First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-01889)
I am sure that the whole Parliament will want to join me in congratulating Eve Muirhead and her rink on winning the bronze medal at the winter Olympics. Perhaps that is a demonstration that we all can be
“Heroes
Just for one day.”
Of course, we on this side of the chamber also congratulate our curlers. We are very proud of them as Scots and as part of team GB.
I ask the First Minister to turn and face the strain. In the past seven days, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the shadow chancellor, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the permanent secretary of the Treasury, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors have said that the First Minister’s plans A and B for the currency are non-starters. The President of the European Commission and the President of the European Council said that his Europe plans are, at best, extremely difficult. Instead of arguing why he is right and they are wrong, the First Minister has just insulted them. Now that David Bowie—[Interruption.]
Order.
I did not realise that the Scottish National Party members had not realised that the First Minister was insulting people rather than arguing with them.
However, now that David Bowie has come out for the union, can the First Minister explain to us why Bowie is preposterous, bluffing, and bullying?
Most people in Scotland would feel that George Osborne has insulted the intelligence of the Scottish people.
This might be the last—the only—time that I quote from the Daily Mail. When Johann Lamont is facing Daily Mail headlines saying that the row over the pound is driving the yes vote, the reasonable conclusion might be that so far the joint enterprise between George Osborne and Ed Balls has backfired on the two unionist parties in spectacular fashion.
I watched television the other night and I saw Gordon Brown walk off an interview on STV because he was asked whether Ed Balls was wise to make an alliance with George Osborne. I have known Gordon Brown for a long time, and I have never seen him walk off an interview. Perhaps people in the Labour Party should realise the damage that has been done to them by their being hand in glove with the likes of George Osborne.
Perhaps the First Minister might reflect on the damage that is being done to this Parliament by the insults he presents to our intelligence and the people of Scotland because of the way in which he dismisses those who disagree with him. It takes an extraordinary lack of self-awareness for the First Minister to accuse other people of not telling the truth as a campaign tactic. Truly, as we live our lives, we judge our neighbours. The fact of the matter is that these issues are too serious for the First Minister to insult us in this way.
This week Alex Salmond, John Swinney, and Nicola Sturgeon have been asked repeatedly to put a figure on the transaction costs to Scottish business of giving up the pound in the event of a yes vote, but they have refused to come up with an answer. The Scottish Parliament information centre has come up with some numbers. Transaction costs for the rest of the UK—the so-called George tax—work out at £9 per head for people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, if the Scottish Government’s own figures are to be believed, the cost in Scotland would be £75 a head, which is eight times greater. No wonder they would not answer the question. Given that that would be the consequence of the First Minister’s plan to break up the United Kingdom, why should Scottish business pay the Alex tax?
Our proposal is to share the pound and not have the transaction costs. It is Johann Lamont’s proposal—that is, it is Ed Balls’ and George Osborne’s proposal—to force Scotland into using a different currency and to impose transaction costs on Scottish and English business.
The point that is being made by the Scottish Government is a reasonable one; I do not think that English businesses will take kindly to being forced to pay the George or Johann tax. I do not think that Johann Lamont wants to have her name attached to that tax.
I said earlier that that would be the only time that I would quote the Daily Mail, but I am going to quote it again. [Laughter.] That is twice in one First Minister’s question time. I apologise for quoting Labour’s house journal. However, I note that another aspect of the poll this morning showed that our proposal to share the pound is the most popular proposal among the Scottish people. Does not that suggest that perhaps there is a resonance in support of what we are saying, and that the Labour Party is struggling because of its association with the Conservative Party?
I hope that Johann Lamont continues with this theme, because I might go for the hat trick and start talking about the party ratings that the poll indicated. The Labour Party has done itself huge damage by associating with the Conservatives—in particular with George Osborne. The reaction of the Scottish people to being told, or instructed, from on high that our currency—the currency that we jointly built up—does not actually belong to us but to George Osborne is entirely understandable, and will be deeply uncomfortable for the Labour Party in Scotland.
If we are talking about associations with Tories, it is only the SNP that wants to cut corporation tax by 3p more than any Tory chancellor would propose. [Interruption.]
Order.
If we are talking about polls, the same poll says that two thirds of the people in this country want to know what the First Minister’s proposal is for a plan B for the currency. It is about time he told them, because the reality is this: the rest of the United Kingdom, including Carwyn Jones, have said that they do not want a currency union. They do not want a currency union. We cannot make them have a currency union if we are not in the same country. What does the First Minister not understand—[Interruption.]
Order.
What does the First Minister not understand about his proposal to take Scotland out of the United Kingdom? It has come to this, Presiding Officer.
The Scottish Government, as we have seen, is prepared to deny, deflect, assert and insult in order to win the referendum. They say that they want to keep a currency union. They say that they want to keep an unfettered single market without transaction costs. They say that they want to keep borrowing costs in line with current levels. They say that they want to stay in the European Union with a rebate and the current opt-outs. Then they ask, “What is the positive case for the union?” Is not it the truth that the only way we can guarantee keeping those things is by staying in the United Kingdom?
Let me support Johann Lamont’s call for a calm and considered debate as we look forward to those things.
We have argued, and the fiscal commission has said, that the best option for Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom is to share the currency. That was the basis on which the fiscal commission working group proposed the policy. I think that it is the right policy. It is the right policy for Scotland and the right policy for the rest of the United Kingdom.
I say to Johann Lamont that the debate has, in relation to Mr Barroso’s comments, moved on. I am looking at the Scotsman website for today in respect of evidence being presented to Parliament.
“Scottish independence: Barroso ‘incorrect’ on EU”.
That is not me speaking, but Jim Currie, the former European Commission director general, who said that Mr Barroso was
“extremely unwise and incorrect”.
If that is not enough, we have the speech in Ireland by the secretary general of the European Commission.
“On Scotland’s position regarding membership should it vote for independence, Ms Day said comments by European Commission president José Manuel Barroso over the weekend had been misunderstood.”
I think that that is civil service speak for “perhaps the comparison between Scotland and Kosovo was not the wisest comparison for Mr Barroso to make.”
Johann Lamont should look at the evidence that is being presented to the Parliament’s committees. Evidence has been presented in significant form by people as eminent as David Edward, and by many others, that shows absolutely that, as Scotland has been part of the European Union for 40 years and has built up rights and entitlements as part of that structure, and as it conforms to the democratic imperatives that the EU represents, we are of course entitled to our rights as European citizens. The idea that the rest of Europe wants to deny us those rights is a total illusion that has been cooked up by the unionist parties. Scotland is a European nation, and we will continue to be a European nation.
The real problem here is that the First Minister listens only to people who agree with him.
Members: Oh!
That works in here, but it does not work in the rest of the world. It is not in the First Minister’s gift to tell people in England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Europe what is in their best interests. It is in their gift, and he has to deal with that.
The permanent secretary to the Treasury has rejected a currency union if there is a yes vote, and so has the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the shadow chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors and the Scottish Trades Union Congress reject the idea, too.
It is not good enough simply to listen to oneself; the First Minister has to accept that other people have credible positions.
The President of the European Commission and the President of the European Council have said that for Scotland to get the agreement of all the other member states after a yes vote would be extremely difficult, if not impossible. Business costs would go up by £75 a head and average mortgage costs would go up by an eye-watering £100 a week. I am sure that people throughout the country will reflect on how little seriousness the SNP back benchers place on the consequences for ordinary people.
Despite all that, the First Minister still simply steams ahead. Is not it the case that the only preposterous, bullying bluffer in this fight is the First Minister?
I will quote Professor Christine Bell, who is a professor of constitutional law at the University of Edinburgh. I have no knowledge whatever of her politics or of whether she agrees with me politically. She says:
“Legally under international law the position is clear: if the remainder UK keeps the name and status of the UK under international law, it keeps its liabilities for the debt. The UK took out the debt, and legally it owes the money. Scotland cannot therefore ‘default’.”
As Johann Lamont knows, we have set out in the white paper our proposal that we should share the United Kingdom’s assets and liabilities, which is the fair and responsible thing to do. One of those assets is, of course, the Bank of England, which was nationalised in 1946 and is undoubtedly a public asset. We think that that is a fair proposition.
We pointed out very reasonably that the implication—or the certainty, in fact, because the Treasury had to state this to the markets last month—of arguing, as the Treasury is now doing, along with the UK Government and all the eminent people that Johann Lamont has cited, that the UK is the continuing state and so it will keep all the assets of the United Kingdom, is that it follows, as night follows day, that it will end up with the liabilities.
I believe that George Osborne and Ed Balls are bluffing not just because it would be against the interests of the English people to impose transaction costs on Scotland, but because I do not believe that we will reach a situation in which George Osborne wants to make every person in Scotland £25,000 richer, which is what would happen if the UK had to accept all the national debt.
I would find agreeing with George Osborne extremely uncomfortable—unlike Johann Lamont, which is why the Labour Party is suffering serious and perhaps permanent damage in Scotland as a result of its alliance with the Conservative Party.
Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)
2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S4F-01887)
I have no current plans to meet him, although we will both be in the Aberdeen area on Monday.
I am sure that the First Minister’s hotel will be of a higher standard.
On the currency issue, let us summarise where we have got to so far today. On one side of the argument, we have Alex Salmond. On the other side of the argument, we have everyone else, and has his response today not been telling? [Interruption.] Shouts from the back benches, as if to make my point for me—thanks very much.
The First Minister of Wales says that he does not want a currency union with an independent Scotland, and he is ignored. The permanent secretary to the Treasury says that he would not advise one, and he is dismissed. The chancellor and his opposite numbers say that they could not in all conscience support the suggestion for the rest of the UK, and it is a bluff. Alex Salmond’s own independence allies say that they want a separate currency, and they are sidelined. The Institute of Directors and the Confederation of British Industry say that the risks to business are unacceptable, and they are “unionist stooges”. The majority of people in the rest of the United Kingdom say no, too. They were called in aid of the First Minister’s argument when the figures helped him out last week, but they are ignored when the figures do not help him this week.
The First Minister might be in denial, but the rest of the country has woken up to the truth. Is this not the week that we found out that the emperor has no clothes?
Far be it from me to remind Ruth Davidson that the fiscal commission working group contained two Nobel laureates in economics—Jim Mirrlees and Joe Stiglitz—as well as other eminent economists, and we acted on their recommendation with regard to the best option.
Sir James Mirrlees is particularly interesting in that regard, of course, because, when Mark Carney gave his balanced and excellent speech in Edinburgh a few weeks ago, he cited only two economists. One was Adam Smith, who we would agree was a great founder of economic science; and the other was Sir James Mirrlees. Does Ruth Davidson think that, when Mark Carney made that citation in his speech, he was unaware that James Mirrlees was one of the authors of the fiscal commission working group’s report, whose recommendations we acted on?
I see Ruth Davidson shaking her head, but she started her question by saying that nobody agreed with me. I am pointing out that Nobel laureate economists and the fiscal working group put forward the proposition.
As for the people—let us remember the people—I am sure that the poll today indicates that, after he managed to halve the no campaign’s lead in the space of one speech, whatever else we might say, we can say that the Scottish people do not agree with George Osborne.
The sand is shifting beneath the First Minister’s feet as he stands up and speaks. [Laughter.]
Order.
We have made our choice: we want a strong Scotland in a strong United Kingdom, which already gives us the currency union that the First Minister so desperately wants to keep, and it gives us a political and a social union, too. He, on the other hand, wants to pick and mix when everyone knows that he cannot.
The First Minister has quoted the Daily Mail today, so I will quote The Guardian. It says that, when the contradictions of his currency case are presented to him,
“Alex Salmond and co are acting like spoilt children”.
On the currency, the First Minister is weak. On pensions, he is weak. On Europe, he is weak. On the basic facts, he is weak. He is weak, weak, weak. Is it not true that he is the man with no plan?
Ruth Davidson is weak every week. Higher praise I cannot give than that of the new chairman of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist association, who, when asked this week by The Daily Telegraph to assess Ruth Davidson’s performance, said that she was “improving”. Be that as it may, if she cannot get the endorsement of the chairman of her own party, I do not think that she is in a strong position.
Perhaps Ruth Davidson should draw a line in the sand. That line in the sand might well be that we should have a look at the attitudes of the Scottish people, as we currently understand them. We can think a number of things about the best constitutional options for Scotland but there is little doubt that the reaction to having edicts laid down from on high by George Osborne has been—how shall I put it?—somewhat negative for the improving Scottish Conservative Party. That may not be of any great moment to the Conservatives. Incidentally, in the same article some of the back benchers were described as “coasting”. I do not know which ones are coasting.
Members: All of them.
I am told that all of them are coasting.
It may not be of much moment to the Conservative Party, which has very little to lose, but they are dragging down this lot with them—guilt by association.
Cabinet (Meetings)
3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-01885)
The next meeting of the Cabinet will discuss issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
The First Minister has put on his best poker face this week, but others might not be bluffing. There could be a separate Scottish currency. The First Minister’s own fiscal commission thinks that that is a possibility. John Kay knows it, and Patrick Harvie and Dennis Canavan want it. The First Minister is the last man standing, refusing to concede. Will he take this opportunity to confirm that a Scottish currency is a possibility? He has a duty to make a statement to Parliament this week or next so that people in Scotland know where they stand. Will he do that?
I do not know whether anybody noticed that Willie Rennie used the word “might” in the first sentence of his question. I think that that is improvement. I think that, in that Liberal tradition of on the one hand this and on the other hand that, Willie Rennie does not display the same certainty as the Conservative and Labour Party alliance.
As Willie Rennie should well know, the fiscal commission working group set out a range of options for the currency of an independent Scotland. It said that those options were viable given the strengths of the Scottish economy and recommended that the best option for Scotland and for the rest of the United Kingdom was the currency union that we propose. We believe that that currency union is the one that will be negotiated. It will be negotiated because it is in the best interests of Scotland and it is most certainly in the best interests of the rest of the United Kingdom, which will not want to be lumbered with the whole of the UK national debt.
Despite all the opinion, including that on his side, the First Minister cannot even say that a separate Scottish currency is a possibility. He cannot hide on that until September. It would be the chancellor, after a yes vote—if that were to happen—who the First Minister would have to convince about a currency union.
The First Minister’s whole plan is based on the judgment of that chancellor, George Osborne, who is a man the First Minister derides for his judgment every day of the week. The First Minister is gambling that Osborne will transform from being his belligerent barbarian to being his pacifist puppy—arch enemy to best buddy in a day—but John Kay, Patrick Harvie and Dennis Canavan do not think that that will happen. In the poll that the First Minister likes to cite today, two out of three people want him to set out his alternative. Why is he ignoring them?
If there is a “pacifist puppy”—I would not dream of using such language—surely it is the person who gave evidence to a committee of this Parliament yesterday, Mr Danny Alexander, who seems to be the echo of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at present.
I have laid out what the fiscal commission working group said, the alternatives that it set out and the preferred option—which is our option—of a currency union between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not believe that it is my entreaties that would persuade Danny Alexander or George Osborne to see what is in their best interests; what would persuade them is facing up to the realities of the implications of the debt for the rest of the United Kingdom and, I hope, the realisation that transaction costs north and south of the border are not a good thing for businesses.
I have this vision of George Osborne and Ed Balls—I know it is difficult but Danny Alexander, of course, will be on our side after the independence vote—going to all these businesses in the north of England and saying, “We’ve got this fantastic idea. We’re going to charge you transaction costs to export your goods and services to Scotland. Come and vote for us.” I do not think that that is credible.
I do not think that Willie Rennie is a lost soul in these things, because I detect a bit more reasonableness in his approach than I sometimes detect from the other parties. However, it was very unreasonable for Danny Alexander to say yesterday that an independent Scotland’s bond rates would be high. Given that the United Kingdom is standing at 2.8 per cent, Switzerland at 1.1 per cent, Denmark at 1.7 per cent, Austria at 1.9 per cent and Sweden at 2.3 per cent, there is a lot of evidence that small independent countries across Europe pay lower interest rates than the United Kingdom at present.
Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (Meetings)
4. To ask the First Minister when the Scottish Government last met representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and what issues were discussed. (S4F-01896)
Obviously, ministers and officials meet COSLA representatives regularly and discuss a wide range of issues as part of the commitment to working in partnership with local government to improve outcomes for the people of Scotland. One of the issues that ministers are considering is COSLA’s request that we freeze the funding formula for local authorities. I know that that is of interest to Ms Watt and the people in her constituency.
As the First Minister said, COSLA voted to ask the Scottish Government to freeze the funding formula. I believe that Labour-led Aberdeen City Council and Labour councils throughout Scotland supported that decision, and understand that COSLA cannot revisit that without a change to its standing orders. We see Aberdeen City Council and other Labour councils throwing their dummies out of the pram and proposing to leave the organisation. If the Scottish Government accepts COSLA’s request, what will that mean for Aberdeen and what will be the impact on funding for Aberdeen?
To be absolutely clear, it was COSLA that put forward that proposal. I understand that there was a very narrow majority, but nonetheless that is the proposal that COSLA put forward. John Swinney has considered it and will shortly write to COSLA to outline the impact of applying the freeze, as it proposes, in comparison with distributing the funding that local authorities would receive if we used the same method that has been in place since 1983.
I will write to Maureen Watt shortly and set out the financial implications in particular of the position of Aberdeen City Council in her constituency. However, it is worth noting that it was the Scottish National Party Government in 2011, after eight years of total inaction by the previous Labour-Liberal Executive, that introduced a funding floor that ensured that all local authorities should receive 85 per cent of the funding average. That ensures that Aberdeen currently receives a better deal than it would have had if that measure had not been introduced. However, I will write to Maureen Watt very shortly to point out the implications of what has come forward as we understand it, supported by Aberdeen City Council.
Given the confirmed withdrawals from COSLA and the speculation about a number of other local authorities, does the First Minister have a view on the point at which COSLA can no longer reasonably be seen to represent local authorities in Scotland? Is there any contingency planning for how the Government will engage with the local authorities should the organisation reach such a point?
We discussed that at Cabinet on Tuesday, so it would be wrong to say that we have not considered the prospect, but it is early. The member is right to ask the question, because, as he probably knows, there is a time period between signalling an intention to leave the organisation and leaving it. Therefore, it would probably be in everybody’s best interests if we took a calm sook on it and allowed COSLA and the individual councils to come to their consideration.
However, it would probably be helpful to some councils if we set out the indicative position that would have arisen if the same funding formula that has been applied since the 1980s had been applied in the year after next compared with the COSLA proposal. We have to take the COSLA proposal extremely seriously, because that is what we have always done. We have said that that funding formula is within its gift. However, it is important that all the councils understand and know the implications of what some of them seem to have voted for as part of the considerations within the Labour group.
As local government resources shift ever more away from local taxation and towards the block grant, which becomes a bigger proportion of local government resources because of central Government, not local government, decisions, surely the tensions in the allocation of the block grant will only get worse in the long run. Is it not clear that the freeing up of local government to make decisions, particularly on local taxation, is an absolutely necessary part of the debate for the longer term if we want local government to be government?
Patrick Harvie makes a very fair point, but I dispute that that is the reason, as I understand it, for the tensions that are emerging within COSLA.
The tensions seem to be centred around two areas. One is whether the funding formula that has been used since the 1980s should be applied again or whether there should be a roll-out, in the year after next, of a funding formula that depends on the previous census figures. That is one of the areas of contention. The other area of contention is that there seems to be dissatisfaction among some councils in COSLA about the nature of decision making regarding how much comes from the leaders’ group and how much comes from the convention itself.
I dispute the reasons for the tensions within COSLA, but Patrick Harvie makes an important point about the politics and economics of local government.
Care Services (Inspection)
5. To ask the First Minister what steps the Scottish Government is taking to improve the inspection of care services. (S4F-01898)
Alex Neil has tasked the Care Inspectorate and Healthcare Improvement Scotland to develop a new inspections methodology to ensure that older people get the level of support delivered that they have been assessed as needing and that its quality is no less than the people of Scotland merit and deserve. As part of that new regime, we require the Care Inspectorate to inspect every care home in Scotland unannounced at least once every year. Additional inspections are carried out on those services that are at greatest risk, which means that high-risk services are inspected several times during the year to ensure that improvements are made.
I am sure that the First Minister will join me in welcoming the one big drum community group to the public gallery.
Is the First Minister aware of Unison Scotland’s report “Scotland—It’s time to care: A survey of Scotland’s homecare workers”, in which home care workers highlight their concerns? One is quoted as saying:
“I think they forget we are dealing with human beings, old ones at that.”
Another says:
“It’s getting worse. I don't know where it’s going to end, no one cares about the patient or client anymore.”
Will the First Minister now heed Scottish Labour’s calls to improve care inspections and commit to a fully integrated health and social care inspectorate that is independent of Government, that is accessible to staff and patients and that has the powers to make the really tough decisions to improve our care services?
I join the member in welcoming the one big drum group to the chamber.
The member should be fair about the nature of Health Improvement Scotland and the Care Inspectorate and the task that they have been undertaking, and she should welcome the information and the level of inspection that we now have, which we did not have before. Thirty-one per cent of home care service users receive 10 hours or more of free personal care a week, and 62 per cent receive four hours or more of free personal care a week. Clients are receiving more than double the number of hours of home care that they received in 1998: the average was 5.1 hours a week in 1998 and 11 hours a week in 2012.
The reason that we know those things is the nature and regime of the inspection that has been carried out. Although, of course, it is right and proper for constituency members to highlight failings where things have not worked as they should, at least we know about those failings because of the nature of inspection.
Integrated health and social care is a priority for the Government, as our legislation indicates. The member should be fair about what is happening and the work that is being done, which identifies failings and sorts them out.
Commonwealth Games (Financial Administration)
6. To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had with Glasgow 2014 officials regarding the financial administration of the Commonwealth games. (S4F-01890)
The Scottish Government has frequent meetings with Glasgow 2014 regarding all aspects of the games’ preparations, including financial arrangements. The funding partners remain confident that delivery remains on time and will be achieved within the agreed budget.
There were reports 10 days ago in the Sunday Herald that two thirds of the £42 million contingency fund has already been spent and that part of the reason for that is that the organisers have underestimated the timescale of hiring various venues, which has led to a number of contracts being revisited. Will the First Minister tell me how many contracts have been revisited?
I can say that 92 per cent of contracts, by value, have now been committed, which leaves only 8 per cent of the contracts to be committed. The fact that 92 per cent is much higher than 66 per cent of the contingency fund is one of the reasons why there is a great deal of confidence that the games’ delivery will stay on time and within budget.
In terms of the organising committee, I have looked at a range of games across the world, both Commonwealth games and Olympics, and the Commonwealth Games Federation acknowledges that the Glasgow games is one of the best run and most efficient, being both on time and on budget. One of the reasons for confidence in the games is that we are now at a stage at which just about all the venues are completed and 92 per cent of the contracts have been committed. That is why there is a great deal of confidence not only that the games will be on time and on budget, but that it will be one of the greatest sporting and cultural festivals that Scotland has ever seen.