any more?—and proud. Alex Salmond is Moses, who has led his people to the brink of the promised land but, as they view it from the mountaintop, says to them, “Let’s camp outside for a few more years before we go in.” Bizarrely, at the end of today’s proceedings, the only party that will be voting against a legal, firm and decisive referendum, held soon, is the SNP. It is the SNP’s life work to break a consensus that we should have a referendum on which we can all agree. I do not know whether Mr Salmond can explain that, but it is entirely extraordinary and inexplicable to me.
Thank goodness that Mr Salmond never decided to go into medicine. We can imagine the good Dr Salmond telling his patients, “The good news is that I’ve found a cure for your illness. The bad news is that I’m not going to administer it until halfway through your treatment.”
However—this is a more serious point—the truth is that, while we wait, Scotland has been put on pause as we face the worst economic crisis in 100 years. The explanation from the Government when things go wrong is that it does not have the powers. However, it will not do the work to get those powers. Business and trade unionists may say that the uncertainty is costing Scotland jobs and investment, but as long as the First Minister has a soundbite, all is well. The rocks will melt in the sun before the First Minister admits that anything is wrong on his watch.
It is not just the damage that the delay is doing to Scotland in the short term that matters; what also matters is the profound long-term damage that will be done to future generations if the referendum is not seen to be free and fair, and a crucial part of that is the timing of the referendum.
When the Parliament was set up, we took the progressive decision, which was agreed across civic society, that a First Minister should not have the power to call the Scottish election at a time of their own choosing. We introduced fixed-term Parliaments. Elections to local government and to the European Parliament are at fixed intervals. Even Westminster has adopted that principle, but with the referendum, which will be the most important vote in Scotland’s history, the First Minister insists that he alone—and it is he alone—should have the power to call it.
Frankly, to many of us inside and—more critically—outside the Parliament, that looks cynical; it feels like a fix. That is not good enough. It is not fair on Scotland now or the Scotland of the future for the timing of the referendum to be in the hands of one politician. The referendum belongs not to politicians but to the people of Scotland. Therefore, the challenge of leadership is to build a consensus on how the referendum is run. We will not build a consensus on our vision for Scotland, but we can at least build a consensus on how the referendum is run.
On 18 October 2010, Labour MPs voted to give 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote in the alternative vote referendum. Does Johann Lamont believe that 16 and 17-year-olds should have the right to vote in the Scottish independence referendum?
If the Scottish Government believes in the principle of 16 and 17-year-olds having a vote in elections, it is curious that they will not be voting in the local government elections that will be held in May. [Interruption.]
The Cabinet Secretary for Parliamentary Business and Government Strategy (Bruce Crawford) rose—
Can we settle down, please? Quiet! Order!
I believe that the First Minister should now hold meaningful cross-party talks involving representatives—[Interruption.] On an issue of such seriousness, the idea that it is not possible to suggest that we have consensus without being catcalled down by the leadership is depressing in the extreme.
There should be a single question, and I am heartened that the Deputy First Minister agrees with me on that. I was heartened that she agreed with me until Monday evening, when Mr Salmond’s Treasury spokesman at Westminster seemed to contradict her. Imagine that—a Westminster politician contradicting a Holyrood colleague in the same party. We have cross-party consensus for a single-question referendum, and we should confirm that in meaningful talks that include other leaders in civic Scotland.
The purpose of the referendum is to decide whether we remain in the United Kingdom, which is why there is a consensus on a single question. We come back to the principle that the vote needs to be free and fair and needs to be seen to be free and fair. That is in all our interests, regardless of which side we are on.
The Scottish Labour Party is the party that believes in devolution and which is radical on the constitution, and it would be wrong for the First Minister not just to define his own position but to try to define that of the Opposition as well. As the Scottish National Party argued when it stayed out of the convention, devolution and independence are two profoundly different concepts. I agree. One is not a short measure of the other, and they ought not to be conflated. The people of Scotland ought to have the opportunity to make that critical decision.
As I have said, we need clarity. I have asked the First Minister to hold cross-party talks. In particular, I encourage him to understand the importance of the referendum being properly administered. I believe that the Electoral Commission is beyond reproach. Surely no one is attacking its integrity. Why would we need to set up another body? Does the First Minister not understand that people feel suspicious about that decision? We do not understand why the First Minister is putting himself in a position in which it appears that he wants to fix something rather than resolve it.
Let us come together on the process, on the timing and on the question, and on that basis we can disagree profoundly on the future. I believe that this is a time when we have a responsibility to ensure that no one can question whether the referendum is fair and free, so that, whatever happens, we can accept the result. We have a responsibility to ensure that future generations will not be able to look back at the referendum and say that it was a grubby fix. We have a responsibility to recognise that the choice that the First Minister is asking our nation to make is bigger than all of us.
Let us settle the process quickly so that the nation can debate the principles that are at stake. We should be allowed a chance to act as leaders of our country, and not just as leaders of our parties. I urge the First Minister to build a consensus on the process so that we can have a rigorous, open debate about our choices of futures for Scotland. That will not just give us an opportunity to have a serious debate on the issues but allow certainty when the vote finally comes. We owe it to the people of Scotland. Scotland deserves it. I look forward to the First Minister agreeing that we can work together, along with civic Scotland, to support the way in which the process is done, so that we allow the people to make their choice.
I move,
That the Parliament recognises that the Scottish Government has a mandate to call a referendum on the constitutional future of Scotland and calls on the First Minister to hold immediate cross-party talks, including with leaders from all quarters of civic Scotland, to agree a timetable for the referendum, to ensure that the referendum provides a clear result on a single question and to ensure that the referendum is run in Scotland by the Electoral Commission so that the people of Scotland can have an early and rigorous debate on the future of Scotland.
09:31
I congratulate Johann Lamont on her first speech as Labour leader in the Parliament. She almost pulled if off. The Labour motion states:
“That the Parliament recognises that the Scottish Government has a mandate to call a referendum”,
and if it had stopped there, the entire Parliament could have united around it. Unfortunately, it goes on to give a range of Labour opinions, which rather gives the game away.
I was struck that Johann Lamont inadvertently put herself in some difficulty. I know that it is embarrassing that the Labour Party, including Ed Miliband, voted for votes for 16 and seven-year-olds in 2010. [Laughter.] Yes, they did, in 2010, for the AV referendum, in the House of Commons. Yet the Labour Party says that that is something that is dreadful to anticipate in a Scottish referendum, so Johann Lamont said that 17 and 18-year-olds should not vote—[Interruption]—in the Scottish referendum. She asked, “Why don’t we include them in the local government elections?” The answer is that we do not have the power to do that. The matter is reserved under the Scotland Act 1998. In that revealing insight, we found the reason why the Labour Party has so much difficulty: it does not even know how limited the powers of this Parliament are.
The point of my contribution was to suggest that, across Scotland, we could meet, talk and agree a consensus on the best way forward. I have not excluded that proposal, which will naturally be part of that debate. Let us have the talks.
I am delighted that we are making progress. However, I note that, while Johann Lamont has not excluded it, the Westminster politicians who are laying down diktats to this Parliament have already excluded it and said that it is not an option. I assure Johann Lamont that the consultation paper that we will publish in two weeks’ time will open up a wide discussion with the people of Scotland.
I thought that a second aspect was somewhat lacking in Johann Lamont’s speech. She said how dreadful it would be if people doubted the bona fides of a referendum that was organised by the Scottish Parliament and organised in Scotland. Some of us have long enough memories to remember the 40 per cent rule and what happens if one allows a referendum to be organised at Westminster. She should note the opinion of the Scottish Trades Union Congress, which said in a statement released yesterday that
“an independent body in Scotland should be tasked with the responsibility of making recommendations on the process and conduct of the referendum”.
Will the First Minister give way?
When we put forward our proposals on how the referendum should be administered, I am sure that most reasonable people in Scotland will accept the justice of that position. I give way to one of Scotland’s reasonable people.
Does the First Minister agree with his minister Stewart Stevenson, who wishes that the Electoral Commission had overseen the 1979 referendum?
I certainly wish that that referendum had not been dictated by a Tory-Labour cabal at Westminster, which inserted the 40 per cent rule to try to deny the democratic right of the Scottish people. Winnie Ewing best encapsulated the point when she said that, once upon a time, Britannia ruled the waves, but now it waives the rules. Those of us who have memories of Westminster-organised referenda look askance at Johann Lamont’s idea that, somehow, this Parliament and this country cannot organise a fair and proper referendum.
Johann Lamont rose—
Let me make a little progress; I might give way to Johann Lamont for a second time later.
Not for the first time, Johann Lamont questioned whether we made clear our ideas about the timing for holding a referendum. Of course, she does not carry with her all the Labour Party—even in this Parliament—in that opinion. I quote:
“Mr Salmond and the SNP clearly stated that any referendum would be held later in the life of this parliament. That’s what many Scots voted for, that’s what gave Mr Salmond his majority and that’s the mandate which the SNP has”.
That was said by Hugh Henry MSP in a letter to The Scotsman on 9 May last year.
Will the First Minister take an intervention?
Since I mentioned him, I will of course give way to Hugh Henry.
There is a salutary lesson in that quote not only for me but for others. I believed what the SNP had said and I failed to check the facts, which were that the SNP’s manifesto did not mention the issue. The people of Scotland should be warned never to believe what the SNP says and always to check the facts.
What Hugh Henry said in his letter to The Scotsman, when he was bidding to be the Presiding Officer, was clearly stated, as the point had been clearly stated. Perhaps the lesson of that exchange is that, when Hugh Henry wrote his letter to The Scotsman, he was a back bencher who was free to comment, whereas he has just made his rather apologetic intervention as a front bencher who is constrained in what he can say.
We have a more recent example. In what I think was his valedictory performance at First Minister’s question time just a few weeks ago, Iain Gray said:
“I asked him what the date will be. If it will be ... 2014, 2015 or 2016, that is fine—just tell us what it is.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2011; c 3838.]
I have now told the Labour Party what the date is, but Johann Lamont is still complaining that we have not set the date in the correct and proper way.
It is entirely proper for Scotland to move forward on an organised basis to hold the referendum, which will involve the most important decision for Scotland in 300 years. We will certainly do that by consensus and consultation, but consensus and consultation must recognise the overwhelming mandate that the SNP was given in this Parliament from the Scottish people.
Will the First Minister give way?
No, thank you.
When we publish our consultation document, the consultation will take place not just with political parties—we will not just meet Johann Lamont—but with the people of Scotland. I hope that people listened to the voice of members of civic Scotland as expressed on the radio this morning by John Downie and the Rev Ian Galloway, who told people that civic Scotland did not want options to be constrained and wanted the room to debate with politicians how to move forward. We should not accept the diktats of a Conservative Prime Minister to constrain the debate as we move forward to have the referendum on Scotland’s future.
The First Minister is almost at the end of his speech and we have not heard one legal basis for what he claims. The Secretary of State for Scotland set out the UK’s legal case. When will the First Minister set out his?
I offer the Liberal Democrat that precise thing—the leading textbook on Scottish constitutional law, “Law and Practice”, by Himsworth and O’Neill. Professor Chris Himsworth wrote the commentary on the Scotland Act 1998 itself.
“A recurring ... example with a high political profile is that of a Bill to authorise the holding of a referendum on independence for Scotland. Because its purpose could be interpreted as the testing of opinion rather than the amendment of the constitution, such a Bill would almost certainly be within the Parliament’s powers.”
I hope that that view—from an independent expert—will satisfy the Liberal Democrats.
Johann Lamont asks for talks with the Government. However, the Labour Party has beaten us to the punch. We know that it has been in consistent talks—in cahoots—with the Conservative Party at Westminster since the election. Just before Christmas, a freedom of information request showed that Scottish secretary Michael Moore, and Labour former shadow Scottish secretary Ann McKechin, met on four occasions over 18 months to discuss constitutional issues. Yesterday in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister was moved to say to Ed Miliband, “I agree with you 100 per cent.” Let me warn the Labour Party—go in with the Tories and they will suck you in and they will spit you out, as they have done to the Liberal Democrats.
Rather than have a cross-party alliance between Labour and Tory at Westminster, let us involve the people of Scotland in a considered and proper way—in the consultation document that we will discuss, debate and take opinion from. Civic Scotland’s point of view is that we should move towards having a referendum that is built in Scotland, made in Scotland, produced by this Parliament, and then offered to the people of Scotland to decide, in their wisdom, the future of this nation.
I enjoy a little bit of political bandiage, but I have to say that—
Bandinage?
When Johann Lamont suggested that we were not consistent on this issue, I wondered whether that comment could possibly be coming from the party that said, “No referendum,” and then said, “Bring it on,” and then went back to, “No referendum,” and now wants a referendum to be held immediately. I do not think that we can take lessons on consistency from the Labour Party on this particular issue.
Why not accept that this party should go to the Scottish people with a central part of our manifesto? In the election, not only did we gain an overall majority in a Parliament elected by proportional representation, but—in the list or party vote—we gained more votes than the Labour Party, the Liberal party and the Conservatives put together. The people of Scotland spoke in the election and their voice was very clear indeed—for a referendum organised in Scotland, built in Scotland for the Scottish people, discussed with civic Scotland and then brought to the people in 2014 for an historic decision on the future of this nation.
I move amendment S4M-01678.2, to leave out from “that the Scottish Government” to end and insert:
“the mandate given to the Scottish Government by the people of Scotland in the May 2011 Scottish election to hold a referendum offering people the choice to decide their future and agrees that it is the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament to decide the timing and arrangements for the referendum; welcomes the announcement of Autumn 2014 as the date for Scotland’s referendum; believes that 16 and 17-year-olds on the electoral roll should have the opportunity to vote, as it is their future along with everyone else’s that will be determined by the result; encourages all Scots to take part in the Scottish Government’s consultation on the referendum to be launched in the week beginning 23 January 2012, and affirms that constitutional change is a process and that what ultimately matters is that the people who care most about Scotland, the people who live in Scotland, achieve a parliament with the powers and responsibilities of independence to grow the economy, create jobs, build a strong society and give all of Scotland’s people the life chances that they deserve.”
09:43
Like the First Minister, I enjoy a bit of political bandiage or bandinage myself but, on an issue as important as this one, I prefer information to obfuscation. The First Minister said that he did not want civic Scotland to be constrained in the debate but, as far as I can read from the Labour leader’s motion, not constraining civic Scotland is exactly what she is calling for.
One of the few things in the First Minister’s speech with which I could agree was when he said that this is the most important decision for 300 years—but the next 1,000 days could decide the destiny of our country for not just the next 300 years but the next 1,000 years. It is that important. The ground on which the debate will rage is not whether Scotland can be independent but whether it would be better off alone. It is not a question of could; it is a question of should. Every opinion poll ever published shows that the people of Scotland agree with me—Scotland is better off in Britain.
We have the best of both worlds: we have control over our own devolved affairs, with more powers on the way, and we are part of the most enduring and successful partnerships in the history of the world. We are a fantastic Scotland in a Great Britain.
In 1,000 days’ time, or perhaps even sooner, 4 million people in Scotland will get the chance to reaffirm that they are proud to be both Scottish and British. History is in the making although, for the First Minister, I fear that it is not the history that he is hoping for. This is an epoch in Scotland’s story: it is the latest chapter for a proud country that is at ease with who we are. We are optimistic about what we can be, but we are comfortable and content with being in our United Kingdom.
Much of this week, and today’s debate, will concentrate on the process that leads to the referendum, but the real debate—the stark choice between unity or separation—is the bigger issue. However, process matters, because the people of Scotland demand and are due a referendum that is clear, fair, decisive and legal. That means a date, and a fair and clear question. It means answers to the big questions about just what independence would mean. It means an honest debate in which differing views can be honestly expressed, and a contest in which people can advance their arguments without being shouted down just because they do not agree. It means robust debate, not personal abuse.
It means recognising that we all want the best for our country, even if we do not agree on how that can be achieved. It means acknowledging that the debate is about the very future of our country and that both Scotland’s Parliaments and both Scotland’s Governments have a rightful interest in the matter. However, it also means recognising that a referendum must be legally held in Scotland for Scotland and in the court of Scottish public opinion rather than in the law courts of Scotland.
For my part, I will always make the positive case for Scotland in Britain: that we are better united; that Scots can feel good about their dual identities; and that being Scottish and British is not a contradiction but a plus.
I respect the First Minister’s right to hold that vote, and his long-held belief in separation. However, I do not agree with the destiny that he has set for Scotland, and I know that Scotland does not agree with it either.
I had hoped that the spirit of reasonable argument could prevail.
Will the member take an intervention?
On the idea of reasonable argument—yes, absolutely.
Since David Cameron’s intervention in the referendum debate, 300 people have joined the SNP. How many people have joined the Conservative Party?
We are in the middle of a very big membership drive, and I would ask anybody who has an interest in centre-right politics to join the Conservative Party.
Let us talk about that reasonable debate, because there is an ugly side to the argument that has been made in recent days, and it has come not from the Prime Minister but from the very member who has just intervened. I am sad to say—it probably says more about me than it does about anyone else—that I follow Joan McAlpine on Twitter, and I know that she has tweeted that Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives are “anti-Scottish”. That type of ignorant, petty nationalism is an insult not only to us but to Scots up and down the country.
I know the difference between patriotism and nationalism, and I do not doubt for one moment the desire of all patriots and nationalists to do what they think is best for Scotland. However, the narrow opinion that the only true Scots are those who believe in separation is demeaning to those who peddle it and an insult to the majority of people who live here.
Ms McAlpine’s intervention is a sign of how the SNP mask can slip: a sign of SNP members’ desire to play the politics of grudge and grievance, to complain when they do not get their own way and to act as if they own the hearts and souls of all Scots and as if only Alex Salmond can speak for Scotland.
Will the member give way?
I am terribly sorry—I am being advised by the Presiding Officer.
If I am allowed extra time, I will happily take the First Minister’s intervention.
We are still waiting to find out how many people have joined the Conservative Party, but I point to the views of someone who has just left.
The member is meant to sit down now.
Briefly, Mr Salmond.
The former legal adviser to the Conservative Party, Paul McBride QC, who left the Conservative Party in disappointment at the result that saw Ruth Davidson elected, said on BBC Scotland yesterday:
“I’m absolutely satisfied the Scottish Government has the power to hold a referendum”.
If he had still been her party’s legal adviser, would Ruth Davidson be pursuing a different line?
As the First Minister well knows, and as he has been told in the chamber by my predecessor on more than one occasion, Paul McBride was never the legal adviser to the Scottish Conservative Party.
I make no secret of our desire to have the referendum sooner rather than later, and we need to ask why the First Minister is ignoring warnings from the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry Scotland and Citigroup about the consequences of not taking forward the referendum more quickly. However, let the consultation take place over when the referendum should be and let the First Minister properly engage for the first time in mature discussions about the legality of the referendum and the reasonable and constructive offer from the United Kingdom Government to remove obstacles and clear the way for a fair, unambiguous and decisive vote. Surely, even Alex Salmond must want that—or is it that, given the frustration of the nationalists this week because their bluff has been called, he secretly wants confusion and legal wrangling? Does he prefer ambiguity, so that he can ask the woolly, soft, back-door question about being given a chance to negotiate possible separation terms rather than having to ask a clear, straightforward in-or-out question?
As the debate unfolds over the coming weeks, there will be a clear dividing line between patriots and nationalists. We want clarity, the SNP wants confusion; we want co-operation, the SNP wants confrontation; we want it settled, the SNP wants to drag it on. Scotland gets the best deal when its two Governments work together. We want to remove obstacles to the referendum to make it legal, fair and decisive. Why would the SNP object to that? The most revealing aspect about today’s debate is the fact that the SNP refuses to back the reasonable motion in front of us. That tells us all that we need to know about the SNP. The Scottish Conservatives are happy to support the motion.
I remind members that they should press their request-to-speak buttons if they wish to take part in the debate. I also remind them that time is now extremely tight.
09:51
It is interesting how the anti-independence parties are generally keen to accuse SNP members of always wanting to discuss the constitutional question—we have heard that again this morning—yet, this week, those parties have shared platforms, radio microphones and television studio couches and have tied themselves in knots over the very question of the legality or illegality of a referendum to decide Scotland’s future.
The question of legality is no more than a smokescreen. The section 30 possibility was, after all, recognised by the Scottish Government some time ago. It is a smokescreen to hide the fact that the UK Government—Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, assisted by the Labour Party—is intent on determining the terms of Scotland’s referendum. It is determined to pull the strings and thus deny the rights of Scotland’s people, through their elected Government, to make decisions on the future of their nation. I had hoped that the Labour Party in Scotland, after joining with the Tories and Lib Dems to stop the referendum in the previous session, would renege on that joint crusade this time round and recognise that, as stated in the 1989 claim of right, while the union may be a reserved matter, the sovereignty of the Scottish people certainly is not.
I wonder whether the member signed the claim of right.
I was not a member of Parliament all that time ago; I do not know whether Mr Rennie was.
I read the consultation document issued by the Secretary of State for Scotland and noted that one possibility mooted is an amendment to the Scotland Bill that is wending its way through Westminster. That prompted me to reread the exchanges that I had with Mr Moore in November last year. I asked a very straight question:
“I am asking you to ensure that there is nothing in the Scotland Bill that interferes with the right of the Scottish Government, representing the Scottish people, to set the timing and wording of the questions for the referendum.”
His answer seemed straight, too:
“Those issues are not part of my bill, nor do I intend to bring them forward.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2011; c 628-9.]
What a difference two months makes—or perhaps it is the difference that a Tory Prime Minister makes when the secretary of state’s party has tied itself to his apron strings.
It is not just the timescale or the question that the secretary of state’s party is backsliding on—it is voter eligibility too. The Lib Dems, who have long campaigned for votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, now do not believe that 16 and 17-year-olds on the electoral register should be entitled to vote in the referendum. As well as referring to the Liberal Democrats’ 2010 manifesto pledge, I am sure that many of my colleagues taking part today will be able to cite many examples of Lib Dem MPs and MSPs going on record to support this cause—that is, the cause of votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, as opposed to the abolition of tuition fees.
Some Labour members also signed up to the votes at 16 campaign. In addition, as we heard from Mark McDonald and the First Minister, more than 180 Labour MPs supported an amendment to allow votes at 16 on the AV referendum, including Margaret Curran, who is currently on side with Messrs Moore and Mundell. Not many members who are here today have not at some time or other stated, or at least agreed with the statement, that our young people are our future, so why on earth are they trying to deny Scotland’s 16 and 17-year-olds the right to vote on that future? There is no logic in that position, and nor is there logic in Scottish Labour’s motion, which calls for discussion with all quarters of civic Scotland to ensure a single question. Civic Scotland has called for greater powers for our Parliament over and over again, and that call is due respect from members of the Parliament. Therefore, let us continue the discussion, not dictate the answer.
I believe in independence for my country and believe that Scotland’s future will be best served if we rejoin the family of nations, as so many have done over the past decades. I believe that independence can bring us prosperity and a fairer society, which is why I will always campaign for it. I respect the views of others, sincerely held and stated, but I find it difficult to thole the denial that Scotland has the right to make its own decisions through the mandate of its democratically elected Government. The Government in Scotland has been democratically elected by Scots, but let us not pretend that the current UK Government has been, despite what David Mundell, Scotland’s only Conservative MP, insists on repeating.
Scotland has been told for long enough what it cannot do. Sadly, that has too often been by those whom we have elected to represent us. I ask those who have been elected to the Scottish Parliament to think long and hard about why they came to it. We should ask and talk about what Scotland can do and what we can achieve. That starts with Scotland making it clear to the Westminster Government that the referendum is ours and that it is our right to decide its timing and terms. On that basis, the SNP amendment should be supported.
09:57
I am pleased to speak in the debate and pleased that we on the Labour benches have provided members with the opportunity to debate the independence referendum. However, many people might reasonably have expected the debate to have been introduced by the Scottish Government, not only because it says that independence is its most important priority or because it has been the foremost issue in Scottish and UK politics this week, but because the First Minister announced on Tuesday to the media his new proposed timescale for a referendum. It is an important issue for the Parliament.
There are a number of bizarre aspects of the Scottish Government’s position, and none more so than its grim determination to delay a referendum for as long as it can. After the election, along with other Opposition parties, we were quick to accept that the SNP had secured a mandate for a referendum. It is therefore bewildering—and it must frustrate many nationalists—that, after more than four years of consultation on the issue, a draft bill and several consultation documents, a majority nationalist Government is stretching every sinew to hold off a vote when for so long it has impressed on us the urgent need for a referendum.
Will the member give way?
I will take one intervention and then I will have to finish my speech.
Does the member accept that we are talking about one of the most important decisions that Scotland has had to make and that it is therefore worth spending time on it and thinking about how we will deal with the economy, defence and all the other issues?
We have had years. We had a draft bill in the previous session of Parliament from the member’s Government, which pressed for a referendum as soon as possible. I am afraid that the Scottish Government is in a weak position on the issue. There is simply no compelling objective reason to delay the vote.
As Johann Lamont said, in 1997, it took only months to hold a referendum and, within two years, a Parliament was established. The SNP manifesto did not state that the referendum should be in the second half of the session, although failing to honour election pledges has not troubled the First Minister previously. Many people will believe that the only reason why the First Minister is showing uncharacteristic reticence in bringing forward a vote is that he is scared of what the result would be now and he seeks delay, in the hope of gaining political advantage.
However, the issue is too important to be treated in that way and it is bigger than any single political party or individual. It is about the future of the whole of Scottish society, which is why we are arguing a case—which I believe many Scots will support—that consultation processes by Scottish or UK ministers are not enough and that the debate on the process should be concluded quickly and concluded here in Scotland. That is why we have called on the First Minister to enter into cross-party talks on the format of the referendum and to involve wider Scottish society. That can only help to generate confidence in the referendum process, encourage participation in a vital debate for Scotland and help us to move quickly on to the substantive debate on the issues.
In any discussions, we will make the case for the need for clarity on the legality of the referendum, and on the outcome of the result. That is why, whatever debate rightly takes place on more powers for the Parliament in a devolved settlement, we believe that the referendum must be a straight question on a single choice. It is disappointing that, after the Deputy First Minister signalled that there was consensus on that, the SNP has rafted back from that and we are left with its ludicrous proposition that, even if more people voted for more powers than voted for independence, we would still end up with independence. That will not strike many people as a fair process.
Will the member give way on that point?
I must make progress because I have only six minutes.
We will continue to ask questions about the franchise, not just on the debate over 16 and 17-year-olds voting but on broader issues of franchise that still require more debate. On such issues, it is vital to seek advice from the Electoral Commission. It should be self-evident that the Electoral Commission should oversee the running of the referendum. With an independent body already in place for the running of elections and referendums that has experience in ensuring fairness in the democratic process, many people will understandably ask why Scottish ministers wish to create a new body and make new appointments of their own to oversee the referendum.
We will also continue to raise our concerns over the issue of when the referendum is held. We still await a specific date from the Scottish Government. We believe that the continuing uncertainty is damaging to Scotland’s economy at a time when unemployment is already rising and economic growth is stalling. Even if the Scottish Government believes that investment in Scotland is not being damaged by such uncertainty, there is clear evidence that, at the very least, casts great doubt on that assertion, so why even risk such an impact on our economy when the referendum could simply be held earlier? That would then allow ministers and the Parliament to firmly focus their undivided attention on creating jobs and restoring growth.
In the past few days—at least until this debate—the First Minister sought to take a more conciliatory tone, and suggested that he will work with UK ministers to resolve the debate over legality and seek a consensus on other aspects of the referendum. I hope that the First Minister’s tone persists and that he recalls his words at the beginning of the current parliamentary session, when he said that no party has a monopoly on wisdom, because it is certainly the case that no party has a monopoly on deciding what constitutes a fair referendum. On such a pivotal decision for Scotland. it is vital that all parties and all Scots have confidence that the referendum will be held at a time and in a way that are not for the benefit of one party but are instead in the interests of all Scots and fairness. That drives our motion today and that is why, if the Government truly wants a fair referendum, it should back it.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Under section 7.3.1 of standing orders, which relates to courtesy and respect during debate, I invite you to ensure that, in her concluding remarks, Ruth Davidson is given time to apologise to me for an incorrect reference to my having said anything about the Electoral Commission. The only occasion on which I have referred to the Electoral Commission was on 29 December 2005, in relation to funding for the Scottish Socialist Party.
Thank you Mr Stevenson. Your point is on the record. Members are aware that, if any mistakes are made in the chamber, there are opportunities for them to correct the Official Report if they so desire.
10:04
I commend the Scottish Labour Party for bringing up today’s debate. What subject could be more important than Scotland’s future? Although I cannot support the motion because of its obvious flaws, it is at least an attempt to engage with the debate, which is a refreshing change from the usual apocalyptic, scaremongering and fear-driven negativity that seems to come from Castle Grayskull.
The debate on Scotland’s future between those who wish to see it fulfil its self-determination and those who wish to see it remain stagnant has truly begun. Although we have seen furious back-pedalling from our unionist opponents in recent days, one phrase has remained consistent. This is the Scottish people’s referendum. What does that really mean? It means that we have to consult, talk and, most important, listen to what people tell us. I listened with interest as the unionist parties said that they had already made up their minds and completely opposed having the devolution max option on the ballot. How can they possibly claim to be listening to the people when, for example, Martin Sime—the chief executive of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, which represents more than 1,300 member organisations and is the voice of the third sector—said yesterday:
“The polls show that two-thirds of people in Scotland support more powers for the Scottish Parliament, so there is a strong appetite for having a healthy third option question included in the referendum”?
Is Humza Yousaf aware that our own Deputy First Minister said on the radio on Monday this week that there should be one question on the ballot paper?
No, actually she said that that was her preference. [Laughter.] It is absolutely our preference to have a straight question, but the point of consultation is to listen to the people of Scotland. However, if the Scottish Labour Party does not want to listen to the people and wants to ignore civic society, it surely must listen to its own back benchers, such as Malcolm Chisholm MSP, with whom I have been tweeting over the past 24 hours. He says:
“I believe that Devo Max in some form is the right position for the good governance of Scotland and the best way of ensuring that Scottish priorities are to the fore in all domestic policy areas … We need a three question referendum and Labour has to define what Devo Max means as a matter of urgency.”
We have had several tweets about the issue. I referred Humza Yousaf to The Scotsman article of 24 November in which I talked about devo plus, given the ambiguity of devo max. I also pointed out that support for that option does not necessarily involve a further question in a referendum.
I really respect Mr Chisholm and call him an honourable member because many members see him as that. However, he said in October:
“We need a three question referendum and Labour has to define what Devo Max means as a matter of urgency”.
To back-pedal on that is not in character for him. He does himself a disservice.
More than anything else, the debate is about the future that we envisage for our nation. It is only logical that we let those who have the most at stake take part in that decision. It is wrong that our young people can fight and die for their country, consent to marriage and have children but cannot decide the direction of their own future.
There is no bigger treachery in politics than signing a pledge and then turning one’s back on it the moment that it is politically expedient to do so. The smidgen of contrite Lib Dem MSPs is testament to their party’s hypocrisy over tuition fees. What are we to make of the deafening silence of Labour MSPs who signed the votes at 16 pledge—John Park, Kezia Dugdale, Claudia Beamish and Neil Findlay? Every one of them will be accused of being afraid to stand by their principles and convictions unless they make it abundantly clear that they back votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in the independence referendum.
Will Humza Yousaf give way?
I cannot, because I must make progress.
There is no doubt that the Labour members whom I mentioned are all following the lead of their Westminster colleagues Anas Sarwar, Margaret Curran, Jim Murphy and Douglas Alexander, who all voted to give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the AV referendum. However, when they are asked about 16 and 17-year-olds voting in the independence referendum, they squirm and wriggle and they dodge and dive. Our young people deserve much better than that.
I will quote a Labour member for the second time—I am feeling charitable. Chris Bryant MP said:
“You’re either in favour of votes at 16 and 17 or you’re not, and if you are you should be voting in favour of votes at 16 and 17 ...
Otherwise, it seems to me”
that you
“really are taking to heart the words of Homer Simpson, when he said:
‘Weaselling out of things is important to learn. It’s what separates us from the animals—except the weasels.’”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 18 October 2010; Vol 516, c 705.]
We are geared to take our case for self-determination to the people of Scotland. Independence is not about some arcane notion of flags and anthems or coins and stamps. It is not about shortbread-eating, flag-waving, kilt-wearing nationalism—although I quite enjoy all those things, incidentally, sometimes even at the same time.
Independence is about the ability to make decisions for this nation resting with those who care about it most—the Scottish people, who are always sovereign. I am talking about the decision not to have weapons of mass destruction on our shores, the decision not to send our sons and daughters to die in illegal wars and the decision to have a fair and just welfare system that does not punish our disabled.
I will relish the period ahead and I look forward to the autumn of 2014, when Scotland will look to take her place at the table alongside the global family of nations, which Linda Fabiani referred to. I have no doubt that our campaign will envisage hope. We will drive forward Scotland’s aspirations and walk hand in hand with our fellow countrymen, women and children on a journey to deliver the greatest of prizes: the self-determination of our country.
10:10
I was struck by the wording of the Government’s amendment, which says that what ultimately matters is that we
“achieve a parliament with the powers ... of independence”.
Surely what matters most is that the people of Scotland get a referendum that is fair, legal and decisive. Let us remember that the SNP’s mandate is for a referendum; it is not for independence. When the Scottish Government says that the most important thing is to achieve independence, that implies that every other consideration is secondary. That is what we are worried about. What will the Government put second so that it can put independence first? That is why it is right to raise concerns about the legal process.
Will the member take an intervention?
No.
It is right that the Secretary of State for Scotland, Michael Moore, who is a Scot and a Scottish MP, should set out how the UK Government can help. The SNP has known about the problem since Donald Dewar told it in the early days of the Parliament that a referendum would be ultra vires, and it has disregarded it for far too long. It is important because, only around a decade ago, we remember, there were the hanging chads of Florida, which dominated the outcome of the presidential election in 2000 between Al Gore and George Bush. Thousands of lawyers flocked into Florida, argued for 36 days and launched 47 lawsuits before a winner of the election could be declared. The SNP complains about one Supreme Court; the Bush-Gore contest needed two.
The First Minister rose—
I will be generous and give way to the First Minister.
I thank Willie Rennie for his generosity.
Willie Rennie mentioned the Secretary of State for Scotland. I offer him a quote from Michael Moore from just a few months ago. He said:
“I firmly believe the Scottish Parliament, if it so decides, can proceed with a referendum”.
He said:
“We could, I suppose, try to make a constitutional issue about where the powers lie or don’t, but I don’t think that would be a sensible use of anybody’s time.”
So why on earth have the Liberal Democrats and their Tory allies been wasting people’s time over the past four days?
The First Minister knows full well that my friend and colleague Michael Moore is always willing to assist him in meeting his manifesto commitments, and that is exactly what he has done this week. He has helped using a reasonable tone, as the First Minister admitted.
Will the member give way?
No.
We should remember that, back in 2000, the United States was paralysed by the legal process. We have been fortunate in the United Kingdom that legal challenges to elections have not dominated the political process, but that could all change.
It is not the specific type of referendum—advisory or binding—that matters; it is the substance of the question that is posed that counts. That is the problem that we face. Constitutional matters are reserved to Westminster, even though the mandate on the referendum is here. I need to be absolutely clear. The legal challenge would not need to be made by the UK Government; it could come from anywhere at all. That is why it is so important for the two Governments and the Parliaments to work together to sort out the problem. My concern is that the result of the referendum would be determined by the courts, not the people, and that it would plunge Scotland into a pit of humiliation, just like that which was suffered by the United States.
The referendum needs to be fair and decisive so that the settled will of the Scottish people can be expressed through the ballot box. That means that there should be one question on the ballot paper.
Will the member give way?
I do not have enough time.
I showed in the autumn that, under the system proposed by the First Minister, a two-question referendum would treat the option of more powers for Scotland—for example, devo max—as a second-class question. Even if the option of devo max were to win by a landslide or 99 per cent, it would still be trumped by independence with only 51 per cent support. No constitutional expert has come forward to defend such a formulation, but the SNP remained wedded to it.
For more than a century from Gladstone through Grimond, the Liberal Democrats have strongly advocated home rule in Scotland. Unlike the SNP, my party has worked constructively with others on the Scottish Constitutional Convention, the claim of right—which members should remember—and the yes campaign in the 1997 referendum. We are now working to deliver additional financial powers through the Scotland Bill.
Of course we can go further than the Scotland Bill—indeed, we want to go further. In broad terms, it would mean Scotland raising more or all of the money that it spends while still remaining part of the UK. We will deliver that home rule by working constructively with others to develop a consensus in a constructive and orderly manner. Slapping devo max in a referendum without any worked-out plan is reckless and we will have no part of it.
I am also puzzled as to why the SNP has rejected an independent expert organisation with an international track record in elections. The Electoral Commission was established with the support of SNP MPs, including, I presume, the First Minister—
You must conclude, Mr Rennie.
I will, Presiding Officer.
To imply that the commission is somehow politically biased is somewhat disrespectful to commissioners and their staff, not least the SNP’s own George Reid.
10:16
Richard Baker raised the issue of economic uncertainty as a result of the timing of the referendum. That comes as a surprise, given that such a view has been pretty universally demolished by people such as David Watt from the Institute of Directors and our offshore operators, all of whom say that there is no such uncertainty.
To those voices, I add another that came to my attention this morning—Professor Brian Ashcroft, whose name will not be unknown on this side of the chamber. In the Scottish Economy Watch blog, under the title “Referendum blues, or not”, Professor Ashcroft considers UK ministers’ assertions that
“the Scottish independence referendum is risking business confidence and preventing investment in Scotland”,
asks “Who is correct?” and says:
“The evidence to date favours Alex Salmond.
There is no indication in the aggregate foreign direct investment ... statistics of a downturn in inward investment to Scotland relative to the rest of the UK. The latest Ernst & Young 2011 UK Attractiveness Survey shows the number of projects coming into Scotland rising ... Indeed, despite the dominance of London and the South East in terms of projects, Scotland, by far, attracted the most employment”.
I hope that, with people as widely respected as Professor Ashcroft coming into the debate, we can knock that particular argument on the head once and for all.
As for the Conservative group leader’s assertion that those who suggest that what is happening is anti-Scottish are somehow narrow in their politics, I make absolutely no apology for saying that the Liberals, the Labour Party and the Tories are anti-Scottish in coming together to defy the will of the Scottish people and the democratic mandate that they gave us to hold a referendum at a time of our choosing, which, as the First Minister said, would be the latter half of the parliamentary session. The sight of those parties cosying up on the sofas of various Scottish television studios will really alarm the people of Scotland.
I think that the member should seriously consider what she is saying. Given what opinion polls suggest is the view of the vast majority of the Scottish people, is she suggesting that they are not patriotic and do not love their country? If she is, that is an utter disgrace.
I did not address my comments to the people of Scotland; I addressed my comments to the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats, who—thank goodness—do not represent the people of Scotland and were in their entirety outpolled by the SNP last year, as the First Minister said.
The anti-independence parties stood together against Scottish democracy yesterday in Westminster. That will be no surprise to the people of Scotland, because for four years between 2007 and 2011 those parties stood together to stop a referendum. Now they want to dictate the terms of a referendum. They want to exclude the young people of Scotland from choosing their future, but their elderly Labour peers down south say that they should have a say, even though they do not live here. The electorate told Labour what they thought of that strategy last May, but Labour seems to have learned nothing.
On the Labour motion, I gently remind members that they had six months to work collaboratively with the SNP. We reached out to them on the constitution last year and urged them to suggest ways to take Scotland forward. We offered steps that fall far short of our ideal of independence or even devo max.
Members could have brought forward proposals for job-creating powers during discussions in the Scotland Bill Committee. I sat on the committee with Willie Rennie for several months. He talked about wanting more powers for the Scottish Parliament; why did he not make one suggestion on more powers in all the time that he sat on the Scotland Bill Committee? He did not even back the idea of devolving responsibility for the Crown estate to Scotland, even though that is a long-standing Liberal Democrat policy.
In the development of the constitution, there is a difference between the reckless approach that Joan McAlpine proposes and the orderly approach of the Liberal Democrats and other parties in the Parliament, who delivered the Scottish Parliament and the Scotland Bill without a single bit of support from the SNP.
I am not sure what Willie Rennie thinks the Scottish Parliament or its committee system is for, if he does not think that that is the appropriate place in which to raise his stated objective of extending the Parliament’s powers.
Willie Rennie did not listen to us, but he could have listened to the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, which asked for welfare to be devolved, to protect the vulnerable. He could have listened to the Wise Group’s sensible suggestion that Jobcentre Plus be devolved, to create a streamlined employment service.
I remind the anti-independence parties—
You have read the script.
So have you, but mine is a bit more inspiring for the people of Scotland.
Speak through the Presiding Officer, please.
I remind the anti-independence parties of Scotland’s ancient motto. It is, “No one provokes me with impunity”—or “Don’t mess with me.” We know that David Cameron does not speak that language. He has a tin ear for Scots and it is sad that most of the anti-independence parties in the Parliament also seem to have a tin ear for Scots.
10:23
Johann Lamont said that the process of devolution has been the most radical and significant development in the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom in the past 300 years. If Scotland remains in the union, it has the potential for yet more radical change in future, as a number of members said.
First, we need to establish whether it is the will of the Scottish people to remain in or to leave the British union. That decision is one for the Scottish people to make, but a decision to leave the union would be very different from the choices that we have made to date about devolving power within the union.
Membership of the British union does not define who we are, any more than membership of the European Union is ever likely to do. However, it has a significant influence, not just on our cultural identity but on our scope for economic activity, on our citizenship and on the choices and opportunities that are available to our children. We have enjoyed a relationship with our neighbours of a kind that other European nations are still striving to achieve.
We have fiscal union and a single market that underpins what was the largest free-trade area of its day when it was established. We have monetary union and a single currency that is one of the most successful currencies in history. We have political union, which—let us not forget—ended centuries of wasteful warfare of neighbour against neighbour and freed up Scotland and England to go on to play a hugely influential role in the making of the modern world. We were right to modernise that union. Labour delivered devolution within months of winning a clear mandate to do so in 1997, but we did so in partnership with other parties and with civic Scotland.
The member said that Labour delivered devolution within months. The original Labour mandate for devolution was the October 1974 election. It did not take Labour months; it took it 25 years.
I am sure that Mr Neil, with his extensive memory of these things, will recall that the Labour Government that sought to deliver devolution in 1978 was a minority Government. It had the same defence or excuse as Alex Salmond has had for the past four years, but Alex Salmond no longer has that defence or excuse, and Labour, with a clear—
Mr Macdonald, I ask you to sit down because Mr Neil is making a point of order.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The member should stick to the facts. It was not a minority Government.
That is not a point of order.
Within months of achieving a clear parliamentary majority and a clear mandate, Labour delivered devolution. We did so because it was the settled will of the Scottish people and because that will was expressed through our partnership with other parties and with civic Scotland in the Scottish Constitutional Convention. Alex Neil’s critique of these matters is wrong. We set about modernising the British union as part of a wider modernisation of the governance of Britain and as part of a redefinition of the relationship of Scotland to the rest of the UK.
Devolution is a process, not an event. Independence, on the other hand, is not part of that process. To leave the United Kingdom is a decision that we as a nation are free to make, but it is not a choice about how best to modernise the union. It is a decision to end it. Therefore, Alex Salmond’s amendment, which
“affirms that constitutional change is a process”,
conflates two very different things. The SNP manifesto last year said nothing about a process of change. It said:
“We will ... bring forward our Referendum Bill in this next Parliament. A yes vote will mean Scotland becomes an independent nation”.
That is clear and unequivocal. It is the basis on which the SNP claims a mandate today, which it asks the rest of us to acknowledge. While we acknowledge it on that basis, the process of change to which other parties are committed is a process of change of and within the United Kingdom. That process will cease altogether if the SNP succeeds in winning majority support for Scotland to leave the UK. Separation or independence is a direct negative to further devolution of reserved powers or any other adjustment to the devolution settlement.
A yes vote for what the SNP wants is a no vote for devolution of any kind—maximum, minimum or the status quo—and so the further development of devolution requires, first of all, a clear decision in the promised referendum.
That is especially true for any changes that would strengthen or maximise devolution. Federal states, for example, devolve substantial powers to their constituent parts, while retaining sovereignty at the centre, but that model works on the basis of a stable constitutional settlement, in which the constituent parts recognise the sovereignty of the federal Government and renounce the right to leave the union in exchange for extensive powers of internal self-government.
There is an argument that says that Scotland within the union should acquire greater fiscal autonomy, and a different argument that says that there should be federal self-government within a fiscal union. I agree with those who say that we should have that debate, but it can go forward in a meaningful way only if and when the Scottish people have first come to a clear decision to remain within the UK, which is why there needs to be agreement on the question to be asked.
The SNP was elected on a clear commitment that
“A yes vote will mean Scotland becomes an independent nation”.
The corollary of that is that a no vote means that it will not. Today the SNP could take the same approach to those choices as Labour took when we won a decisive election victory 14 years ago. The SNP could use its mandate to work with other parties and with civic Scotland to agree how best to address the decision on leaving the union to ensure that the Scottish people are presented with a clear choice. I urge the SNP to do that and to support the Labour motion. A failure to rise to the occasion would be a disappointment for all the people who voted for the SNP last year.
I advise members that we are now extremely tight for time.
10:29
Willie Rennie seems interested in what members on this side of the chamber did about the claim of right. I can clear that up for him: I was nine when the claim of right was signed, so I was slightly more interested in playing with Lego than in signing it. [Interruption.] I realise that Jackie Baillie’s first words might have been “social justice”, but some of us had a childhood before we became interested in politics.
Johann Lamont stated that this is the only time and the only issue on which she has agreed with the Tories—apart from trams, minimum pricing, the supermarket levy, the Iraq war, the graduate endowment and the bill on offensive behaviour. Apart from all those things, this is the only issue on which she has ever agreed with the Conservative Party.
The Labour Party has brought us a debate with the headline, “Scotland’s Future”, so let us refer to Scotland’s future and to Scotland’s young people. The Scottish National Party’s policy is that every 16 and 17-year-old should be entitled to vote in all elections. As the First Minister rightly identified, we do not currently hold the powers in the Parliament to enact that policy. However, if we have the powers here, members can rest assured that those young people will vote in every election that this Government has the opportunity to allow them to vote in.
Will the member give way?
No.
My colleague Kevin Stewart has been invited to be a champion of the votes at 16 campaign, but he is not the only politician who has agreed with that campaign. Indeed, Pamela Nash—the MP for Airdrie, Shotts and surrounding villages, tweeted on 18 October 2010 that she had
“Just voted for Votes at 16, unfortunately 346 MPs disagreed with me”.
I was also struck by a quotation that I came across from 9 June 2011:
“A chance to have a say in who represents them at a local and national level and in making decisions that will affect their lives now and in the future would benefit both of these groups in a ground-breaking way by opening up debates, fostering civic awareness and encouraging political involvement at all levels.”
That was John Park MSP supporting the votes at 16 campaign.
When those politicians are given the opportunity categorically to back 16 and 17-year-olds having the vote on an important issue for their and their country’s future, they fall silent and into the realms of saying nothing. They are less champions for votes at 16 and more chumps for votes at 16.
Let us touch on the issue of business uncertainty. The challenge has been laid at the door of the unionist parties to name one business—just one—that has stated that independence and the referendum have dissuaded it from investing in Scotland. They cannot do it. They throw up the notion that somehow that is because the discussions are confidential and therefore they cannot possibly give away the details. They can give away the content of the discussions; they just cannot give away who the discussions were with. It is time for that nonsense to stop.
On the issue of timing, I will listen to experts on constitutional affairs, such as Stephen Tierney, professor of constitutional affairs at the University of Edinburgh. He said:
“one of the standard democratic criticisms of referendums held throughout the world is that they’re rushed ... it’s fairly strange that a referendum should be criticised because it’s too far away.”
I will listen to Stephen Tierney and his lessons on the timing of a referendum before I listen to the lessons of the UK parties.
I find particularly interesting the notion that we are somehow being inconsistent on the second question. Let us be as clear as we possibly can—and I agree entirely with the Deputy First Minister on this. Our absolute preference is for an independence question, and I will campaign for independence because that is what I believe in. However, I recognise—we as a party recognise—that there is a body of opinion in civic Scotland, of which Malcolm Chisholm is part, that believes that there should be a focus on other powers below independence.
Will the member give way?
Just one second—let me develop the point.
Those people would call for this Parliament and this Government to put forward a question that offers the opportunity for further devolution short of independence. I do not believe that we, as politicians, should shut down that debate today and say simply that we should not countenance it. I hope that Lewis Macdonald will agree with me on that.
Indeed. Does Mark McDonald not therefore accept the opportunity offered by the Labour motion to sit down with civic Scotland and discuss exactly those points?
Lewis Macdonald should be patient: in two weeks’ time, the consultation document will be published and we will consult and discuss with civic Scotland. We will do that anyway. We did not need a Labour motion to tell us to do what we were going to do already.
Lewis Macdonald may also want to have a word with some of his colleagues at Westminster, such as Anas Sarwar, who seem to want to shut down the discussion to be simply about one question on the ballot paper. Let us be clear that the Scottish National Party’s firm preference is for a question on independence, but we recognise the body of opinion that may wish to see a further option.
On the point of uncertainty, let us consider the position of the Scottish secretary. We were told that he never stands in the way of anything and is consistent in his approach. First, he did not want a referendum; then he wanted two of them as quickly as possible; then, 24 hours later, it was back to just one, but he always wanted more powers, but not if it had to be put to the vote in a referendum; then he decided that he wanted to set a timescale for the referendum; 24 hours later he did not; and another 24 hours later he was going to consult on the timescale that he did not want to set. However, we are told that all the uncertainty is the fault of everybody else, not Michael Moore. Frankly, it is the biggest example of the constitutional hokey-cokey that I have ever seen in my life.
This Government has the mandate and the right to put the question to the people of Scotland. Let us get on with it.
10:35
In a point of order, Mr Stevenson claimed that he had not spoken about the Electoral Commission since 2005. However, the Official Report of 16 March 2011 shows that Mr Stevenson said:
“We have heard about some of the difficulties in 2007. It is certainly important that the Electoral Commission should report on how elections have gone. An illustration of when a report by the Electoral Commission might have been useful is the referendum that was held on 1 March 1979.” —[Official Report, 16 March 2011; c 34395.]
That demonstrates something of a collective lack of memory from Mr Stevenson about his contributions in this chamber.
I welcome the referendum. I am one of those Conservatives who has believed for a number of years that a referendum was inevitable and that it was appropriate that we should ask the people of Scotland this question. I should say that I was spared the embarrassment of my convictions in the previous session by the SNP, whose First Minister, front bench and members lacked the courage of theirs to even put the question.
Of course, a lot has been made in this debate about the manifesto commitment. Let us be honest. Those of us who saw the manifesto knew that it was less of a manifesto than a homage to Hello, Chat and Nuts magazines, because it devoted more space to the nuptials of the Deputy First Minister than to the timing of the referendum on independence. The First Minister might like to reflect that, by the time that it was eked out of him on a television programme when the date of the referendum might be, 400,000 Scots had already voted by post, without knowing that that was the case. As was noted by Johann Lamont—whose motion I commend—given that, in the period in which Labour was in government, we saw both a referendum and the establishment of this Parliament within two years, many Scots will be bewildered that, given that the First Minister believes that all of Scotland’s problems will be resolved by his successful delivery of independence, he wishes to wait such a long time before he is prepared to put that question to them.
One reason is that, as we said in that debate and in subsequent days, the immediate priority was to put economic teeth into the Scotland Bill in order to get the job-creating powers that we needed.
Mr Carlaw does not like the SNP manifesto and our approach to the election, but what happened when he and his manifesto were judged by the people in that election?
I did not win my seat in Eastwood—that is perfectly correct. However, I lost to someone who thought exactly the same as me in terms of the timing and the nature of any referendum on the future of Scotland.
I believe that a referendum is appropriate because this is the time when we should ask the people of Scotland whether they wish to renew the 300-year-old partnership with the United Kingdom or whether they wish to separate from it. I do so because I believe that a positive vote for the union will be empowering. Just like Lewis Macdonald, I believe that all the discussions about how we move forward will thereafter take place in the context of the authority of a positive vote for the union. Scotland will stand tall and will act with more authority, courage and élan in our governance within a United Kingdom from which we benefit and in which Scotland makes a decisive difference, materially, culturally and morally.
I accept that, in that debate, the arguments of unionists in the previous century will not be sufficient. However, I also accept that our arguments will be made against the corrosive arguments of the Scottish National Party, which has talked about the parcel of rogues who sold the soul of the Scottish nation 300 years ago. This will be the point at which this generation of Scots get their chance to vote positively for the union and to put that lie to rest.
I am a proud Scot and an elected member of this chamber and I have every right to be an active participant in this debate, which is what I intend to be. The claim by the SNP that those who vote SNP have some additional pride or more moral authority, or a birthright to speak on behalf of the people of Scotland, is offensive. If you spoke against someone who was gay, you would be homophobic. If you spoke against someone who was black, you would be racist. If you say that people are anti-Scottish because they belong to a different political party, that is a form of political racism, which is absolutely disgraceful and has no part in our politics. I suppose that, in the words of the Deputy First Minister, I should be relaxed about that type of remark, because it is what will win the argument for those of us who believe in the union.
I have something to say to Johann Lamont, to Malcolm Chisholm and to other members of the Labour Party, which I hope will not disappoint the First Minister, as I rather got the impression that this was what he hoped would happen in the period ahead. I understand my responsibility as a Scottish Conservative in the referendum debate—it is to get those who vote Scottish Conservative to vote for the union. It is the responsibility of the Labour Party to get those who vote Labour to vote for the union. It is the responsibility of Willie Rennie to get those who vote Liberal Democrat to vote for the union. I do not wish to do anything that makes it any more difficult for any other party to deliver the votes of those who vote for them in support of the union. It matters not a whit to me who sits on what platform. What matters is that the arguments are won and that those of us who represent a political tradition in this country deliver that political tradition in support of the union, and that we tackle those who think differently and encourage them to vote positively for the union as well.
Alex Neil rose—
I am afraid that the member is in his final seconds—he needs to finish.
I will use those final seconds to say that, together, those of us who feel that way will in our respective ways—this is a nod to the Labour Party—fight, fight and fight again for the country that we love.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Further to the recent comments regarding courtesy to members, will you reflect on whether accusing another member of racism, regardless of the context, is in order in the chamber?
I remind members that they must be courteous to each other in the chamber. That matter can be considered.
10:42
When I saw that the topic of Labour’s first debate since it elected a new leader was to be Scotland’s future, I thought that we might at last be about to see a transformation and that Labour might have converted to at least recognising and moving towards meeting the aspirations of people in Scotland. An extraordinary transformation has taken place in all the unionist parties, not just Labour, but it seems that it is not one that could be seen as remotely useful for Scotland and its people.
Just a year ago in the previous session of Parliament, the UK parties were adamant that there should be no referendum—no way, no how—yet today they are the ones who are demanding that we stampede towards an early referendum, thereby breaking our commitment and denying the people of Scotland a full opportunity to debate what they wish their future to be. The hypocrisy and cynicism of their position is plain for all to see, and I know that people across Scotland are far from impressed by it.
I say that that is the position of the unionist parties but, under the leadership of David Cameron, their approaches have been nothing if not fluid and constantly shifting. At the start of the week, we were told that Westminster would impose an 18-month time limit on when a referendum should take place. In the event, it was a policy that lasted barely 18 hours before a hasty retreat was made. Still, I am not complaining. As others have said, given that more than 300 new applications for SNP membership were made in the space of the 48 hours following Mr Cameron’s intervention, he is the perfect figurehead for the unionist campaign, and I hope that he will make many more similar interventions in the debate on Scottish independence.
A striking aspect of the UK Government’s insistence on a single question—a yes or no ballot—has been the lack of dissenting voices in the chamber among those who claim to want more powers for Holyrood, short of independence. That is not an option that we favour, but it is interesting, to say the least, that no party here is giving voice to aims that, as the Labour motion says, a substantial part of civic Scotland has begun to call for. We might expect that silence from the Tories, or at least from those Tories who did not back Murdo Fraser in the recent leadership election, but to have that silence from Labour and Liberal Democrats really is bizarre.
Will the member take an intervention?
No. Mr Rennie has had lots of interventions already. He should let me develop the point.
Are their self-descriptions as devolutionists or federalists nothing more than token lip service or do they really believe that the hearts of the people of Scotland are crying out, “Calman and no further”? Are they really so out of touch that they cannot see that to have substantially more powers for the Scottish Parliament than the Scotland Bill offers is precisely what the people of Scotland want?
If those parties wish to waive their opportunity to put that case, however, so be it. No doubt Ming Campbell will be glad to hear that he can cease work on the Lib Dems’ home rule commission as they apparently have no interest in actually asking the voters about such proposals.
Will the member take an intervention on that point?
No.
Unlike other parties, we at least have the courage of our convictions and the determination to give the people of Scotland an opportunity to be heard. People have consistently been looking for that opportunity for many years and they will finally get it thanks to the overwhelming endorsement that they gave the SNP in May last year.
I am glad that the member has paid so much attention to our policy development process. However, does she believe that only the adoption of the SNP’s procedure for securing more powers is legitimate? Surely the SNP’s track record on delivering more powers for Scotland is pretty shameful, and she should be a bit shame-faced herself.
I am not at all shame-faced about what my party has done for Scotland in the previous and current sessions of Parliament. Now that we have an overwhelming mandate from the people of Scotland, we are going to deliver. Mr Rennie talks the talk but he never delivers on federalism for the United Kingdom.
The issue of independence for Scotland is too important for us to have anything other than a full, wide-ranging and informed discussion across all sections of Scottish society about the future of our country. This is the most important decision that our country will make for 300 years, and the people must have time to consider the matter seriously and weigh up the future that is in front of us. A referendum in autumn 2014 will give people in Scotland, including our young people, time to do that. Like all my colleagues on the SNP benches, I look forward to making the case for an independent Scotland.
10:48
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the forthcoming referendum. Scottish Labour has clearly set out its stall in our motion and in the strong arguments that we have made so far today. We not only accept but strongly believe that the Scottish Government has a mandate to hold a referendum in the current session of Parliament; we state simply that such a referendum must be legal, fair and decisive. It is with that objective that we add our support to the calls, which the Deputy First Minister has led, for just one question. That is why we believe that the Electoral Commission must be involved and that all parties, civic Scotland and the wider public have as strong a stake in the process that leads up to the referendum as they do in the debate that is at its heart.
We have heard a number of speeches from members who have served the Parliament and the Scottish people since 1999, and we will likely hear many more. I refer to members such as Johann Lamont, Patricia Ferguson and Sarah Boyack, whose politics formed this building and who fought with heart and soul for the very existence of the institution in which we find ourselves. I hope that they will forgive me for saying this but I find myself in a slightly different position because while they were fighting for devolution, debating the detail and making history—and the SNP was sitting on the sidelines—I was still at school.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thank you.
I was just 15 years old when Labour won its historic landslide in 1997, 16 when the referendum took place 134 days later, and 17 when the first elections to the Scottish Parliament took place.
Kezia Dugdale mentions being 15 and 16 years old. We have discussed the position of 16 and 17-year-olds. She has signed the pledge. Will she now say unequivocally that she will back votes for 16 and 17-year-olds in the independence referendum? If she fails to do that, will she admit that that is utter political hypocrisy?
I welcome that intervention, because it deals with the basis of the rest of my speech. I hope that I will answer some of Humza Yousaf’s questions.
The politics of my colleagues shaped this building, but this building shaped my politics. I am a child of devolution. For me and many people of my generation, the Parliament is the hub of Scottish politics. Devolution in a strong United Kingdom is the settled will of many people in this country. We have a Parliament for the people with the time, space and political will to focus on the issues that really matter to the people of Scotland—the quality of their schools, the health of their families, rights over land, decent housing and serious powers to address poverty and inequality. Such issues drove me into my party and into the Parliament.
I was not old enough to participate in previous key democratic moments in the Parliament’s creation, as Humza Yousaf has pointed out. I know that many SNP members support lowering the voting age to 16 so that the next generation can have its say in the momentous decisions that lie ahead of us. I fully support the votes at 16 coalition and I am a signed-up member of it. As members have pointed out, I recently reaffirmed my support by signing Kevin Stewart’s motion. I will continue to campaign to progress young people’s democratic rights, but I cannot bear the crocodile tears and faux indignation of SNP members who have not lifted a finger even to attempt to create the possibility.
Mark McDonald said that votes for 16 and 17-year-olds was SNP policy, so where were the SNP parliamentary debates? When did the SNP and Joan McAlpine on the Scotland Bill Committee ask for rights for 16 and 17-year-olds? Where was the willingness to address the child protection issues that arose from questions on NHS board elections? Where were the righteous calls on our airwaves about this great injustice? They were absolutely nowhere to be seen.
SNP members make a credible case for young people being democratically involved in the most significant decision that our country will take for centuries, but critical decisions that affect young people’s livelihoods and life chances and the health and wealth of their families will be taken in council chambers, and the SNP has done nothing to progress the issue in respect of elections to them in a matter of months.
Will the member give way?
Will the member take an intervention?
I have already taken one intervention. I have addressed the question that was asked and I will continue to do so.
Thousands upon thousands of 15 and 16-year-old children in Scotland today will get a vote in the referendum because they will be 18 by the time that the referendum comes round. At a ripening 57, the First Minister will likely have his bus pass by that point—that is if bus passes are not cut before then. The question of age is subjective, so I am told.
Whatever the date of the referendum, there will be young people who will by accident of birth be disenfranchised. Many people cynically—but perhaps with reason—believe that the SNP’s support for votes at 16 extends only to the referendum because some pollster has told it that that would be electorally advantageous.
Will the member give way?
I am in my final minute.
I do not accept the premise of the view that I described, because in every classroom I have visited since my election, young people have been overwhelmingly suspicious of separation. They are bright, aspirational young people who see many greater causes in the world to fight for.
The issue of votes at 16 is not about political expediency on either side of the debate; it is a matter of principle. We either accept or deny that people who can drive cars, marry and die for their country have the capacity to complete a ballot paper. People who accept—like me—that they have that capacity have no right to pick and choose which ballot papers they are presented with.
My party simply seeks a referendum that is fair, legal and decisive. If all political parties come together with civic Scotland to agree on that basic premise, we can all put all the process issues to bed and get on with debating the contentions in relation to separation and the compelling benefits that the union has brought us.
You must close, please.
The SNP would rather pick a fight with London than put flesh on the bones of its primary purpose.
You must close, please.
For SNP members, the process is the politics. That is why we lodged the motion.
I call Jamie Hepburn, who has a tight six minutes.
10:54
I welcome the debate, but it is somewhat unfortunate that we have focused largely on process. The only point on which Ruth Davidson was correct was that it is rather more important to focus on the merits of the arguments that are ahead of us—Kezia Dugdale said much the same.
I look forward to having that debate. When we get to it, I hope that we will hear an end to the tiresome references to separatism—we have heard them again today. I hope that we will come to realise that the separatists in the Parliament are not in the Scottish National Party but in other parties. They are the people who want to keep Scotland voiceless in the world and keep us separate from interacting with the rest of the world. Independence is about ending Scotland’s separatism and ending our voiceless nature.
I hope that in the debate ahead of us, Johann Lamont can clarify that her international solidarity extends further than the white cliffs of Dover. I, too, believe in international solidarity, but I happen to believe that for us to demonstrate international solidarity it is not necessary for Scotland’s constitutional position to be to continue as part of the United Kingdom.
Johann Lamont said that the SNP’s approach to the debate suggests that the constitution is an end in itself. She referred to the fact that this Parliament, and devolution, were about establishing social justice for the people of Scotland. I have a degree of sympathy with that view and I hope that it will be recognised throughout the chamber and across Scotland that the SNP does not believe in independence as an end in itself. Humza Yousaf made the point that we do not believe in independence for the sake of changing flags; we believe in it for the sake of improving society. We believe that independence is about increasing the likelihood of establishing social justice for the people of Scotland. I hope that that will form part of the debate that is ahead of us.
This week’s debate has focused more on process, so let us discuss that a little more.
I agree with the starting point of Labour’s motion, which is
“That the Parliament recognises that the Scottish Government has a mandate to call a referendum on the constitutional future of Scotland”.
I am glad that we are agreed on that much.
Let us look at what else has been said this week. Michael Moore stood up in the House of Commons and said—Willie Rennie has today manfully tried to back up his colleague’s position—that it is illegal for this legislature to legislate for a referendum. Yet Dr Matt Qvortrup said in The Scotsman yesterday:
“When Michael Moore stood at the Dispatch Box at Westminster yesterday he had a simple message; Scotland’s constitutional settlement rests with Westminster and Scottish independence would require the consent of London. With all due respect, this argument is neither consistent with international law nor is it compatible with the constitutional doctrine of referendums in the United Kingdom ... The basic principle in international law is that the seceding country ... decides whether it wants to become independent.”
Does the member not recognise that Michael Moore is trying to facilitate the process and make it legal? Does he not recognise that Michael Moore is trying to help?
The member over there has rather more faith in Michael Moore than I do. I am not sure why he thinks that Michael Moore is doing us such a favour.
My colleague Mark McDonald referred to the comments of Stephen Tierney, professor of constitutional affairs at the University of Edinburgh, who said on television yesterday:
“The Scottish Government’s ... argument is that referendums are not reserved; the Scottish Parliament can hold referendums—I think that’s correct”.
Willie Rennie and Michael Moore need to explain why those eminent legal experts are wrong and they are correct.
I also ask any member to point to the restriction in schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 that says that this Parliament cannot legislate for a consultative referendum on a matter of its choosing. I do not think that anyone has been able to point that out.
That said, if the UK Government’s position is that it wants to clarify the matter by way of a section 30 order, we will listen to that, but I hope that there will be no restrictions and no strings attached, because that would impinge on the mandate that we apparently now all recognise this Scottish Government has.
The second issue that has been raised this week is the effect of the supposed delay in holding the referendum in causing companies not to invest in Scotland. My colleague Stewart Hosie challenged Michael Moore on the point earlier this week. He asked Michael Moore to name just one company that has chosen not to invest in Scotland. The answer was that there were none. Today, there has again been no mention of a single company that has chosen not to invest during the period in which the referendum has been debated and discussed. It is disingenuous to say that the uncertainty is causing companies not to invest and then not be able to name a single company.
Will the member give way?
No—I am afraid that I am in my last minute.
Let us look at some of the opinion out there. Grahame Smith, the STUC general secretary, said:
“the evidence—levels of Foreign Direct Investment compared to other UK nations and regions—strongly indicates the referendum is not currently exerting a negative effect on investment.”
Mark Little, managing director at Barclays, said:
“Scotland is as good a place as any in the world to open.”
That gives the lie to the suggestion that companies are not investing.
I know that socialism stopped being the holy grail of the Labour Party and liberalism that of the Lib Dems some time ago, but why have those parties now raised the preservation of the union to the level of a modern-day ark of the covenant?
I look forward to hearing Johann Lamont—and the Labour Party—explain why she would rather that David Cameron’s Tories in London continue to tighten their grip in Scotland than that she, as part of this Parliament, democratically elected by the Scottish people, should have full powers of sovereignty, casting the effects of London Tory Governments in Scotland into the dustbin of history.
The member must close now.
In the words of a former Labour leader, “Bring it on.”
11:00
Occasionally, it seems that there is an inverse relationship between the number of MSPs who turn up in the chamber on a Thursday morning and the standard of calm, rational debate that we are able to achieve. There have been notable exceptions to that on both sides, but too often this morning each side of the debate has appeared to gain its satisfaction from barking contempt for the other side rather than from heeding the calls—which have been heard from all sides—for consensus. If we call for consensus, we all really need to start acting like we mean it, and that goes for everybody.
The Labour motion contains one call that I warmly welcome: for a participative, all-party and civic process. The Greens have been calling for that for years now; we feel that neither the Calman process nor the national conversation achieved the inclusive ethos that the Scottish Constitutional Convention tried to embody. We could have done even better than the convention did at the time by closing off none of the options in taking forward a participative approach. Sadly, that did not happen, but an all-party, inclusive, civic process could still be helpful in resolving those matters for which no mandate yet exists.
However, the motion suggests beginning the process with a conclusion, by specifying a single question, despite the evidence that we have heard that in civic Scotland there are a range of views on that matter.
We must be realistic about the aspects that were settled by the election result last year. The fact of the referendum is one such aspect: that has been settled, and all parties now appear to accept that. The form of it has not yet been settled, and that remains an open question. If we wish to engage with civic Scotland on that matter, we should do so openly.
We should also accept that the timing, which is limited to the extent that it has been said that the referendum will be held in the second half of the session, is settled. I invite members who have complained about that to speculate on the leaders’ debate in the run-up to the election, in which Mr Salmond was asked when a referendum would be held and said that it would be in the second half of the session. If he had said that it would be held immediately, do we not imagine that the Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative leaders would all have thrown up their hands in full horror and said, “No, not in the middle of a recession—you have to focus on jobs, jobs, jobs”? He was right to say that we should hang off a bit and focus on the country’s immediate economic needs, whatever they might be—we have different views on that—and to specify the second half of the session. We should accept that.
The Government has given its preferred timescale as being autumn 2014, and it will consult. The UK Government is consulting too. The opportunity surely exists for both sides to give a wee bit of ground, and for each to try to reach consensus on the aspects of the process on which that can be achieved; it is not too late.
The Scottish Government should accept that there is a legitimate role for the Electoral Commission. If we were to set up a separate body, we would probably end up recruiting people from the Electoral Commission to staff it, because that is where the expertise on these matters lies. The Scottish Government could give ground on that.
Similarly, the UK Government could—and should—give ground on other issues such as votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. Those steps—with each side giving a wee bit of ground—would set a whole new tone, and that is the spirit in which we must go forward if we are to resolve the other matters that have not yet been settled.
On the legal basis, we have a clear choice between the Scottish Government’s assertion of an existing legal basis and a section 30 order, which could be brought forward only if there are sufficiently few strings attached to it that it is acceptable to the Scottish Parliament. That consensus will be achieved only if both sides are willing to give a wee bit of ground first.
On the form of the referendum, should there be one question or two? We should remain open minded on that. That is an example of the kind of issue on which a participative, public and civic process could help to achieve a conclusion with far more authority than we, as political parties, can achieve between us.
If we can get both Governments to accept that compromise means giving way a bit on each side, we will be able to move on to the more substantive issues—the competing visions that exist of the country’s future. Whether we have devolution, devo plus, devo max or independence, it is what the powers are used for that matters most, and that is what we should be engaging the public on.
This is about a vision of a country that focuses on sustainability and living within our means versus the destructive pursuit of everlasting growth; a vision of economic justice closing the gap between rich and poor versus the idea of Scotland as the tax haven of the north; and a vision of equality and modern, progressive values versus narrow-minded and conservative values. There are also questions about the currency—about how to manage jointly a fiscal union without full political union or whether another option should be chosen—and about the new relationship that we would have with the rest of the UK. For example, could we prohibit any future Scottish Government from agreeing a way of facilitating the continued existence of Trident or other weapons of mass destruction in Scotland? That kind of debate would be inspiring not only for young Scots—the 16 and 17-year-olds who might be voting—but for the many people who became involved in the independence movement because of issues such as Trident. Those are questions about competing visions of the future of Scotland, and that is where the debate ought to be.
11:06
We moved swiftly to set up the Scottish Parliament. We were able to do that because we had a political mandate. Poll after poll had demanded devolution, and we had done our homework with the cross-party consensus through the Constitutional Convention. That is why we say today that we now need to move to a cross-party discussion. This cannot be resolved by megaphone diplomacy between the First Minister and the Prime Minister. Political parties and civic Scotland need to be involved in the process. Given that we have a Government whose single mission is independence, it is astonishing that we still do not have a date for the referendum bill, we are still not clear what the question will be, we still do not know what the rules will be, and we still do not know the answers to the vital questions on independence.
I say to the First Minister that it is precisely because of the experience of the 1970s that we need to be cross-party on this. The referendum cannot be owned by any one party—that is absolutely clear. There is not an expressed will for independence—poll after poll makes that clear—there is still not a worked-out plan and fundamental questions remain. What about our currency? Would the SNP join the euro? How would our banks be regulated? Would we still have Trident? None of those questions has yet been answered by the SNP. That is not accidental; it is through choice. It is a political strategy designed to win support for independence by avoiding saying what independence would actually mean for the people of Scotland.
That is not good enough. What is the justification—
Will the member give way?
No, I will not. I tried to intervene repeatedly earlier and my time has already been cut.
What is the justification for the SNP waiting seven years after coming to power before deigning to hold the referendum? We all know the answer. We know that in 2014 we will have the 700th anniversary of Bannockburn, the second homecoming, the Ryder cup and the Commonwealth games. We know the dates of those events, but we do not have the date for the Scottish Parliament referendum.
Constitutional change is not a small thing, it is fundamental; and we, as the people of Scotland, have a right to know what the SNP’s proposals are. Will it, for example, change a future tax regime? Will the hated local income tax be back on its agenda? The people of Scotland need to be treated like grown-ups. The SNP needs to lay out its plans properly, and we can do without the FM describing Scotland as a “surly” country. Let us move on from that kind of stupid insult; let us move on to a proper, mature debate.
The view of Labour members is that devolution gives us the best of both worlds—strong powers, law-making powers and government that is closer to home and accountable. Independence means separating from the rest of the UK and would give us no influence over our nearest neighbour. Devolution has worked well for the people of Scotland and has changed in the past 12 years, with stronger powers on railways and marine issues, which were negotiated in partnership.
The purpose of today’s debate is to flush out that choice. It is not acceptable for the SNP and its civil service to draw up their plans in secret—in their private space, as we are told. The SNP should be open and transparent. The aim of our demand for cross-party talks now is to ensure that the debate is not conducted simply between David Cameron and Alex Salmond. Everybody must be at the table, because at issue is the future of our country. The past decade has proven that we can move forward and strengthen devolution when there is cross-party consensus, when robust debate has taken place with civic Scotland and when we agree that we want to move forward.
That goes to the heart of the choice that we face, which is strong devolution versus independence. It sounds as though there is agreement throughout the chamber for a straightforward question, so why cannot we have it? Even the SNP wants a straightforward question, so why cannot we just get on with it? Malcolm Chisholm was absolutely right to say that we do not need a question on stronger powers for the Scottish Parliament versus independence, because that is what the choice will be. It will be yes or no to strong devolution or to independence. That will be the question.
It is up to the SNP to give us a referendum that the people of Scotland want. The SNP has had five years since it came to power to plan for a referendum that is the whole purpose of the SNP’s existence. Our motion gives the SNP a way in which to move forward with the people of Scotland and with civic Scotland on a cross-party basis. The SNP amendment shows that it is interested in furthering the interests of its party, not of the people of Scotland. It is not acceptable to refuse to have cross-party talks or to bring in civic Scotland. The SNP Government’s approach is all about making everybody wait until it deigns to tell us what it wants. That is not good enough and the people of Scotland deserve better.
11:12
The leading article in The Herald yesterday, which was entitled “Destiny and the Scottish nation”, reminded us that “Devolution is a process.” It continued:
“If it were not so, we would not be in these extraordinary times.”
That suggests that devolution is a conveyor belt and not a roadblock. The Herald went on:
“Scotland’s future is up for grabs but should that future be decided on a straight yes/no question?”
Today’s Labour motion has the intent of putting on hold, or stopping in their tracks, moves to increase the powers of the Scottish Parliament. The Herald suggests:
“Given that support for increased power for ‘devolution max’ or independence lite, giving Scots that option to consider on a ballot paper deserves full and proper scrutiny.”
The SNP wants to do that. Today, the anti-independence parties—or at least their leaderships—have joined up to shelve the debate about increased levers of power for the Scottish Government to build a sustainable nation. That comes in the midst of a global economic crisis. Since the SNP gained a minority Government in 2007, the anti-independence parties have devised means to divert and limit the options for Scotland’s future. Wendy Alexander spent months trying to show that limited borrowing powers would not improve economic growth. The Clegg-Cameron Scotland Bill offered another menu of minor changes that has enmeshed the Parliament since May 2011. Despite the fact that many prominent Labour members have shown their wish for fiscal autonomy, today’s motion again seeks to lock down wider debate on the powers that Scotland needs.
In contrast, the SNP Government’s consultation “Your Scotland, Your Voice: A National Conversation” set out a raft of possible options—the status quo, devolution max and independence. Civic Scotland knows that it can draw on that work as it seeks to debate Scotland’s future. However, that has not stopped the UK Government making policies that can harm Scotland in the meantime and blunt our aspirations. At present, the most vulnerable in our society face being attacked by the Tory-Liberal welfare cuts. We must have the powers to stop those cuts as soon as possible.
The Labour motion is another round of delay and another way in which to shelve the widespread demand for full powers for our Holyrood Parliament.
The Labour leaders always say to us, “Do what you can with the powers that you have,” even when the limits are pointed out and the deep cuts in the block grant are revealed. They have a poverty of aspiration for the Scottish people that will come to an end very soon. Their attempts to focus on the referendum process are another way of seeking to preserve Scotland in aspic.
Just as the Labour motion will be defeated today, a proper range of options in a consultative referendum in the autumn of 2014 will give the time and space for the debate on powers for Scotland that the unionists have resisted since the independence movement has gained in stature to achieve its present status as the majority Government of Scotland.
Will the member give way?
I do not have time.
Our next steps must not be tripped up by Labour’s interest in power in London rather than in the powers for Scots in Scotland that our fully empowered Scottish Parliament could have in our lifetime once the debate has taken place. I look forward to the SNP amendment triumphing today. The Scottish people will triumph as a result.
Before we move to closing speeches, I apologise to those members I have been unable to call in the debate.
11:16
One of the key foundations of a democratic society is the concept of losers’ consent. Put simply, the losers in a referendum or election must accept the legitimacy of the victory of the winners. In extreme cases, the absence of losers’ consent can lead to the destruction of democratic politics and societies, and to civil unrest. In less extreme circumstances, it can lead to a rancour that poisons the body politic. In recent political history, some would argue, as indeed the First Minister did this morning, that there was no losers’ consent to the result of the 1979 referendum on a Scottish Parliament because of the 40 per cent rule, and because of a belief that the rules had been rigged.
That illustrates that whatever side we are on, the legitimacy of the outcome is fundamentally important to all participants in an election or referendum. We lose sight of that at our peril, as Willie Rennie reminded us in his reference to the examples of America and Florida in the 2000 presidential election.
Legitimacy in the legal and political sense is at the heart of Her Majesty’s Government’s proposals. Using the mechanism of a transfer of powers under section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 would put beyond doubt or question the legality of any referendum. That should be welcomed in every part of the chamber. It deals with the legality issue and it also avoids placing the Presiding Officer of the Parliament and the law officers of both Scotland’s Governments in the invidious position whereby decisions or referrals made by them on the legal competence of a bill introduced under the Scotland Act 1998 could be called into question because of their perceived political affiliations. Also, this Parliament has had quite enough controversy surrounding Supreme Court judgments without getting embroiled in what could be the greatest controversy of them all when a relatively simple solution is at hand that would obviate the problem.
The First Minister likes to maintain that he and the SNP have exclusive ownership of the referendum. Well, as Sarah Boyack pointed out, they do not have the right to set all the rules to suit their purposes. It is in the interests of the Scottish National Party as much as in the interests of those of us who want to keep Scotland in the United Kingdom that the referendum rules are widely accepted and judged to be fair.
We hear complaints about the strings that Westminster would attach. What are those strings? The first is that there should be a straightforward question whether people want Scotland to be an independent country. The other day, Nicola Sturgeon said that that is the SNP’s preferred option. Well, it is the preferred option of the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats, so why do we not just agree to proceed on that basis and hold a referendum that will give a decisive answer? Why do we need a third option based on the doodles of a few pamphleteers that simply confuses the fundamental question of in or out of the United Kingdom?
Will the member give way?
One minute. When standing on the threshold of achieving its ultimate political goal in a legitimate and incontestable referendum, why do some members of the SNP want to diminish their prospects of a successful outcome?
I do not have a problem with people advocating more powers for this Parliament within the United Kingdom based on a properly researched examination of the issues, but that is a fundamentally different question, which should be decided on a different basis. As Lewis Macdonald pointed out in his excellent and perceptive speech, a yes vote for independence is a no vote for devolution in any way, shape or form.
I beg Mark McDonald’s pardon and will give way to him now. [Interruption.] Okay, we are carrying on.
The second string is that the referendum should be conducted on the same franchise as elections to the Scottish Parliament and that votes should be exercised by everyone whom our law recognises as adult. Some people want to reduce the voting age to 16 or 17. I do not agree with that but, if we reduce the age, we should reduce it for all elections and referenda, not devise a special franchise for the independence referendum alone, which—to be frank—smacks of jiggery-pokery on the part of the SNP.
Will David McLetchie give way?
I am sorry, but I need to finish.
The third string is that the conduct of the referendum should be overseen by an independent, experienced body, preferably the Electoral Commission. The commission has extensive experience in the conduct of referenda and elections generally. The SNP supported its establishment and, only last year, the Scottish Parliament approved the extension of its jurisdiction to cover Scottish local elections in an SNP Government bill.
Why the commission is considered unsuitable to oversee the independence referendum defeats me. Perhaps the Scottish Government would like to explain. Why does it want to set up another quango to oversee the referendum when a perfectly good one that is more than capable of doing the job is already in place? I thought that its policy was to declutter the public sector landscape, not create more quangos in Scotland.
The final string is that a time limit must be set for holding the referendum, following a mature discussion about the date or dates.
There is nothing in any of those proposals to which any reasonable person could take exception. By suggesting otherwise, the First Minister does himself and his Government a disservice. As Patrick Harvie pointed out, both of Scotland’s Parliaments and Governments should work together to deliver a fair, clear and decisive referendum, in which the winners’ victory will be accepted with good grace by the losers. In a democracy, that is the ultimate test. Only if we have such a consensual result can Scotland move forward as an independent country or as an integral part of the United Kingdom.
11:22
I reassure Mr McLetchie that the Scottish Government has every intention of pursuing an extensive consultation and dialogue on the issues connected with holding a referendum on Scottish independence. In the election campaign, that is exactly what we said that we would do, and the Government is honouring its commitment to the people. Honouring one’s election promises may surprise some members, but the Government believes in fulfilling the promises that it made to the public.
One of the purposes of that consultation is to address an important point that has run through this debate: to ensure that we maximise the degree of agreement and consensus on our approach to the independence referendum. We want to build agreement throughout the whole country on the mechanisms that we use and the approach that we take.
The Government is interested in the views of civic Scotland. That is why it consulted so extensively on independence in the previous session of Parliament. We do not use expressions such as
“the doodles of a few pamphleteers”,
as David McLetchie just did. That is to be contemptuous of civic Scotland, its aspirations and its opinions—the aspirations and opinions that, as the First Minister recounted, we heard on the radio this morning from John Downie of the SCVO and the Rev Ian Galloway of the church and society council of the Church of Scotland.
It is equally contemptuous to rule out the understandable and reasonable aspirations of civic Scotland to express its views in the consultation. The Government has made it clear, as it always has done, that its preference is for a single question on independence, but it has also made clear its respect for civic Scotland, which must be able to express its aspirations.
Mr Swinney will recognise that it was open to the Government to lodge an amendment that left in the Labour motion’s call for cross-party talks and talks with
“all quarters of civic Scotland”.
Why did the Government choose to lodge an amendment that removed that part as well as other parts of the Labour motion?
The simple reason is that we lodged an amendment that says that we encourage
“all Scots to take part in the Scottish Government’s consultation on the referendum to be launched in the week beginning 23 January 2012”.
Members are always desperate for timescales. There is a timescale and a consultation process, and we look forward to the participation of civic Scotland in the process.
The timing of the referendum was been a significant issue this week. Mr Harvie made a fair point when he said that, if the Government had brought forward immediate proposals for a referendum on independence, a queue of Opposition parties would have said that it should concentrate on the Scottish economy and the priorities of the Scottish economy. That is exactly what ministers are doing, and that is why there is such a long list of companies that have invested in Scotland since the 2011 election returned a majority SNP Government with a commitment to securing Scottish independence. Those companies include Amazon, State Street, the Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, Dell, INEOS/PetroChina, FMC Technologies, Avaloq, Vion Hall’s and TAQA. They are investing in Scotland precisely because the Government is focused on the Scottish economy.
The argument has been deployed that there is no need for a second question in the referendum because stronger powers can already be delivered. Indeed, Mr Carlaw and Mr Macdonald essentially founded their contributions on the proposition that we do not need a referendum to get stronger powers for the Parliament. That is a strange argument from Jackson Carlaw, given that his leader has said that it is thus far and no further in relation to the Scotland Bill. The Conservatives have said that there should be no more powers beyond the Scotland Bill, which we know the deficiencies of. The argument that Mr Carlaw put forward, which was reinforced by Mr Macdonald, has a faint ring of familiarity, of course. The argument is, “Vote no and we’ll give you a better deal.” The last person to say that was that distinguished Scot Lord Home of the Hirsel. We got 18 years of paralysis because of the odious Government that was in power in London, and we are getting more of it, propped up by the Liberal Democrats.
Kezia Dugdale made a courteously expressed speech, as she always does, but it was full of terrible contortions about 16 and 17-year-olds voting. The Scottish Government has repeatedly asked the United Kingdom Government to devolve full responsibility for elections to Scotland, but the UK Government has refused that. The Scotland Bill Committee’s report recommended that the responsibility and powers for all elections in Scotland, except those for the United Kingdom and European Parliaments, should be devolved. We have not had an answer to that from the UK Government. The Scottish Parliament under the Scottish Government has legislated for 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in elections to national health service health boards, and I am delighted to tell members that, on 21 December 2011, the Parliament unanimously passed the Crofting Commission (Elections) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 for elections to the Crofting Commission. Every single member voted in favour of those regulations.
We did not; we did not vote against them.
I think that Mr McLetchie and I are in a space that we are frequently in: two bald men fighting over a comb. [Laughter.]
Patrick Harvie rose—
With no disrespect involved, I must give way to Mr Harvie.
Is John Swinney as shocked as I am that, on being asked about that point in the House of Commons, Michael Moore was under the impression that the Scottish Parliament could legislate for 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in local government elections? He was unaware that we are unable to do so, and he seemed to think that we should. Will John Swinney ask him to bring forward a section 30 order on that matter as well?
On this occasion, I am glad that I gave way to Mr Harvie—it makes up for previous mistakes on my part.
Mr Harvie’s very fair point brings me to the Secretary of State for Scotland who, as the First Minister has already pointed out, said in May 2011:
“I firmly believe the Scottish Parliament, if it so decides, can proceed with a referendum. ... We could, I suppose, try to make a constitutional issue about where the powers lie or don’t, but I don’t think that would be a sensible use of anybody’s time.”
Mr Rennie characterised the offer of the section 30 order as a helpful intervention by the UK Government. Although the First Minister has welcomed the concept in principle, the problem is the strings attached to it. I am sorry that this debate has been dominated by tweeting but I must point out that Tavish Scott himself tweeted that it would not be sensible for any UK Government to specify a timescale for these issues—which is just one of the strings that have been attached.
We have just reached the end of your timescale, Mr Swinney.
This Government believes that people in Scotland are best placed to determine their own constitutional future. It does not believe in—and will not accept—any diktat from the UK Government.
11:31
When, before Christmas, Scottish Labour decided to use today’s debate to talk about Scotland’s future and the First Minister’s much vaunted referendum, we could not have guessed that the subject would be so timely. Given this week’s events and the First Minister’s announcement to the press—not to the Parliament—it is entirely appropriate for Scottish Labour to devote this debate to the issue.
We have heard much this week about the referendum and the views of Mr Salmond and the Westminster Government on how and when it might be held. Of course that process is important and I will devote a small part of my speech to it. However, what has often been lacking this week has been any kind of debate about the Scotland that we want. As the proponent of separation, the Scottish Government has a particular responsibility to explain why and how it believes that separation is the best option and to tell Scotland what separation will mean for communities and families throughout this land. Process matters, but more important still is the need to identify the policies, the ideas and the vision that each of us has for our country. How power is used is just as important as where it resides and in my speech I plan to talk about the process, consider the contributions of colleagues across the chamber and then focus on the kind of Scotland that we on this side of the chamber want—a Scotland where the policies of Government promote social justice and the elimination of poverty.
I hope that, regardless of our views, as politicians we all want a well-run referendum campaign followed by a well-run referendum vote on, as the Deputy First Minister has indicated, one clear-cut question that leaves no room for dubiety or confusion. The First Minister referred us to the 40 per cent rule that applied in an earlier referendum, but I say to him that that referendum stands as an example of exactly why we have to be clear, concise, straightforward and transparent with the people of Scotland about what we are seeking to do on their behalf. We should charge the Electoral Commission with overseeing that process as we do with elections to this Parliament, to Westminster and to the European Parliament. Surely no one in this Parliament will question the commission’s expertise or, indeed, its impartiality.
Is the main lesson to be learned from the 1979 referendum that we cannot trust Westminster to run a fair referendum on Scotland’s constitutional future and that it must be controlled from this chamber?
I simply remind Mr Neil that while in opposition Labour managed to construct a national dialogue to deliver this Parliament. The least that this Government with its majority can do is try to do the same thing by consensus.
During the course of our discussions we also need to talk about the franchise. Members made that point, and Kezia Dugdale gave a good explanation of the difficulties in a particular area, but that is not the only aspect of the franchise that should be discussed. Labour is open to discussions.
In my humble view, Scotland will not easily forgive any politician who allows the issue of the referendum to be mired in court proceedings, who allows the decision to be further delayed, or who makes the issue one about politicians and their beliefs instead of the needs and aspirations of Scotland.
Scottish Labour is not afraid of the verdict of the Scottish people. We relish the opportunity to put the question to the people, just as we did in 1997, when, within four months of taking office, a Labour Government and a Labour Secretary of State for Scotland, Donald Dewar, put the decision on devolution to the Scottish people and then, having won their support, passed the necessary legislation and had the Scottish Parliament up and running within two years.
The current First Minister should be as bold as Donald Dewar was and as determined to work with other parties and civic Scotland to allow the citizens of Scotland to take part in the debate and give their verdict. If he followed Donald Dewar’s example, he would seek agreement and, having done so, fight his corner. No doubt a spirited debate would follow, if this morning’s debate is anything to go by.
I was slightly concerned by a point that Mr Salmond laboured in his speech, which was echoed by Ms McAlpine and perhaps even by Mr Swinney, if I understood his point correctly. Mr Salmond and Ms McAlpine laboured long and hard to make the point that the SNP won a majority in the Parliament, not just in the constituencies but in the regional lists. We know that. We knew it in May. However, Scotland did not elect only SNP members to the Parliament. Is Mr Salmond saying that our mandate is less valid than that of members of his party? The implication of his not wanting to include other parties in the Parliament in discussions about the referendum is that that is his party’s view. If Mr Salmond reflected on the words that he used in his speech, he would see that my point is valid.
I can only think that Patricia Ferguson is referring to the beginning of my closing remarks, when I made the case for the Government’s interest in building the widest agreement possible around the approach that we take to the operation and implementation of the referendum. That is an inclusive and welcoming gesture, which I reinforce to the Parliament.
I am afraid that Mr Swinney is guilty by omission. He forgot to mention the other parties in the Parliament in his speech and in his intervention. He will excuse our feeling uncomfortable about that when he considers that the Government is amending our motion to take that aspect out.
I very much respect Linda Fabiani and always enjoy listening to her, but I say gently to her that the Labour Party did not block a referendum—indeed, no party in the Parliament blocked a referendum—in the previous session of the Parliament. The Scottish Government never put the referendum to the test. Many members have reminded us that Wendy Alexander encouraged the First Minister to bring forward the referendum option. I am afraid that he decided not to take her up on the matter.
Mr Mark McDonald was at pains to tell us about his youthfulness. I accept that he would have been too young to sign the claim of right. Members of my party have reminded me that I am perhaps not as youthful as I once was—I am certainly not—
Shame!
Yes, I know, it’s hard to believe, isn’t it?
Labour members pointed out to me that Mr Yousaf got his analogy slightly wrong. Castle Grayskull was not some kind of dark, louring place that people took their inspiration from; it was the place where the good guys got their power. If Labour is being associated with Castle Grayskull we are quite happy to accept that.
The Scottish Labour Party has always supported home rule for Scotland and we are proud that we delivered it in 1999, working with the Constitutional Convention, the other political parties and, latterly, the SNP. However, for us the constitutional settlement is not the pre-eminent issue; it is not a cause to which every other policy is subservient. In his memorable speech at the Parliament’s opening ceremony in 1999, our then First Minister said that a Scottish Parliament—a Parliament, any constitutional settlement—is
“Not an end: a means to greater ends.”
Scottish Labour firmly believes that a progressive devolved system of government within the UK is the best means of achieving the greater ends of equality and social justice. We want a Scotland in which kinship carers are rewarded for their devotion to their task, in which looked-after young people go into the world with an education that prepares them to be the best that they can be, in which our children are free from the blight of poverty and in which the opinions of others are heard and respected.
Devolution will continue to develop—that is its nature—but separation is neither progressive nor the solution to the issues that continue to beset our country.