Engagements
Meetings to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
This afternoon, we will debate the First Minister’s plans for corporation tax. I have often criticised the First Minister for failing to build a consensus but, this week, he has managed to unite the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry in rejecting his plans for a regressive corporation tax competition within the United Kingdom. Will he listen to the STUC and the CBI and drop his plan?
No.
I guess the First Minister listens only to those who tell him what he wants to hear. Last week, he was clear that one person he listens to—he called him a voice of economic sanity—is Nouriel Roubini, the economist. The very next day, Professor Roubini was railing against economic nationalism, warning against a race to the bottom on tax and imploring us to leave behind
I saw the Labour press release last Saturday morning and, in a kindly way, assumed that Iain Gray could have had nothing to do with such nonsense. To translate that quote and say that it refers to Scotland is extraordinary, even by the Labour Party’s standards.
Of course, my predecessor, Wendy Alexander, would happily make the point that she does not believe in a corporation tax race to the bottom at all. The point that she made was that, if one part of the UK were given such a scheme—and it would be a mistake to do so—others should have it as well.
I know only two people who actually believe that—one is Iain Gray and the other is The Daily Telegraph. Perhaps Iain Gray now sees The Daily Telegraph as the house journal of the Labour Party in Scotland. [Interruption.] I think that The Daily Telegraph is friendlier to the Conservatives in Scotland than it is to the Conservatives in London at the moment, as far as I can determine, but I am sure that it could shift allegiance quite easily to the Labour Party in Scotland.
The house journal of this chamber is the Official Report, in which Mr Salmond’s minister said that perhaps an independent Scotland did not need to be part of Europe.
“Your Scotland, Your Voice” has 176 pages; it is obviously too long and too detailed for Iain Gray. I will have to send him the management summary.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
I have no such plans in the near future.
Last week, I asked the First Minister twice what would—if he got his way—be his personal preference for our currency: the British pound or the euro. Twice he ducked it, and would not tell us—no doubt too embarrassed to say what his personal preference is. All we got was an endless stream of words on process.
The position is as I set out last week. I am sorry that I have to keep reading it out—I assumed that Annabel Goldie would, over the course of the past seven days, take the opportunity to read the document that Iain Gray did not read. The Scottish Government’s position this week is exactly the same as the position that I read out last week.
When he talks about himself, you cannot shut him up. [Laughter.] When he is asked a serious, substantive question, a quite uncharacteristic coyness overwhelms him.
I heard the interview this morning, and the MEP concerned said exactly what is in the “Your Scotland, Your Voice” document, which is that
Christine Grahame has a constituency supplementary.
Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale is part of the south of Scotland. Does the First Minister share my concern that the south of Scotland—notwithstanding the fact that it does not even receive STV—is not on the eligibility list for consideration in Jeremy Hunt’s consultation on local TV? Is the Government in communication with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport at Westminster about that omission?
I will ensure that the Government is in touch with Jeremy Hunt. I thank Christine Grahame for her information and I will write to her. She raises a serious issue that I know is deeply felt in her constituency.
Cabinet (Meetings)
At its next meeting, the Cabinet will discuss an extraordinary—even threatening—letter that Mr Swinney has received from Danny Alexander. In response to what I thought was a reasonable request for the United Kingdom Government to consider delaying the onset of increased pension contributions in the public sector until the pay freeze period is over, we received the following reply about the schemes for which we have administrative responsibility:
Before the summer, the Scottish Government said that Supreme Court judges were ambulance chasers who visited Scotland only for the Edinburgh festival and that the Supreme Court was a court in another land. Yesterday, the First Minister welcomed his expert group’s conclusion that the Supreme Court has a role to play for Scots and is well qualified to do that. Has he dropped his threat to cut the court’s money?
I welcome Lord McCluskey’s report. As Willie Rennie knows, Lord McCluskey made it clear that he would consider his report within the current constitutional arrangements. Within those arrangements, he has made two significant proposals—that the Supreme Court should become involved only if the High Court gives leave to appeal, as is the case under English jurisdiction; and that appeals should be on points of human rights law and should not affect the disposal that the court in Scotland makes. In the context of the current constitutional arrangements, those are substantial steps forward.
The First Minister’s tone is certainly different from the inflammatory tone that he and the Cabinet Secretary for Justice adopted before the recess. However, the First Minister was at it again yesterday in his press release. That is why Lord Steel resigned from the Presiding Officers panel. The review supports the Supreme Court—it wants to widen access and it says that the court is particularly qualified to do the job. In the summer, we saw the First Minister’s toxic mix of prejudice and nationalism. Will he agree that that has no place in the future and will he change his ways?
Somebody who talks about a “toxic mix of prejudice” hardly seems in a great position to complain about other people’s language, in this chamber or elsewhere. If that description were to be applied to anything, public sector workers who are watching the broadcast today might apply it to the letter from Danny Alexander and find that entire attitude of huge importance, and they would consign his political party to even lower support than it has now, if that were possible.
Oil and Gas (Tax Regime)
The North Sea makes a huge contribution to the Scottish economy. It supports more than 200,000 jobs and is expected to raise £13.4 billion in tax revenue for the UK Exchequer this year, which in cash terms is the highest total in history. However, the chancellor’s decision to increase the supplementary charge has damaged investor confidence and means that a number of marginal fields are no longer commercially viable. Last week, I wrote to the chancellor to propose the introduction of a statutory consultation period on any future changes to the North Sea fiscal regime, which would help to restore much-needed confidence and ensure that concerns about future reforms could be identified and discussed before being implemented, rather than afterwards.
I thank the First Minister for his wise intervention with the chancellor. I hope that the UK Government will listen.
I am not certain why there was that negative reaction to the question from the Labour benches, given that my understanding is that at least the Labour members of Parliament from Aberdeen agreed exactly with Kevin Stewart’s point. The Prime Minister’s comments yesterday were deeply misguided. They came on the same day as the press launch of “The Official History of North Sea Oil and Gas” by Alex Kemp, who is probably the foremost expert in the world on oil and gas tax and finance. One of the findings in that official history is that the wealth and potential and the benefits and revenues from North Sea oil were consistently downplayed by successive Labour and Conservative regimes.
If, as the First Minister has said, changes in the tax regime for oil and gas are so important that they require a statutory consultation period, does the same principle apply to other fiscal changes? If so, does the First Minister now regret the hasty abolition of transitional relief on non-domestic rates?
Most reasonable people would say that the offer of non-domestic rates in Scotland is the best in these islands by far, with 80,000 businesses benefiting from the small business bonus scheme, which is extraordinary. One reason why the Labour Party performed so desperately poorly in the recent election, particularly in the north-east of Scotland, is that people in the small business community looked at Labour candidates and could see no assurance or guarantee that that enormous benefit to business would continue if the misfortune of a Labour Administration came to pass. Fortunately for Scotland, that misfortune was avoided.
European Free Trade Association (Membership)
For the second week in a row and for the third time during this First Minister’s question time, I refer to “Your Scotland, Your Voice: A National Conversation”. Section 8.12 on page 110 of that document states:
Is it not time that the First Minister reflected on the confusion that he and his party are in? In the past week, we have heard three different Scottish National Party policy positions on Europe—from the First Minister, from an MEP and from the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and External Affairs. The SNP’s position is so confusing that, last week, SNP back benchers seemed to be debating a motion that Ms Hyslop had chosen not to lodge. The First Minister has been at pains to reassure members that the SNP Government has a coherent policy on Europe, but given the events of the past week, I have to ask: is he sure?
I am sorry; I was somewhere else as that question wended on. The record will show that we went through many alleys and byways. I was trying to work out where the motion was meant to be.
Has the First Minister received from the United Kingdom Government any response to his request that an automatic right to representation in EU negotiations be included in the Scotland Bill?
There has certainly not been a positive response as yet. I think that that right should be included in the Scotland Bill and I will tell members why.
I agree that the minister was quite correct to say last week that the decision on Europe will be based on the conditions of the day. Will the First Minister say, with reference to contemporary conditions and given the openly expressed determination of Chancellor Merkel, President Sarkozy and the European Commission to form a single economic Government and eliminate the sovereignty of member states, whether EFTA, which retains sovereignty for its members, and the European economic area are better bets for genuine Scottish independence than the Franco-German model of the future EU that appears to be developing?
If I followed the logic of Margo MacDonald’s position, that would mean that Britain could not be an independent country within the European Union and any of the unionist parties here that wanted Britain to be an independent country would have to advocate its leaving the European Union.
Whisky Industry
I welcome the fact that during the first half of 2011, whisky exports were up by 22 per cent on the same period in 2010. During 2011, they have contributed £2.36 billion to the economy.
The First Minister should of course have included the United Kingdom Government in the list of those responsible for that deal with China. I associate myself with his comments about the export figures, which have gone up, but is it not ironic that while that is happening, the industry remains concerned that foreign countries to which we export, which might look for excuses to impose trade barriers, will use minimum pricing as an excuse to diminish whisky sales? That is what the industry says.
A legally proportionate measure could never be used as a justification for illegal discrimination. Of course, I am not the only person in Scotland who believes that—it is believed by the Liberal Democrats now, who support minimum pricing. Indeed, it is believed by not only the Liberal Democrats; I saw a very good contribution to the Official Report by Jackson Carlaw, who said:
Does the First Minister agree that it is hypocritical of Murdo Fraser to try to claim that the Scottish Government intends to penalise the whisky industry with its widely supported minimum pricing policy when his own party at Westminster refuses to do anything about its unfair and discriminatory tax regime, which sees whisky taxed at 185 per cent higher per minimum unit price than cider?
The member perhaps puts his finger on the solution, or the issue that can reconcile Jackson Carlaw, Murdo Fraser and myself—well, perhaps it will not reconcile Jackson Carlaw and Murdo Fraser, but it certainly could unite the three of us—which is to devolve excise duty to Scotland. We could then resolve those arguments, pursue that policy and come to an agreement as a united Parliament.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Can you advise the Parliament what the position is in relation to the First Minister, now that there is not a special panel, with Lord Steel and Sir George Reid having resigned? There is an issue with the First Minister today. Every parliamentarian expects—and should show—honesty and integrity in any answers that are given. Today the First Minister has either wilfully or unintentionally misled the Parliament, because he said that the euro will not be obligatory for Scotland upon membership of the European Union. On independence being declared—
I think that you have made your point, Mrs Eadie.
—it would be obligatory for us, as a member of the EU, to join the euro. That is European law.
Mrs Eadie, please sit down.
To help Ms Eadie, I point out that the panel does exist. It consists of two distinguished former Lord Advocates—Elish Angiolini and Lord Peter Fraser. I hope that, given that the panel does exist, the Labour Party will now accept its findings and rulings, which, unfortunately, it was not prepared to do when Lord Steel and his colleague George Reid presided over it in the last session of Parliament.
I thank the First Minister for that clarification—
Mrs Eadie, is this a further point of order?
I ask for guidance, Presiding Officer. Will you go away and check for the Parliament the European Union law and its integrity? Membership of the euro is obligatory for any new independent state.
Mrs Eadie, please sit down.