The next item of business is a statement by the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, on the outcome of the United Kingdom general election. The First Minister will take questions at the end of her statement, and there should therefore be no interventions or interruptions. You have about 10 minutes, First Minister.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
I am grateful for the opportunity to make a statement on the outcome of the UK general election. First, let me take the opportunity to congratulate all those elected or, indeed, re-elected to serve as members of Parliament. It is the greatest honour to be elected to represent our fellow citizens in Parliament, whether here in the Scottish Parliament or in the House of Commons. It is also, of course, an enormous responsibility, and I know that all those taking up seats for the first time will be feeling a combination of pride, excitement and trepidation. I wish them all well as they get down to work on behalf of their constituents.
My good wishes also go to those who lost seats last week. My party may have won the election on Thursday, but we also know—from past experience—what it feels like to lose, so, while we may celebrate our success, we take no pleasure in the personal loss that defeated candidates will be feeling. I wish each of them, and their families, the very best of luck in whatever they choose to do in the months and years ahead.
The result last week was of truly historic proportions. The Scottish National Party now has the honour of representing 56 out of 59 seats in Scotland, in the north, south, east and west of our country. We secured 50 per cent of all votes cast and 1.4 million people in total voted SNP—the largest number of votes that any party has won in Scotland, ever. The trust that the Scottish people have placed in the SNP to represent the country’s interests at Westminster is unprecedented. We will now work each and every day, with determination and humility, to repay that trust in full.
I also want to make clear that we will work just as hard to win the trust of those who did not vote for the SNP last Thursday. As Scotland’s Government—and as the largest party in Holyrood and now the largest Scottish party at Westminster—we recognise the unique obligation that we have to reach out to and speak for all of Scotland. I pledge today that we will make Scotland’s voice heard. We will stand up for the progressive policies that we put right at the heart of the election campaign, but we will also seek, in everything we do, to build unity in our country.
There is one final point that I want to make today about the nature of our task at Westminster. During the election, I spoke often about my desire to build a progressive alliance at Westminster to lock the Conservatives out of office. While Scotland voted for that change, Labour failed to win sufficient support in England. I regret that, but our determination to work with others of progressive opinion across the political spectrum—in and out of Parliament—remains undiminished. We will build alliances to argue for the protection of the vulnerable against deeper welfare cuts. We will seek to defend our human rights protections, to halt further privatisation of the national health service and to safeguard the UK’s place in Europe.
A clear majority of people across the UK did not vote Conservative last Thursday, and they deserve a strong voice in Parliament. I promise today that the SNP and the Scottish Government will seek to be that voice. We will be a constructive, principled, determined and effective Opposition to the majority Tory Government, and we will seek to be so on behalf of people not just in Scotland but right across the UK.
The scale of the mandate that the people of Scotland gave to the SNP last week ensures a much stronger voice for Scotland at Westminster, but it also strengthens the hand of the Scottish Government in seeking to secure the very best deal for Scotland from Westminster, which in turn strengthens our ability as a Government to deliver for Scotland.
Yesterday, I visited the emergency department of Edinburgh royal infirmary to thank our front-line NHS staff for the hard work that they are doing to improve accident and emergency waiting times and to reaffirm our commitment to support our NHS to make the further improvements that are needed. The delivery of healthcare and other public services is, of course, the responsibility of my Government and we will rightly be judged on our performance, but it stands to reason—does it not?—that we can do more to support and protect our public services if our budget is not being cut year on year by Westminster. It is for those very practical reasons that we put an end to austerity at the very heart of the election campaign, and we will now use our mandate to put it at the very heart of the Westminster agenda.
I spoke to the Prime Minister by telephone on Friday. Yesterday, I wrote to him to seek a meeting at the earliest possible opportunity, and we are looking to meet later this week. Let me be clear that public spending and the protection of Scotland’s budget will be key issues on the agenda when we meet. The issue of more powers for the Scottish Parliament must also form part of our discussions. I pay tribute again today to Lord Smith of Kelvin. The work that he and his commission did provides us with a strong starting point for the further devolution of power to this Parliament that is so necessary if we are to grow our economy faster, support more people into well-paid work and lift children out of poverty.
The Scottish Government welcomed the proposals that Lord Smith brokered, but we have also been consistent in our view that they do not go far enough. The outcome of the election makes it abundantly clear that that view is shared by a significant proportion of the Scottish electorate. If the Prime Minister and his Government mean what they say about respecting the outcome of the election in Scotland, they must now agree with us a process that looks again at the Smith commission proposals with a view to extending devolution even further, and that must be a process that is made here in Scotland and involves wider Scottish society.
As my party’s manifesto made clear, we believe that the Scottish Parliament should move to full financial responsibility. However, as a matter of priority, we want to see devolution of powers over employment policy including the minimum wage, welfare, business taxes, national insurance and equality policy—the powers that we need to create jobs, grow revenues and lift people out of poverty. It is such a package of priority, job-creating, poverty-tackling powers that we will now seek to build support for and agreement on.
Let me say this sincerely. I very much hope that Scottish Labour will now become part of this growing consensus. This morning, I met the Scottish Trades Union Congress, and it agreed to join us in calling for powers over the minimum wage, trade union and employment law, health and safety law and equalities legislation and for greater responsibility for welfare to be devolved as a matter of priority to this Parliament. For Scottish Labour to want to leave those powers in the hands of a UK Labour Government was perhaps understandable, albeit that it was not a position that I agreed with, but for Labour to argue that those powers should remain in the hands of a majority Tory Government with no mandate in Scotland would be simply inexplicable to most people across our country. I genuinely hope that Labour will now think again and join us in arguing for a powerhouse Scottish Parliament that is equipped with the powers that we need to build economic prosperity and foster greater social justice.
The last issue that I want to address today is one that was—ironically—talked about much more by our opponents during the election campaign than it was by the SNP: the issue of independence. It is no secret to anyone that the SNP supports independence. We always will. However, I made it clear during the campaign that the election was not about independence. It was about making Scotland’s voice heard at Westminster. I said clearly to people across our country that I would not take a vote for the SNP as an endorsement of independence or of a second referendum, and let me be absolutely clear that I stand by that.
There will be another independence referendum only if the people of Scotland vote in a future Scottish Parliament election to have one. That is democracy. Of course, it cuts both ways: I cannot impose a referendum against the will of the Scottish people, but nor can David Cameron rule out a referendum against the will of the people. It will be the people who decide.
What happens to public opinion on this question in the years ahead will depend not just on what the SNP and the Scottish Government do but on the respect that is shown to the decisions that the people of Scotland have made. How David Cameron, his Government and the Westminster system choose to respond to the message that Scotland has sent will be crucial to how we move forward.
It is worth reflecting that last week’s election resulted not just in record high support for the SNP in Scotland but in record low support for the Conservatives in Scotland—it was the lowest share of the vote won by the Tories in Scotland since 1865. It seems to me that the Conservatives now have a clear choice. They can ignore the voice of the Scottish people and carry on regardless, as if nothing has happened, and let people draw their own conclusions about the ability of Westminster to respond to Scottish opinion. Alternatively, they can choose to demonstrate that Westminster does listen and is capable of serving Scotland better.
For our part, we will work in good faith to get that better deal for Scotland. We will be constructive and seek agreement with the UK Government on issues where we can find common ground, and we will always act in the best interests of all the people of Scotland.
We asked people to vote for us in this election to make Scotland’s voice heard at Westminster. Last week, people placed their trust in us to make Scotland’s voice heard loud and clear. We now intend, in the House of Commons and here in the Scottish Government, to get on with that job on behalf of all the people we are so honoured to serve.
I thank the First Minister for early sight of the statement, which I will reflect on in a second.
First, I take the opportunity to congratulate the First Minister on a remarkable result for her party. Our campaign was led from the top with dignity and flair, but I am sure that she will agree that the hard work and dedication of activists and volunteers cannot go unnoticed. One sentiment that we can share across the chamber is pride in our democratic process, in which people do not just stand up for their beliefs but make the case for them—in town halls, on doorsteps, in cafes and in workplaces—and then the people decide. The people decided to send a strong team of SNP MPs to Westminster, and I wish each and every one of them well.
The First Minister referenced human rights protections. I assure her that those of us on the Labour benches will do everything that we can to oppose any attempt that the Tories make to scrap the Human Rights Act 1998. Enacted in the early days of a fresh Labour Government full of hope and aspiration for the future, the act embodies the civil and political rights that are fundamental to any liberal democracy. In my view and the view of those on the Labour benches, a threat to the Human Rights Act 1998 is a threat to those very rights and must be stopped.
This week, I have met and spoken to a number of constituents who are fearful of Tory Government plans to further attack disability benefits. From mums caring for disabled children to adults with long-term conditions, there is fear and trepidation in the air. What reassurances can the First Minister give those individuals that, although there is no question but that she will give voice to those fears, she will act here, in this Parliament as well, to protect them?
I thank Kezia Dugdale for her very gracious remarks. I agree absolutely with what she said about the efforts of party activists of all parties the length and breadth of our country. For my part, I know that the SNP victory last Thursday was down to the hard work of tens of thousands of candidates, activists, supporters and members right across our country, and I place on public record my heartfelt thanks to each and every one of them.
I welcome Kezia Dugdale’s comments on opposition to repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998. It is one example of, I hope, many in which Labour and the SNP, in that progressive alliance that I spoke about, can work together against some of the wrong-headed measures that are being proposed by the Conservative Government. Any suggestion that we should move back from human rights protections is appalling and completely wrong. I say on behalf of the Scottish Government that we will do everything in our power to ensure that vital human rights protections remain undiminished in Scotland. I welcome the Scottish Labour Party’s support in that respect.
Kezia Dugdale also mentioned the threat to the support on which people with disabilities rely so heavily. Of the mainstream parties in this chamber—I will be corrected if I am wrong—we were the only party to stand firmly and say that we would oppose the £3 billion cut coming from the Conservative Government to the support of disabled people across our country. In Westminster and here in this Parliament, we will do everything that we can to oppose that. Disabled people should not pay the price of balancing the books. They deserve the support that they need to live independent lives. As well as opposing those measures using our new voice in the House of Commons, we will continue in this place to do everything that we can to mitigate the welfare cuts that we so passionately disagree with.
To return to what I said in my statement, I say in all sincerity to Kezia Dugdale that, rather than us simply standing here in this Parliament trying to mitigate measures from a Westminster Conservative Government, let us join together in saying that the welfare powers should be put in the hands of this Parliament and this Government, so that we can stop those attacks in the first place.
I thank the First Minister for advance notice of her statement. I congratulate the Scottish National Party on its performance at the general election. I add that congratulation to those that I have expressed to David Cameron on managing what no Prime Minister has done since 1955: increasing the number of both votes and seats while already in office. Although in Scotland we did not manage to add to our seat total, we contributed to the total of votes, with 434,000 fellow Scots voting for the Conservative Party—the most at any election since devolution.
I am, naturally, delighted that the Conservatives have been returned to Government to finish the job of an economic recovery, which, today’s figures notwithstanding, has seen 175,000 more Scots in work over the past five years. Our goal is to reach full employment, so that anyone in Scotland who wants a job knows that there is one there for them.
In her statement, the First Minister revealed a shopping list of requests, including powers over business taxation and measures. What level of support from Scotland’s business organisations did the Smith commission receive when it examined that very issue just a few short months ago?
It is no secret that I did not want David Cameron to continue to be Prime Minister, but he won the election and I congratulated him on that last Friday. I would hope that, notwithstanding my opposition to the Conservative Government, in the days following this statement, Ruth Davidson will strike a different tone.
I said in my statement that the Tories scored their lowest percentage share of the vote in Scotland since 1865. That is a fact. The SNP scored a record high share of the vote. Therefore, whether it is on more powers over business taxes or welfare or whether it is over continued austerity, which people in Scotland have voted against, I say directly to Ruth Davidson and her colleagues in the UK Government that it cannot be business as usual. If they simply turn their faces against what people in Scotland have indicated support for, they will be saying to them that Westminster cannot and does not listen and that it is incapable of responding.
Let us have the discussion about how we want to build on Smith. Ruth Davidson will put forward her views on business taxes; I will put forward my views on those matters and others. Let us move from this starting point: the people of Scotland must be listened to. That is the starting point that I begin with; I hope that Ruth Davidson will begin with that, too.
I was pleased to hear the First Minister say that SNP MPs will do everything that they can to halt the planned £3 billion cut to disability benefits. Does she agree that the best way to stop the welfare state’s erosion is to devolve all powers over social security to this Parliament?
I want social security powers to be devolved to this Parliament. I have said this on the record before, so it is no secret that I think that the proposals that Lord Smith put forward and brokered do not go far enough. They would leave the vast bulk of decisions on and the budget of social security in the hands of Westminster.
In a debate between politicians, we can often sound as if we are having an esoteric, academic debate about where power lies, but the issue is real for hundreds of thousands of people across our country. For disabled people, it will make a difference to whether they get the support that they need to live independent lives.
Putting welfare powers in the Scottish Parliament’s hands would not give the Parliament a magic wand. Tough decisions would still have to be taken, but we would at least know that we were taking them with our values and priorities uppermost on our agenda. That is where decision making should lie.
I do not expect to get agreement on the matter from the Conservatives today, but I hope that in the not-too-distant future we can form an alliance with Scottish Labour and other parties in the Parliament to say that welfare powers and decisions over support for the most vulnerable in our society should be in the hands not of a majority Tory Government with one MP in Scotland but of the democratically elected Parliament and Government of Scotland.
I congratulate Nicola Sturgeon on her party’s election victory last week. It was a hard result for us. We have lessons to learn, and we are absolutely determined to learn them.
The Parliament has a job to do every day of the week. Just this week, we have heard about police with guns on the streets of Stirling, mental health services falling short, unemployment levels being on the rise and accident and emergency waiting time targets being missed for months on end, yet the First Minister has taken up parliamentary time with a self-congratulatory Scottish National Party statement that tells us absolutely nothing new. [Interruption.]
Order.
SNP members do not like it.
When will the First Minister make a statement on just one of those important issues for which she has responsibility?
I will be standing in this very spot tomorrow at 12 noon for First Minister’s question time to answer questions, as I do every Thursday at 12 noon. I am not sure whether Willie Rennie will get to ask a question tomorrow—the strength of his party is such that he does not get one every week, but that is hardly my fault.
It is extremely important for the Parliament to reflect on the result of the UK election and to reflect on how we can use what people in Scotland said last Thursday to influence the decisions that the Westminster Government takes. Why do I think that that is important? It is important because the decisions that the Westminster Government takes impact directly on the ability of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament to serve the people of Scotland. Therefore, I make no apology for saying that I want to use the mandate that the Scottish people have given my party to say to the UK Government that austerity must stop and that this Parliament must be empowered to serve the people of our country better.
The day-to-day work of the Scottish Government never stops. Willie Rennie mentioned the accident and emergency figures. As I said yesterday when I visited Edinburgh royal infirmary to speak at first hand to the front-line staff who deliver A and E services, there is work to do, but yesterday’s figures represent the best performance since we began publishing weekly statistics. Let us all thank our national health service staff for the work that they do and be determined to support them to do even more. In my view, part of that support consists of me, as First Minister, saying loudly and clearly, “I do not want further cuts to be made to the budget of this Parliament.”
We have very little time for questions, so I ask for questions that are as brief as possible. I will do my best to call as many members as possible.
I congratulate the First Minister on the scale of the SNP victory last Thursday. I will ask her about national insurance. I know that she wants control over it to be devolved, so that it can be reduced to create jobs. Will she publish an assessment of the scale of job creation that is envisaged and—this is the flipside of the coin—the impact that the proposal would have on pensions, which are currently linked to national insurance? That would allow us to take a considered view of the proposal based on the fullest possible evidence.
As Jackie Baillie knows, there is no such direct link between national insurance and the payment of pensions, but I will put that to one side.
Following my meeting with the Prime Minister, I hope that the debate about what further powers should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament will start in earnest and that the proper process will be followed to allow as many voices and people in Scottish society to be involved as possible. As we go through that process, I will be happy to publish analysis, assessment and evidence that make the case that the more powers over job creation, business taxes and welfare we have in this Parliament’s hands, the more successful we can be in creating jobs, growing our economy, growing revenues and lifting people out of poverty.
With regard to building alliances, particularly on human rights, I am heartened by the commitment made by Kezia Dugdale and the tenor of her remarks. Given Theresa May’s announcement about shipping desperate refugees back to the awfulness of their countries of origin, will the First Minister, in building alliances on human rights protection across the two Parliaments, also commit to building an alliance with and reaching out to the wider UK community?
I said during the election campaign that I wanted SNP voices in the House of Commons to be voices for progressive change, and the progressive change that we will argue for in Scotland is the kind of progressive change that I believe many people across the rest of the UK also want. We will continue to reach out with a hand of friendship and build alliances with people of like mind, not just in Scotland but across these islands, to make the kind of change that we want.
I have already commented on the Human Rights Act 1998, and I hope that it will be possible to build an alliance in the House of Commons as well as in wider society against the repeal of that legislation. I think that ordinary people across the country are appalled at the idea that we would row back on protecting human rights. Such protections are vital for people from all walks of life and in many everyday situations, and we should work hard to protect them. I make it very clear that the SNP will seek to work with others in all parties and in no party and to build alliances for the change that we want and in opposition to the changes coming from the Conservative Government that we do not want.
Had a Labour Government been elected last week, it would have abolished the bedroom tax across the UK and devolved control over housing benefit to Scotland, which I know the First Minister would have supported. Instead, the bedroom tax is likely to be increased and extended. Given that we worked together before to protect Scottish households from the impact of the bedroom tax, will the First Minister undertake to work with us again to maintain that mitigation in the face of any extension of this iniquitous measure, irrespective of any debate on where powers lie?
Yes—I will. We have mitigated the impact of the bedroom tax, and we will continue to do as much as we possibly can within the powers and resources that we have to mitigate the impact of welfare cuts on the most vulnerable in our society. I very much hope that we can unite around that.
But do you know what? As I have said in the chamber before, I did not come into politics simply to mitigate the worst impact of Tory welfare cuts. I came into politics, and I want to be and to continue to be First Minister, so that we can be the author of the changes that we want and the society that we want to live in. Let us work together to mitigate the impact of the bedroom tax, but for goodness’ sake, let us also work together to get the power over the bedroom tax out of the hands of the Tories and into the hands of this Parliament.
I, too, congratulate those who were successful in the election, and give my commiserations to those who lost their seats.
I am glad that the First Minister chose to have an early meeting with the STUC, given the very direct threat to the right to strike that is coming from the new UK Government. I find it ironic that despite the nature of its proposals on the right to strike, that Government has been formed with the direct backing of fewer than one in four of people who are eligible to vote. Does the First Minister agree that even if there were a popular mandate for such a policy, there is no justification for that direct assault on the right to strike of people in Scotland or elsewhere? If the STUC’s proposals for workplace devolution come back on the agenda, will she ensure that the UK Government’s proposals have no future in Scotland?
I very much agree; indeed, this morning I gave an assurance to the STUC that it would have the backing of the Scottish Government and my party in resisting any erosion of trade union rights.
I do not believe that that UK Government policy is a priority in Scotland, and I do not believe that a majority of people in Scotland want efforts to be spent on it. As First Minister, I want instead to work with the STUC to ensure that we are doing what needs to be done to increase productivity, to extend fair work, to get more people on to the living wage and to deal with exploitative zero-hours contracts. Those are the priorities that we should be focusing on, and we need to work together to meet them. I and this Government will stand against any attempt by the Conservative majority Government to crack down on trade union rights, and I hope that we in this chamber—perhaps with the exception of the Scottish Conservatives, although I live in hope—will be united in saying no to such attacks.
Does the First Minister agree that if the Prime Minister is successful in bringing forward an early European Union in/out referendum, a double majority must be required to ensure that Scotland is not taken out of the EU against its will?
Yes, I agree with that. The indications are—we will have to wait to see how solid they are—that we may see an EU in/out referendum being brought forward from 2017 to as early as next year. Let me make it very clear that the SNP opposes an in/out referendum. We think that it is, if there is to be one, absolutely unacceptable and indefensible that any constituent part of the UK could be taken out of the European Union against its will. Therefore, if an EU referendum bill is placed before the House of Commons, our MPs will table amendments to it to introduce what Chic Brodie rightly described as the double-majority rule.
In order for the UK to come out of the European Union, it is not enough simply for the UK as a whole to vote for that; each and every member of what we must remember we were told is a “family of nations” must also do so. I would hope for support for that from every quarter of the chamber.
I, too, congratulate those who won the right to represent Scotland in the Westminster Parliament. I also thank those who stood down for all their public service to this country.
It is clear that there will be areas in which we will continue to disagree, but the election revealed areas of agreement, including on the need to tackle food poverty in Scotland. The First Minister believes that we could do more if we had more powers in this Parliament, but does she agree that we could do more using the powers that already exist here? If so, what actions does she intend to take over the next few years?
I echo Ken Macintosh’s comments about those who stood down. I have commented on those who won and those who lost, but the point was well made that there were also MPs who did not stand for re-election. We wish them well, too.
In the interests of genuinely trying to build agreement, I agree with Ken Macintosh. Notwithstanding the disagreements that we have across the chamber, I believe that the Scottish Government’s record, in using every power and resource that we have to seek to mitigate the impact of the cuts that have come at us from Westminster, stands close scrutiny. Every year—the finance secretary will correct me if I get the figure wrong—we spend over £100 million mitigating the impact of welfare cuts. We will continue to do that, and we will continue to look for ways in which we can do it more and better.
As part of that, we are investing money in supporting food banks and efforts to tackle food poverty. I will always listen to anybody who comes to me with ideas about how we can do that better and more effectively, but I will also always caution that there is a limit to what we can do to mitigate UK Government welfare cuts from within the fixed budget that we have. Everybody has to understand and realise that. We will do what we can to mitigate, but I will also always continue to argue that the most effective thing that we can do is get the powers out of the hands of Westminster and into the hands of the Scottish Parliament.
A number of third sector organisations, including trade unions, have said that the Smith commission proposals fall far short of their aspirations for Scotland. I welcome the agreement between the Scottish Government and the STUC that was signed today. Does the First Minister consider that today’s agreement goes beyond the Smith commission proposals, which should now be seen as the starting point for more powers, as she indicated in her statement?
Yes, I agree with that. Members will recall that when the Smith commission proposals were published, the STUC—I hope that I am not putting words into its mouth—was one of the biggest critics of the proposals as they stood, and said that they do not go far enough.
We have reached an agreement with the STUC today. The Scottish Government and the STUC do not agree on absolutely everything in terms of where we should go next in devolution, but there are key areas in which we agree, and we have agreed to make those calls jointly. All those areas would take us beyond the starting point of the Smith commission proposals.
I hope that I will meet the Prime Minister later this week. There are two points that we need to establish. First, is there agreement from the UK Government to move beyond the Smith commission proposals? There has to be, but I need that confirmation from the Prime Minister. If there is that agreement—I hope that there is; I think that people in Scotland will be appalled if there is not—what process will we put in place to decide and determine the extent to which, and the areas in which, we will move beyond the Smith commission’s proposals?
That process has to be robust and transparent, it has to be made in Scotland and it needs to give organisations such as the STUC and other civic society organisations the opportunity to input their views. Those are the issues that I will take up with the Prime Minister. I have no doubt—notwithstanding Willie Rennie’s objections—that I will in due course report back to Parliament on progress.
Does the First Minister agree that it would be a democratic affront if any politician who was rejected by the electorate were to return to Westminster by appointment to the House of Lords? In particular, given that the Liberals have 101 members there—more, even, than the total number of people in the United States Senate—does she agree that, now that they are down to eight MPs, it is time for some 80 or 90 of the existing lords to consider resignation?
I would go slightly further. I think that the House of Lords is a democratic outrage in and of itself. [Applause.] I look forward to the day—which may not come within this session of Parliament, now that the Tories are back in office—when the House of Lords is no more, because people with no democratic mandate should not be writing the laws of our land.
To address Stewart Stevenson’s point directly—yes, I do think that it would be deeply democratically wrong for MPs who were defeated in the election to find their way back to Westminster via seats in the House of Lords. My party is in a unique position in that we did not lose any seats in the election this year, so we do not have defeated MPs, and in that we do not appoint to the House of Lords anyway. However, I hope that Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats will each give a clear commitment that they will not seek to get round the democratic will of the Scottish people in that way, and that no defeated candidate from last week’s election will find their way into the House of Lords.
When the First Minister meets the Prime Minister, will she make it clear that it is not acceptable for the UK Government to seek to repatriate powers from the European Union to the House of Commons while acting as a roadblock to the legitimate transfer of the further additional significant powers that this country was promised in the closing days of the referendum campaign—powers that the people of Scotland have now demanded loudly and clearly in the election result last week?
As I made clear in my opening statement, I will be seeking to have that conversation directly with the Prime Minister. Let us be calm and rational; we have our differences of opinion and we will not all agree on what powers should come to this Parliament, but one thing that we can say clearly is that there is now substantial opinion in Scotland that the Smith commission proposals—however well meaning and well brokered they were—do not go far enough. That is the first point that we need to establish. We need then to put the process in place to determine how and in what areas we go forward.
I will end with a simple point; it is a point that I have made several times already this week. The Conservatives, led by David Cameron, simply cannot act as if it is business as usual in Scotland. They cannot carry on as if nothing changed in Scotland last week, because everything changed in Scotland last week, and Westminster must listen.
That ends the statement from the First Minister. Before we move to the next item of business, I remind members that we are probably going to have to drop at least one speaker from the next debate, because I have allowed all those who wanted to ask questions on the statement to ask them.
Previous
Portfolio Question Time