First Minister’s Question Time
Before we start, I want to acknowledge the brevity that has been shown during exchanges in First Minister’s question time over the past few weeks. That has allowed more time for back benchers to participate. I know that we are all keen for that to continue.
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-01815)
You know that we always aim to please, Presiding Officer.
Engagements to carry forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
Both the First Minister and John Swinney have said that Scotland pays 9.9 per cent of tax revenues into the United Kingdom and receives back only 9.3 per cent of public spending. That suggests that Scotland pays in more to the UK than we get out. Could the First Minister tell me how much money is 9.9 per cent of tax revenues and how much money is 9.3 per cent of spending?
The surplus of revenue over spending in that year was, from memory, £4 billion. That contributes to a surplus over the past five years—a relative surplus, compared with Scotland in the UK—of some £8 billion. That is, of course, the point of doing the statistics. The unionist parties—Labour, Tory et cetera—have always wanted to say that Scotland has higher public spending. Of course, that is true, and for very good reasons. However, Scotland also contributes more in terms of revenue. That is why we take the 9.9 per cent of revenue, compared to the 9.3 per cent of spending, because it shows that Scotland is in a stronger fiscal position than the rest of the United Kingdom.
That is a classic First Minister answer: “If you don’t like the figures I give you, I have another set prepared from earlier on.”
The First Minister did not answer the question that I asked him about the way in which he misrepresents those figures. According to the figures in his own “Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland” report, 9.9 per cent of revenue comes to £56.9 billion, and 9.3 per cent of spending amounts to £64.5 billion. So, actually, Scotland gets £7.6 billion more out of the United Kingdom than we put in.
Is it not the case that, if the Scottish Government’s own figures show that we get more money out of the United Kingdom than we put into it, it is deeply misleading to try to give the opposite impression?
Due to a range of things, including the economic crisis, the vast majority of countries in the world have been running deficits over the past few years. There have been some exceptions, of course—Norway, across the North Sea, would be a grand example.
We have the exact figures of deficit between Scotland and the UK. In 2008-09, the Scottish deficit was 2.6 per cent, and the UK deficit was 6.9 per cent. In 2009-10—the very height of the economic crisis—the Scottish deficit was 10.7 per cent and the UK deficit was 11.2 per cent. In 2010-11, when the deficit was coming down, the Scottish deficit was 8.1 per cent and the UK deficit was 9.5 per cent. The last figures that are available show a deficit of 5 per cent in Scotland, compared with one of 7.9 per cent in the UK. For each of the past four years, the Scottish deficit is lower than the UK deficit. That is why we are in a stronger fiscal position. Of course, we do not get the benefit of that, because the money is sucked into the maw of the London Treasury.
I welcome this line of questioning, because we can use those figures to show what the difference is—that is, we can say what money would have been available in each of those years. It would have been £6 billion in 2008-09; £667 million in 2009-10; £1.993 billion in 2010-11; and £4.376 billion in the past year. That comes to a total of more than £12 billion. To put that in terms that I know Johann Lamont will appreciate, that is £2,397 for every man, woman and child in Scotland. That is how much we would have been relatively better off if Scotland had been running its own finances.
In all of that, the First Minister did not respond to the question that I asked about how his own figures show that we get more out than we put in.
The First Minister should recall that the finance secretary, in a private paper to the Cabinet, confirmed that Scotland will have a larger deficit than the rest of the United Kingdom by 2016. Of course, that paper was for private consumption, not for the rest of us. If the First Minister could put down for a moment his statistical tommy gun and cease randomly spraying out figures in answer to questions that he was not asked, we might get somewhere.
I have asked the First Minister about two specific figures: what Scotland pays into the United Kingdom and what the United Kingdom pays out to Scotland. Can he confirm that Scotland puts £56.9 billion into the UK in tax, as is stated on page 598 of his own white paper? Can he also confirm that we get £64.5 billion back, as per page 68? Those are his own figures. Can he confirm that his own figures are correct and show that Scotland gets more back from the United Kingdom than we put in? [Interruption.]
Order.
I am glad that Johann Lamont has cited the white paper. On pages 72 to 76, it shows—if I can correct her—that Scotland’s fiscal position in 2016-17, the first year of independence, will be stronger than that of the United Kingdom. As I have tried to explain, in each of the past four years Scotland has run a deficit much lower than the deficit that is being run by the United Kingdom as a whole. That means that we are in a stronger fiscal position. Our finances have been stronger over the past four years, but we did not get the benefit of that because we are run from London.
In terms of borrowing, among the many remarkable statistics are the fact that the better together campaign head Alistair Darling and George Osborne—that combination is quite normal—have between them borrowed more than every other UK chancellor in history and the fact that UK borrowing has more than doubled in the periods of office of Darling and Osborne. That is the extent of UK borrowing. We would have been £12 billion better off, relatively. I am not saying that we could have spent all that money, although some of it would have been very useful expenditure on the capital infrastructure of Scotland, but it would have been sensible to borrow less than the UK has done over the past four years. There could have been a combination of borrowing less and spending more, using our better position to power Scotland forward.
We have had a smaller deficit than the UK over the past four years—that is beyond doubt. Can Johann Lamont not see that that would have translated to our being in a stronger fiscal position? That would have meant that we would have been able to use Scotland’s massive resources to benefit the people and the economy of this country.
It is interesting that the First Minister has now denied what John Swinney said in his private paper, which is that we would have a greater deficit by 2016. I do not think that any of us should take lectures in economics from a First Minister—even a former Royal Bank of Scotland economist—who said in the chamber on 28 November:
“We get 9.3 per cent of the spending, but we raise 9.9 per cent of the revenue; 9.9 per cent is greater than 9.3 per cent.”—[Official Report, 28 November 2013; c 25054.]
Even a primary school child could tell us that that depends on the big figures that those are percentages of—it is not credible.
Since the First Minister embarked on his referendum campaign, he has been making promises that he claims that he will deliver if Scotland votes yes. However, his own figures show that there would be even less money to spend if Scotland voted to go independent. In the real world, where we look at the figures, where we talk in private as we do in public, that is a fact. Is it not the truth that not only will the First Minister be unable to make good on those promises, he will not even be able to deliver on what we have right now?
First Minister? [Interruption.] Order. First Minister.
When Johann Lamont started this line of questioning I thought that she really understood it but was trying to make some political points. Now I am beginning to think that she actually does not understand the point that 9.9 per cent, as every schoolchild and perhaps every former English teacher should know, is greater than 9.3 per cent and if we have 9.9 per cent of the revenue—[Interruption.]
Order.
I say to Alex Johnstone that 9.9 is greater than 9.3. If we have 9.9 per cent of the revenue and 9.3 per cent of spending we are better off. If it was the other way around, we would be worse off but luckily for Scotland, we have generated 9.9 per cent of the revenue for 9.3 per cent of spending. That means that either we would have been running a smaller fiscal deficit than the rest of the United Kingdom or we would have been in a stronger fiscal position. [Interruption.]
Mr Johnstone!
Being in a stronger fiscal position than London is perhaps not much—just about every other country in the world is in a stronger fiscal position—but it indicates how we could have mobilised the natural resources of Scotland to maintain spending as well as borrowing less over these critical years.
We cannot do anything about the figures of the past four years—that money is gone. However, we can learn a lesson for the future because in every single one of those years—when we were in a better position than that of the United Kingdom and therefore would have had the freedom to invest in our economy or to borrow less or a combination of both—the Tory and Labour parties were never fonder of telling people in Scotland how poor we are. The figures demonstrate that we are relatively better off—we are in a stronger position. That is true of the past four years and it will be true in the future. Is it not high time that we mobilised those resources to benefit the people of Scotland?
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-01811)
I have no current plans to meet the Secretary of State for Scotland.
On 26 November 2013, the white paper revealed the Scottish National Party’s plan to jump the queue into Europe. It claimed that Scotland could go through article 48 of the Treaty on European Union—[Interruption.]
Order.
—instead of through article 49, a route that no other state has used in the history of European Union accession.
Then, on 12 December, Nicola Sturgeon appeared before the European and External Relations Committee and said—not once, not twice, not three or even four times but five separate times—that nobody had questioned whether that was a valid legal route. Does the First Minister stand by that statement?
I am delighted that Ruth Davidson has raised this point because it allows me to cite what can only be described as an impeccable source—the guru of the better together campaign, better together’s favourite academic, Professor Jim Gallagher. [Interruption.]
Order.
Looking in particular at the question whether Scotland would have an accelerated route into the European Union, maintaining its position, here is the professor in his blog last year:
“So, for example, it seems pretty likely that Scotland would be an EU member state, probably after an accelerated set of accession negotiations.”
The professor goes on to say:
“Precisely what the conditions of membership would be is not quite so clear, though immediate requirements to join the Euro or the Schengen agreement can surely be avoided.”
If Professor Jim Gallagher, the guru of the better together campaign, is saying that, can we not just accept that the burden of opinion favours the position adopted by the Government as opposed to the position adopted by the better together alliance?
I am glad that the First Minister brings up what has been written on Europe because I would like to enter some other writing in evidence. However, I return to Nicola Sturgeon, who also told the committee,
“If you want to quote people who are saying that”
that is not a legal route,
“I am happy to engage in that debate”.—[Official Report, European and External Relations Committee, 12 December 2013; c 1598.]
I have a copy of a new submission to the European and External Relations Committee by Jean-Claude Piris, who is the former director general of the legal service of the EU Council. He states:
“it would not be legally correct to try and use article 48 ... for the admission of Scotland as a member of the European Union.”
I am happy to put the entire submission into the public domain today so that everyone can see, in black and white, a leading European expert saying that the SNP’s plan is not lawful.
The First Minister misled the Scottish public on EU legal advice—[Interruption.]
Order. Ms Davidson, can we withdraw that?
That was ruled on in the last week before Christmas and was admitted, Presiding Officer, or do I misunderstand?
I will correct the record by saying that the First Minister was unadjacent to the truth in what he said on EU legal advice and in what he said on our route into Europe, so why should we believe anything that he says on the subject?
Let us just say that Ruth Davidson will cite her authorities and I will cite mine and we can have that argument. Surely the significance of Jim Gallagher’s comments is not that he has had an opinion but that he is the star academic of the better together campaign, just as Professor James Crawford’s comment that the 18-month timetable for Scotland to negotiate its position from within the European Union would be realistic—that is what he says—has a particular significance not only because he is an important academic but because he was paid by the United Kingdom Government.
I say to Ruth Davidson that the opinions that I cite—I know that this is embarrassing—from Jim Gallagher now and from Professor James Crawford are significant and important because I am citing people who are either in the better together campaign or paid by the UK Government. If we get to the position that even they—I know that it is difficult for Jim Gallagher to be caught telling the truth on the matter because of his current position—say that, people will adopt the reasonable position that it is a profound and important contribution to the political debate.
Cabinet (Meetings)
3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-01813)
Matters of importance to the people of Scotland.
I praise the Cabinet Secretary for Justice for acknowledging arguments made by opponents of the abolition of the requirement for corroboration and for moving his position, but the solution that he proposes is crackers. Can the First Minister think of another occasion on which the Government has said, “Pass this law, and we will decide what to do later. It is safe to vote for this because we will fix it afterwards”? Does he really expect the Parliament to vote for the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill—a bill that abolishes a great Scottish legal safeguard, that the Government says is incomplete and that is so bad that it will need fixed later?
I thought that, in the first half of the first bit of his question, Willie Rennie was continuing on his theme of sweetness and light, seeing the sense and accepting concessions when they are offered.
The Cabinet Secretary for Justice made some important points. The requirement for corroboration, we believe—there is support from other parts of the chamber as well, as I understand it—should not be a general principle. Why should it not be a general principle? Because it prevents some cases from getting to court and some people from getting their day in court because it is a general rule. That seems to me an important point to make. Then to say that many people are concerned about safeguards and the security of the change and, therefore, that there could be a study of it to give people certainty seems to me a genuine attempt to bring everyone together.
Perhaps Willie Rennie would get back to the first bit of his question and accept that the Cabinet Secretary for Justice was doing his best while putting forward the importance of not having the prosecution authorities of Scotland and, therefore, the public of Scotland not getting justice because of that general rule. He was making a gesture and asking whether we could consider whether there were safeguards that would satisfy an even wider canvas.
The First Minister knows that I like to be reasonable when we agree but, for something so fundamental to be dealt with in such a cack-handed fashion is something with which I could never agree. It has happened before. The Government forced through the centralisation of the police only for the chief constable to recommend fresh legislation within months. The Government tried to rush through its bill on sectarianism only to backtrack within 20 minutes.
Do we really have to go through that again? Is a Cabinet Secretary for Justice dancing in circles and begging for ways to fix his bill in the full glare of the committee not enough evidence to show the First Minister that he has got it wrong on corroboration? What else does he need?
I will make two serious points. In his first question, Willie Rennie asked me whether there were any previous examples of such an approach, but in his second he cited what he thinks are two previous examples of it. I am not sure how his first and his second questions tie together.
Let us get to the substance of the issue. I again bring the chamber’s attention to the Lee Cyrus case. Some members who are sitting not far from Willie Rennie demanded to know why that individual could not be prosecuted for suspected crimes in Scotland. The Crown Office had already said that that was because of the general rule of corroboration. The member who is sitting two seats away from Willie Rennie demanded to know from the Cabinet Secretary for Justice why that was not possible and got an answer. That is the difficulty with the general rule of corroboration. It means that cases do not get to court. That difficulty potentially denies justice to many people in Scotland, particularly women who have been the victims of sex crimes. They cannot get access to justice because of the general rule. We are talking about a real difficulty that affects real cases and real people.
To draw attention to that difficulty and to propose a solution, as the justice secretary is doing, is exactly the right thing to do. What I cannot take from members of the Parliament or anyone else is their demanding to know why a case cannot get to court and then refusing to support proposals to sort out that injustice. Being denied justice, as people are being at the moment, is as important an issue as the possible miscarriage of justice. If the justice secretary can bring forward proposals that ensure that people have access to justice and can satisfy people that the danger of miscarriage of justice can be alleviated and stopped, surely any reasonable person—and particularly the victims of crime—would want to see the Parliament support that.
United Kingdom Government Debt
4. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the Treasury announcement that it will honour all United Kingdom Government debt up to the date of the independence referendum. (S4F-01814)
I welcome the fact that the UK Government is coming to terms with reality and is recognising that if you issue debt—the debt that Alistair Darling and George Osborne piled up—you have the legal responsibility for it. With its announcement, the Treasury has finally endorsed the commonsense approach that was set out by the fiscal commission a year ago, which we outlined on pages 348 to 350 of “Scotland’s Future” last November.
Perhaps we are seeing the start of a trend. Now that we have had a commonsense acceptance by the Treasury of the points that we have been putting forward for the past year, perhaps—who knows?—that will spread to other areas of current dispute, such as the European Union. Let us carry forward that outbreak of common sense.
I thank the First Minister for reiterating that Scotland is willing to take its share of the UK’s debt and liabilities following a yes vote.
Will the First Minister join me in calling on the no campaign to exercise more of that new-found common sense in its approach, specifically regarding the formation of an optimal sterling currency area if Scotland votes yes?
I will. I think that there are substantial reasons for it to do so.
The point that we put forward in the fiscal commission’s report and in the white paper is that we believe that it is not just in the interests of Scotland but in the overwhelming interests of the rest of the UK to have that sterling area. Between Christmas and new year, I saw an opinion poll that asked the people of the rest of the UK their opinion. An overwhelming majority of people in the rest of the UK believed that, after Scotland became independent, it would be common sense to share sterling as a currency.
With regard to Government debt, a new definition of pounds sterling in Scottish Government contracts with business now reassures contractors that they will be paid in sterling if Scotland ends up with a different currency. The First Minister is prepared to reassure businesses that they will be paid in a stable currency, but will he give the same assurance that pensions will be paid in sterling in the event of independence? Why should people who have paid sterling into their pensions over many years have their pensions devalued by Salmond’s new currency?
The answer is yes, because we are going to retain sterling as our currency.
Tuition Fees (European Union Students)
5. To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to advice given by academics on tuition fees for students from European Union countries. (S4F-01824)
I am aware of the claims that have been put forward by academics together. Members of that group are, of course, entitled to their views, but it should be noted that they are campaigning for a no vote, so perhaps their views come as no great surprise. However, crucially, I am also aware of the legal opinion that was provided to Universities Scotland, which we can agree is a body of impeccable neutrality on independence. That opinion makes it clear that EU law allows for objective justification when there is clear evidence of exceptional circumstances. We have outlined that position.
In fairness, rather than cite one or two sides of the debate again—whether we cite one side of the debate in favour of our position, as in the case of Jim Gallagher, or an alternative position—we should recognise that positions that neutral bodies have taken must carry some weight. I am sure that Ken Macintosh will want to reflect that.
I ask the First Minister to clarify further a more immediate and pressing question. For more than three years, his Cabinet Secretary for Education and Lifelong Learning, Mr Russell, has tried to secure an arrangement to charge EU students who are studying at Scottish universities and recoup some of the tens of millions of pounds that that costs the Scottish Government. Is the First Minister still actively pursuing such a policy?
We are still looking at the policy. The important aspect is that the policy of objective justification, which we outlined in the white paper and which the legal advice to Universities Scotland supported, sets out a route whereby we can retain free education in Scotland. Our objective is to maintain free education in Scotland. I know that that is not the Tory party’s objective and that the Liberals went along with that south of the border in England. I think that the Labour Party is now against free tuition for Scottish students or that Johann Lamont wants to introduce back-door tuition fees, although Iain Gray ruled that out at the previous election.
Ken Macintosh should accept that the Scottish National Party Government’s overwhelming priority—on which success is shown by the record numbers of Scottish youngsters at Scottish universities last year—is to ensure that access to education in Scotland is based on people’s talent and ability and not on their cheque book. Education will remain free under the SNP.
If the legal experts turned out to be correct and the Scottish Government was not permitted to charge students from the rest of the United Kingdom fees, what would the annual bill to Scottish taxpayers be, in light of the commitment in paragraph 236 of the white paper to free higher education?
We explained in the white paper, which follows the legal advice to Universities Scotland, why we think that objective justification would allow us to continue the present policy in Scotland. Interestingly, I have been copied into a letter from Universities Scotland to a newspaper that clarifies that it does not disagree with the Scottish Government on the issue and which repeats its welcome for the information in the white paper.
I ask Liz Smith to cast her mind back to only a couple of years ago, when the Conservative Party told us that the policy of free education in Scotland that we are pursuing would run into problems. I see her nodding. Does she not recognise that the Conservative Party’s claim that universities in Scotland would be bankrupted has been proved wrong? Universities in Scotland are in a fundamentally better position than those south of the border. The Conservatives’ claim that the policy that we are pursuing is untenable has also been proved wrong, because free education in Scotland is taking place right now.
If the Tory party was in control of the Scottish Parliament—that obviously will not happen—or if it ever got itself anywhere near power in Scotland, I have no doubt that it would want to impose fees of £9,000 or more on every Scottish student. Thankfully, the SNP is in power in the Parliament, which is why tuition will remain free with the SNP.
Unconventional Gas Production
6. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government aims to use the planning process to prevent unconventional gas production. (S4F-01816)
As with proposals for all energy projects, any applications for coal-bed methane or shale gas projects in Scotland require to be considered on their merits and in accordance with the appropriate regulatory regimes and planning legislation. That is the due and proper process. As we are a country with enough oil to meet our demand many times over, it is perfectly reasonable for us to proceed carefully on the undoubted opportunities for shale gas in Scotland.
I thank the First Minister for his answer, but he does have form on using planning policy to control energy. He threatened to use it to prevent investment in new nuclear power in Scotland, and he has used it to cover our hilltops with wind turbines. As he mobilises his resources, is he going to avoid a spectacular hat trick of own goals?
As the member should know, we established an expert group last September to look at the science and an evidence-based approach to fracking and unconventional gas. In October, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency announced important planning guidelines. We are making preparations to give security and confidence to the people of Scotland that such resources would be developed in an environmentally safe and satisfactory way.
I can only contrast that with what is happening elsewhere, where the damage that is being done is surely epitomised by George Osborne’s father-in-law, Lord Howell of Guildford, who last year claimed that fracking was okay for the “desolate” north-east of England. He then corrected that by saying that it was okay for the desolate north-west of England. If the member can just imagine the message to communities, whether they be in the north-east or north-west of England, he will see that that is why I believe that there is such a lack of confidence south of the border where, if they are not very careful, they will spend more time on planning inquiries than they will on extracting any gas. It is far better to proceed on the scientific basis that the Scottish Government is proposing, with planning legislation that has been drawn up to make sure that any such development can be done responsibly and safely.
Given that there is no direct link between the site of these developments and the extent of the geological structures that give rise to environmental risk, surely there can be no safe buffer zone for such developments? The only way to achieve environmental protection is for the First Minister to unequivocally say that fracking and unconventional gas have no place in Scotland.
I know that Patrick Harvie will have noted the comments of Friends of the Earth Scotland and WWF Scotland, who gave a welcome to the Scottish Government’s announcement. It seems to be seldom that Patrick Harvie departs from those particularly important pressure groups.
The point that we are making is pretty reasonable. Scientific analysis is important because it is an essential preparatory step. The fit-for-purpose guidelines that are specifically designed for this potential development are another source of reassurance for people. Surely proceeding in such a careful, orderly, safe, and scientific way is much better than either doing so in the helter-skelter way that the Conservative Party proposes for the desolate north-west of England, or saying that there is no chance of these resources being developed in a safe and satisfactory way. Surely the Government’s evidence-based approach is a profoundly good way to proceed.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Could you provide members with guidance on parliamentary language? I am sure that if we did a basic search for the words “misled” or “misleading” it would show that they have been used dozens of times during the current session, whether in committee or in the chamber. Indeed, in yesterday’s health debate, the word “misleading” was also used. Can you advise us on how the rules will be applied consistently to all members, and whether the words “misled” or “misleading” are correct parliamentary language?
There are no set guidelines on what is and what is not parliamentary language. The judgment about whether language is parliamentary on any particular occasion is mine.