Official Report 374KB pdf
15:00
The next item of business is a debate on motion S7M-01264, in the name of John Swinney, on Scotland’s right to decide. Members who wish to speak should press their request-to-speak buttons now.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Under rule 1.1 of standing orders,
“The Scottish Parliament is established by the Scotland Act 1998”.
Schedule 5(1)(b) of the Scotland Act 1998 states explicitly that the union is a reserved matter. Do you consider it to be inappropriate to allow this debate on reserved matters and, under rule 7.4.5 of standing orders, will you close this meeting of the Parliament?
No.
We are ready to begin when you are ready, First Minister.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. On 23 November 2022, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Scottish Parliament does not have the legislative power to hold an independence referendum without consent from Westminster. Do you agree that the Supreme Court ruling must take precedence and that, under rule 7.4.5 of standing orders, this meeting of the Parliament should be closed?
Mr Offord, this is a Parliament, and Parliaments are free to debate whatever subjects they wish to, including this one.
15:02
I welcome the opportunity to open the debate. It is vital for us to debate the question of the right of the people of Scotland to decide the future of their country. That principle is fundamental to how we see Scotland and to what Scotland is.
The debate is ever more vital at this moment because, for the first time since 2014, we are debating it with explicit acknowledgement from the United Kingdom Prime Minister of the principle that Scotland should have a referendum when it is likely that people would vote for independence.
That matters because, regardless of members’ constitutional positions—I recognise that not all members share my view—the Prime Minister finally recognises how unsustainable the recent Westminster position has been. My hope is that, instead of making cursory dismissal of the arguments, we can begin a meaningful discussion about where power lies across these islands.
I am curious about when the First Minister changed his mind. Before the election, he said that the Scottish National Party would have to have a majority before he would demand another referendum. Now, he says that that does not matter anymore. When is he going to stick to his manifesto commitment that there would need to be an SNP majority?
The point that I made during the election campaign was that the referendum in 2014 took place because the SNP had won a majority in that Parliament. We all have to accept that, at this moment, the largest number of members of the Scottish Parliament who stood on a commitment to supporting independence and having a referendum on it have been elected. That issue is fundamental to our debate and it should be respected by the United Kingdom Government.
Put simply, why did the First Minister not say that before the election?
Before the election, I set out a reliable mechanism to break the logjam. The people said, “We want this Parliament to have the largest ever number of independence-supporting MSPs,” and that is what they elected on 7 May.
Let me start by saying something that, I hope, we can all agree on, although this evening’s vote will test that premise. Scotland is a nation, and its people have the right to decide their future. The UK is a voluntary union, which means that its nations can stay part of it or choose their independence. Those two things were once accepted across the political spectrum in Scotland. Indeed, they were recognised in the debates that led to the establishment of the Scottish Parliament by its first First Minister, Donald Dewar. That was also recognised in the Smith commission, in 2014, when it was agreed by all parties that
“nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose.”
If we are equal partners in this union—as was often repeated by the better together parties during the referendum campaign and, indeed, by the founding partners of the Scottish Parliament—Westminster alone cannot call the shots. The right of the people of Scotland to decide their future belongs to the people of Scotland, not to any politician or party.
In assessing the views of the people, let us remember what has happened over the years when the people of Scotland have been given the chance to choose who represents them in their national Parliament. For the fifth election in a row, a party supporting independence has won. For the fourth election in a row, a majority of MSPs support independence. For three elections in a row since the independence referendum, and for two elections in a row since the Brexit referendum, a majority of MSPs have supported independence. In May, the people of Scotland elected the largest independence-supporting majority in the Scottish Parliament’s history.
Support for independence is growing, moving from 45 per cent in 2014 to now regularly more than 50 per cent of people in Scotland. The issue of Scottish independence commands significant levels of public support. It is an issue that must be addressed. The people must have a choice about independence.
I know that the First Minister does not like her name being mentioned in the chamber, but what does he say to Nicola Sturgeon, who, in 2021, said that it was possible to vote for the SNP while not voting for independence?
On Craig Hoy’s point, the SNP set out our aspirations for Scotland to be an independent country and for that choice to be exercised by the people of Scotland, and I am now in this Parliament leading a debate on behalf of the Scottish Government to make Scotland deciding its own future a reality.
We all understand that breaking up the United Kingdom has been John Swinney’s obsession since he was a youth. [Interruption.] Well, I think that it is an obsession, because he is obsessed about it every time he stands up.
SNP members are not even here.
Exactly. Where are they all?
I ask John Swinney to please be real and to accept that, when the people of Scotland are asked to give their priorities and greatest concerns right now, independence is not even in the top five—it might not even be in the top 10. Does he agree that that is the real picture of concern in Scotland about his obsession?
When people in Scotland are asked about the issues that affect their lives, they talk about issues such as the cost of living, the ability to secure lower energy bills, the ability to travel freely in Europe as they used to be able to do and greater investment in our public services. All those issues are affected by the question of independence, because they are about controlling the wealthy resources of our country to create a wealthier and fairer Scotland. People want independence to address the key issues that people face in our society. That is the argument that responds to Mr Kerr’s point: the issues that are of relevance and concern to people’s lives are addressed by Scotland having the ability to tackle them under the powers of our Parliament.
Let us consider an example of that. My central mission in this Government is to eradicate child poverty. Mr Marra’s amendment today relates to those questions. Because of the Government’s decision-making ability, we have been able to reduce child poverty in Scotland through measures that we have introduced under powers that we have acquired since the Parliament was established in 1999. That illustrates that, with more power here, we can improve the lives of people in Scotland. Independence is about doing that on more issues that affect the people of our country.
People who support constitutional change in Scotland and who want to see independence look to the situation in the north of Ireland, where people have a legally enshrined right to vote on their future in certain circumstances. When voters in England want constitutional change, the dominance of their MPs in the House of Commons means that they can get it. People in Scotland and Wales have no recognised, guaranteed way to vote for change, which cannot be right. Clear support for constitutional change in Scotland and across the nations of the United Kingdom has to mean something. The refusal of the UK Government to even engage with the question of our right to decide cannot hold.
For my part, I want to do what I can to break the logjam, but I want to do so not only on behalf of those who want independence but on behalf of all the people of Scotland, including those who are not yet convinced of the case for independence and those who perhaps never will be. I recognise the concerns of those who are opposed to independence. I want to hear their views in this debate, too, and I will do so, because although we might disagree on where we ultimately want our country to go, we can all agree on the right of the people to decide on the case for democracy.
In this debate, we hear a lot about political division, but what could be a more divisive proposition than saying to half the people of the country that there is no way, no matter how they vote or how often they do it, for them to make a change—for them to even be given the opportunity to make a change? That is the fundamental democratic point that the Parliament has before it today.
It is why the Prime Minister’s words in the House of Commons on 9 September were so important. There is not only agreement on the SNP benches that a mechanism should be in place that sets out the terms for having another referendum. In the previous parliamentary session, the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee conducted an inquiry that concluded:
“it is problematic that no established mechanism exists for ensuring that, in appropriate circumstances, the wishes of the people of Scotland can be expressed.”
In the aftermath of the Scottish Labour leadership election at the weekend—and I take this opportunity to congratulate Michael Marra on his election and to wish him and his family well as they take forward their new roles—I welcome the recognition by Mr Marra of the right of the people of Scotland to decide their own future and for there to be a means to demonstrate that right. That is an important development in this debate.
Other members of the Labour Party have commented on the question. I have no doubt that Brian Leishman MP spoke for others in Labour ranks when he said:
“we should lay out the democratic route to having another referendum.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 2 September 2026; Vol 790, c94WH.]
Members will be aware that I wrote to the Prime Minister to invite him to meet so that we could turn the accepted principle into an agreed legal mechanism for a referendum. He is, for the time being, unwilling to do so, but that position cannot hold.
My party believes that it is for the people of Scotland to decide when there is an independence referendum, and we welcome the UK Prime Minister’s recognition of that principle. The Prime Minister has now agreed that Scotland can have a referendum when the people of Scotland express a clear desire for independence. I take him at his word.
There are two issues that are relevant in that respect. First—I rehearsed this point with Mr Rennie in the interventions—I believe that the people of Scotland made clear their desire to address the question by electing the largest number of MSPs to this Parliament who support Scottish independence and the holding of a referendum on that question.
Secondly, during this parliamentary session, we must demonstrate increasing support for independence and for the fresh start for our nation that will get us back into the European Union and give us vital control over our energy resources, so that we can lower bills. I hope that, in the spirit of dialogue and engagement, and given the position that the Prime Minister has adopted, he will respect the fact that we are a sovereign nation with the right to decide our own future. As democratically elected politicians, we must ensure that Scotland has that choice.
I hope that the Prime Minister will co-operate in this work, not only because of what he said at the start of this month but because of what he said in 2022. Again, I quote:
“In terms of a referendum, I’m not going to say, ‘No, not ever.’ I’m not going to use that language.”
I fully intend to hold the Prime Minister to his word, and I hope that, today, there will be some indication from around the parliamentary chamber of a recognition and acceptance of the sovereign right of the people of Scotland to decide their own future.
In 2014, the people of Scotland, in an exercise of their sovereign right to decide their constitutional future, chose to stay part of the United Kingdom. However, just because a right has been exercised once, that does not mean that it can never be exercised again. If the people of Scotland themselves want the opportunity to answer the question again, who has the right to stop them? After all, by 2029, it is estimated that there will be over a million people in Scotland who, because of their age, did not have the opportunity to vote in 2014—a million citizens of Scotland. In 2030, people will start to turn 16 and become eligible to vote in a referendum who were not even born when the independence referendum was held in 2014.
That is significant demographic change, but it is not just change in Scotland’s population that matters; it is change in what we are voting for. Since the 2014 referendum, we have seen Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom’s and Scotland’s place in the world change beyond recognition. Scotland has been removed from the European Union against our will. Devolution has been undermined and overridden again and again. We have seen Westminster make choices that feed division and extremism instead of facing them down. In short, the country that people voted to stay part of in 2014 is no more. Westminster does not work for the people of Scotland—it never has, and it never will. The UK cannot and will not give either the security or prosperity that we need in this fast-changing world.
For those 1 million Scots—for all Scots—our fundamental right to decide our nation’s future remains. It is the right to choose the security and prosperity that come from being a nation state and a member state of the European Union, in control of our vast energy resources and of our own destiny. That is a winning combination. It is the fresh start that Scotland will choose, and the fresh start that Scotland needs.
Mr Swinney, I am afraid that we missed whether you moved your motion at the start.
I move,
That the Parliament agrees that Scotland is a nation that has a right to decide its own future.
I call Michael Marra. In doing so, I welcome him to his position as leader of Scottish Labour.
15:18
I thank you, Presiding Officer, and the First Minister for the kind words upon my election as Scottish Labour leader. The kind good wishes from across the chamber, including from members of different parties, are a personal reminder to me that just because we do not agree on everything does not mean that we cannot agree on anything.
As the country looks to this place for solutions to the significant issues that are impacting on every place in Scotland—the cost of living, opportunities for young people, secure work, good housing and better public services—it is incumbent on us all to find common ground and work together to address those fundamental issues in people’s lives and to deliver change now. We should all consider that amidst the heat of a constitutional debate.
The first thing that I did on my election on Saturday was to write to the First Minister to seek his support for establishing a cross-party commission on meeting the child poverty targets that the Parliament wrote into law. We are set to miss those child poverty targets by a mile, and the Parliament’s priority should be to get us back on track. We should recommit today to change the lives of children right across the country.
It is disappointing, but not surprising, that the SNP has a different priority. That priority is not really independence and, to be frank, it is not even securing another referendum. This debate—which I believe is an annual one—is about managing the First Minister’s party, not leading the country. Every single supposed step forward for the independence cause since 2014 has been a step up a hill for party supporters, who the SNP then briskly march back down again. I honestly believe that those people deserve better than that.
I know many people who voted yes in 2014; I count them among my friends and family. I believe that we can be a fairer and stronger nation without being a separate state. I do not believe that we need to risk our currency, defence, markets and budgets to deliver a more equal and just Scotland. We disagree on that, which is okay; supporting independence is a perfectly honourable political position to hold. However, so too is believing that Scotland is better placed as part of the UK.
I feel sympathy for the people I know who support independence—not for their political choice, but for how comprehensively the SNP Government has failed them in that regard for the past 12 years. Every six months or so—normally, when an election or an SNP conference is on the horizon—people are told that independence is just around the corner and that all it requires is one more push and one more heave.
None of the reasons for the independence campaign losing in 2014 has been addressed. There are still no answers on the currency, borders, defence or public spending; instead, there are photo opportunities and fundraising drives. I believe that the people who vote for the SNP deserve better than that. If the First Minister were to read The Herald newspaper today, it would be entirely apparent that SNP members agree with me.
How does Mr Marra explain the choice of the public in the election in May to elect the largest-ever number of independence-supporting MSPs to the Parliament? What does he say to the people who elected a Parliament of that character and who wish to take forward the agenda on which we were elected?
I refer the First Minister to some of what Mr Rennie has already said. You—sorry, the First Minister; I will speak through the chair—clearly set out his position prior to the election, which was that a referendum would require there to be a majority of SNP MSPs. We, as a Parliament, should not participate in the goalposts being moved again.
This leadership always wants to take that easy route rather than doing the hard yards. There has always been a route to another referendum—John Swinney knows it, and Nicola Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf knew it. That route is to build a case through honest deliberation and careful compromise to allow the prosecution of the argument, to build a coalition of those who seek change and to build an overwhelming consensus, making it the settled will of the Scottish people. That is how the case for devolution was made and won.
Will Michael Marra take an intervention?
Not at the moment, sir.
No one can seriously suggest that, since 2014, that work has been done by those who are in the positions to do it. Why is that? It is because it is easier and more immediately useful to manufacture grievance than to build consensus.
SNP supporters have been repeatedly let down by this charade, but the whole country has suffered, too. I want to see a stronger Scotland in a changing UK. In the 12 years since the referendum, Scotland—including our national health service, our education system, our economy and even the Parliament itself—has got weaker under this SNP Government. The SNP leader who secured the referendum understood the value of good governance to his party’s founding cause. Alex Salmond understood that the SNP was founded with the twin aims of independence and advancing Scotland’s national interest.
None of that is to say that power is being wielded in the correct places in Scotland. This Parliament hoards too much power, money and control at the expense of Scotland’s communities. I want there to be a new generation of devolution deals that redistribute power, wealth and opportunity out of the Scottish Parliament and into Scotland’s regions. This Parliament was never meant to hold on to power. Donald Dewar said that it was “not an end” but
“a means to greater ends.”
Those greater ends included social justice, which brings me back to the letter that I sent to the First Minister on Saturday.
This Parliament can choose to do what it now always seems to do—to divide itself along constitutional lines, with members pointing fingers at one other, and to get nothing done. That would further demonstrate to the people of Scotland that the Parliament is not serious about addressing their real concerns.
I agree with some of what Mr Marra is saying. What he is proposing is a commission to come up with new policies that we can collectively agree to in order to tackle child poverty. However, some of us in this Parliament have been doing that every year for the past decade through the annual budget negotiations. The Liberal Democrats have done it, the Greens have done it and the SNP, as the party of Government, has done it. Labour announced that it would abstain on the budget before it was even published. Is Mr Marra confirming today that the Labour Party will take a significantly different position in the negotiations going forward? I would certainly welcome that.
I have already had a conversation directly with the First Minister about the potential that we can see to find common ground between the Labour Party and other parties in this Parliament, be it on the budget or other issues. I am sure that the First Minister will hold me to those words in the conversations that we have in the months ahead. I say to Mr Greer, though, that the deals that he and other members of the Parliament have struck have not worked. We are going to miss those targets by a country mile, so we have to reassert them today and commit to a process that will get us there.
Will the member take an intervention?
I apologise to Mr Kerr, but I am running out of time.
We can vote together to recommit ourselves to the work to lift children out of poverty. That is the future that I want Scotland to be able to decide on. My values are for equality, for a stronger Scotland and for a good life for working people. Those are Scottish values and I believe that they are Labour values, too.
Labour’s amendment seeks not to divide us for the sake of headlines but to bring us together around the common purpose of freeing Scottish children from the chains of want so that they might live a fuller life in a better country. I encourage members to support our amendment.
I move amendment S7M-01264.2, to insert at end:
“; recognises that Scotland faces pressing challenges that require urgent action to improve people’s lives; believes that the Scottish Government must strengthen its efforts to build a fairer, more equal and prosperous Scotland; recognises that tackling child poverty must be an immediate national priority; believes that parties across the Parliament should work together to deliver the actions needed to reduce child poverty; recognises the positive impact of measures such as the Scottish Child Payment and the removal of the two-child limit in tackling child poverty; further recognises the importance of secure employment, education, housing and strong communities in achieving this, and reaffirms its commitment to achieving the targets set out in the Child Poverty (Scotland) Act 2017, including reducing relative child poverty to fewer than one in 10 children by 2030.”
15:27
I begin by congratulating Michael Marra on becoming leader of Scottish Labour. I welcome his call for an all-party summit on child poverty, and Reform will contribute positively to that key initiative. Similarly, we welcome his proposal on education statistics, and Reform will support his motion when he puts it to the Parliament.
I turn to the motion that is before us. No Scot would disagree with the statement
“Scotland is a nation that has a right to decide its own future.”
However, on the union, most Scots say that we have already decided that question, in 2014, when 2 million Scots voted to remain in the UK versus 1.6 million voting to leave it.
Will the member take an intervention?
That question was settled for a generation, so why are we even debating it today? Perhaps Mr Fairlie can answer that question.
Malcolm Offord says that nobody in this chamber would disagree with the principle of the right of the people of Scotland to decide, yet he made two points of order before the debate started, to try to prevent us from talking about having a debate on Scottish independence.
That proves the point. When it was done in 2014, it was done with consent, with Westminster and Holyrood in agreement and all parties agreeing to have that referendum. There is nothing like that in this case.
My only conclusion is that we are having this debate because the SNP has given up on Holyrood and the privilege of serving Scotland by running this country well. That is why there is no focus on our faltering economy, our failing education system or our struggling NHS. Instead, it is back to the same old tactics of distraction and division. Is it a coincidence that independence is back on the agenda just as support for John Swinney’s SNP falls to an all-time low? In May, the SNP recorded its lowest vote total, lowest vote share and lowest MSP tally since 2007.
The debate is not just a farce; it is an insult to the Scottish electorate who expect their politicians to deal with serious issues in their communities.
On the SNP’s vote share in May, does the member accept that we live in a parliamentary democracy, that the SNP is far and away the biggest party in the Parliament, and that there is the biggest gap between the SNP and the second-largest party? I do not ever remember the member complaining about parliamentary democracy was when he was in the House of Lords, swanning about Scotland as a Scottish Office minister with not a single vote behind him, because he was a Lord.
That proves how pointless the debate is. [Laughter.]
Members can laugh, but the reality is that 2 million Scots did not vote in the Holyrood election. That is what they think of this place. Fewer than 1 million people voted for the SNP. The Scottish electorate require Holyrood politicians to deal with serious issues in their communities, such as the shocking homelessness stats that are out today and the record drugs deaths that, no doubt, will be announced tomorrow. That is not to mention the £5 million black hole in our public finances. Those are serious matters of government. In contrast, the debate is ill judged, self serving and wholly inappropriate. It is no wonder that 2 million Scots did not vote in the recent Holyrood election.
Under standing orders, I asked for the debate to be ruled ultra vires. As that did not happen, Reform will not engage further in these pointless proceedings. We did not come into the Parliament to waste our time on vanity projects. Therefore, I withdraw my amendment and we will exit the chamber. [Interruption.]
Members! Thank you.
I call Ross Greer to speak to and move amendment S7M-01264.5. [Interruption.]
Members, we need to move on with the debate.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. That stunt was a waste of parliamentary time. Would you be minded to give speakers the time back?
We will manage the debate in the usual way that we do when we have time in hand.
15:33
I hope that the Parliament Arms, across the road, has extra staff on this afternoon. I get the impression that it might be busy. [Laughter.]
Gillian Mackay sends her apologies, as she is not able to be here this afternoon.
The debate is not only about the question of Scottish independence. I am proud of the Scottish Greens’ position in favour of putting our country’s future in our own hands, which I will talk about in a minute. However, the debate is about a more important principle than that, which those of us who are left in the chamber should be able to unite around. The motion for debate states:
“Scotland is a nation that has a right to decide its own future.”
It is concise, to the point and a principle that all democrats should surely agree to. All parties agreed to that principle in 2011, which is what led to the referendum in 2014. It is a position that parties have agreed to for much longer than that.
I will read the first line of the 1989 claim of right for Scotland:
“We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount.”
Our journey of self-determination and national democracy did not end in 2014. Democracy is not a one-off event and it has no fixed end point. Whether we become an independent nation or not is not the end point of Scotland’s expression of democratic will. I absolutely respect unionism as a political position, much as Mr Marra outlined his respect for those of us who believe in Scotland’s independence. I am committed to achieving Scotland’s independence, but I recognise the arguments against that. However, the question today is whether we are democrats—it is as simple as that.
The public are not bound by a decision that was made in 2014 any more than this Parliament is bound by its predecessors. We are told that the UK was a voluntary union. Surely it is still a voluntary union now, post-2014. If the position of political unionists is that the voluntary union ended in 2014 and it is something quite different now, that is a position that they should be honest about. It is no wonder that people become angry and cynical if, when they do not get what they voted for, they are told that, no matter how many times they vote for an option, it is not available to them.
Therefore, I welcome the shift in tone from Labour. It is a shift back to a position that it took more consistently before 2014. I offer my congratulations to Michael Marra on his election as leader, and I hope that it will lead to a more constructive approach.
The last time I checked, the Scottish Parliament is the most left-of-centre Parliament in Europe. I hope that we can use that supermajority for the things that we agree on while we celebrate the issues that we disagree on. Democracy thrives on disagreement, but there is so much that at least most of us agree on, and we could use those points of agreement to take this country forward.
I gently suggest to Labour colleagues that, if the election of a majority of MSPs in favour of a referendum and of independence is not a mandate that they recognise, they need to set out what their position is. It was painful to watch Michael Marra and Joe Fagan dance around that issue during one of their hustings—the one with Bernard Ponsonby—ahead of the Labour leadership election. I have heard Michael Marra assert in this Parliament that the Labour Party’s mandate derives from the 2024 general election, but Labour consistently rejected the idea that the SNP had a mandate every time it won a sweeping majority of Scottish Westminster seats.
Does the member accept that there was a bigger vote share for pro-union parties in this Parliament than there was for pro-indy parties?
It is funny that Rachael Hamilton brings that up, because in 2021, when more votes were cast for the SNP and the Greens than for the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives did not recognise that as a mandate. If someone has shifted the goalposts, it is the Conservatives who have shifted the goalposts on that. A majority of members of the Scottish Parliament were elected on pro-independence manifestos. It is a very simple principle of parliamentary democracy that, if you can secure a mandate in Parliament, you can deliver on your agenda.
[Made a request to intervene.]
I will not take an intervention from Mr Hoy at this point.
I am not entirely surprised by the illiberal and undemocratic position that the Liberal Democrats have taken in the debate. I suggest to Liberal Democrat colleagues that, if they define their party around simply being a place for anti-SNP tactical voters, surely to God they have lost the reason that they, as individuals, joined it in the first place. What is liberal or democratic about the position they are adopting in this debate?
I will say again that I respect the arguments for the union and against independence, but I cannot respect the increasingly desperate ways that some people are trying to deny this country a choice over its future. I am glad that some parties on both sides of the independence debate will agree on a point of principle today—that it is for the people of this country to decide. As the First Minister said earlier, it is not good enough for the hundreds of thousands of younger Scots—1 million younger Scots by the time we get to the end of this decade—who were not old enough to vote in the last referendum to suggest that Scotland has already had its say and they will never have theirs. They deserve the right to decide the future of this country.
The Scottish Greens have always believed that independence is the best choice for Scotland—not as an end in and of itself, but as a means to a greater end. We believe that it is the route back into the European Union—to undo the incredible damage of Brexit and to regain our European citizenship. With independence, we would have the power to tackle poverty through minimum wage laws and end the scandal of poverty pay, whereby taxpayers’ money is used to subsidise companies that are unwilling to pay their staff enough to live on. We would have the full fiscal powers that we need to invest in the infrastructure that we need for thriving communities and a successful economy. We would have power over our energy systems, so we could switch to a system that provides affordable energy to all, in a sustainable manner, rather than prioritising the profits of a handful of companies.
The independence movement of 2014 grew support for our cause by focusing on that vision of what we could achieve with the powers of a normal nation. In the 12 years since—I will be honest—the yes movement has spent too much time talking about process. I know that much of that is in Westminster’s hands, and that is profoundly wrong; it has been anti-democratic, but that is the reality. I want the independence movement to focus on what we can change, which, first and foremost, is public opinion. I am, therefore, somewhat frustrated by the periods when the Government has spent so much time focusing on process rather than on independence itself.
Currently, yes is marginally in the lead. It is basically 50/50. Today’s poll has yes ahead, at 52 to 48 per cent. However, the best way to grow support for self-government is to do self-government well. The powers of this Parliament are limited, but they are not exhausted. In 2014, growth in support for independence was tied to a sense of hope and optimism, but not a lot of people have that right now. There is deep frustration with our public services. That is true across the UK and beyond.
Yes, there is lots to be proud of in Scotland. We are the only nation in the UK where child poverty has fallen, but we are not going to hit the child poverty targets that we set in law. The Scottish Greens agree with the Labour amendment. However, if we are to achieve the kind of cross-party consensus that we need to make progress, it will require a very different approach from the Labour Party, particularly with regard to the budget negotiations, which I mentioned.
We also need to ask ourselves what is possible under devolution. This Parliament has a habit of setting very lofty targets. I do not believe that we have exhausted its powers, but we need to ask ourselves the following question: even if we exhaust those powers, will we be capable of hitting the targets that we have set for ourselves? I do not honestly believe that we can, which is why I believe that we should achieve the full powers of a normal, sovereign nation.
There is a majority for independence in this Parliament. I hope that, today, there is a supermajority for Scotland’s right to decide its own future. Our unionist democrat colleagues need to put something forward. A strategy of denial is not credible. The Government also needs to be bold with its domestic agenda. We need to make people believe not only that Scotland could be an independent nation and that we could govern ourselves, but that we should. We can do that with an inspiring vision and by governing boldly and tackling the problems that people face in their day-to-day lives right now. We can govern for people and the planet with the powers that we already have, as proof of concept that self-determination is the best possible future for the people of Scotland.
I move amendment S7M-01264.5, to insert at end:
“, and recognises that in the 2026 Scottish Parliament election, the people of Scotland returned the biggest ever majority of pro-independence MSPs.”
I call Russell Findlay for a generous two minutes.
15:42
I offer my congratulations to Michael Marra on his election as leader of Scottish Labour.
Some people might mock this Government debate and say that they are conning their supporters. Some people might engage in silly stunts. However, we know that the SNP is deadly serious, because John Swinney and the SNP truly only care about one thing, and that is breaking up Britain. Of course, John Swinney does not like anything that is British apart from his British Airways business class flights.
As a proud Scot, I despair at what they are doing, and what they would like to do, to our country. Mired in scandal, they are masters of misinformation who are sowing petty grievance and division, running public services into the ground and hammering taxpayers to bankroll state benefits—and they would knowingly make Scotland poorer and weaker by dismantling the United Kingdom. In today’s volatile world, that is no longer just a bad idea; it is deeply dangerous and irresponsible. John Swinney is even in cahoots with Sinn Féin, ignoring its justification of Irish Republican Army mass murder.
The SNP says that Scotland should decide. We did decide. More than 2 million Scots said no—and thank goodness for that. You cannot agree to a once-in-a-generation referendum and then have a never-ending hissy fit over the result. Get over it. Move on.
Will Russell Findlay define a generation for us?
It is certainly not 12 years.
Scotland has a Government that is more interested in grievance than in governing. Today, we should be talking about so many of the critical issues that the people of Scotland face: high taxes and benefits, NHS waiting lists, rising crime, drug deaths, transport chaos and declining school standards. My colleagues will have much more to say on all of that.
I move amendment S7M-01264.4, to leave out from “is” to end and insert:
“voted decisively to remain within the UK; believes that Scotland's future is best served by a government focused on the priorities of the people of Scotland, including reducing taxes, bolstering economic growth and delivering value for money in public services.”
15:44
I will start by welcoming Michael Marra to his role. He is a very able campaigner and a consensus builder, and I wish him and his family well.
I will also start by being honest with the First Minister. He has upset me this afternoon—albeit perhaps not as much as he has upset Malcolm Offord. I am sure that he is a decent man and would not want to do that, but I will tell you why he has. By bringing the debate to the chamber this afternoon, he has dragged me away from one of my favourite events of the year—the big political moment of the week. I am, of course, talking about the Liberal Democrat conference in Brighton. Just moments ago, my friend and party leader Ed Davey took to the stage to deliver his keynote speech, yet I am stuck here. Who knows what stunts I might have missed? It could have involved a bungee jump or an arrival on a jet ski. However, I am afraid to say, I am here.
Jim Fairlie rose—
Let me finish my point. It gets worse than that. I have missed not only Ed Davey but Alex Cole-Hamilton.
Deputy Presiding Officer, let me put on record how much I love an Alex Cole-Hamilton speech. I really do. I absolutely love an Alex Cole-Hamilton speech. In fact, I would go as far as to say that the only person who loves an Alex Cole-Hamilton speech more than me is probably Alex Cole-Hamilton.
Before I upset the press office any further, I will come back to this groundhog day of a debate. It is a groundhog day because poor Willie Rennie has sat through it thousands of times.
The issue is not new. It is no revelation that the nationalists in the chamber want to talk about separation. It is a habit that the Government cannot seem to shake. However, I remind the First Minister, as others have done, that he went to the country in May seeking a majority, in his own words, to pursue a second divisive referendum. He does not have it. I did not quite hear it from Ross Greer, but I thought that we might get a bit of an “I told you so”. It will be no surprise to members that he will not convince Liberal Democrats of his case today.
I am clear about the mandate that my constituents gave me and my Liberal Democrat colleagues. We were sent here with instructions to not only oppose a second referendum—which we do—but ensure that the Parliament focuses on the day job.
At the risk of offending over David Green’s attempt at humour right at the start, does the fact that he would rather be at his conference in England not highlight the fact that the people of Scotland say, “You think more about England than you do about this place?” That is the first thing.
The second point is that his party is the Liberal Democrat party. The issue is entirely about democracy and the people’s right to decide their future, regardless of whether he agrees. Surely it is up to the people, not a Westminster Government, to make that decision.
I am afraid that that intervention was as good as my attempt at humour. I will come to the point about people’s right to decide. Incidentally, I was there in 2014, and they had that right. I will set out our view on the motion.
Ross Greer asked what the Liberal Democrats are for. We are here to serve the people who sent us here. I was sent here by people who could not get a general practitioner appointment at the first time of asking; by families whose elderly parents are stranded in hospital because there is not a care package to receive them at home; by families who are worried about the cost of their weekly shop getting ever more out of hand; and by parents whose children are no longer getting the best start in life, because there are not the pupil support teachers that our classrooms need. Those issues are the debates that are worthy of the chamber’s time this afternoon. I am tired—as, I think, the country is—of reminding the SNP that there are more pressing issues on its desk. People deserve to have sewage cleaned from their rivers, roads that are no longer cursed by potholes, a bus that turns up and a better chance of seeing a dentist than meeting the tooth fairy.
I say gently to the First Minister that there is a genuine conversation to be had about who decides our future, but that it is not the motion that he has brought today.
Will the member take an intervention?
Yes, as I have time.
I am listening to what Mr Green is saying about this debate being a waste of the Parliament’s time. I almost agree, because surely we should not have to debate the most fundamental principle of parliamentary and Scottish democracy—that the people of this country have the right to decide their future. Every Liberal Democrat parliamentarian signed the claim of right in 1989. Do they still support the people of Scotland’s right to decide their future or did that support end in 2014?
I stood on a platform to oppose a second referendum on independence. I do not believe that independence is the best future for our country, so I am not going to spend any time trying to help the nationalists on those benches to try and deliver it.
There is a contradiction in Mr Green’s argument in his response to Mr Greer. He just told Mr Greer that he—Mr Green—was elected on a commitment to oppose a referendum. Mr Greer was elected on directly the opposite proposition, and 73 of us who were elected to this Parliament support the position that Mr Greer and I take. Where is the democracy in Mr Green’s point? Where is the substance of Mr Green’s position?
I hope that I will get my time back, but I take the First Minister’s point. We have all come here on different, competing mandates, but the First Minister went into the election saying that he was going to secure a majority for the SNP. That was the course to take. In fact, the Greens disagreed with him on that, so he needs to be clear about that, too.
On a point made by Michael Marra, this Parliament has failed genuinely to push power out of this building and into the rural communities that I serve. We have had a Government time and again that demands the right for Scotland to decide its future but refuses to trust the communities that I represent to shape their own. When we are talking about consensus, I genuinely fear that all the oxygen in the room will be taken up by constitutional wrangling. We all know that we disagree about that, and such wrangling will not create the space for us to find the consensus that we need on issues such as local government reform.
Let me be clear that we will not support the Government’s motion this evening. We defend people’s right to shape their own lives and future, but the motion is silent on the issues that I have raised. It fails to acknowledge that, in 2014, people made their decision and did so clearly. Instead, I move the amendment in my name, which puts the day job first. I urge the Parliament to support it.
I move amendment S7M-01264.1, to insert at end:
"and recalls that in the 2014 independence referendum people voted firmly to remain part of the UK, representing the will of the Scottish people; notes that the Scottish National Party’s stated objective prior to 7 May 2026 was to secure an overall majority in the Scottish Parliament elections in order to pursue independence, but that the party achieved fewer votes and seats than in the previous elections, and believes that the Scottish Government must now focus on fixing the NHS and care, helping people with the cost of living crisis, ensuring that communities have the power and resources to shape where they live through more decentralised decision-making, fixing the roads and the ferries and getting Scottish education back to its best, in order to deliver the change that Scotland deserves."
We move to the open debate.
15:52
At the heart of Scotland’s constitutional debate is a simple democratic principle: the people who live here should have the right to decide the future of the country we call home. That is not a demand that every person must support independence. It is a call for something more fundamental—that Scotland’s people must never be denied the democratic autonomy to choose our own path. The demand from the people has been demonstrated not only by trusting the SNP in government for 19 years but by voting for majority pro-independence representation in the Parliament.
Those who support the union must confront the constitutional question at the centre of the debate. If the union is voluntary, it cannot depend on denying one of its nations the means to leave. A union that can be maintained only by refusing democratic choice is not strengthened—it is weakened. Supporters of the union are entitled to make their case with confidence, but they should do so by persuasion, not by the dismissal of our democratic right. They must entrust the people of Scotland enough to let them decide. When we meet those who would deny us that right, we should not answer simply with anger. We should recognise that, often, denial is born from fear. It could be fear of a weak union, fear of the unknown, fear that Scotland may choose a different future or, in some cases, perhaps, fear of imagining the real possibility of a progressive Scotland—outward looking, confident, compassionate and fully responsible for the decisions that shape our lives—taking its place on the world stage. Here in Parliament, we all debate such decisions and discuss their limits. Perhaps the fear is of indecision, or of such decisions being made here instead of our relying on a Parliament that does not understand our people to make the final decisions.
Fear cannot be the foundation of a modern democracy. We must face fear with forgiveness, and we must meet denial with hope. Forgiveness does not mean accepting democratic obstruction. It means refusing to let our politics be defined by bitterness. It means understanding why some cling tightly to the status quo while still insisting that that status quo cannot override the sovereign will of the people of Scotland.
Our task is to keep our focus on hope: hope for a Scotland that does not have to work around the limits of devolution, but can act with the full powers of independence to invest in our people, grow our economy, eradicate poverty, support families, strengthen public services and build opportunity in every community; hope for a country that is able to shape its own domestic agenda in line with our values; hope for progressive international relationships pursued with dignity and purpose; and hope for a modern approach to national security that is rooted in peace, co-operation, resilience and the culture of a nation that wants to contribute positively to the world. How about we actually think about the hope to reach our full potential?
This debate is not about grievance; it is about democratic respect. It is about whether we believe that the people of Scotland are capable of choosing our own future, and whether those who disagree with independence are willing to make that argument honestly, openly and democratically.
Let us make the case with generosity. Let us forgive fear but never surrender democracy. Let us invite those who support the union to put their faith in the people, not in a Westminster veto. Let us keep our eyes fixed on the hope of what Scotland can become—a country with the confidence, compassion and democratic power to build a fairer future for all who live here—with Scottish independence.
15:57
In bringing this debate to Parliament today, John Swinney thinks that he can treat Scots as fools, but the real fools are those who sit behind him, cheering on today’s distraction from his day job.
Independence would never tackle the SNP Government’s £5 billion budget black hole. It would blow apart the union dividend, which is worth £2,720 for each and every Scot, and it would make Scotland more exposed to mounting economic and defence insecurity.
Independence would destroy jobs—it would be a fresh assault on the key industries of oil and gas and defence that John Swinney so woefully despises. It would never reverse the SNP Government’s cynical but reckless bid to use the benefits system to create economic inactivity and a culture of state dependence for political purposes.
Each and every day that John Swinney undermines Scotland’s financial future with his independence obsession is another day that he proves why he is unfit to be Scotland’s First Minister.
15:58
The intervention that I was going to make on Craig Hoy was that, if we are talking about the financial security of Scotland and our economic base, perhaps he should reflect on his party dragging us out of the European Union, as that is one of the key drivers of why people are in favour of independence now.
This should be a fairly straightforward debate. At its heart lie two straightforward questions, the first of which is this: do you believe that Scotland is a nation? The Tory amendment deletes “Scotland is a nation”, which is shameful. The second is this: do you believe in democracy? Those are the two key questions.
I believe that Scotland is a nation and that its people have the right to choose their own future, and it is clear to me that the people of Scotland believe that Scotland is a nation. An article in today’s The National highlights that a poll carried out by Norstat shows that 68.2 per cent of Scots believe that a second independence referendum should take place in the future. [Interruption.] That finding confirms the result of an Ipsos poll, published in June, which found that 66 per cent of Scots believe that a referendum should be held in the future that and that 48 per cent believe that that should be within this parliamentary session.
It is now quieter on the benches over there. That is good—take in the numbers. [Interruption.] The second question of whether you believe in democracy is, in many ways, far more important than the first. [Interruption.] If members want to make an intervention, they should fire in, but all I am hearing is shouting. To be a democrat, you can disagree on the merits of Scottish independence—the ability to disagree, as Ross Greer pointed out, is the beauty of democracy—but, if you want to remain a democrat, you cannot deny the people of a nation the right to decide their own future.
On the Norstat poll, it is also important to note—this is perhaps worrying for the unionist parties—that some of their voters actually support independence. Some 33 per cent of Labour supporters, 30 per cent of Reform supporters, 21 per cent of Liberal Democrat supporters and 17 per cent of Conservative supporters support independence, so does Mr Kerr agree that there are clearly more people who believe in Scotland’s right to choose independence?
Yes. Jenni Minto has dug into the details. That information does not surprise me, given that some traditional Conservatives—not the ones we have now—are focused on economic growth and financial sustainability, and independence would get us back into the European Union and help to grow our economy. It does not surprise me that there is a small core of such supporters.
This year, Scotland chose to elect the most independence-supporting MSPs to the Scottish Parliament ever. No matter how you want to spin it, that is a fact. The Norstat poll shows that 52 per cent of Scots would vote yes if a referendum were held today, so independence is clearly not off the table for the Scottish people. If we are here to represent them, why would we reject a motion that simply asks for Scotland’s right to decide its own future to be respected? Why be elected to a Parliament like this if you do not want to see that Parliament grow, develop and gain greater powers to represent and support its people? How many more years are we going to have to deal with this broken Brexit Britain before we finally address the question of whether the people of Scotland should have the right to decide their own future?
A cynic might think that the reason why unionist politicians are increasingly flirting with casting aside any notion that the UK remains a voluntary union by blocking democracy is that they are terrified of the result of a referendum. I am confident that, if there was a referendum tomorrow, independence would win the day. However, that is not my point. Only around 20 per cent of people in both of the earlier-mentioned polls believe that there should never be a referendum. Those who would seek to deny democracy have no public support for their position. That helps to explain their disastrous results in the Holyrood election. Again, do members hear it? I cannot hear a thing—there are no interventions. The members on those benches have gone very quiet because they are out of sync with the public. As we have this discussion—[Interruption.] I will take the intervention, now that one is finally being made.
Does the member agree that it was my colleagues, the Scottish Conservatives—the strong blue wall in the south—that stopped the SNP majority, which was a test for another referendum that was set by John Swinney as an election pledge?
It was Rachael Hamilton’s party, which, in 2015, on 36.9 per cent of the vote, dragged Scotland out of the European Union, against its will, despite every single council area voting to remain in the European Union.
As we have this discussion, it is important to remember that Scotland’s right to decide is bigger than any one political party. It is a movement that brings together people from across civic Scotland—organisations such as the Scottish Trades Union Congress, which is in favour of the right to decide but has no position on independence, and people with different backgrounds, different political beliefs and different visions for our country
Mr Kerr made an interesting point about minorities pushing this agenda. Brexit is an interesting example, because it was achieved by the Conservatives with 36 per cent of the vote, as he observed. My understanding is that the Scottish National Party got 38 per cent of the vote at the recent election. If you combine the vote share for the Greens and the SNP, that is around 41 per cent. Surely, if there were a settled majority of more than 50 per cent—around 60 per cent—then the conversation would change. Is that not something that he would agree with?
Part of the reason why we are having this debate is that consecutive Westminster Governments, despite multiple mandates in favour of our having a say on our future, not just on independence, have been unable to chart a route by which Scotland’s voice can find answer. Those were Tory Governments and now a Labour Government. If Andy Burnham is serious about this, there has to be a route for Scotland’s democracy to be respected.
Alex Kerr, my namesake, seems to love some numbers from the comic The National. Seventeen per cent of Tories are secret separatists—what a load of nonsense that is. Why does he not accept the basic point that Paul Sweeney just made? At the election that we have just had, of the Scots who voted, the vast majority voted for parties that support Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom.
Alex Kerr, you must come to a conclusion.
I will come to a conclusion. It would be interesting to work out which of the members behind Stephen Kerr are among the 17 per cent in favour of independence. We have a majority of pro-independence MSPs. [Interruption.] I really must bring my remarks to a close.
Last week marked 12 years since Scotland’s independence referendum. In those 12 years, we have experienced the cost of living crisis, soaring energy prices, political turmoil, five Conservative Prime Ministers and two Labour Prime Ministers, and being dragged out of the European Union against our will. The majority of Scots voted to remain, and we see the consequences constantly. For 12 years, people across Scotland have had to live through constant political division and uncertainty.
However, there is a generation of young people across Scotland who were too young to vote in the 2014 referendum. For many, that referendum sparked their introduction to politics and an interest in how our country is governed, and gave them a greater awareness of the political choices that affect their lives. That is something that is personal to a friend of mine, who was 12 at the time of the independence vote—a young person in primary 7 with no experience or knowledge of politics. A classroom task introduced her to the ongoing independence referendum debate, and she became an activist in support of independence. She is now 24, and although she did not vote that day, she lives with the consequences of the result. Her story is just one example in relation to a referendum that shaped a generation of young people who are now living with the consequences of the result. They deserve a chance to vote for their future and to have their voice heard. That is why I will support this motion today.
16:07
If the SNP were half as committed to fixing rural Scotland as it is to pursuing independence, our communities would be in a far stronger position today. After nearly 20 years of the SNP in government, rural Scotland has every reason to be disappointed. Farmers face rising costs, reduced support and constant uncertainty; fishermen continue to grapple with policies that ignore the realities of the industry; health services are under pressure; schools struggle to recruit staff; and too many young people are forced to leave in search of opportunities elsewhere.
The greatest threat to many rural communities is depopulation, yet this Government has failed, by accelerating rather than reversing the trend. The people I represent are not lying awake worrying about independence. They are worried about seeing a doctor, keeping local schools open, finding good jobs, running farms and fishing businesses, and whether their children can build a future in the rural communities that they call home.
The SNP once claimed to be the voice of rural Scotland. The reality is that, after two decades in government, its support in rural Scotland is dwindling, because too many rural people feel that they are being taken for granted. Rural Scotland’s verdict is clear—the Government should stop obsessing about independence and start delivering on the responsibilities that it already has.
I remind members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons. We have time for interventions, but we are making up time quite quickly.
16:09
We have before us a simple proposition: that the Parliament agrees that Scotland is a nation with a right to decide its own future. Who could disagree with that basic concept? Well, apparently, Michael Marra, the new Scottish Labour leader—congratulations to him, by the way—was asked twice on Sunday but could not say whether he agrees that Scotland is a nation and that it has the right to decide its own future. Also, Russell Findlay in his amendment and Malcolm Offord in his point of order have been clear that they do not believe that Scotland is a country and that we have the right to decide our own future.
I am glad that it now looks as though Michael Marra recognises that Scotland is a nation and that we have the right to decide our future—yet the amendments to the motion are full of caveats and avoid the question.
I assure Kate Campbell that I did not make my mind up about the issue since Sunday. It has been my long-term position that Scotland is—clearly—a nation and that we made a decision on that in 2014, 1997 and 1979.
On Sunday, when Michael Marra was asked, he was unable to say whether he would support this motion. However, I am glad that he does now support it.
I wonder whether the reason that the amendments are so full of caveats to avoid the question is the discomfort with that simple proposition.
[Made a request to intervene.]
I will make progress.
The logic flows that, if Scotland is a nation that can decide its own future, there must be an agreed route, process or mechanism by which we can decide, ourselves, whether that vote should be held, without the need to ask permission from Westminster. Currently, the legal situation is one in which literally every adult in Scotland could vote for a referendum and that referendum could, in law, be denied by the British Prime Minister—a British Prime Minister who, in his heart of hearts, knows that a fair approach would be for Scotland to have a mechanism, just like the one in Northern Ireland, whereby if
“it appears likely … that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom”,
the secretary of state shall make an order to enable a border poll. In the House of Commons, Andy Burnham said:
“I would say that it is exactly the same situation in Scotland.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 9 September 2026; Vol 790, c 1044.]
Of course, he has attempted to backtrack, but that is not credible. He knows—and his instinctive answer at Prime Minister’s questions shows that he knows—that, if he wants to continue to call it a voluntary union, there simply must be a mechanism by which the people of Scotland can say that they want to leave the United Kingdom.
I appreciate Kate Campbell giving way again. She has not given the entirety of the Prime Minister’s quotation. He said that it was clear that people in Northern Ireland and in Scotland did not want a referendum. That is what he said.
I will get to that point.
The Prime Minister conceded that there must be a mechanism by which the people of Scotland can express their views. The logical mechanism is the one that he set out in PMQs: it is “exactly the same” as the one in Northern Ireland. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Meanwhile, when Michael Marra—who is featuring heavily in this speech—was quizzed on Sunday about what would trigger Scotland’s right to decide, he said:
“It will become clear”.
Scotland’s modern-day mystic Meg then followed up with:
“Friends of mine .. are not asking for a referendum.”
Here is the reality: this year, a majority of polls have shown a small but consistent majority of support for independence. An average of the published polls put support this year at 51 per cent. It is a small majority, but a majority nonetheless. Could one argue that, in a referendum, independence would definitely be supported? No. Could you argue that it appears likely that a majority would express a wish that Scotland should become independent? Absolutely.
Burnham accepted the need for Scotland to have a mechanism parallel to the one in place for Northern Ireland. He may not have realised quite how close we are to meeting the criteria, but nevertheless he accepted the principle.
In his first vote as leader of Scottish Labour, will Michael Marra do the same? A million young people will become eligible to vote by 2029. That is a generational shift—a quarter of the electorate who will not have had their say. Since the referendum, we have had three Scottish Parliament elections, which have returned a majority of MSPs who support independence. That is a clear mandate. Last week, there was the historic meeting of the First Ministers from across these isles, all of whom want independence from the British state. There is sustained support in opinion poll after opinion poll. So, will Michael Marra demonstrate that Scottish Labour has changed and that it recognises that the will of the people must be able to be enacted through a legal mechanism?
What I hope flows from the debate and the broad consensus that is forming—well, there has mainly been a broad consensus—is a clearly defined route for a referendum set out in law, just as there is in Northern Ireland. To borrow a phrase, it should be exactly the same situation. Whatever their view on independence, no one in the chamber should deny that the people of Scotland have the right to decide their own future and, instead, believe that the final say should rest with a Prime Minister in another Parliament, not the people MSPs are elected to represent.
Scotland is a nation. Let us make sure that we have the right to decide our own future set out in law.
16:15
In 1999, when the Parliament was reconvened, I remember sitting in school and hoping, like so many others, that the new MSPs who had been elected would deliver what had been promised: Scottish solutions for Scottish problems. When I was growing up, all studies of health data and the prevalence of health inequalities labelled Scotland as the sick man of Europe.
Fast forward to today and the story is still the same, if not worse, from record numbers of drug deaths to record male suicide rates. For 20 years, SNP ministers have had all the powers that they have needed to improve health, but they have failed to make any lasting progress. Today, demoralised NHS staff face top-down reforms from SNP ministers that they have not been able to shape. Twenty years of the SNP being in power, focused only on independence, has left our nation worse off and with poorer health.
There will not be a referendum during this parliamentary session—let us be honest—so my plea is that we make the next five years about fixing our NHS. Let us deliver better community care, not divide our communities.
16:17
I fully support the motion in the name of the First Minister, because our right to decide our future cannot be restricted to one referendum on 18 September 2014. Scotland’s right to decide exists today, as it did 12 years ago, and the opinion poll that Alex Kerr referenced shows that 68.2 per cent of the population want to have another independence referendum at some point in the future.
As an English-born Scottish nationalist with an internationalist outlook in life, my desire for independence is just as strong today as it was when I cast my first vote, in 1992. I fully welcome additional powers coming to the Scottish Parliament, but devolution is very much a stepping stone towards independence.
In relation to the motion and the amendments, the SNP manifesto, on page 13, was clear:
“A vote for the SNP is a vote for a referendum on independence.”
That is the line before the quote that is referenced in the Reform amendment, which was not moved.
Your vote went down.
Mr Kerr, can you please listen?
Page 12 of the SNP manifesto stated:
“A vote for the SNP on May 7th is a vote to put Scotland’s future in Scotland’s hands. And let Scotland decide.”
Will Stuart McMillan remind us whether the SNP’s vote went up or down based on that pledge?
It went down. [Interruption.]
Do not worry—I am coming to some numbers.
Unionist parties decry that the people of Scotland do not want to have another vote. They say that we had our chance in 2014. However, anyone who claims to uphold democracy surely recognises that people’s minds can change. That is why we hold regular elections, rather than believing that a person’s vote in one election or referendum will forever reflect their position.
I made this point previously, but members, to generalise, are not listening. The number of votes for separatist parties went down, and the number of votes for parties that believe in Scotland staying in the United Kingdom went up. The vast majority of Scots voted for parties that want Scotland to stay in the United Kingdom.
Shall I deal with the numbers point now, then? Andy Burnham, the new Prime Minister, got 24,927 votes in a by-election and is now Prime Minister for some reason. Is there a mandate for him to be Prime Minister? Keir Starmer got 411 Labour MPs on 33.7 per cent of the vote. In 2019, Boris Johnson got 365 MPs on 43.6 per cent of the vote. In 2015, it was 36.8 per cent for the Tories and 36.1 per cent for them in 2010. Are the Tories genuinely attempting to say that those leaders did not have a mandate to actually become the Prime Minister in the relevant parliamentary sessions?
Will the member give way?
I already took your intervention, and I am answering your question.
Oh, come on!
Mr Kerr, please sit down.
The point that I will highlight to Mr Kerr and to everyone else in the chamber is that every single party, when they put their candidates forward in an election, does so under that particular process. That is what happens at Westminster. The process for this Scottish Parliament led to 73 MSPs who are pro-independence being elected. The percentage of the vote does not matter, Mr Kerr.
Ha!
It does not! There are 73 of us in here, and there are fewer of you over there. There are now only 12 Tories in the Parliament. I say to Mr Kerr and his colleagues that the majority in this Parliament must be respected, the mandate must be respected and anything less denies democracy.
The issues of a referendum and independence are still here. We are discussing independence today. It has not gone away. Given the state of UK politics now, I cannot foresee it ever going away.
It is estimated that, in 2029, more than 1 million young people will be eligible to vote who were not old enough to participate in the 2014 referendum. When I vote tonight, I will be interested to see which politician or politicians support them and which choose to reject their right to decide.
16:22
I bet that the words
“Judge me on my record in education”
haunt the SNP, because after nearly two decades of this Government, Scotland’s education system is going backwards.
The SNP likes to point out that the attainment gap is narrowing, but that is because the top is falling, not because the bottom is rising. The SNP is failing our young people, no matter their background.
Yet, what is this Government’s priority? Another referendum. While other countries are focused on raising standards, the SNP is still fighting yesterday’s battles. Scotland is in a never-ending situation, because this Government simply cannot move on.
When it comes to tackling child poverty, children get free laptops, free bikes—never delivered—and now, apparently, the free school bag. If the school bag is the SNP’s answer to child poverty, we are in trouble. Our young people deserve higher standards, better opportunities and a Government that is focused on their future, not one that is stuck in the past.
16:23
I will start with what would have been my intervention on Meghan Gallacher about child poverty. There is some agreement between the Tories and my position: it is a real shame that we do not have all the levers open to us to tackle child poverty. The Conservatives, when they were in power, and now Labour will not work with us on matters such as income-related benefits and on tackling issues that are pushing children into poverty and keeping them there, and we are limited to using devolved powers that, to be fair to the Scottish Government, are having an actual impact on child poverty in this country that we are not seeing in the rest of the UK.
It bears repeating that the motion in front of us today is one line:
“That the Parliament agrees that Scotland is a nation that has a right to decide its own future.”
It does not say that Scotland should be independent or that we demand independence, but that we should get to make that decision.
Do not get me wrong—I would have been well up for taking part in the debate if the motion had had those things in it as well. I am happy to make those arguments any day. However, I would have thought that what we are actually looking at this afternoon could garner support from those who would be less interested in that debate or who are on the other side of it. It turns out that they would rather play linguistic limbo than say that Scotland is a real place that can make decisions—a fact that is as fascinating to me as it is miserable.
In fact, apart from the Greens, whose amendment would stick a wee bit on the end recognising that we have a majority of pro-independence MSPs in the chamber, all the other parties have lodged the most convoluted amendments to avoid agreeing that basic principle on its own, which makes me wonder why. Is it because they are anti-democratic? I do not think that that is true of most of my colleagues. Is it because they think that Scotland is not a nation? Again, some of them might, but I do not think that that is the case for most of them. Is it because they think that agreeing that Scotland should be allowed to decide on independence is tantamount to agreeing that Scotland should become independent? Maybe, which should be encouraging to those of us on this side of the debate and leads us to the most likely explanation, which is that they believe that people would look at what the UK has done to Scotland on energy, trade, agriculture and more and choose differently this time. That is understandable, and I for one hope that they are right, but it is no excuse for keeping the decision away from their constituents.
Before Reform did us a favour and walked out, Malcolm Offord asked why we are even thinking about this question, given that it was settled in 2014 for a generation. Those are familiar words, and people listening to such debates would be forgiven for thinking that the word “generation” actually features in the Scotland Act 1998. I hope that colleagues across the chamber can attest to the fact that I like to be quite helpful. Ahead of the debate, I checked the Scotland Act 1998, and found that the only mentions of the word are in provisions limiting us on what we can do on energy.
Putting that to one side, politics does not pay attention to generations. Events happen and things change, and I do not believe that there should be restrictions on what we can discuss and when. However, I am continually baffled by the unionist definition of “generation”. It bears as much resemblance to any definition of “generation” that I know as Taylor Swift, much as I love her, and her gaps between album releases bear a resemblance to the definition of “era”.
On the point about generations and how often people can have a vote, would the member point out to Stephen Kerr, who served in the UK Parliament alongside me, that, in the course of 55 days, he voted four times to hold a general election, on the same question? If he can change his mind four times in 55 days, perhaps after 12 years people in Scotland should be able to change their mind also.
That is a fair point, well made. I do not think that I have anything to add.
I was one of those who were given the vote unexpectedly in 2014, which I reflected on and maybe had a bit of an existential crisis about on Friday last week, 12 years on from the vote, as I am now pushing 30, with, as my chief whip put it the other day, the cynicism of a much older woman. My badge at the count in Dingwall in 2014 stated “Generation Yes”. I remember some of the party figures who I was campaigning with at the time. They included local SNP councillors, the youngest of whom was the age that I am today. Nobody then would have described us as being in the same generation, and nobody would do so now. Even now, I get wee messages from him asking me to explain gen Z jargon or pop culture references.
Many people who will vote in the next Scottish Parliament election—in which, by the way, everybody will be free to vote to elect a completely different Government from the one that they elected in May this year, should they wish, although not that they tend to—were not even born when the referendum happened. I am not their generation. As I was reminded by a guess-the-year segment on BBC Radio Scotland recently, devolution referendums were held in 1979 and 1997. Following that precedent, we are arguably due to revisit the question anyway, in a few years’ time. As somebody born in 1997 on the cusp of devolution, I want those who were born in 2014 to be able to have their voices heard.
Devolution is all that I have known, and I cannot wait to meet those bairns for whom independence is all that they know, because I cannot imagine that, once we get there, and once they see the benefits, anybody is going to look at this so-called union and beg to be let back in.
16:29
A referendum is not an election, nor is it an opinion poll; it is a mechanism for making a decision on a particular proposition. Democracy requires that the people’s decision in a properly constituted referendum, such as the one in 2014, must be accepted and respected. Instead, the First Minister advances a fundamentally incoherent position: he invokes the sovereignty of the people while refusing to accept what the people decided.
He knows that his position is incoherent, and he also knows that calling this debate, agitating for a neverendum and prosecuting such a weak case is nothing more than a shoddy political distraction from the shocking failures by this Government that we have heard about all afternoon. In the energy portfolio, that includes the failure to publish a coherent, evidence-based energy strategy, alongside its presumption against oil and gas, which is decimating jobs and damaging our energy security and the environment. It also includes an ideological opposition to new nuclear power, which comes at the cost of jobs and firm dispatchable power, and the abject failure to deliver a managed transition to renewables.
The people’s vote must be respected. We voted no. Now, get on with the day job.
16:31
At the core of this debate is a simple question: who gets to decide Scotland’s future? The answer should be equally simple: it is the people of Scotland, not any political party, not any individual politician, not Westminster and not even this Parliament alone. We are repeatedly told that the United Kingdom is a voluntary union, but words have consequences. If this genuinely is a voluntary union, Scotland cannot simultaneously be told that there is no democratic route by which its people can choose a different future. A union that we are free to support but not free to reconsider is a strange definition of “voluntary”.
The Government’s “Your Right to Decide” paper matters, because it gets right to the heart of the issue. A democratic right must be capable of being exercised; otherwise, what kind of right is it? Scotland cannot possess some theoretical right to choose its future while somebody else possesses a permanent right to tell us when, whether or how we are allowed to exercise that right. That is not Scotland deciding; that is Scotland being told.
Scotland is not a region; Scotland is a country, with our own legal system, education system, institutions, national identity, Parliament and, most importantly of all, democratic voice. That democratic voice cannot simply be frozen in time, because countries, circumstances and people change.
The United Kingdom itself has changed, which is perhaps nowhere more clear than in our relationship with Europe. In 2014, 55 per cent of people voted for Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom. Just two years later, 62 per cent of people in Scotland voted to remain in the European Union. Scotland voted more decisively to remain in the European Union than it did to remain in the United Kingdom, yet Scotland was taken out of the European Union anyway.
People who voted in 2014 did so in a United Kingdom that was a member of the European Union. That is no longer the constitutional reality. The union that people voted to remain in has fundamentally changed, and it is not only the union that has changed—
Will the member take an intervention?
We had better hear what Mr Hoy has to say.
Mr Bonnar is talking about Scotland leaving a union in which we are a net beneficiary to go back into a union in which we would be expected to be a net contributor. Just for clarity, if Scotland were ever to become independent, how would its Government—of whichever political persuasion—seek a mandate from the Scottish people to take Scotland back into the EU?
At the ballot box, Mr Hoy, but we are not discussing that—we are discussing Scotland’s right to decide. Does Mr Hoy agree with Scotland’s right to decide? Does he agree that Scotland is a nation? Aye, I thought so.
Today, there are nearly 1 million people of voting age in Scotland who were too young to vote in 2014. Hundreds of thousands of people have grown up here, entered work, gone to college or university, started families, paid taxes and contributed to this country, but they have never had their say. What are we to say to them? Are we to say that somebody else made the decision for them when they were children and that their opportunity to decide will never come?
Democracy cannot work like that. Democracy is not something that happens once and then expires. Democracy lives. It changes and it responds. I simply do not accept that the people can be trusted to elect Governments and Parliaments and to make decisions on every political question affecting their lives but they cannot be trusted to decide on the constitutional future of their own country. They do not need to be protected from democracy. They need their democracy to be protected and respected.
Those who believe passionately in the union are perfectly entitled to make the case for it. Those of us who believe in independence will passionately make our case. That is democracy—argument against argument, vision against vision and, ultimately, vote against vote.
I believe in independence. I believe that decisions about Scotland are best taken here in Scotland by the people who live here and work here. I believe that we should possess the powers to determine the kind of country we want, the kind of economy we want to build, the society we wish to create, and the place we wish to take in the world. [Interruption.] Others in this chamber profoundly disagree with me. [Interruption.] We can hear them chuntering from a sedentary position.
Let us put our competing visions for Scotland’s future to the people. What are members scared of? Let us trust the people to listen, to question us, to challenge us and, ultimately, to decide. This is bigger than any Government, any Parliament or any political party. It comes down to one fundamental question: where does the sovereignty ultimately lie? For me, it lies with the people of Scotland. If the people of Scotland, through their democratic institutions, say that they want the opportunity to determine their future, no Government, no parliamentarian and no Prime Minister should simply be able to say no.
Neither side of this debate should fear putting that choice into the hands of the people of Scotland, because this country does not belong to Governments, to Parliaments or to Prime Ministers. It belongs to the people of Scotland, and the future of this country must belong to them, too. It is their right, and Scotland’s right, to decide, and the future of this country must belong to them.
16:37
This debate has been interesting. If only the SNP put this much energy and time into running Scotland’s public services, we might actually have functional systems.
I do not think that Scotland needs another independence argument. In my area, despite years of promises, the A9 and the A96 have still not been dualled. A spade has not hit the ground at the A83 Rest and Be Thankful, and communities in the south-west are still waiting for action on the A75. The SNP has made a diabolical mess of our ferry network, with services that break down far too often. Regional air links remain under pressure, and the state-owned ScotRail is worse under SNP management, not to mention having a new app that does not even work. Across Scotland, people are driving on pothole-ridden, crumbling roads while businesses are paying the price, all because the SNP cares more about what the Greens think.
People do not need more constitutional bickering. They need roads that work, ferries that they can rely on, trains that turn up on time and transport that connects our communities. That is what the SNP should truly be spending its time on.
16:39
Of all the absurd arguments that have been made to try to find a way not to support Scotland’s right to decide, the best is perhaps the one about the union dividend. That is the union dividend that has given us the highest tax burden since the second world war and the highest debt—which the Tories racked up—of more than £3 trillion. It has given us record levels of inequality, it has put UK public services on their knees and it has given us 16 years of austerity budgets. It also gave us Brexit against our will. During the referendum campaign we were told that the only way that we could save Scotland’s place in the EU was to vote no, which was a lie. We were later told that there was no way that Boris Johnson would become Prime Minister—look what happened with that.
The debate is based on a simple proposition and a simple democratic principle: as others have said, Scotland’s future must be decided by the people who live here. That should not be a controversial proposition.
Afs the First Minister has said, after the 2014 referendum, the Smith commission, which involved all five political parties that were represented in the Parliament stated that
“nothing in this report prevents Scotland from becoming an independent country in the future, should the people of Scotland so choose.”
That is what the Tories are now running away from. They do not agree with that any more and have changed their position. It goes to the point that was made earlier by somebody who said—[Interruption.]
To be honest, Presiding Officer, the Conservatives have done that right through the debate. People cannot hear anything because of the shouting from Stephen Kerr and others. They are shouting because they are rigid with fear, because they know what is coming. [Interruption.] We can hear the shouting now. The Tories in the Parliament are a special breed of Tory. In fact, they are an endangered species of Tory. You would never believe it from their talk, but they went from 31 seats down to 12 seats. They were demolished in the election, yet they cannot seem to recognise that they have descended into further irrelevance as time has gone on.
The 2014 decision was made by the people of Scotland at that time. It was not, and could not have been, a decision to remove the democratic rights of future generations. The evidence subsequently taken by the Parliament’s Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee reinforces that principle. I will quote another Tory, Professor Adam Tomkins, who is a former Conservative MSP. He was hardly approaching the question from an SNP perspective, but he told the committee that
“those on all sides of the argument agree that the decision maker is the Scottish people”.—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 13 November 2025; c 22.]
In his submission to the committee, Professor Alan Renwick was equally clear that there is widespread agreement that the union
“is voluntary, and that Scotland is entitled to independence if the people of Scotland wish it.”
Professor Renwick also identified the contradiction that is at the heart of the present arrangements. The Scottish electorate’s wishes are supposed to be respected, yet the power to determine whether Scotland can even be asked the question rests with the UK Government, which is elected by voters across the United Kingdom. The simple fact is that, if we agree with everyone but the Tories that Scotland has the right to self-determination, that means that nobody else can tell us when we can exercise that right. We either have the right or not, and we decide when we want to exercise it, not somebody else.
Professor Nicola McEwen also made the important point that
“a referendum ought to be facilitated in the context of the union being a voluntary one.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 27 November 2025; c 4.]
That brings us directly to the significance of the Prime Minister’s recent comments. I do not agree with Michael Marra’s interpretation of what he said. When speaking about Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister said that a referendum must be considered
“when public opinion has changed to the point at which the call has to be considered”
and he added:
“I would say exactly the same situation in Scotland.”
Those are significant words. If the Prime Minister accepts that a change in public opinion can reach a point at which the question of another referendum must be considered—I am talking about a referendum, not about independence; it is about the Scottish people getting the right to decide—and that the same principle applies to Scotland, the obvious question is: what is the democratic test? That is what a Labour Party member who was in the chamber—she is not here just now—said previously. She said that she is not in favour of independence but is in favour of democracy and, therefore, a referendum. Let us hear more voices such as that one from the Labour Party.
How do the people of Scotland demonstrate that their views have changed? Is it through an election, a majority in the Parliament, or a sustained majority in public support for another referendum? There must be a clear and democratic route, because otherwise we are left with an extraordinary contradiction.
[Made a request to intervene.]
No, the Tories would not take any interventions from me.
Scotland can be told that it is part of a voluntary union, that it can become independent if its people so choose, and that changing public opinion can justify another referendum. Nevertheless, Westminster reserves to itself the power to decide whether the people of Scotland are ever to be permitted to make that choice. Those propositions cannot sit comfortably together. There is growing recognition across these islands that constitutional change must rest on democratic consent. Each of our nations has a right to determine its own future through democratic means and in accordance with the wishes of its people.
Scotland, Wales and Ireland are each on different constitutional journeys, but the principle that joins us is straightforward: the future of each nation belongs to its people. The challenge now is to turn the principle of Scotland’s right to decide—if that is what we agree to in the debate—into a clear democratic route through which that right can be exercised. A voluntary union cannot mean that we are free to leave only when the other party gives us permission to ask. A democratic right that can never be exercised is not much of a democratic right at all.
Those of us who are in the SNP believe passionately in independence. We believe that decisions about Scotland are best taken here in Scotland and that independence offers the opportunity to build the fairer and more prosperous country that we want to see. However, that is an argument that we must make and win among the people of Scotland. Those who support the union are perfectly entitled to make the opposite case.
David Green is not in the chamber just now, but I would say to him that I respect the fact that he came to the Parliament with a mandate to oppose an independence referendum. However, I came here with a mandate to secure an independence referendum, and my view is equally valid to David Green’s. That is what a democrat would say. [Interruption.]
We hear about the share of the vote. That has never been a problem for UK Governments in the past. They can take us out of the EU, they can vote against Scotland and they can change everything, but it is never a question for the Scottish Government; the UK Government is the only Government that the Tories are ever going to belong to.
We need to be entitled to exercise our own right to self-determination—that is the principle at stake. It is not about whether Scotland chooses independence today, but about whether Scotland retains the democratic right to choose its own future tomorrow. [Interruption.] Conservative members are still shouting. They are absolutely rigid with fear—you can smell it coming off them. [Interruption.] That right belongs to the people of Scotland.
16:45
We sit here in the chamber for yet another independence debate, when today it was revealed that more than 10,000 children are trapped in temporary accommodation, rough sleeping is rising and a record 19,000 households are stuck waiting for proper homes. Instead of focusing on delivering the homes that Scottish people desperately need, John Swinney and his Government are too busy obsessing over independence and his latest push to break up the United Kingdom. This debate will not help or comfort a single person in Scotland who is sleeping rough or is without somewhere to call a permanent home.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, thank you.
The Government must drop its relentless push to break up the United Kingdom and finally—
Will the member give way?
The member has indicated that he is not going to take an intervention, so the minister should sit down.
I am on my final sentence. The Government must drop its relentless push to break up the United Kingdom and finally outline a proper plan to meet Scotland’s housing needs. Otherwise, that emergency situation will only continue to spiral.
16:47
I do not think that any of us on the Conservative benches need lessons in loving Scotland from anyone on the SNP benches. The reality for many of us is that it is heartbreaking to see what nearly 20 years of SNP Government have done for our country—[Interruption.] That is true of one area in particular: crime, which has gone up 7 per cent in the past year. Violent crime is at a four-year high. Sexual crime is rising again.
What is John Swinney’s priority? Dragging Scotland out of the United Kingdom and having this pointless debate on separatism, which the people of Scotland rejected as lately as May. [Interruption.] What is John Swinney saying to victims who are waiting for justice, to people who are frightened in their own neighbourhoods and to police officers who are expected to do more with less? That is the day job that John Swinney should be doing. He should be focusing on building Scotland into a better place, but instead he is obsessed about destroying Scotland’s place in Britain.
We are wasting parliamentary time today. We should be holding ministers responsible for issues such as the ones that I and my colleagues are mentioning, not indulging John Swinney and the SNP in their fantasies. [Interruption.] What is the message of the SNP to the doctors, the nurses, the policemen and the victims? It is “Wait your turn. We have a referendum to pursue. We have a referendum to debate.” The record of the SNP for its time in government is a story of SNP incompetence. Ministers are failing in the most basic responsibility of government—keeping people safe. My message is that we should be talking about how we back the police, how we put criminals behind bars and how we give victims the protection that they are entitled to expect.
We move to closing speeches. We have time in hand, so the front bench can take interventions.
16:49
I want to talk about an issue that is uncomfortable to raise: the risk of conflict that is associated with nationalism. Let me be clear at the outset that I do not think that anyone in this chamber is going to take up arms. However, although today’s display by Reform members might be mocked, it worries me.
When Parliament divides and stops listening and debating, it is a dangerous signifier of what could come if we look only at what makes us different. Just look at history. The reason I say that is because I lived and worked across the former Yugoslavia for four years, in peace building. I count as friends people of every nationality, whether Croat, Bosniak, Kosovan, Albanian, Montenegrin, Macedonian, Jewish or Serb—civilised, educated and generous people who are similar to many of us in the chamber today. They lived through their country spiralling into ethnic violence. The collapse of Yugoslavia began in 1980, when Josip Tito died. He had been the leader for 35 years. In his place, nationalist leaders in Milosevic and Tuđman came into power in Serbia and Croatia. Their muscles were increasingly flexed, they blamed others for their plight, and it ended with the ravaging and splintering of a European nation.
On 1 May 1991, my friends were Yugoslavs who believed in brotherhood and unity. By mid-June the same year, it was their surname and ethnic identity that mattered. In simple terms, Catholics were branded Croat, orthodox Christians as Serbs, and Bosniaks as Muslim. With wicked speed, by July, war had arrived, turning previously mixed and trusted neighbourhoods into places where fear was cultivated and living together became dangerous. I will give one horrific example, of which I have many.
Will the member give way?
I will, after I finish my example—[Interruption.] Oh, God—I have dropped my speech notes. I am falling to bits.
I will take the member’s intervention.
I, too, have visited Bosnia and have sat and broken bread with the mothers of Srebrenica. I have had conversations about their grief and about their compassion and forgiveness in the face of scenes of utter devastation. I take great umbrage at that conflict being used as a comparison to the outward-looking civic nationalism that we are trying to create here, with a Scotland that is outward-looking to the world.
I also ask the member: where has the ghost of Jo Grimond gone? He was a great democrat within the Liberal ranks. Does his ghost still exist somewhere?
My point is not where Scotland is today, but where it could go. We must be really cognisant of the debate that we are having.
In Sanski Most, a town in north-west Bosnia—[Interruption.] Members need to hear this, because we never hear it in the debates about Scottish independence.
In Sanski Most, a town in north-west Bosnia, a young woman, Jelena, from a Serbian orthodox family fell in love with Emir, a Bosniak Muslim. Their parents did not oppose their marriage out of hatred, but they warned them that a mixed marriage would be hard and that raising children in it would be harder. Jelena and Emir listened, but they decided to marry in 1992, just before the war broke out. Six months later, Jelena’s own brother came to their home and murdered them both in the name of nationalism. No army did that, and no stranger. Across Yugoslavia, atrocities were repeatedly committed by people who had formerly been friends, neighbours and colleagues. I know that many of us have been to Bosnia and Srebrenica. I lived there for four years, and those experiences scare me. They are in my heart whenever we roll the dice for nationalism and independence in Scotland.
For the record, I reiterate that I do not doubt the provenance of the SNP and Green members who sit in this chamber, or the integrity or intent of John Swinney as a peaceable leader. However, I reflect on Yugoslavia because, having listened to many debates about how socially progressive independence will be, I rarely hear about the small but ever-present risk of what we are gambling with, which is the peace of our nation.
I am willing to accept that Duncan Dunlop is making in good faith his points about that context, which is not our context. However, I ask him whether he agrees with two points. First, does he agree that the points that he is making reinforce the need for there to be a democratic route for a country like Scotland? Secondly, does he agree that we should strongly criticise those who have challenged the Scottish First Minister for working with leaders in other places, including Northern Ireland, where a long-fought-for, hard-won peace process has meant that Sinn Féin is now a legitimate political party that is able to occupy the post of First Minister?
The one point that I take from that intervention is that we have had civil war in our nation—in Northern Ireland. This is not distant from us. I say to members: do not believe in Scottish exceptionalism. We are naive if we believe that instability and violence should not be in the risk assessment of any independence movement. It is not you but what your movement can be warped to represent that concerns me.
After the independence referendum, I drove down the A1 to cross the border near Berwick. The flags on either side of that road did not feel welcoming to me. Instead, they were more like Northern Ireland in the 1990s.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am nearing an end, so I will not take another intervention.
I have knocked on enough doors in Scotland to know that there are extreme fringes to nationalism here, too.
And unionism.
Yes.
I am worried about what is going on—really worried about our narrative and our politics. My appeal in these times, when politics is getting more and more extreme and volatile in Europe and the UK, is that we stop giving it oxygen in Scotland. Let us stop inviting the tiger in for tea. Instead, I ask members to focus their energies on unleashing the positivity that can come from trusting communities by giving them real power via the devolution agenda. If they want to claim more powers from Westminster, our door has always been open to pursuing federalism and they will have allies here.
My most basic purpose in life is to make sure that my family never has to choose between the Scottish dad and the English mum, as so many of my Bosnian friends had to do. I say, please stop continuously gambling with our safety and security, and park the motion.
16:56
We cannot deny that the debate has been passionate, but I will be clear: the Scottish Conservatives oppose a second independence referendum.
We are the party that denied the SNP a majority in May.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will make progress.
I believe that the SNP is frozen in time. It has a confused approach about its next move.
We unionists have been accused of being antidemocratic. That is absolute nonsense. Voters had a historic opportunity to make one of the biggest choices of their lives in 2014—a democratic vote, in which the SNP lost its bid to break up Britain.
The Scottish Conservative amendment would delete “Scotland is a nation”. I have two questions and it would be helpful to have them answered. Why would the Conservative amendment delete those words, and do the Conservatives believe that Scotland is not a nation?
Alex Kerr debates about words. Those of us who have sat through exactly this SNP debate on a doom loop, time and again, every year, will deny his party a second independence referendum. SNP members know that the debate, and trying to make “gotcha” interventions about words, is meaningless. They have spent years trying to take Scotland out of the UK, and First Minister after First Minister has failed to persuade the nation—the public—of their arguments. Every wheeze and every whim has been a gimmick.
John Swinney has failed to deliver on his election promise. The Government took a case to the Supreme Court to try to convince the court that the Government had the constitutional right to bring forward an independence referendum. That cost taxpayers £250,000. Governments have had white paper after white paper in the Parliament—nine, I think, in the time during which I have represented Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire. The money for those might have been used to improve numeracy and literacy attainment among young people.
They are desperate. However, the elephant in the room is the independence fundraising campaign—money that was swiped from SNP members by the former First Minister’s husband, who was the top man in the SNP. That is hardly a convincing pitch for how the SNP people in Government should manage the finances of the country.
Ms Hamilton talks about wasting taxpayers’ money. When her party was in government, until 2024, it was spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on polling the Scottish people on the question of Scottish independence. How does she reconcile that with the argument that she has just made?
I do not need to take any lectures from an SNP member about wasting money. The Scottish public can see how much money the SNP has wasted. It has wasted money on so many gimmick projects. It has had a disastrous tenure in government. Let me remind members on those benches that the Scottish economy is stuck in a doom loop. Scotland’s numeracy and literacy attainment is tanking, which is putting our young people at a competitive disadvantage.
Lloyd Melville rose—
If Lloyd Melville can tell me anything about the SNP that has been successful, he should feel free.
I will break this rather gently to Rachael Hamilton. If the public considered the SNP to be a failure in government, her party would not have been occupying the same Opposition benches in this place for the past 20 years. This party in government is delivering success for Scotland, and we want to go even further with independence. Why does she not recognise that the people have a right to decide?
Rachael Hamilton has been generous in taking interventions. She can respond to Lloyd Melville, but she must then bring her remarks to a close.
Lloyd Melville is on another planet. We have the highest number of drug deaths in Scotland. We have ferries that do not sail. We have opposition to oil and gas exploration in the north-east. The north-east is on its knees—it is losing jobs. It is incredible that SNP back benchers have been so blind to what is really happening out there. The only people holding Scotland back are the SNP.
17:01
I hesitate to follow such oratory, but, in any rational world, support for the motion ought to be unanimous. Even from those who would choose not to prioritise this issue, there ought to be a continuation of the long-standing principle, on both sides of the independence debate, behind the point that is made in the motion. As Ross Greer said, this goes back a long way—not just to the claim of right, but to the devolution referendum, the independence referendum and the Sewel convention. As Ross Greer reminded us, the past cannot bind the future; so, in any rational world, we would all agree with the terms of the Government’s motion and move on.
I will say something about the various amendments to the motion. First, though, I add to the welcome and congratulations for Michael Marra on his result. Not many people remember this, but, before I took on a leadership role in my party, I was 6 feet 2 and had a full head of hair—look what it has done to me. I hope that Michael Marra understands what has got himself into. I hear that Ross Greer has a full head of hair, but Ross is floating on the enthusiasm generated by a successful election result, which is perhaps not the case on the other benches.
I cannot see anything to disagree with in the Labour amendment, and I will vote for it. I cannot help reflecting, though, that it does not address the very real fact that UK decisions also impact hugely on poverty, employment, social security and so much more. I entirely recognise that opposition to independence is a legitimate position, but I also hope that Labour can acknowledge that, for many of us, the purpose of independence is to be able to do more than we already have done on the issues that Labour raises and on more besides.
On the Reform amendment—so much for the far right attempting to pose as the defenders of free speech. According to Reform’s amendment, we need its agreement to a mandate even to discuss the issue of independence. To be absolutely clear, even in Reform members’ absence, we need no such thing.
As for the Liberal Democrat amendment, I strongly share David Green’s enthusiasm for Brighton. I share that much with him, although Brighton has different attractions for me than it does for him. Perhaps an Alex Cole-Hamilton speech is the one thing that might be guaranteed to keep me away. Few people could object to the part of the Liberal Democrat amendment that covers the cost of living and public services, but it all comes with the very heavy implication that we cannot care about those issues and act on them while also making the case for Scotland’s right to decide its own future and setting out why independence would help us to take such action.
As for the Conservative amendment—perhaps the less I say about it, the better. I doubt that the Conservatives care very much whether I can find any saving grace in their amendment, so I will not try. I will just reflect that a Conservative adoption of micro speeches and a Reform boycott of the chamber are innovations that I warmly welcome.
Let me address some of the themes that have been brought out in the debate, at least by the serious contributions. There is a long-standing refusal of anti-independence parties to say what constitutes a mandate. Even if they agree that Scotland’s right to decide exists in principle, they will never say how Scotland can exercise that right in practice.
During the election, the SNP did not ask voters just to elect a pro-independence majority; it asked voters to give its party a majority on its own, and the voters, in their wisdom, decided to do otherwise. They left the SNP with fewer seats but left the pro-independence bloc bigger than ever, and I very much welcome their judgment in making that decision. However, an election is not a referendum, and the basic principles of parliamentary democracy apply. A parliamentary majority should enable the Government to pursue a programme.
There is a paradox at the heart of the debate. It seems that those who are most keen to remind the SNP that it did not win that one-party majority are the same people who hold desperately to the idea that we had to accept John Swinney’s definition of what a mandate was from before the election, even though, at that very time, senior figures in most anti-independence parties were quite clear that they would not accept it as a mandate anyway. They would not have accepted anything as a mandate. What we have is Schrödinger’s mandate. Whatever threshold those who support independence propose, it both is and is not a mandate at the same time; only once we open the ballot box does it finally become one thing or the other. If the threshold is met, it was never a mandate at all and we must all move on; if the threshold is not met, it was a mandate and the failure to meet it is supposed to kill off the argument.
I cannot entirely blame the pro-UK parties for exploiting that paradox. John Swinney handed them the opportunity to do so by adopting the position of asking for a single-party majority in the first place. My party always said that that was wrong—not just a strategic error, but wrong in principle. This is a Government that has no majority on any policy at all. It must come to this chamber and seek support, so its policy of having a single-party mandate, if that ever was its policy, has to be set aside precisely because it has no single-party mandate. Regardless of the number of SNP members elected here, nobody has the authority to deny a majority in this Parliament.
The Greens set out in our amendment that, in 2026, the Scottish people returned the biggest ever pro-independence majority in Parliament, and I am proud that the Greens have played the biggest ever part in delivering that majority. I say that that should be respected by all democrats, but I also say that it should be a lesson for the First Minister that the case for independence can never be tied to the electoral fortunes of one political party.
To succeed, the case for independence must be pluralistic, because independence itself is not just one thing. It is neither a land of milk and honey nor a road to disaster. It contains within it all the possibilities that are before us—the opportunity and the responsibility for all the choices we might make as a country. It is large. It contains multitudes. It does not belong to one political party and it never will. It belongs, as the motion says, to the nation of Scotland.
17:09
During the course of the afternoon, it has become clear and beyond doubt that the debate on this motion is not quite the significant moment that John Swinney has been claiming. I highly doubt that 22 September 2026 will have volumes dedicated to it in the history books. Rather, as others have said, this is a bit of a gimmick—the latest sleight of hand in the SNP’s constitutional con trick and the annual pre-conference performance from the First Minister, to give independence supporters who have not cottoned on yet the impression that the SNP has a plan to deliver independence, when it simply does not. It has done nothing to prepare Scotland for a referendum, let alone secession, and, as Michael Marra said, that is on the SNP. It is not trying to build Scotland the brave; it prefers to manufacture Scotland the offended.
In that, John Swinney is not addressing Scotland’s needs; he is addressing his needs with his SNP membership. He is trying to pull off the same con trick that Nicola Sturgeon did for years—telling SNP members that the referendum is just over the hill. The latest date, apparently, is 2031.
Of course we have the right to determine our own future. Scottish Labour believes that, as Michael Marra said earlier. I am sure that we all do—we all should. After all, we are here, in the Scottish Parliament. We are not at an SNP conference fringe event; we are not in a university or, dare I say it, primary school debating society—although, if that sounds offensive, I apologise to all the university and school debating societies up and down the country. We are here because the people of Scotland elected us to be here. The people of Scotland have expressed their opinion, and that was not to have another referendum. The SNP won the election, and my party—[Interruption.] The SNP won the election—I concede that—and, regrettably, my party did not. However, unlike John Swinney and the SNP members, I fully accept the verdict of the people. Unlike John Swinney, I, like other members, also have a good memory. I remember him clearly stating before the election that a referendum would be achieved only if the SNP won a majority. It did not. What has John Swinney done since the election?
[Made a request to intervene.]
No, not just now, thank you. [Interruption.] What has John Swinney done since the election? Not even Gianni Infantino would attempt to move the goalposts as much as John Swinney is doing now. Perhaps Mr Swinney is feeling under more pressure than Mr Infantino is from his members. When he and the Scottish Greens now cite and assert an overwhelming pro-independence majority, they ignore the inconvenient—for them—truth that the 73 SNP and Green MSPs here were elected on a minority of the vote. As Paul Sweeney said earlier, those SNP MSPs—that 57 per cent of MSPs that we keep hearing about—were elected on just 40 to 41 per cent of the vote.
[Made a request to intervene.]
Will the take an intervention on that point?
Yes, I will take an intervention on that point.
Who do you wish to take an intervention from, Mr Bibby? Two members indicated that they wish to intervene.
I will take the intervention from Mrs Gibson. [Interruption.]
Mr Bibby has talked about the fact that, although he respects the right of the Scottish people to decide, there is no support for a Scottish referendum. He said that of course he believes in the right of the Scottish people to choose because he is sitting in this Parliament and the Scottish people have chosen the composition of this Parliament. He will recall the very famous words that devolution was supposed to kill the argument for independence “stone dead”. Is that the position that he is now maintaining, or does he understand that the desire for independence has not waned one iota, despite the roadblocks that his party tries to put in its way?
It is perfectly legitimate to support independence—I point out that we are not independent—but, if you want us to be independent, build the case for it and build support for it. That is how you will achieve independence. Mr Adam wanted me to take an intervention from him, and I think that he was offended that I did not, so I will take that now.
Mr Bibby was talking about elections, and, of course, he has experience of accepting defeats, because that has been three defeats to me in Paisley. When he accepted that he had been defeated by me in Paisley again, did he accept, once again, that the people of Scotland had spoken and that there is now the largest ever majority of independence-supporting MSPs on these benches in this Parliament? Surely that is just a matter of democracy.
Mr Swinney is moving the goalposts, and so is Mr Adam. He is ignoring the fact that 50 per cent of MSPs here were elected on 40 to 41 per cent of the vote. That is an undeniable fact and an inconvenient truth for him. That is before we get to the other undeniable facts—
Will the member take an intervention?
Will the member take an intervention?
Will the member take an intervention?
I will make some progress. The people of Scotland rightly determined our future in September 2014; we did so again in July 2024; and we will do so again in the future. [Interruption.] I can see that the First Minister and members on the SNP benches do not like those facts, but I am merely telling the truth. Democracy has not been denied. The only thing that has been denied, time and again by the SNP, is the outcome of democracy.
We have to recognise and respect that there are clear differences of opinion on the constitutional question. However, we also need to recognise how divisive referendums can be. I believe that they should be held only when there is a sense on both sides of the debate that the question needs to be put, or in order to confirm the apparent settled will of the people with a clear, decisive result. We are not in either of those positions today and, until that changes, this debate is a smokescreen.
It is clear that the SNP and the Greens would rather focus on the process of getting a referendum than on doing the difficult work of building support for independence and answering questions over currency, defence and the £25.3 billion deficit, to name but three.
Will Mr Bibby give way?
No, not just now, thank you.
Years of civil servants’ time and hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ cash—far more than even Peter Murrell spent on hairdryers—were wasted on the Government’s white papers in the previous session of Parliament. They did not answer those vital questions and they did not move the dial. That, again, is on the SNP Government.
Will the member give way?
No—I will give way in a moment.
Like other members, I also remember John Swinney telling the nation earlier this year that he had a secret plan. If he was re-elected and was not given a referendum, where is the secret plan? I am happy to give way to Mr Swinney if he can tell us now. Is this the secret plan?
Get on with your speech. [Laughter.]
To be fair to Mr Swinney, I am not that interested in his secret plan, but his own supporters deserve to know what the promised secret plan is, because they should not be continually conned. It looks as though they will still have to wait for an answer on that.
Given the lack of serious work being done by the SNP, it is little wonder that even many independence supporters do not want a referendum right now. It is also a reflection of the fact that the people of Scotland, including independence supporters, have more pressing priorities. As Michael Marra said, we should be focusing on the people’s real priorities. We should be having a summit on meeting our child poverty targets rather than having a pretendy separatist summit. Times are tough for people in Scotland right now, and when the going gets tough, what does the First Minister do? He gets going to Cardiff to meet Plaid Cymru and Sinn Féin—a meeting that even the Taoiseach, who wants Irish unification, said was unhelpful. The Scottish Government should instead be taking up Andy Burnham’s offer to work co-operatively across the UK, because that is in Scotland’s interests and it is what an independent Scotland would do.
The people of Scotland have the right to decide their own future—yes, we do. The only person who does not like it when we do so appears to be the First Minister. What about other rights?
Will the member take an intervention?
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I am going to make some progress.
Let us talk about some of the other rights that people have. What about the right to help people with additional support needs? Oh, that is right—we will quietly drop the learning disabilities, autism and neurodivergence bill and hope that nobody notices. Well, we have noticed, and so, too, have families across Scotland.
What about the right for people to see a doctor or get an ambulance when they need it? Oh, that is right—the treatment guarantee has been broken 900,000 times since its introduction.
What about the right to walk down the street safely? Oh, that is right—violent crime and sexual crime are on the rise, as Stephen Kerr pointed out. The public wants action on crime, not warm words on the constitution.
What about the right to a home? There is a housing emergency and it was announced today that a record 10,715 children are living in temporary accommodation—that is up 5 per cent in a year. Let us have a summit on that. What about a right to a decent education? Let us have a summit on that. We can, and should, work together on those, the people’s, priorities.
I will tell you what Scotland has a right to—it has the right to a world-class education system, a world-class health service and the chance to make a decent living. The rights to all those things are not being denied by Westminster; they are being denied by a First Minister who, like his predecessors, looks after himself, not his nation, and who puts his party before his country.
I call Jenny Gilruth to respond to the debate on behalf of the Scottish Government.
17:20
I am grateful to colleagues across the chamber for their spirited contributions.
As Patricia Gibson observed, Lord George Robertson infamously remarked in 1995 that devolution would kill nationalism “stone dead”. After nearly 20 years of SNP Governments, Lord Robertson’s prediction rings somewhat hollow. People like me, who are in their 40s or younger, can barely remember a Scotland without this Parliament. It belongs to our people: the school groups in the public gallery and those represented by the figures in the glass behind you, Presiding Officer, and by the poetry inscribed on our very foundations. That is the spirit in which the Government secured this debate. The people’s Parliament should have no limit on her ambition to improve the lives of our constituents.
The Deputy First Minister makes reference to the public gallery in this significant moment. I count five people in that gallery. Is this the significant moment that she seeks?
Mr Rennie’s sneering about the attendance in the public gallery does not help his case. He and his party have come to the chamber today to lock Scotland into a union and to provide us with no democratic route out. Surely, he must recognise that that is an unsustainable position for a liberal democrat.
We on the SNP benches know that an independent Scotland would have what it takes to flourish and to match the success and living standards of nations such as Ireland, Denmark, Norway and Finland. Perhaps more than most people, I know that not all of us agree on independence for Scotland. However, regardless of the views in favour of or against that, this debate is about something far more fundamental: it is about people’s right to choose their own future.
I turn to some of the contributions that have been made. It would be remiss of me not to comment on the absence of Reform members from the chamber, following their walkout earlier. As I understand it, Reform did not oppose the business motion for the debate. Through their antics, Reform members have shown the people who voted for them that they are not prepared to do a full day’s work—that is part time, performative and pathetic.
I welcome Michael Marra to his new role. I am sure that we will work well together. I will welcome hearing Labour’s proposals in relation to the Government’s upcoming budget. As we have discussed, the Government will support the Labour Party’s amendment at decision time.
What Mr Marra has said about further devolution in our communities is timely, given our publication yesterday of proposals for local government reform. Arguably, in a union of equals, tackling child poverty should be a joint endeavour—so I hope that he will support my calls on the UK Chancellor to take action at source to alleviate child poverty in Scotland by, for example, ending the freeze on local housing allowance rates, the bedroom tax and the benefits cap. That support would be welcomed sincerely by the Scottish Government.
As Ross Greer noted, democracy is not a one-off event. Colleagues across the chamber made that point and, of course, a majority of members were elected from independence-supporting parties. We should all accept the premise that it should be for the people of Scotland to decide on our future.
Russell Findlay told us that Scotland has had her tea: the referendum was a one-off event and that should be that. If we follow Mr Findlay’s analysis, the Scottish Conservatives should remain the fifth-largest political party in this Parliament, with only 12 seats—because, adhering to that logic, we do not revisit democratic decisions. However, maybe it is time for some self-awareness from the Scottish Conservatives.
David Green’s love for Alex Cole-Hamilton’s speeches is admirable but, like Russell Findlay, he adheres to the view that independence should be off limits. The Liberal Democrats appear to be unable or unwilling to align themselves with the basic principle that today’s debate tests. That is regrettable. However, we agree on some of the Liberal Democrat amendment’s wording regarding decentralising decision making, which is exactly why, yesterday, the Government set out a range of measures that are designed to reform local government. I hope that the Liberal Democrats will work with us on those proposals. However, the ultimate decentralisation of power would be independence for Scotland.
I enjoyed Alex Kerr’s speech and his evident classroom management skills in quietening the Conservatives. He made an interesting point about fear, which was echoed by Michelle Campbell and Keith Brown. At one point, there was an exchange between Alex Kerr and Stephen Kerr about independence-supporting Conservatives. Back in 1993, Margaret Thatcher said that the people of Scotland
“have an undoubted right to national self-determination; thus far they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union. Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way.”
Therefore, I presume that the Scottish Tories now disagree with that sentiment.
Twice in the debate, George Robertson has been mentioned regarding what he said about devolution killing independence stone dead. Margaret Thatcher disputed that by saying that, if SNP MPs constituted a majority of Scottish MPs at Westminster, that would trigger the right for Scotland to decide. The Labour Party has made numerous assertions today that it believes in Scotland’s right to decide, but it was the Labour Party that inserted paragraph 1(b) of schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, which reserved constitutional affairs to Westminster. Is it therefore true that Margaret Thatcher agrees on our democracy and the Labour Party does not?
From Mr Fairlie’s explanation, it sounds as though that is exactly the position in which we find ourselves. In the SNP’s view, it is deeply undemocratic and unsustainable.
During Kate Campbell’s speech, Michael Marra intervened—this relates to Mr Fairlie’s point—and spoke, rightly, about the votes in 1979 and 1997 on establishing a Scottish Parliament. Following that logic, according to the rules at the time, there was not enough support in 1979 to establish a Scottish Parliament, but that did not stop Labour pushing for a referendum in 1997. Why was it acceptable for Labour to push for devolution then and not acceptable for the SNP to push for independence now?
Our position is entirely reasonable, because, during the 1980s and 1990s, when the Deputy First Minister and I were both children, the Labour Party generated a settled will among the Scottish people, with overwhelming demand for devolution and the creation of the Scottish Parliament. That is the job that sits in front of her, and I recommend that she gets on with it.
I am grateful to Mr Marra for a lecture on my role in the Parliament. Ultimately, today’s debate is about the people of Scotland having the democratic opportunity to express their views on the country’s future. The SNP was elected to be the Government for a fifth successive time, so I invite Mr Marra and his colleagues to reflect on why that was the case.
Kate Campbell rightly called for a clearly defined mechanism that would allow the people of Scotland the right to choose their own future. Ultimately, as we have discussed, that is what today’s debate is about. It is about the inherent democratic deficit in our current constitutional arrangements.
Stuart McMillan, along with various Opposition members, quoted from the SNP’s manifesto. The SNP’s manifesto was clear:
“A vote for the SNP is a vote for a referendum on independence.”
Stuart McMillan called for the Tories to respect the election result in May. As we heard from Keith Brown, the Conservatives were obliterated in the election not four months ago. It is important to reflect on the reasons why the Conservatives went from 31 seats to just 12 in the space of five years. They do not have a mandate to block independence. The people have rejected the Scottish Conservatives, who should reflect on why that is the case.
Liam Kerr talked about some recent results, and he was right in some regards. The people’s vote must be respected, and we need to respect the outcome of the latest Scottish parliamentary election, in which the SNP was re-elected.
I am mindful of the time. In closing, I want to reflect on the purpose of today’s motion, which states:
“That the Parliament agrees that Scotland is a nation that has a right to decide its own future.”
That is a simple statement on which, I hope, we can all agree. Continuing to just say no and assert that independence is off the table is simply unsustainable. Andy Burnham knows that. Indeed, the new Prime Minister has said as much himself. He has said that Westminster is not working, and SNP members agree. Something has to give.
We all know that the clock is ticking on the future of the United Kingdom. The people of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland have elected independence-supporting First Ministers. Election results are pulling at the very constitutional fabric of these islands. Just because a right has been exercised once does not mean that people should never have the opportunity to exercise it again—not if that is what they wish to do.
In his comments on 9 September, the Prime Minister appeared to accept that basic principle. He knows that our current arrangements do not work for the UK, which is exactly why he has established Number 10 North. It is therefore time for the Prime Minister to meet our First Minister and to agree the mechanism that is required to hold a second independence referendum and to give the people of our country a say. Scotland’s future must be in Scotland’s hands.
That concludes the debate on Scotland’s right to decide.
Previous
First Minister’s Question TimeNext
Decision Time