Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Official Report 792KB pdf

---

Referendum Debate

The next item of business is the continuation of the debate on the First Minister’s statement.

14:41  

It is my pleasure to open the second part of our debate on the First Minister’s statement.

I think that an observation can safely be made about the debate that we had yesterday. In the aftermath of the referendum, regardless of how disappointed those of us who were on the yes side of the campaign feel, and how exhilarated those on the no side feel about the result, there is a generally accepted conclusion that the whole process of the referendum—the engaged debate, the level of participation by members of the public, the legislative agreement about the holding of the referendum through the Edinburgh agreement, between the Scottish Government and the United Kingdom Government—created the conditions in which Scotland could have a full, open and engaged debate about the country’s constitutional future. The outcome is that the referendum debate has been a credit to Scotland in respect of how it has been conducted, on all sides of the argument.

So many strengths have come out of the debate—the level of voter registration, the level of participation, the turnout and, in particular, the credit that participating 16 and 17-year-old voters were to the process, which I think is uniformly accepted across the Parliament—that Scotland can look to the referendum as an example of the democratic process having taken place to the highest possible standard, here in Scotland.

We now find ourselves in the aftermath of the referendum, looking forward—we are looking ahead to what will come next in Scotland. I confirm to Parliament that yesterday afternoon the Deputy First Minister and I met Lord Smith of Kelvin to confirm, as we have confirmed publicly, that the Scottish Government and the Scottish National Party will participate fully in the process that he is taking forward, in trying to secure agreement on the additional powers and responsibilities that will come to Scotland in the aftermath of the referendum.

Lord Smith said yesterday, quite fairly, that his task is not an easy one. At the outset of the process, it is important to consider the issues that he has to resolve. The Prime Minister said during the referendum:

“if you vote No ... ‘Business as usual’ is not on the ballot paper. The status quo is gone. This campaign has swept it away. There is no going back to the way things were. A vote for No means real change”.

Gordon Brown said:

“the plan for a stronger Scottish Parliament we seek agreement on is for nothing less than a modern form of Scottish Home Rule within the United Kingdom”.

He is also quoted as saying:

“We’re going to be, within a year or two, as close to a federal state as you can be in a country where one nation is 85% of the population”.

Just for completeness, Danny Alexander said:

“Scotland will have more powers over its finances, more responsibility for raising taxation and more control over parts of the welfare system—effective Home Rule but within the security and stability of our successful United Kingdom.”

Those are the solemn commitments that were made to people in advance of the referendum last Thursday. We are happy to be engaged in a process of dialogue, over which Lord Smith will preside, in order to reach an agreement that lives up to the expectations that were set out in all those statements. In a number of ways, those statements go way beyond the proposals that were put forward by the three unionist parties well in advance of the referendum. Indeed, Gordon Brown’s comments about our being

“within a year or two ... close to a federal state”

were dramatically different from the proposals that his party put forward prior to the referendum, and set an important benchmark for the type and level of agreement that must be secured if a commitment is to be delivered on for those who, in good faith, voted no based on the expectation that additional significant powers would be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

I welcome the cabinet secretary’s commitment to full participation in the process. Does he think that the process should be judged at its end, rather than negative comments being made by some people before the process has even begun?

I do not know why Mr Brown feels the need to raise that issue with me. I am the epitome of positivity in all my contributions to the debate. I had thought that Mr Brown would have moved on from his narrative from before the referendum. I say to Mr Brown that we are all positive now.

My next positive remark is that I welcome the terms of reference that Lord Smith published yesterday. He said that he is to

“facilitate an inclusive engagement process across Scotland to produce, by 30 November 2014, Heads of Agreement with recommendations for further devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament.”

The key word is “inclusive”. We have excited—my goodness! Imagine the word “excited” being used in reference to politics and the Parliament—a tremendous amount of democratic engagement, as the Presiding Officer properly said before the debate commenced yesterday. The real test is whether we can capture the enthusiasm, ambition and energy that were represented by the mammoth turnout in the referendum, and ensure that the settlement that will be proposed by Lord Smith captures those ambitions and gives people in Scotland confidence that, despite the fact that my side of the argument was unsuccessful last Thursday, the Parliament’s powers will be decisively enhanced with the purpose of enabling us to address the challenges and issues that are faced by the people of our country.

14:47  

Last week’s referendum was the biggest exercise of popular sovereignty in Scotland’s history. As John Swinney has just said, record numbers of people registered to vote and record numbers took part.

I met some inspiring voters who were born a century or more ago, when only adult male householders over the age of 21 had the right to vote. They were determined that their voices be heard. Many other voters, such as my younger daughter lona, were born in the past 17 years, after we agreed in our previous referendum that there should be a Scottish Parliament. Every vote in last week’s referendum was of equal value and, in response to the question whether Scotland should be an independent country, a clear majority voted no.

Scotland and England have shared a common head of state and head of Government for over 400 years, and we have shared a common Parliament for more than 300 years. Last week, for the first time, the whole of the people of Scotland were invited to vote on whether to sustain that union and we, the people of Scotland, have determined for ourselves that our country should continue as part of one United Kingdom.

The 2 million people who voted no were not, as has been suggested, merely the largest minority in an electorate divided among no voters, yes voters and non-voters; they were, rather, a clear majority of those who chose to take part. Alex Salmond yesterday described the Scottish assembly referendum of 1979 as “a botched job” because non-voters were counted as if they were against the majority view, with the result that

“the side that gained the most votes was unable to have its wishes put into effect.”—[Official Report, 23 September 2014; c 3.]

Those who lost last week’s vote should not make the same mistake that was made in 1979. They should accept the result as the sovereign will of the people of Scotland, expressed by a clear majority of those who chose to exercise their sovereign rights.

The idea of popular sovereignty has deep roots in Scottish history. The community of the realm of the 1300s or the 1600s was a much smaller and more limited elite than the mass electorate of today, or even that of 1914. The point about popular sovereignty is that it is the final word. Those who support the sovereignty of the people must not then pick apart the results to find a narrative that suits them better.

Two million people voted for Scotland to stay in the union. They did so because that, in their judgment, was the best direction for Scotland to take. They were not “gulled” or “tricked” into making that judgment; nor did they do so only in response to the issues that got most attention in the short campaign. Polish voters in Aberdeen, for example, voted for Scotland to remain in the UK for much the same reasons as most other Aberdonians voted no.

Will the member give way?

I will give way in a moment.

They, too, value the benefits of Scotland’s membership of the wider British union. Yesterday’s claim that Poles voted no through fear is an insult to their intelligence and a slur on the integrity of those who argued that our nations are better together.

There were many, many Poles in Aberdeen who were threatened by no campaigners that they would be deported if there were a yes vote. Those threats were so severe that the yes campaign wrote to many Polish voters. Does Lewis Macdonald deny that that happened?

Kevin Stewart would have done himself a favour by accepting the proposition that I put to him: voters, of whatever ethnic group or national origin, made a decision on the basis of the information that was in front of them, and did so with an intelligent understanding of the issues that were at stake.

Fear and lies!

Mr Stewart, stop shouting across the chamber.

It is equally wrong to claim that pensioners voted for the union only because they were misled, or that they failed to take into account the interests of future generations. Denunciations of older voters should have no place in the discourse of a modern democratic society. The wisdom and experience of elders is highly valued in many cultures around the world, in part because older people think more than most about what the world will be like after they have gone. It was precisely because of what they judged to be in the best interests of their children and grandchildren that so many older people voted for Scotland to stay in the British union. Future generations will be grateful for their maturity and judgment in doing so.

The truth is that all those who had a vote had a choice before them: independence or a self-governing Scotland within the UK. More than 55 per cent of those who voted chose devolution, not independence. That majority included majorities in most age groups and most local council areas, but Scotland was for this purpose one constituency, and the will of the Scottish people as a whole has been made clear.

The commitments that have been given by the Labour Party and other parties over recent weeks and months will lay the basis for future devolution, which will be delivered following next year’s election.

Alex Salmond said last week that he accepts the verdict of the people, and called on everyone else who had campaigned for Scottish independence to do the same. I am glad that Nicola Sturgeon this morning made a commitment to work with others on developing proposals for further devolution.

I know how tough it can be to lose at the end of a hard-fought campaign; it is easy for a person to believe that they are entitled to win because they think that they have made their case. It is easier still to go into denial or to look for someone to blame when one falls at the final hurdle. However, we all need to accept and move on from last week’s clear decision and work together across parties to secure the changes in our country that will make it an even better place.

14:54  

One of the many positive aspects of the campaign was the sheer level of engagement. Members of our communities engaged at all levels. Whether through social media, at public meetings or by watching the big television debates, people were extremely interested in the debate. Who would not be interested in the biggest and most important debate that Scotland has ever had?

It was a busy campaign, regardless of whether you were on the yes or no side. I am quite sure that energy drink sales went through the roof, with many campaigners drinking them all the time; indeed, I am trying to get many team Paisley members off of what is, by this stage, almost an addiction.

I am glad to say that the people of Paisley voted yes. Paisley is a yes town. Traditional working-class areas wanted independence for Scotland. People in Glenbar, Foxbar, Paisley’s east end and Ferguslie Park, where turnout is traditionally low, came out in massive numbers to vote for radical change. That is the type of engagement that we, as politicians, must embrace. We must ensure that those people continue to feel powerful and continue to want to engage. They felt that their vote would make a difference. My fellow buddies embraced the change that was being offered and wanted to go for a different system in the future. I hope that the Westminster elite remember that when they make their decisions.

Yesterday, we had many campaigning stories. Young people shook our hands on their way to school and we were congratulated at polling stations for the work that we were doing. A young man who had visited the Parliament shouted at me in the street. He said, “It’s Georgie boy—let’s talk to him.” He told me how he was voting. Matthew, who works for me, asked what other politician is treated that way in the streets of Paisley, but I take such treatment as a compliment. [Interruption.] Someone said that there is no one else called George in Paisley. I experienced an awkward moment when a young voter from Paisley grammar school came up to me and said that she wanted to take a selfie. While she was taking the picture, she said, “I adore you, George.” I found that quite awkward and creepy, but it just shows the extent to which 16 and 17-year-old voters got engaged with the process.

Some young women from Paisley—the Paisley girls—spoke to Ed Miliband and Douglas Alexander about child poverty. They recorded the meeting. As well as asking Mr Miliband about child poverty, they told him that they intended to vote for independence and asked what he could offer them and their children for the future. Mr Miliband looked at them blankly and Douglas Alexander tried desperately to explain Labour’s position. One of the young women said, “You’re paying for Trident and I can’t get a house in Paisley.” That is the kind of issue that they discussed. Those young women saw independence as a way forward.

On a number of occasions, we saw the Margo mobile and Jim Sillars. It was great to campaign with him again. It reminded me of my younger days—in 1988, I campaigned with Iain Lawson, Gil Paterson and Jim Sillars in a snappy bus. It was good to go to areas such as Morar Drive in Foxbar, which was bedecked in yes posters. People in those areas, which have traditionally had low turnouts, were desperate to get radical change.

The sheer magnitude of the campaign of the yes activists, who worked with members of the Scottish Socialist Party and the Green Party, was fantastic. On the Saturday after the referendum, I was on my second pint in my local bar when a woman came up to me and said, “George, can you ask Alex Salmond why he has given up as First Minister when he was the person—along with Nicola Sturgeon—who convinced me to vote yes?” [Laughter.]

Settle down.

Who can forget that thousands of people from all over the county walked through the streets of Paisley in blue and white carrying their yes banners? They wanted to make a difference and they knew how important what was happening was. Locally, we are ensuring that we engage with all the people who were part of the campaign. We have to keep them politicised. We must ensure that they do not get fed up and feel disenfranchised as the Westminster elite think that it is business as usual and go back to their traditional games.

Yesterday at the Labour Party conference, it was almost as if the referendum had not really happened and there was a desire to carry on with Westminster’s games. This is not a game. We are dealing with people’s lives. Whether people voted yes or no, they voted for change. What has happened to the vow that was made? Let us talk about that vow. Surely it was not like a Lib Dem pledge—surely it meant something. Under that vow, the three no parties agreed that

“the Scottish parliament is permanent and extensive new powers for the parliament will be delivered by the process and to the timetable agreed and announced by our three parties, starting on 19 September”.

I think that that timetable is a wee bit behind, because things started to change on the morning of 19 September.

All that I am saying is that Scotland demands change, just as my constituency demands change. My constituents and I will be watching the elite in the Westminster establishment as they make the relevant decisions over the next few years. They have to do something; it is not business as usual.

Thank you, Mr Adam. After hearing that story about your constituent’s adoration, I can say only that there is no accounting for taste. [Laughter.]

15:00  

Is it okay for me to start, Presiding Officer? I did not want to interrupt you while you were in full flow. I am not sure, but I think that George Adam might be making a point of order—or at least having a few words—later on.

It was great and fantastic to see so many engaged in Scotland’s future and what it meant to them, and I thank everyone most sincerely for their work. There were people who were involved in political parties, and those who were involved in none; there were the local communities; and there were groups such as women for independence, radical independence, generation yes, the national collective and Labour for independence. There were many more, and I apologise for forgetting some. All I can say is that they were inspiring. There were the pop-up cafes that popped up everywhere, the street stalls, the public meetings and the debates that took place in pubs, on buses, in subways and on the street. The place was alive; the campaign was compelling, and it was great to be a part of it.

Glasgow, in particular, was awash with yes campaigners, yes window posters and events that were all—and I mean all—conducted with great humour, positivity and confidence. Indeed, confidence is the word that should be used. It was fantastic not only to watch what was going on but to ask people to become engaged and go out and vote, and I am very proud that not only my Kelvin constituency but my home city of Glasgow delivered a resounding yes for Scotland.

Our job now is to continue our engagement with people and ensure that they continue to take part and become even more involved. In fact, one of the central planks of the yes campaign was not only to get and keep people involved in the campaign but to push them forward in their involvement. The genie is out of the bottle, and it will not go back in.

We now have to think about what we are going to do with the confidence that the people of Scotland have put in the campaign, particularly now that the vow is, as John Swinney so eloquently made clear a few minutes ago, unravelling before our eyes. How, given the month-long purdah, were those who made the vow allowed to make what I would call false promises three days before the referendum? The vow is unravelling, and I hope that work will be carried out and things will come forward.

The better together parties will pay a heavy price for what they did in the campaign. In fact, they are already doing so, as it appears that the membership of the Scottish National Party is now greater than the membership of the Labour, Tory and Lib Dem parties in the whole of Scotland.

As for the no campaign—or, I should say, the misinformation and fear campaign—which was led by the Labour Party in particular, it is absolutely true that pensioners, vulnerable people and our migrant communities were frightened. I have never seen such a campaign or people stoop so low. Pensioners were told that they would not get their pensions and that they had better stock up on food. However, a letter from the Department for Work and Pensions that I gave to all pensioners groups made it clear that nothing was going to happen. That letter says:

“If Scotland does become Independent this will have no effect on your State Pension”.

Why was that not put out in the media? Why did the television companies not cover that? It was left to activists to tell pensioners. It was disgraceful.

Vulnerable people—people with learning difficulties who were on disability allowance—were told on their doorsteps that their benefits would stop. Imagine stooping so low as to say that to vulnerable people.

Polish migrants and others were told that they would no longer be able to stay in Scotland. How can those involved hold their heads up when they said that to people? They should be holding their heads in shame. It was not a victory; there was absolute misinformation, and people should be ashamed of themselves.

I ask again: why was that not represented in the media? Why did the media not cover that? We really have to look at that. I thank the Sunday Herald for printing the truth of the matter. The rest of the media have to look inward at themselves. They have to look at how they produced and projected the referendum.

The referendum was not fair; misinformation and fear went out. In fact, pensioners have come to me and said that they were—

Will the member take an intervention?

No, I will not.

We have got the result. I said to the many young activists who hung their heads at the count on Friday morning that they have nothing to be ashamed of. They worked as hard as possible, and the yes campaign was fantastic. Labour members are the ones who have to look at themselves. They did nothing. They relied on fear and the British state to do their work for them, and that will come back to haunt them.

15:06  

I want to make a forward-looking and constructive contribution to the debate.

I genuinely welcome both what John Swinney said in his speech and the tone in which he said it. He said quite clearly that the Scottish Government intends to participate fully in the process with Lord Smith of Kelvin. I welcome that entirely and think that that is the right approach.

John Swinney also said that

“we are all positive now”.

The previous couple of contributions that we have heard completely contradicted that statement. Of course, John Swinney had no control over the speeches that have just been made but it is really important that if we are all—as Scotland and the UK—to get the most out of the process, good will and the best endeavours of all the unionist parties, the Scottish Government, the Green Party and, indeed, civic Scotland and the people of Scotland will be needed. John Swinney in particular has a great deal to add to the process via his experience with the land and buildings transaction tax, the landfill tax and the Scottish rate of income tax so far.

It is critical that the Scottish Government means what it says when it says that it will participate fully. We cannot affect what was said at the weekend, what has been said over the course of this week and even what has been said this afternoon, but it is important that the Scottish Government stands by what Mr Swinney said, does not snipe from the sidelines on the process, and does not criticise it before it has begun. If the Scottish Government does not like the outcome and does not think that the process has delivered over time, I am sure that it will say so, but it is quite wrong to criticise it and say that it is not delivering before it has started. It is critical that the Scottish Government puts everything into the process.

Can the member clarify for us or assure us that, once the three parties at Westminster have reached an agreement on what powers should be devolved, they would be willing to negotiate on that position and that it would not be a fixed position that the SNP or the Government would have to accept?

John Mason has seen exactly what I have seen over the past week. Within an hour of the referendum result being obvious, the Prime Minister made a formal statement to the country and appointed the hugely respected Lord Smith of Kelvin, who is respected by the Scottish Government for his youth unemployment work, which led to the appointment of Angela Constance, and for his work with the Commonwealth games. He is equally respected by the UK Government for his work with the Green Investment Bank. From his statement yesterday, he has made it clear that he is speaking to the five largest parties in Scotland, but he intends to go outside the political process in forming views and ultimately a recommendation. We should all welcome that. Again, I have to say that it is really important that, if the process is to succeed and if it has any prospect of delivering for Scotland, everybody has to get on board, and we must not snipe from the sidelines before it has fully begun.

There is another message that I wanted to push forward. The eyes of the world were on Scotland last week, but they are still on it and they will be on it for the foreseeable future, and it is really important that the Scottish Government makes it very clear in early course that Scotland is open for business. There has been uncertainty over the past couple of months and some investment decisions have been put on hold because of the referendum.

Which ones?

There was a report in the Edinburgh Evening News on Monday regarding the sale of the former Point hotel in Edinburgh, for which a specific clause in the contract had said that the sale of the hotel would go ahead only if the result of the referendum was a no vote. That is just one example, but we know from the property market that a number of property sales included referendum clauses. We know that investment has been put on hold in some cases and it would be better for the cabinet secretary to make it very clear that Scotland is open for business than to question some of the facts and evidence out there.

We have heard statements from business in the past couple of days. For example, Standard Life said:

“It is now important that we all move forward with respect and work together constructively in the best interests of Scotland and the United Kingdom.”

Philip Shaw of Investec said:

“North of the border, it will be important for the Scottish government to assuage the business community there to neutralise any risks that the independence debate tempted some companies to redomicile or transfer some of their operations to England or Wales.”

I do not know who is closing the debate for the Scottish Government, but I would welcome a formal statement from the Government that Scotland is open for business and that it will do all in its power to help our economy grow.

Will the member take an intervention?

The member is in his last minute.

More than ever, economic growth has a direct impact on the Scottish Government’s budget. Whether it involves the land and buildings transaction tax, which comes into force in April next year, or the Scottish rate of income tax, which will come into force in 2016, there will be a direct impact on our budget if we get this wrong.

Perhaps there is one way in which the Scottish Government could begin. In every year that I have been a member of this Parliament, the first meeting after the summer recess has had an announcement of a programme for government. The very first action of the Scottish Government after the recess has been to stand up and tell the chamber and Scotland at large what bills will happen during the next year and what the Government’s plan is for the next year. However, as far as I am aware we will not have an announcement of a programme for government this week or next week, and I do not think that parliamentary business has been finalised for the week after that. It is critical that the Government tells us today when we will have a programme for government so that everyone can see that Scotland is genuinely open for business.

15:12  

I wonder whether Gavin Brown believes that Scotland was closed for business. As I recall, we have had record high inward investment in Scotland over the past year and record investment in oil and gas. That is not being closed for business—Scotland has been open for business and remains open for business.

I heard Ross Martin of the Scottish Council for Development and Industry say this morning that the UK and Scottish Governments should work together. My understanding is that Scotland did not stop working with the Westminster Government. Perhaps that Government had closed its ears to the needs of Scotland and Scotland’s people.

I associate myself with the cabinet secretary’s comments this afternoon and I endorse everything that he said. I was slightly concerned by the tone of Lewis Macdonald’s contribution to the debate. He is asking us to work together, put aside our differences and accept the referendum result—which I do—but I was concerned about his tone. When my colleague and friend Kevin Stewart asked Mr Macdonald about the accusations with regard to the Polish immigrants in Aberdeen, Mr Macdonald would not deny that there had been a fear campaign in Aberdeen. I would not subscribe to any fear campaign or any such behaviour at all.

I have come back to the chamber enthused and excited, but I was enthused and excited before I left for the purdah period. That was partly because the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee had a fantastic session in which not just politicians but people from civic Scotland and all the industries were invited to talk about their aspirations for Scotland whether there was a yes vote or a no vote at the end of the day. We were energised and excited by that, and I believe that I still am.

Part of that is because the people of Scotland came out in droves. Some 85 per cent of the people wanted to take part in the decision-making process, and the 16 and 17-year-olds who came out to vote for the first time energised and enthused many other people, perhaps encouraging their parents to go out and vote—again, maybe for the first time.

I was in the Kintore polling office, and two young girls in their school uniforms came out skipping and singing. They had been voting for the first time. I have no idea which way they voted, but their enthusiasm and excitement was something to behold. At another polling station I was advised that a gentleman had come in and voted for the first time. He was 66. Again, I have no idea which way he voted, but he felt compelled to come out on this occasion to vote. We have a lot to be proud of. We should be proud of our people, who came out to vote and to take Scotland forward. It is a Scotland for change and a Scotland that will go in a different direction.

Presiding Officer, I say to you and to members in the chamber that I am not and do not believe that I have ever been a narrow-minded nationalist. I believe that I am someone who has great vision for this country, for its future and for the people of Scotland. I believe that the constituency that I represent has enormous potential for Scotland. With the oil and gas industry and renewables in the north-east, we are world leaders.

I come from a very mixed constituency. There is great affluence within the constituency that I represent. I represent royal Deeside—and I have no idea what Her Majesty was actually thinking with regard to the referendum, despite what Mr Cameron says. However, my constituency also has parts that are not so affluent, and I think that those areas were looking towards Scotland and looking towards the yes campaign to give them self-belief and perhaps an opportunity to move forward, too.

I was enthused and excited during the campaign, and I remain enthused and excited, because I believe that we have an opportunity to move forward. It is not that we are better together. We are better when we work for the people of Scotland.

15:17  

As many speakers have emphasised, there is a great deal to celebrate in what has happened in Scotland in the past few weeks, particularly the turnout and the level of the political engagement, but I do have some regrets. I will mention only one, because I do not really want to dwell on the past, but I regret the polarisation that we saw. It was to some extent inevitable, but I think that it was intensified by the tendency to invent the enemy rather than respect the other side.

What do I mean by that? I suppose that, from my point of view, one of the things that particularly annoyed me was the way that some—I am not saying “all”—yes supporters took upon themselves the mantle of social justice, thought that it was their exclusive preserve and therefore accused many people on the other side of voting for selfish purposes, perhaps, or for their own interest, whereas respect would have required recognition that we, too, believed that what we were doing was in the interests of social justice and equality—we just thought there was a different way of achieving it.

I accept what the member says, but does he accept that, on the whole, it was a case of richer areas voting no and poorer areas voting yes?

I think that that is an overgeneralisation. I am going to come on to that point.

I am not absolving my side from also, sometimes, misrepresenting the other side, but I think that we should let the past be the past. There it is, immutable. What we should concentrate on now is the future—creating a future that does not exist yet but which will be determined by the decisions that we make. Now is the time for respect, for abandoning polarisation, for coming together as much as possible and certainly for nurturing the culture of participation and involvement that was boosted so much by the referendum campaign.

In that context, I welcome much of what Nicola Sturgeon said this morning. I send her my best wishes. I was going to say a few other nice things about her, which she may not have welcomed, but since she has abandoned the debate I will leave that for another day.

I will mention one concern that I have about what Nicola Sturgeon said this morning. She refused to rule out a referendum in the next parliamentary session. That is completely contrary to what the First Minister said during the campaign and to what she said about it being a decision for a generation. This morning, it seemed that a political generation might have become a mere five years. I was hoping that Nicola Sturgeon would respond to that point in the winding-up speech that I thought she would make, but someone else might well do so.

Looking forward, the two big issues for us are the new powers that we will receive, and how to make use of them and the powers that we currently have. Important as the new powers are, even more important is how we use all the powers that we will soon have. This is partly a response to John Mason’s point, but I know that many people in the communities that I hold most dear voted yes—by no means all of them did so, but many of them did. I believe that they did that in the hope of more social justice. The challenge for us is to start delivering that social justice with the powers that we have now and those that we will soon acquire.

For example, why is there no poverty and inequality assessment of all the policies in all the legislation that we look at in this Parliament?

I understand what the member is saying, but we do not have the powers to change welfare reform, which is impacting on some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

Yes, but I regret that all we hear about during the debate around social justice and equality is what we cannot do. We need to concentrate far more on what we can do.

I am a bit surprised at Malcolm Chisholm’s remarks about the lack of an equalities assessment, given that he knows that, every year, I publish an equalities impact assessment of all the Government’s budget measures. That assessment summarises the impact of the entirety of public expenditure that is under our control.

Of course I know that, but there is no focus on poverty and inequality, and that is what I was referring to.

To give one other example, much as I support more devolution to local government, why are there not more national initiatives to combat poverty and disadvantage, such as the fairer Scotland fund, which the current Government abolished?

Issues of social justice and equality are going to be my number 1 priority for my last 18 months in this Parliament. I know that they will also be the number 1 priority of the Labour group in the Parliament, and I hope that they will become the number 1 priority of the Scottish Government.

I have one minute left in which to deal with powers, so I will say two things. First, there is a clear timetable and, contrary to what Sandra White said, there will be delivery in accordance with that timetable. Secondly—this is something that I have noted in the comments of many yes supporters in the past few days—what was promised by the leaders and Gordon Brown was not devo max. I can see that some people are trying to set this up: if it is not devo max, the leaders will have reneged on their promise. They never promised devo max. We know that Gordon Brown does not support devo max. Everybody knows that none of the better together parties supports devo max. Devo max does not exist anywhere in the world.

Members: Oh!

Order.

I certainly support extensive fiscal and other powers coming to the Scottish Parliament. I might not be entirely satisfied with the level of devolution that is delivered, but I will certainly welcome it. Devolution is a process, not an event. It is a process that we can continue because of the no vote last week.

I know that, in the very near future, we will have the start of a semi-autonomous state within a fiscally federal UK, and I hope that everyone in the chamber will welcome that.

15:24  

Like other members, I congratulate all those who participated in the democratic process, whichever way they voted. Most of my speech will focus on the 2 million Scots who voted no, but I start by thanking the 1.6 million Scots who voted yes and who went to the polls with hope in their hearts. I am truly sorry that those hopes were dashed.

I welcome Lord Smith’s appointment and I implore him to remember those 1.6 million people—the 45 per cent. He must include the wider grass-roots yes campaign in his discussions, not just the political parties.

I draw members’ attention to my entry in the register of members’ interests. It states that I write a column for the Daily Record, which published the infamous vow by the leaders of the three main unionist parties before the vote. The vow was presented as offering substantial powers to the Scottish Parliament. Surveys such as the 2013 Scottish social attitudes survey show that 63 per cent of Scots favour either independence or the devolution of all powers except defence and foreign affairs, and the vow was sold as delivering that. The Daily Record said that

“all three UK party leaders”

are

“now committed to offering devo-max powers to Scotland.”

The Edinburgh Evening News, which serves a city where the no vote was above the national average, said:

“Vote No, and we get more say on our own affairs through devo max.”

Other papers made similar statements.

The vow had an effect, as did the intervention of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown a week earlier. We know that from the Ashcroft poll of 2,000 voters, which was conducted on 18 and 19 September. It found that one in four of those who voted no did so mainly because they believed that more powers were coming to the Scottish Parliament.

I am absolutely sure that more and substantial powers will come. Joan McAlpine has quoted newspapers. Can she quote any politician involved at the time using the words “devo max”?

On Monday 8 September in his speech to Loanhead miners welfare club, Gordon Brown said that the status quo was “no longer an option” and that his proposal was

“like home rule in the UK. We would be moving quite close to something near to federalism in a country where 85 per cent of the population is from one nation.”

The author and Better Together donor Joanne Rowling clearly believed that she was putting her money on devo max. On 6 September she tweeted that she would back anyone who delivered devo max, and on 10 September she tweeted to her 3.7 million followers on Twitter:

“In the event of a no vote we are now being offered home rule plus economic advantages of union.”

Whether it is called home rule, devo max or federalism, that offer goes well beyond the existing offers from the unionist parties.

Malcolm Chisholm says there is no example of devo max in the world. In Europe, the Basque Country is regarded as having a devo max system. The regional Government there raises and retains its own revenue and gives a quota back to Madrid to cover defence and foreign affairs.

The word “federalism” has been used, too, so let us look at examples of that system. Alberta in Canada, for example, has access to a share of its oil revenue, as do Texas and Alaska in the United States. The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act stipulates that 37.5 per cent of all revenues from offshore oil in the Gulf states are to be shared with the states of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. Of course, Scotland gets none of its oil revenue and none of the unionist parties plans offer us a share.

It was not just the vow and Gordon Brown that influenced no voters. The Ashcroft poll shows that the biggest reasons for voting no were concerns about economic wellbeing. Throughout the campaign, the UK Treasury produced material that claimed that Scotland would be economically better off in the UK. As I recall, the figure for the union dividend that Danny Alexander used was £1,400 a head. We on the yes side disputed that figure. I do not want to rerun the arguments of the referendum campaign, but the union dividend depends on the Barnett formula remaining in place. Let us not forget, the Barnett formula was a sop to Scots in the 1970s, designed to compensate us for the loss of our oil revenues. Only via true devo max could Barnett be scrapped in a way that would not leave Scotland worse off, which would mean allocating 100 per cent of the taxes raised here in Scotland.

Last December, the Prime Minister wrote to the First Minister to dismiss suggestions of any threat to Barnett. The vow also said that the Barnett formula would remain in place, which was a repetition of promises made by better together politicians at every level of the campaign. I recall lots of local debates that I had with David Mundell MP in which he accused me of scaremongering when I suggested that there was a threat to Barnett.

This week, The Times has reported a Downing Street source saying that Barnett will not be retained in its current form, and Tory and Labour MPs are lining up to demand that Scotland’s funding is cut. Without Barnett or true devo max there is no union dividend. We could lose £4 billion from our budget, which would force us to raise taxes to make up the shortfall. If that happens, thousands of people will have been misled into casting a vote for no. The unionist parties now have a moral obligation to stand by their promises to the electorate. If they fail and break their solemn vows and promises there will be, in the words of Billy Connolly, “hell to pay”.

15:30  

Here we are. Six days have already passed since we—the people who live here—voted no to Scotland becoming an independent country. It is important to specify that we, the people who live here in Scotland, voted no. A majority of the people—55 per cent—voted no. We voted no. Yet, after the First Minister’s statement yesterday and the cabinet secretary’s speech today, this side of the chamber seems to be serene, positive and full of energy while the political parties that decided to campaign against independence look deflated and unhappy. Who would have thought that a resigning First Minister would have a spring in his step? This North East Scotland MSP is as positive about the future as the Aberdeenshire East MSP with whom I share an office.

I have witnessed how much the member for Aberdeenshire East is loved across the north-east. I can describe the experience of campaigning with him in the last few weeks in his constituency—in Inverurie, Turriff, Ellon, Newmachar and so on—only as like being in a huge flash mob. People—yes voters, no voters, SNP members and others—all wanted to thank the First Minister for giving us the opportunity to rediscover democracy.

I could not do this yesterday, so I will do it today. I add my personal thanks to Alex Salmond, our leader, and the man who changed Scotland for ever and, more importantly, for the better. I look forward to working alongside the MSP for Aberdeenshire East, as long as he stops going on about his successful Beyoncé diet.

People of the north-east will not be surprised to hear that I also look forward to joining #teamsturgeon. Nicola Sturgeon has come many times to the north-east. She filled a room of more than 300 people in Inverurie, where we ran out of chairs. We campaigned in Stonehaven, together with Nigel Don and Maureen Watt, and we ran out of umbrellas. Nicola Sturgeon also stopped in Aberdeen, on Union Street, to support all the groups for yes that emerged in the campaign. Again, just as with our First Minister, our Deputy First Minister ran out of time to speak to everyone who came to greet her.

Who in the no campaign can claim to have received such a welcome? David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Johann Lamont knew better not to be seen in the streets of the north-east of Scotland. I look forward to our incoming First Minister’s many visits to the north-east.

I am immensely proud of the campaign in the north-east—a campaign that not only energised people but empowered them. Yesterday, Mark MacDonald MSP spoke about the indy quines, and I agree that Gillian Martin, her sister Lindsay and many more north-east women made a fantastic contribution to the campaign.

I read online that Gillian Martin will be featured in a documentary called “And Then You Win” on how the people of Scotland—and women in particular—have built the biggest grass-roots campaign that Scotland has seen in living memory.

Other groups made a massive contribution in the campaign, reaching people who we politicians have failed to reach over the years. The national collective has been a revelation to many—a revelation that politics should not be left to politicians. Ross, David and Alex, from my wee town of Westhill, were at the forefront of the movement that challenged us all to imagine a better Scotland. The people of generation yes are not going anywhere. They are not going back to eat their cereal.

I would like to mention the many people who have been active on both sides of the debate in the past two years. I am proud to have shared a platform many times with Kenny Anderson from Business for Scotland, a group that is keeping up its work after the referendum. Articulate, inspiring and with facts to hand, Kenny, like Gillian and many others, would make a real difference if they were sitting in this chamber and I dare say would make a fantastic contribution on the green benches of Westminster as early as next year.

Online, in the streets, at public meetings, on the doorsteps, at work or at home, the debate has been electrifying and I understand why the people of Scotland never want to feel politically disenfranchised again. We have shown the world with the fantastic turnout of 3.6 million people that, for democracy to stay alive, it must be exercised.

More powers for Scotland is a must and my vow to the 2 million who voted no because they wanted more powers from Westminster is that I will do all that I can to get those powers.

My advice to the many disenfranchised people in England who do not have a voice is to choose a candidate who will empower them with policies such as extending the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds as early as in the 2015 general election and to people such as me—European Union nationals who live in the United Kingdom. Some members know that I do not have a vote in next year’s elections. My advice is also to support a candidate with policies such as getting rid of Trident or addressing the democratic deficit in the UK by establishing an English Parliament similar to the Scottish Parliament.

We all have a voice and most of us have a vote, which people should use to become what they want to be. It seems that, today, everyone in Scotland wants to be a member of the SNP.

The summer of independence may be over but the age of self-determination has only just begun. We watched the Arab spring on our televisions and the world has witnessed the Scottish summer, so let us encourage the rest of the people in the western world to engage with politics like never before.

15:36  

In 2011, 61,964 electors cast their votes in the parliamentary constituencies of Dumfriesshire, and Galloway and West Dumfries. Last week, 106,653 people—87.5 per cent of the registered electorate—cast their votes in the referendum, of whom 70,039 voted for Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, more people in Dumfries and Galloway voted no than voted for all the parties in the most recent Scottish Parliament election. Our sampling at the count suggests that, in the Dumfriesshire constituency, support for no ran at over 70 per cent. That is not surprising considering our closeness to the border and our links with Carlisle which, as I have said in previous speeches, is our closest city and the city to which we look for work, leisure and transport connectivity.

I accept the figures that Elaine Murray cites, but will she accept that the gap between the Dumfries and Galloway yes vote and the national average for the yes vote closed by 8 points on the 1997 figure? We are 8 points closer to the national average for the yes vote than we were in 1997.

The vote in 1997 was rather different from the one this year.

Over the many months of the campaign, it became clear to me that the majority of my constituents supported our remaining part of the United Kingdom—not because they were scared, but because they could see positive benefits from membership of the UK and our close association with Cumbria and Carlisle. The changes that could come through increased devolution at local level in Scotland and England can lead to better co-operation across the Solway basin, and to economic development that would benefit both sides of the border.

When the First Minister announced his resignation on Friday, I felt that he was taking the honourable course, notwithstanding his references to holding feet to the fire, which I find to be a rather unpleasant analogy. It cannot have been an easy decision for him, and although I strongly disagree with his views on the best constitutional arrangements for Scotland, no one can doubt the sincerity of his passion for his country. I will miss being told at First Minister’s questions that I will be the “first person to welcome” some success of the SNP Government. I expect that Ms Sturgeon will develop her own put-down lines.

Some of the First Minister’s statements, and those of others, since then have caused me greater concern. A lot of assertions have been made regarding how different sections of Scottish society voted, many of which are based on Lord Ashcroft’s post-referendum poll. Some of the data are based on very small samples—only 14 16 and 17-year-olds and only 84 18 to 24-year-olds, for example—so I doubt whether much credibility can be attached to the results.

I also appreciate that supporters of independence are extremely disappointed and angered by last week’s result. That has been clear from some of the speeches in the debate and, indeed, from the torrent of abuse that I received on social media for suggesting that we could work together in Scotland.

Like Lewis Macdonald, I also find it disturbing that certain sections of the electorate—older voters, for example—are being blamed for the result. Over the months, I spoke to voters over 55 and over 65 who thought long and hard about how they should vote on the basis of what was best for their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, not of what was best for them.

I agree that we all want to move on. However, on the scaremongering tactics that led people to those decisions, can Elaine Murray remind us—she is surely aware of the pensions guarantee letter from the Department for Work and Pensions—just how many better together billboards said, “Don’t put your pension at risk”?

I have never scaremongered and, all through the campaign, I respected the views of people who disagreed with me, even if they did not respect my views.

With regard to 16 and 17-year-olds voting in elections, Labour has already agreed to that. The referendum has demonstrated why those young people should permanently join the franchise, because the engagement of 16 and 17-year-olds—whether it was through school hustings, in the streets or on polling day itself—was encouraging and refreshing.

Last Thursday, I was outside one of the polling stations—

Will Elaine Murray take an intervention?

No. I have had enough, thank you.

I was outside a polling station when the school bus left in the afternoon. The passengers were obviously excited to see the activity around the polling station. Some put their thumbs up when they saw me; others put other fingers up, although I think that it was probably meant in a cheerful way. Some who voted on the way home from school did not quite get the nature of a secret ballot and eagerly shouted out their voting intentions as they entered the polling place.

On the central issue of further powers for the Scottish Parliament, there has been an attempt to portray UK politicians as having reneged on that. Ed Miliband, for one, has made it quite clear that he is not going to do so. However, David Cameron’s attempt last weekend to make further devolution for Scotland dependent on a timetable for English devolution was ridiculous. It would be a nonsense to link the process with devolution in England. Powers for a Scottish Parliament have been discussed in various forms for several decades, but there have been no such discussions about how devolution in England could work. That is why there should be a constitutional convention on English devolution after the next general election. However, progress on Scottish devolution must start now and must progress according to the promised timetable.

Finally, we must not make the mistake of thinking that further powers for the Scottish Parliament is the end of the story. This Scottish Government has centralised power, resulting in parts of Scotland—including Dumfries and Galloway—feeling remote from Edinburgh. That, too, has to change: devolution must also involve ceding power from Edinburgh to local authorities and enabling local people to have real influence on local decision making. That is the way forward to a bright future for Scotland, for its regions and for the UK. This is, indeed, the dawn of a new era. This is an exciting new chapter in the story of devolution in the UK. Personally, I think that it is a great privilege to be part of it.

15:42  

At around 6.30 am on Friday morning, after the referendum result had become clear, I received a text from my sister that I want to share. Emily is my 9-year-old niece, and my sister’s oldest daughter, Beth, is 14.

“Emily just woke up. Her first two words were, ‘mummy, Independence?’ ‘No, darling.’ ‘Is it not?’ was her reply. Just found out my oldest daughter joined the SNP. Paid £2 for the privilege. Well done Glasgow and West Dunbartonshire you all worked extremely hard. I have never seen the Vale like this before!”—

That is my home town—

“Even when mum voted”—

she is very frail—

“in her slippers I was very proud of her Robert! Try and sleep both of you. We are all very proud in this household”.

It made me cry. It made me cry tears of pride, however, not tears of despair.

I tell that story because similar conversations will have been had right across Scotland, as huge numbers—1.6 million people—voted for a positive vision to empower the Scottish people, enhance all our futures and win our nation’s independence. There seems to be a suggestion from some people in the no campaign that such a huge groundswell of aspiration and hope for the Scottish people will simply melt away. It will not and it has not. Do not underestimate the civic pride that is felt by those in our truly amazing grass-roots campaign. Be in no doubt that it will grow, strengthen and prosper. The realisation of many people—including, I suspect, many who voted no—is that the natural end point shall be an independent Scotland.

Let me also be clear that I accept the verdict of the people of Scotland that they are not, as yet, ready for Scottish independence. They were ready in Glasgow: 53.5 per cent wanted to see our nation become independent. I focused my efforts on the campaign in Maryhill and Springburn and I saw wonderful volunteers doing so much to try to make our independence dream become a reality: Libby, Ronnie, Blair, Gillian, Fiona and Peter—I could go on and on, listing names.

Those people gave freely of their time—and their heads, hearts and souls—and I am extremely grateful to all those who did so. Fifty-seven per cent of Maryhill and Springburn said a clear yes to Scottish independence. It was the former Labour heartlands that voted yes in a big way in Maryhill and Springburn, despite Labour standing outside polling stations with posters declaring, “Labour Says No”. Labour just did not get the fact that the referendum was about the people of Scotland and not about politicians.

Labour regularly said that the referendum was about Scotland versus Salmond, thereby demonising a man and an independence movement, playing party politics and playing on fears. Such tactics have left Labour with nowhere to go in Glasgow or, I suspect, in Scotland. The party should be thoroughly ashamed of those tactics. However, despite the 57 per cent yes vote in Maryhill and Springburn, it is my democratically elected job to represent all my electorate, including those who voted no across the Glasgow region.

The mandate that was given by the people of Scotland following a no vote, and following the vow that was made by three desperate UK leaders to give substantial further powers, is for the delivery of a powerhouse Parliament within the UK: one that can defend the Scottish people against the attacks that the UK Government now routinely makes on our most vulnerable people. We need a Parliament that not only has extended borrowing powers, but ensures that the wealth that we generate in Scotland is returned directly to Scotland, through full tax powers in this place. We must reinvest that wealth in protecting the most vulnerable people in our society, and not send the wealth that we generate into the hands of a right-wing Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer to decide what is returned.

If devo max is the mandate that has been given, Scotland should retain all its wealth and, if it so decides, sign a cheque back to Westminster for defence and foreign affairs. That is one possible model—although I will always fight for independence—that would let the people of Scotland decide whether the UK is really a good deal or not.

The people of Scotland have given the UK a mandate to deliver on that vow, and if that vow is broken a new mandate should be sought. However, it will not be those in the 45 per cent throughout Scotland who should ask for that renewed mandate: they have made their position clear. Perhaps it will be the 25 per cent of no voters who said that their central reason for voting no was the vow of substantial further powers.

However, it is my duty to make new powers short of independence work as best they can for Scotland. We need to make them work for the 100,000 disabled adults who are at risk from disability living allowance reforms; for the carers who get a raw deal from the UK benefits system; for the sanctioned benefits claimants for whom the system is not humane; and for the mothers who want transformational childcare. The no campaign said that it would work for all those people, and its members have to step up to the plate and prove that they can do so.

When the story of Scotland’s independence movement is written, I have no idea how many pages will be in that book, but I am confident that the final page will say, “Scotland is an independent nation.” That will open a new chapter in Scotland’s history that will see the flourishing of our nation, and realise the vision that all the people of Scotland have for a better future for future generations.

15:48  

Several months ago, on the topic of the referendum, my good friend Mike MacKenzie eloquently put it to me that

“We are lucky to have front row seats in the theatre of history.”

We all did: not just those of us in the chamber, but the many people who were engaged in those theatres in the streets, the houses, the countryside and the pubs, where thousands of players and actors took part with good humour and, in some cases, tears, and with many kindnesses.

On Friday morning, I reminded myself of Henry Ford’s quotation that

“History is more or less bunk”,

but Mike MacKenzie’s position was much more persuasive and tenable than that. We have lived, and we are living, through a major period of history, after which nothing politically, economically and socially in Scotland will ever be the same again.

It is a credit to both sides of the campaign that we have embraced and we are embracing the consequences, and we will embrace the ultimate consequences. It is not finished yet. On Friday, some of us may have been down, but we were definitely not downhearted. On the Monday before the referendum, we held a meeting in the Market inn in Ayr of 100 organisers and team leaders—people from various political parties and associated organisations, and from none. There was a collective vibrancy in pursuit of one overarching aim. On Friday night, we had a party—it was a party—in Ayr town hall, which fortified their view that their team and their cause should continue. However, I congratulate the no side on the outcome, temporary though it may be.

In general, we cannot castigate the Scotland-based press and media, which presumed to a better degree of impartiality, and for which they should be commended. Of course, that approach was not reflected by their colleagues in the London press and other media. A daily wail that suggested that pestilence would spread across the land, that monster mice and birds were invading and that aliens had landed added nothing to the constructive debate that was shared by both sides of the campaign on the ground.

We will each have an event to write in our personal history books. Mine was receiving a ticket to attend a Gordon Brown speech to the Labour—not better together—faithful at Rugby park in Kilmarnock. I was told that it was to start at 11 o’clock. I would not say that I am suspicious and I would not dare to comment on the event organisers’ competence, but I checked elsewhere and found that it was to start at 10.15. I got there from Ayr with minutes to spare, and was stopped at the door while stewards went off to make what they said was a phone call. While that was happening, I was unwittingly shown into the meeting by a young unknowing steward. I had my questions ready, so members will imagine my total despair when, at the end of the meeting, the chairperson said that there were to be no questions. I wonder why. That was democracy at work.

Lewis Macdonald is no longer in the chamber, so I will share with him later some of the details that were not recorded in the press coverage of the meeting. I do not diminish the role that the former Prime Minister played in the result. In my book, the roles that were played by those who were less directly affected and who were involved by others was unforgivable. Let me give two examples of that. Sir Martin Sorrell of WPP, one arm of which is the polling company TNS, warned us about the uncertainty of independence. Given the uncertain future of the quarter of a million children who are living in poverty in Scotland, we should not have received lectures from someone who is sitting on a £30 million annual income.

Secondly, Bob Dudley, the chief executive of BP, predicted uncertainty around oil incomes and longevity. That was just after workers on the monster Clair Ridge field had been given full salary until the end of September and told not to come back until after that. At the same time, BP had just placed in Korea a £150 million order for oil drilling equipment. All that was, of course, coincident with the secret visit by the Prime Minister, with no journalists and no cameras. Apparently, Alistair Carmichael said to a local Shetland journalist that the visit was the best-kept secret west of Shetland. Well, I say to him that it is not a secret now.

The integrity of the campaign on the ground in Scotland on both sides was commendable. However, the noises off stage right, such as the ones that I have just mentioned from those outriders for the Westminster Government, were not.

We now move forward to write another page in the history books. I believe that those in the Scottish body politic will address the proposed new powers, if they determine to do so, not without partiality but with the integrity that I mentioned. I trust that the UK Government will apply the same approach, but I doubt it. It was its allegation—not ours—that oil is declining. It borrowed £120 billion in 2012—the figure would have been £131.5 billion without the oil—and it will have a debt of £1.57 trillion by 2017. Given all that, the UK Government had a duty in the campaign to explain to pensioners, carers, health workers, people who are on benefits and others how it will pay that debt, but it manifestly failed to do so.

Despite those concerns, we accept the verdict. We accept that we cannot rewrite history; we also recognise the continued need to meet aspirations—especially those of the young, many of whom were at that party last Friday.

You must draw to a close.

I am closing now.

As we write the future, we will ensure that a vow is a promise well kept—else the UK Government shall reap what it sows.

15:55  

I welcome John Swinney’s contribution in the opening speech this afternoon. He struck the right tone, making clear his view and the view of the Scottish Government.

John Swinney’s speech was in stark contrast to some of the speeches from his back benchers, during which I have felt as though I was sitting through a therapy session in a support group for people who are suffering. [Laughter.] I understand some of that—[Interruption.] I did not mean that to sound flippant. I have known Sandra White for many years—back to the days of Renfrew District Council—and I know how passionate she is about independence. The issue has driven her all her life. I well understand why people who lost out in the referendum last week are feeling angry, bitter, frustrated and disappointed; that is only natural, and those of us who are on the other side of the debate need to accept that it will take time for some of those feelings to work through.

However, how people are feeling does not excuse the comments of, for example, Christian Allard, who made the threat to Opposition politicians that they had better not be seen in the streets of north-east Scotland. Such contributions have no place here.

I would like to clarify what I said. It was absolutely not a threat. I was saying that the leaders of the Opposition were not seen in the streets of Aberdeen. That is it. I did not say that they are not welcome in the streets of Aberdeen—certainly not.

That is not what I heard. We can check the Official Report to see exactly what the member said.

I suppose that, as part of the anger therapy process, we must listen to Bob Doris say that there

“shall be an independent Scotland”

and then, in the next sentence, “I accept the verdict”. The verdict of the silent majority last week was overwhelmingly that Scotland does not want to leave the United Kingdom. Scotland clearly said no to separation. By all means, SNP members should get it out of their system and express all their feelings and frustration here. However—

Will the member take an intervention?

No, thank you.

However, we need to recognise that we have an endorsement that we have never had previously. It is a positive, historic endorsement. Scotland wants to be part of the United Kingdom. The view of the silent majority needs to be accepted and we need to move on. Alex Salmond said on behalf of the Scottish Government that this was a once-in-a-lifetime referendum, and no one from the Scottish Government or the SNP contradicted him.

If there had been a majority of one vote in favour of independence, we would have had to accept the vote.

Will the member give way?

No, thank you.

However, there has been a decisive majority, by almost 400,000 votes, for the other side. We need to accept that and move on.

Can we move on to what actually happened in the historic referendum and that huge vote across Scotland? Yes, people were voting to stay within the United Kingdom but, as many members said, people were also voting for change. People did not want what is happening just now to continue.

Some people may well have voted for additional powers. However, the majority of the people to whom I spoke who said that they were voting yes—including Labour voters—told me that they were voting against austerity, for better public services and for a better future. They thought that there was something on offer from the yes side.

The majority of voters clearly did not accept the economic and social arguments that were being made by the yes side. However, if we accept for a minute that there is a mood to change, we should be willing to reach out across the parties and work together to make that change happen. On health, let us put aside all the rhetoric about privatisation and so on. No party in this Parliament wants to privatise the health service, so can we all now work together to address the problems that are being confronted by the health service in Scotland? Can we put our collective wit and minds together to come up with solutions? Can we say that young people in this country want the chance of a college education and look at what we can do to make that possible? Can we accept that our local government services are under threat and that financial pressures are faced by the Scottish Government, the UK Government and, indeed, Governments throughout the world? Can we work together to come up with solutions that protect vulnerable people such as those in my constituency whose services have been squeezed because of a lack of money going to them? Can we accept that the people have spoken and now move on and work together to make a reality of the aspiration for a better country?

I call Colin Beattie, after whose speech we will move to the closing speeches.

16:01  

I pay tribute to the First Minister. The Scottish National Party has made incredible strides during the 20 years of his leadership, going from being a party with little elected representation to winning two Scottish Parliament elections in a row, the second of which gave us the mandate for an independence referendum. That has been in no way due to chance; the First Minister’s leadership, his effective partnership with the Deputy First Minister and the policies that have been pursued to make Scotland a more equitable society, even in the light of Westminster’s austerity programmes, have struck a powerful chord with the Scottish electorate. That we were unable to achieve independence this time round speaks not of any failings but of the desperate and, frankly, sometimes unsavoury tactics of Westminster, which foolishly assumed that a no vote was in the bag.

I have been a proud member of the SNP for many years—perhaps even as long as Stewart Stevenson has been—and I have seen capable leaders come and go, yet it is my belief that the First Minister has led the party to its greatest achievements to date. We have only to look at how our membership has risen dramatically since the polls closed last Thursday to see how people are attracted to our ideals. Our overall membership is now more than 58,000—an increase of 33,000 in the past few days—and we are the third biggest party in the UK. I gladly welcome all new members, especially in my role as the party treasurer, and I keenly look forward to both next year’s general election and the Scottish Parliament election in 2016.

One thing that we know from the referendum is that politics in Scotland has changed for the better. We can all be proud of the fact that the Scottish people have never been as engaged in a political event as they were in the lead-up to last Thursday’s polls. A truly incredible 97 per cent of the electorate registered to vote and the turnout reached almost 85 per cent. To put that in perspective, the turnouts at the 1979 and 1997 referendums were 63 per cent and 60 per cent respectively. The vast majority of people in Scotland were clearly energised and involved in the debate.

When voters were asked whether they felt that deciding Scotland’s future was something of which they could be proud, 82 per cent said yes once the don’t knows were excluded. Conversations over the referendum sprang up everywhere, from trains and buses to pubs, clubs, golf courses and football matches, and Scotland can take pride in its ability to hold a largely mature and sensible debate among its citizens. I believe that we provided a democratic model for the world to follow.

The statistics show that the yes campaign’s use of social media was not only innovative but a key factor in reaching a new demographic. While almost all the traditional forms of media advocated a no vote, the yes campaign successfully utilised Facebook and received more than 322,000 page likes compared with the 219,000 that the better together campaign received. The yes campaign also secured 100,000 followers on Twitter compared with the better together campaign’s 40,000 followers. We harnessed our social media skills to engage the wider electorate. It is clear that, by using that method, we were able to bypass editorial bias and Westminster pressure to get across our message plainly and simply.

Allowing young people to take part in the referendum is a step that should be extended to all elections. I met many 16 and 17-year-olds, speaking to groups of up to 150. It was hugely satisfying to discuss independence and other issues with them. I was told by some that they had originally planned to vote no, sometimes influenced by their parents’ plans. However, the more they read and talked about it, the more they came to the conclusion that independence offered them a brighter future. It is clear that those teenagers were some of the most well-read of my constituents on the independence debate.

Where do we go from here? As part of the referendum process, we know that the Westminster parties have offered the people of Scotland new powers and have apparently agreed to a timetable under which those would be delivered. Of those who voted no, 25 per cent did so because of that promise, resulting in a clear majority of voters who wanted some form of change for Scotland.

The leaders of the Westminster parties were so desperate to win that they even declared their commitment to more powers on the front page of the Daily Record. However, only hours after the result was declared, the pledge was apparently falling apart. David Cameron was the first to break ranks in linking further Scottish devolution to solving the West Lothian question. Cameron has in effect admitted that his signature on the pledge is worthless.

No doubt Cameron was pressured by the actions and statements of his back benchers. I am sure that what they said will live long in the memory of our electorate who voted for more powers in the Scottish Parliament. We were told that there would be a “bloodbath”. Christopher Chope, Tory MP for Christchurch, said that we should recognise that there is no guarantee that the pledge

“would be implemented in the United Kingdom Parliament.”

Nadine Dorries, the Tories’ very own celebrity MP, spelled out her thoughts when she mocked Scotland as being subsidised in order

“to eat deep-fried mars bars”.

I hope that Ms Dorries does not speak for her whole party.

No sooner had Michael Gove jumped on the bandwagon than Ed Miliband was forced to jump off it—agreeing with David Cameron on more powers for the Scottish people was one thing, but putting that on a platform with English votes for English people was a step too far. One wonders why that had not been thought of prior to the referendum vote.

Let us not forget as well that no less a leading light than Gordon Brown has promised us that the plans will come to fruition according to the clear timetable that he set out. I am sure that keen-eared members will have noted that, despite Mr Brown being largely credited with saving the no campaign, his name was curiously absent last Monday when Ed Miliband thanked those Labour Party members who helped win the referendum. Members should make of that what they will, but it does not fill me with confidence that the devolution timetable is being taken all that seriously.

We will be watching every step that Westminster takes. We may have lost this battle, but I am absolutely confident that we will win the war and achieve independence for this nation.

Before we move on to closing speeches, I remind all members who have taken part in the debate yesterday or today that, unless they have let the Presiding Officer know that they would not be here for good reason, they should be present for the closing speeches.

16:08  

Scotland has voted no and I respect the democratic outcome of the vote. In fact, Scotland did so much more than vote: Scotland became a participative democracy and the change was almost palpable. We must strive to maintain that level of participation.

The vote did not deliver the result that the majority of—but not all—Greens campaigned for. However, it has delivered change. We may not have an opportunity to develop a written constitution, but “constitution” is a word that we use to refer to our physical state as regards vitality, health and strength. In that regard, I am encouraged and optimistic.

Alex Salmond was right when he said yesterday that there is

“a new spirit abroad in this land”

and that

“we are a better nation today”.—[Official Report, 23 September 2014; c 8.]

I agree. People who have never attended a political meeting in their lives came along and took part in the debate; people who would not have come along to a traditional hustings where politicians debate their manifestos came along with their questions and their own manifestos.

There are those who feel that other issues were sidelined as we discussed the constitution, but that is not a view that I share and it is not the experience of the thousands of people who debated Scotland’s future in the meetings that I attended in church and school halls and even on the stage of Dunfermline’s Alhambra theatre.

A narrow debate would never have energised Scotland in the way that the referendum campaign has. The debate was broadened, deepened, energised and given a life of its own by the many diverse groups, organisations and individuals who took part. A woman who attended a discussion with an all-woman panel at Edinburgh College of Art stood up and said, “I can’t believe I’m standing up to speak in public and take part in a meeting about how my country is governed.”

Many people found their feet and their voices in the campaign. Many groups, including women for independence, the radical independence campaign, common weal, the national collective and business for Scotland, made sure that people from all walks of life were involved and represented in the campaign. We can learn much from those groups about engagement. Social media was invaluable in the campaign. It helped to level what was a very unlevel playing field from the point of view of support from corporate print media. The nature of campaigning itself was transformed in the campaign.

I took part in debates with people from all the organisations that I have mentioned and with people from none of them, and I was unfailingly impressed. I took part in debates with our youngest voters and they demonstrated why they should be fully involved in the democratic process. I welcome the growing consensus for votes at 16.

A meeting in Falkirk that was organised by the national collective will be long remembered by all who were there. Young actors, speakers and poets took part, as well as the prominent playwright Alan Bissett. I was staggered by their talent. It was a Friday night and, even when there was an interval, no one left. The meeting carried on way beyond its scheduled end. There were six traditional political speakers, who were interspersed with outstanding Scottish artists. It was a model for the new politics in the new Scotland. A woman with disabilities who relies on benefits for her income told the meeting that she felt that she was voiceless and that the referendum campaign was finally giving her the means to get her message across to those politicians whose policies were making her life ever more challenging.

That insistent, increasingly confident voice led to the announcement of the vow by David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband, in which they recognised that the status quo is simply unacceptable. As tight as the timescales that Lord Smith has been given to work to are, we must do all that we can to ensure that those who contributed so much to the debate are given every opportunity to contribute to that process, too.

Debate in Scotland has flourished not in spite of but because of the diversity of speakers on behalf of the yes and no campaigns. It is no secret that the Greens and the SNP have many policy differences, as do the better together parties, but we all have common ground and we must all now work together for the best outcome.

Yesterday, Ken Macintosh suggested that among those who had lost the vote there might be a temptation to “lash out in anger”; not at all. He said that people were “genuinely scared”, and Murdo Fraser said that, for some people,

“even the debate was a threat to their identity.”—[Official Report, 23 September 2014; c 56.]

My experience was a far more positive one. People questioned assertions while relishing involvement. I hope that the debate has demonstrated to all that we can disagree with one another and remain friends, and we in the Parliament have a duty to continue to demonstrate that.

I do not accept the narrative of a hostile and bitter campaign that some have put forward. I believe that we should focus on the outstanding level of engagement and the overwhelmingly positive level of participation in the vote. The campaign was carried on in a passionate yet respectful manner. It was intense but, by and large, it was tolerant and engaging, and at times it was even entertaining. The narrative is a positive one.

So what now? The vow must be made real and we must deliver for all of Scotland’s people—everyone who voted and everyone who did not. The Greens were not campaigning for a wee version of Westminster. Let us engage with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities paper on local democracy and my party’s review. The referendum debate has shown us that democracy begins at street level.

In this energy and resource-rich country, fuel poverty persists, food banks proliferate and equal pay feels far away. Regardless of who takes over the Westminster reins next May, the levels of austerity that have been promised go beyond anything that has yet been experienced but, as the Presiding Officer said yesterday, those who got off their settees are not going back to them. Politics in Scotland must be open to all who wish to have a fairer and more equal nation. We should be ambitious in our vision of what we can do and willing to work together to make it happen. If we do that, another, better Scotland is possible.

Thank you, Ms Johnstone.

Before I call Alison McInnes, I point out to members that this is the continuation of the debate that started yesterday, so it would not be unreasonable for those who took part yesterday to be in the chamber for the closing speeches. I have a note of their names, and I want to say that I am not pleased.

16:15  

This has been a long, interesting and, I think, necessary debate. We all agree that there were a number of remarkable things about the referendum, the first of which was the turnout. At 85 per cent, it was a victory for democracy. There is no doubt that there was an appetite to be involved and that people realised that their vote counted. Voter apathy? I do not think so. On 18 September 2014, indifference was conquered.

The second remarkable thing was the vote for 16 and 17-year-olds. Like everyone else, I was delighted by how those new young voters got involved. Liberal Democrats have long supported votes at 16, and it is great that there is now cross-party agreement to look at extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds for all elections. Our decision to extend the franchise for this most important of decisions here in Scotland might act as a catalyst for change across the UK.

The third remarkable thing was the engagement in the political process. This was no dry constitutional debate; it enlivened people around the country. Debates and discussions took place in village halls, student unions, church groups and youth groups, in living rooms and around kitchen tables. Books were written, plays and poems were penned and acres of newsprint, comment and analysis were created. The BBC, which was pilloried and picketed by the nationalists, actually provided an immense amount of coverage on all its platforms—radio, TV and online—and gave direct voice to citizens through countless debates and phone-ins. I particularly praise the way in which it gave voice to young people in “Radio 1’s Big Conversation” with Edith Bowman and “The Big, Big Debate” at the Hydro.

People around Scotland agreed that we could and should have a better future, and that we all want a fairer Scotland. What we disagreed on was whether we needed to leave the UK and set up a completely new state in order to do that. However, we must all agree that the vote was fair and robust, that it settled the question, and that everyone’s vote counted equally.

Many insults have been thrown over the past few months. Many can be dismissed as the actions of hotheads, but the First Minister’s saying that there is no such thing as a no vote, only a deferred yes; that no voters were “tricked” and duped; that older no voters should look in the mirror and justify their vote to the younger generation; and that what has now been established as the settled will of the Scottish people can somehow be overturned, are insults of a different order to Scots around this country.

Alex Salmond might have announced that he is standing down, but he is still the First Minister of this country and he should be speaking on behalf of all Scots and abiding by the Edinburgh agreement. Part of the agreement, which he says was included at his own insistence, states that the outcome will be respected. Was he so cocksure that yes would win that he thought that that was only a one-way obligation? Let us hear it loud and clear from him and his nationalists: the sovereign will of the Scottish people is that we remain a part of the UK. The role of Alex Salmond and his successor is to work on that vision of a stronger Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom, so there should be no more stoking the fires of division.

Palpable on polling day was the sense of purpose as people poured into the polling stations to cast their votes. There was a quiet determination among many voters, as has been evidenced by the result. Over many months, I have talked to thousands of voters face to face and on their doorsteps; more important, I listened and knew that the shy noes were there all along. If people had taken time to listen on the doorstep, they would have heard that message. In the fervour of their cause, yes voters made a lot of noise, talked a lot and partied a lot, but the mistake that they made was that they forgot to listen. They drowned out the quieter voices, sometimes carelessly and without understanding that many people preferred not to broadcast their views. Nevertheless, those voices had thoughtful and strongly held views of their own.

Sometimes, however, the drowning out was deliberate, as when better together street stalls were “visited” by crowds of yes campaigners; when Jim Murphy’s street-corner talks were disrupted; and when on the eve of the poll, nine better together helpers—not political activists—in Inverurie in Aberdeenshire were surrounded for half an hour by hordes of chanting yes campaigners in a most intimidating way. It worries me that such things are still happening. Many of those who voted yes are asserting that their vote was somehow the right one and that either they were robbed, or that somehow the no votes counted for less.

Will Alison McInnes take an intervention?

The member is not taking an intervention.

The danger is that the binary choice in the ballot created polarisation. We need to remember that everyone who voted cares about Scotland, so we must now all work together to bring about the better Scotland that everyone who voted agrees is worth striving for. That is why I was pleased to hear Nicola Sturgeon say this morning that she would work with others and seek common cause on the issues that unite us.

We all agree that we need to sustain the energy and interest in political discourse. There is much that we can do to renew our democracy in Scotland. It is not all about what Westminster devolves to us; it is also about how we in the Scottish Parliament share our power.

Alex Rowley was right yesterday to argue for stronger local government. Scotland is one of the most centralised countries in Europe. We now have a unique opportunity to re-examine the relationship between local and national government in Scotland and to put it on a formally codified footing. “Local Matters: COSLA’s Vision for Stronger Local Democracy in Scotland” and our home rule for Scotland report both offer routes towards that.

You need to wind up.

Let me end by returning to what the Presiding Officer said yesterday. She said:

“It is now for us to embrace and nurture the desire for political expression. It cannot and must not be business as usual.”—[Official Report, 23 September 2014; c 1.]

In responding to that, I acknowledge that we do not have all the answers. Politics is too important to be left to the politicians. We could do worse than look at the Electoral Reform Society’s 13-month-long citizen-led democracy max inquiry into a vision for a good Scottish democracy.

Friends—let us keep listening, let us work together, and let us make Scotland better.

16:21  

I thank Alison McInnes for her speech.

At the end of a very long debate, I single out one contribution in particular: the one that we heard just before 5 o’clock yesterday afternoon from the First Minister. He was at play with the Parliament while giving his summation speech and thoroughly enjoyed himself. It was a master-class in summation speeches in that he smiled warmly to everyone who had made a contribution in the debate and then embraced with a stiletto those who disagreed with him. I think that he had enjoyed his afternoon immensely, and who can begrudge him that? It came at the end of a torrid, turgid and dramatic week for him.

I do not think that it was clear from many of the contributions that I heard during the debate that there had been, in fact, an emphatic defeat for those who sought the independence of Scotland from the United Kingdom. The defeat was emphatic in the sense that, when the Labour Party beat the Conservative Party in 1945 in what was called a landslide, it did so by 8 points. In modern political terms, the great hyped campaign of President Obama, when he won in what was described as a landslide, was secured with a majority of 6 points. In the referendum, there was a majority of 10 points. If it had been a presidential-type election, 28 of the 32 states would have voted to stay with the United Kingdom. The 85 per cent of Scotland that spoke now stand at odds with the 50 per cent who voted for the Scottish Parliament. As Neil Findlay said yesterday, the sovereign will—that is the term that is often expressed by the party of Government—of the people of Scotland has been spoken, and their sovereign will is that Scotland will remain within the United Kingdom.

I, too, welcome the contribution of 16 and 17-year-olds, which was remarkably free of cynicism. I say to those people who now seek to pay lip service to the result, but who then set it aside, seek to ignore it, and carry on as if it had not been the result that we actually achieved, that they must not betray with a cynical response to the voice of that democracy the young people who contributed to the debate.

I pay tribute to MSPs from across the chamber. The contributions of Kezia Dugdale, Nicola Sturgeon, Patrick Harvie and Ruth Davidson all demonstrated how the Parliament contributed positively, enthusiastically and well to the debate that took place. I think that Patrick Harvie said that the concern that some had that we would find ourselves split asunder did not come about.

At the risk of telling a story against myself, I will tell members a short story. Patrick Harvie talked about the families, friends and neighbours who found themselves divided; such was the case for my own family, I have to say. One of my sons was persuaded by the arguments of the party sitting opposite me.

Members: Yes!

Can I tell members what he did? I voted by post and so did he, and he mixed our two ballots together. I was photographed posting my ballot but I actually have no idea what I was posting. [Laughter.]

However, as the First Minister said, we did not have a result that was determined by one vote. Had we had such a result, there would have been recrimination across Scotland and people would have said “If only you had ...”, but it is the decisive nature of the result that allows people on different sides of the argument to come together.

There has been some discussion over the proposed new powers. I want to rest with “the epitome of positivity” that Mr Swinney claimed himself to be earlier this afternoon. It is important that the Scottish National Party and the Government participate in the debate on new powers. I hope that we arrive at a conclusion that is the sum of, and not a division of, the ambitions of the parties’ policies in terms of the new powers that will come forward.

For the immediate period ahead there are two areas that I do not think have been touched on in the debate: leadership and the challenge for this Parliament. On leadership, I hope that there is a contest within the Scottish National Party for the leadership of Scotland. Apparently, according to the SNP, it was an affront to democracy when Gordon Brown succeeded Tony Blair in office, and it was an affront to democracy when John Major succeeded Margaret Thatcher. However, in one important respect the SNP is to join the establishment in that it now believes that Nicola Sturgeon should succeed Alex Salmond as First Minister without there being any input from the public. However, I think that it is even slightly more embarrassing than that, because if we look at the ballot paper that people completed for the 2011 Scottish election, we can see that it says beside the words “Scottish National Party”:

“Alex Salmond for First Minister”.

Hundreds of thousands of Scots elected the Government on the basis that it would be Alex Salmond who would be the First Minister. There is the democratic deficit writ large for all to see. [Laughter.]

Will Jackson Carlaw take an intervention?

No, thank you. I know from the speech that Ms McKelvie gave yesterday afternoon that she has ruled herself out.

When this Parliament was founded, Edwin Morgan said that a

“nest of fearties is what they do not want.”

I therefore hope that if there is not to be a contest for the position of First Minister, there will be one for position of the deputy leader. I say that because contests provoke ideas, and the difficulty that we have just now is that it is not altogether clear what the SNP believes the next 18 months of this Parliament will be used to do.

For the past three years we have been told that the only solution to anything is independence. That solution is now off the agenda. When Gavin Brown challenged John Swinney as to when we might have a debate on the Government’s programme, Joe FitzPatrick shook his head as if Gavin Brown were being completely unreasonable. I hope that we are not going to be expected to wait until the outcome of the SNP leadership election in November before Parliament is told what the business of the next 18 months will be. We need to know what the SNP’s ambition for Scotland is for the next 18 months on the issues that now need the attention that has been denied them. I see that Mr FitzPatrick wants to tell me when we will have that debate.

I can confirm that Mr Swinney will provide in his closing speech the information that Mr Carlaw seeks.

I look forward to that.

However, I hope that we get a proper contest from the SNP for the deputy leadership. I want to see campaigns up and about for “Chic for chief”, “Joan for justice” and “Sandra for Glasgow UDI”. Yesterday, I saw Mr Mackay and Mr Yousaf having a Granita-type conversation in the Scottish Parliament canteen. I hope that they all stand and give us the opportunity to see a proper contest.

Presiding Officer, I think that the final challenge is one to which you alluded at the start of our proceedings yesterday. In 2016, this Parliament will be quite different. The MSPs who are elected will need to understand what the contract of employment will be. The business that we will have to conduct will be quite different. Hugh Henry, myself, Jack McConnell and others in the previous Parliament queried the way in which we are established. It may well be that we will require to sit on more days of the week. It may well be that Parliament will need to ensure that the MSPs who are here in the next Parliament are properly resourced. It may need to be that MPs who have previously seen their career being at Westminster see it as being here. I would like to see Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs coming here. That would be a bit harder for us—[Laughter.]—and, in the case of the SNP, certainly a lot less productive.

The people of Scotland are now looking at the referendum result in the rear-view mirror. The view now through the windscreen is forward to the business of the next 18 months, the establishment and delivery of the additional settled powers to this Parliament and ensuring that the Parliament that meets in 2016 when those powers start to arrive is capable of giving proper scrutiny and leadership to the people of Scotland.

16:30  

Many members have spoken over the past two days of the privilege of participating in the referendum campaign. For me, there was the added dimension of fighting that campaign in my constituency of East Lothian. Not only is East Lothian the birthplace of the saltire—by legend, a gift from God to King Angus of the Picts—but it is also the birthplace of the very idea of a union between Scotland and England.

John Mair—philosopher, rationalist, born in Tantallon and educated in Haddington—was the very first to suggest, 500 years ago, that collaboration in a negotiated union rather than destructive competition, which in those days was often on the battlefield, was a better future for Scotland. It was an idea that waited 200 years for its time to come and, as the First Minister pointed out yesterday, 300 more for democratic endorsement, which it now has, and resoundingly so.

Of course, that endorsement was not for the union that was envisaged by Mair, but rather for the vision that was elaborated last century by an adopted son of East Lothian, John P Mackintosh, who argued the case for a powerful Scottish Parliament in a strong and modern United Kingdom. We stand now in the very embodiment of that, with Mackintosh’s words etched into the very stone of our Parliament on the threshold of the Donald Dewar room and devolution etched into our very body politic by not one but now two referenda. So I am proud that, last Thursday, East Lothian said no to independence and yes to a devolved Scotland as part of the United Kingdom, and that Scotland itself followed suit.

Many have praised the electorate and celebrated the fact that an unprecedented 85 per cent turned out to vote, and rightly so. However, it is not enough to praise the electorate or celebrate their numbers. We must respect their decision or we treat them with contempt. It is quite wrong to suggest, as the First Minister did at the weekend and Joan McAlpine did again today, that “no” voters were tricked by promises on new powers. I could as easily argue that yes voters were gulled by wildly exaggerated promises of oil revenues or dishonest threats to the NHS.

As for promises unravelling, I could ask what happened to the promise that the referendum would settle the independence question for a lifetime. How many hours did that promise last? The truth is that any politician who tries to tell voters that they were fooled is naught but the fool themselves.

Will the member give way?

Briefly.

I take the point that the member is making. Would he accept that, the day after a Conservative and Lib Dem victory at Westminster, he and his party would accept and respect that but immediately start working for another victory?

The member cannot seriously be equating a fundamental constitutional question such as this with the normal run of elections.

Anyone who fought this campaign knows that, however people voted, they had thought long and hard. There was no monopoly of logic, scepticism, altruism, enthusiasm, pride, passion or above all patriotism on either side of the ballot paper, nor of hope or fear. Let me make a general point about hope, because many speakers have talked about it. Hope is a precious commodity, and politics should always nurture hope, but the peddling of false hope is the prerogative of the snake oil salesman down the centuries, and we should call it out wherever it is offered.

As Lewis Macdonald made clear in his contribution, democracy denies us the luxury of claiming that people were voting for or against this or that. It demands that we accept the verdict they deliver on the question that we put before them. So we on the no side must acknowledge that a substantial number of people voted yes, and the yes side must accept that the outcome was a decisive majority of more than 10 per cent. Almost 25 per cent more people said no to independence than said yes. Above all, we must all respect the decision. Someone wrote:

“And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.”

It has been an energetic and inspirational campaign and many members have provided stories of that, most memorably perhaps Georgie-boy Adam and perhaps most eloquently Alison Johnstone towards the end. We have also heard stories of its divisiveness, not least from Alison McInnes in her closing speech. Of another nation, Lincoln said:

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

A historic decision has been taken, but real choices remain. We on this side can ignore the message of that substantial yes vote, but that would be foolish. A no vote was still a vote for a changed Scotland. We must deliver on the promises made, and we will. The Government could choose to lead Scotland to the endless revisitation of the people’s decision and condemn this nation to continuing uncertainty. That would be irresponsible.

Alternatively, we can unite behind the outcome, disagreeing where we must but, on the fundamental question of independence, healing the divisions because we can. That is surely our obligation. Let us not seek to make a distinction between how young and old voted, or between men and women, or city and rural Scotland. Let us not look for ambiguity in a clear result. Instead, let us look for the common ground: yes and no voters want Scotland to prosper and to be fairer.

On our economic prospects, last week Alex Salmond talked about the Scotland of Adam Smith, but Adam Smith said:

“The Union was a measure from which infinite Good has been derived to this country.”

That is the authentic discourse of the enlightenment echoing down to us, but we can find it right here in the white paper. Look at the economic platform. It says that we must have a stable currency union, the Bank of England as the lender of last resort, membership of the EU, a single energy market, a single financial services regulatory system, UK-wide research funding, access to Ministry of Defence contracts and, of course, free movement of people, goods and services across the UK. Those are the real job-creating powers that we have now, that are secure. Having rediscovered that, our job is to rededicate ourselves to using them to the maximum benefit of Scotland, its businesses and its people—to win even more investment in our renewables industry, and to help our universities to attract yet more funding for ever more imaginative, innovative and brilliant research.

Let us turn to the thirst for social justice that the campaign revealed on all sides. How profoundly we have had to revisit those principles of pooling and sharing resources, and how we distribute wealth and opportunity as well as power. The people have decided that we do that, but that we do it within the framework of a united kingdom and strengthened devolution. Let us not dedicate ourselves to questioning that but to making it work.

I have one example. Labour announced yesterday that it will tax properties that are worth £2 million and use the proceeds for the NHS. In truth, there might not be many such properties, relatively speaking, in Scotland. However, it is exactly the pooling and sharing of resources across the UK that means that we can tax the mansions in Belgravia and redistribute some of the proceeds to employ general practitioners and health visitors in Easterhouse, Muirhouse and Whitfield if we have the will to do that.

I turn to the common ground of the franchise. I agree with so many members that 16 and 17-year-olds’ exercise of their votes was exemplary and I add my voice to those from all sides who say that they should now have the vote in all elections.

If we choose to look forward from the referendum decision, not always to look back at it; if we choose to stand on the common ground that it has cleared for us and do so with open minds, then we can see that we are in the foothills of great progress.

It is no secret that I once aspired to be First Minister, nor that it was the people’s will that that was not my destiny—damn them. If Ms Sturgeon, as seems likely, succeeds to that privileged office, she will have earned it by her hard work, but it will be hers only by that expression of the people’s will three years ago, which I interpret rather more generously than Mr Carlaw did.

She will also inherit the solemn mandate of last Thursday: that the people of Scotland charge her with taking this nation forward in the enduring historic partnership of the United Kingdom—four nations, but one family. She can choose to accept that mandate and seek to unite us, or she can choose to dispute it, which will certainly divide us. She cannot do both.

We cannot speak truly of unity in the language of division. We cannot heal with words to wound. We cannot have John Swinney at 2.40 describing the referendum as a model of democracy, and Sandra White at 3 pm saying that it was not fair. We cannot declaim one Scotland on Friday and declare permanent revolution on Sunday, as the First Minister did.

We will hear what Ms Sturgeon has to say in the days ahead, but, as politicians, we should remember this every day: vox populi, vox dei. The voice of the people is the voice of God. Scotland’s people spoke last Thursday. They spoke in plain English, Lallans, Doric and Norn, and even in what my leader calls the tongue of God, Gaelic. They said that we are better, we are bigger and we are always stronger together. [Applause.]

16:43  

The debate has been a fascinating tour round the referendum campaign from all perspectives and we have had some intriguing insights into how people occupied themselves during the past four weeks of their lives. I do not often say this, but I am glad that I was not in Paisley during the referendum campaign, because I would not have liked to be an observer of what on earth George Adam was getting up to.

We have heard accounts of all that has been going on from around the country. Perhaps the greatest test of our imagination was the one that Jackson Carlaw gave us of

“a Granita-type conversation in the Scottish Parliament canteen.”

I am still wrestling with that concept in my mind: how could Jackson Carlaw have inadvertently conflated the Granita restaurant with the Scottish Parliament canteen? The similarity is food, but I suspect that the similarity ends there—unless he is going to a different part of the canteen from the one that I go to. Nonetheless, it was an interesting test of the imagination.

Let me reflect on one of the points in this debate on which everyone has been agreed. Alison McInnes, Iain Gray and others have forcefully made the point about the contribution of 16 and 17-year-old voters to the electoral process. Not everyone said initially that it was a good idea—I seem to remember that there was division in the Parliament about whether it should happen, but we reached agreement, it happened and was legislated for, and everybody in this chamber now agrees that giving the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds is the right thing to do. However, we cannot do anything about it. We do not have the legislative power in this Parliament to effect what every one of us agrees is the right thing to do. I do not say that in order to put division out there; I just state it as one of those indelible facts that Iain Gray and Jackson Carlaw were going on about. It is a fact. Every one of us is in total and vigorous agreement about 16 and 17-year-olds having the right to vote in all elections, but we cannot put that into practice.

I agree with the cabinet secretary that this Parliament should of course have the ability to resolve that issue, as well as other electoral issues that affect this Parliament. However, I would say that, if we get that power, or if a change is made in some other place so that voting at 16 becomes the norm, voter education for young people, particularly in a school context, will have to be achieved. The consistency that we sought in the referendum, which was not achieved everywhere, will have to be achieved as well. Does the cabinet secretary agree that voter education is something that we could crack on with right now, while we continue to make the case for votes at 16, whether that is decided here or elsewhere?

I am all for effective, dispassionate voter education. One of the things that irritated me during the referendum campaign was people saying, “I don’t have enough information.” On a daily basis, I could hardly get in my front door for information sitting behind it. There is a lot that we can do to encourage and motivate voter education in a dispassionate way, and the Government will play its part in that.

To return to my point, there is consensus—a universal opinion—in this Parliament that 16 and 17-year-olds should be able to vote in all contests, but we do not have the legislative ability to put that into practice.

I am sure that the Government, along with the leadership of all the other political parties, will sign a letter to the Prime Minister to say, “Look, we should have the franchise extended to 16 and 17-year-olds.” I am all for that. We can all work together on that. However, crucially, we cannot control whether that happens. That is one of the points of regret that I have about the outcome of the referendum.

Does the cabinet secretary accept that the election next year of a United Kingdom Government that would legislate for 16 and 17-year-olds to have the vote would bring that benefit not only to Scotland but to the rest of the UK as well?

Of course it would. That is a statement of fact. I am only making the point that here we are, a bunch of grown-up people who have been elected by the Scottish electorate to represent the interests of our country in this place, and we cannot make that decision. Instead, we must wait for somebody else to decide that it is right to do so. That is simply a point of regret that I have about the outcome of the referendum.

One of the major points of debate today has been the focus on the issue of inequality that emerged in the referendum. None of us could have failed to be struck by the amount of the debate that concentrated on the desire of individuals to tackle the enduring inequality that has built up in our society. Before the referendum, we debated endlessly the Scottish Government’s position that the United Kingdom was the fourth most unequal country in the world. Mr Fraser and others took issue with that position but, nevertheless, all of us would accept that inequality was a central part of the debate that we had during the referendum campaign.

That issue also had an effect in motivating the high turnout from areas of the country that—as Sandra White, George Adam, Bob Doris and others mentioned—have previously not participated in elections or contests, because people in those places never saw any point in doing so. Why did they participate this time? Because they saw the opportunity that was presented by the referendum. Some of them might have turned out to vote no, but lots of them turned out to vote yes. Crucially, lots of them turned out because they saw the referendum as a means of addressing the inequality that exists in our society.

The cabinet secretary makes a serious point. Why, therefore, was there so little redistributive policy in the white paper?

I say with the greatest of respect to Mr Findlay that I am trying to move the debate on to some of the issues that we—[Laughter.] Are we not supposed to be moving on positively? I hear Mr Brown guffawing. I thought that we were supposed to be moving on positively.

My point is that people were motivated by the desire to tackle those issues of inequality and that, in the Parliament, we should take that message seriously in the arguments that we advance. That is why I was somewhat bewildered by Malcolm Chisholm’s speech, in which, if I understood him correctly, he asked the Government to do something to assess income inequality. The Government has very little ability to affect issues of income inequality, but it has the opportunity to assess the policy commitments that it makes through the equalities impact assessment that it undertakes annually. I would have thought that Mr Chisholm would welcome that.

My point was about finding out what effect all the Government’s policies and legislation have on various income groups and to what extent they are part of combating poverty.

That is done by the Government’s equalities impact assessment. I would have thought that Mr Chisholm would know that.

Another point that was made in the debate concerned the importance of decentralising commitments and provisions to different parts of the country. Mr Chisholm criticised us again for apparently abolishing the fairer Scotland fund, which was all about tackling inequality. We did not abolish the fairer Scotland fund; we devolved the fund to local government in exactly the fashion that the Labour Party demands that we decentralise significant resources. We devolved £1 billion to local government, and Labour moans like billy-oh about what we have done. Perhaps we would take it a bit more seriously if it did not do that.

One of the other central points in the debate was the promise of more powers. I set out in my earlier speech the Scottish Government’s willingness to take part in the process over which Lord Smith is presiding and to give good will and commitment.

Dr Murray said that David Cameron’s attempts to link the Scottish process with the process in England were ridiculous and unacceptable and I agree with her in that respect. However, that rather explains why we were getting agitated over the weekend that there was some backsliding on the solemn commitments—the vow; we cannot call it a pledge, because “pledge” is a somewhat devalued term in some parts of the chamber—and it is perhaps why Alistair Darling felt it necessary to say on television on Sunday:

“It was promised, it’s got to be delivered, and anyone who”

betrays

“on that will pay a very heavy price for years to come.”

It was not just the Scottish Government thinking that some backsliding was going on; it was clear even in the heart of the better together campaign that that was happening.

That brings me on to the nature of what was promised. Joan McAlpine went through all that detail expertly in her speech. In the course of the referendum campaign, we were promised devo max, home rule and something akin to federalism. Call it what you want, it was an offer—a proposition—of extensive powers.

That is where Mr Carlaw made a helpful contribution—I never thought that I would live to say that about him. He said that he was embarking on the discussions with Lord Smith from the position that the sum of the position, not the division of the propositions that were being put forward, was what had to be achieved out of Lord Smith’s work.

In a sense, that captures the point that I tried to put across in my earlier speech: we must not go into that process trying to tick a few boxes and get a bit of an agreement on what powers might be transferred without thinking about the commitments that the UK political parties made to the people of Scotland, about which Joan McAlpine talked. We must live up to the expectations that were created in the 85 per cent of the population who came out to vote, the overwhelming majority of whom voted in favour of more powers for the Parliament. The 45 per cent who voted yes were clearly voting for more powers for the Parliament, but so did a sizeable proportion of those who voted no because, as we have been told, a no vote was a vote for change as well. Because those individuals voted for extensive powers, there is an overwhelming mandate in Scotland for extensive additional powers to be granted to the Parliament and, if it is to be successful, the Smith process must fulfil those expectations across the political spectrum.

Does Mr Swinney therefore disagree with his back benchers, who say that the vow will not be honoured and the promises will not be delivered? Is it wrong to say that at this stage?

Let us just let the process take its course. [Interruption.] Exactly. I am agreeing with Mr Brown. What is he getting all agitated about? [Interruption.]

Order.

This is what gets me about parliamentary debates every so often. [Interruption.] When a Government is trying to advance an agenda that reflects the fact that we are trying to make genuine progress in addressing the need to strengthen the powers of the Parliament, why can that not be received with some good will from the Opposition parties rather than the sneering that we get all the time?

During the referendum campaign, a lot was said about the national health service. I want to say a couple of words about the NHS. On 17 September, the Labour Party tweeted to the assembled country:

“Worried about the future of the NHS? It’s safe with a No vote.”

On 22 September, the Labour Party tweeted to the assembled masses:

“Want to be part of saving the NHS? Join us (it only takes 3 minutes)”.

The Labour Party embarked on the referendum campaign by telling us that a no vote would secure the national health service, yet we all know that Andy Burnham is telling the country today that a no vote is delivering privatisation of the health service in exactly the way that we feared during the referendum campaign.

Mr FitzPatrick said earlier that I would set out details about the programme for government. To respond to Mr Brown’s point, the programme for government will be published once the new First Minister is elected. That has been conveyed to business managers today.

I also say to Mr Brown that Scotland is open for business; it has always been open for business. [Interruption.] The chancellor came to Scotland in 2011 and told us that Scotland would suffer because of having a referendum and that inward investment to Scotland would dry up. However, since 2011, we have had record years of inward investment success despite the siren warnings that somehow the constitutional process would undermine Scotland’s economy. Unemployment is falling, employment is at a record high and economic inactivity is lower than the rest of the UK, so all those siren warnings have been to no avail, given the economic performance of Scotland.

So Mr Swinney is saying that Scotland has to be on pause again while the SNP gets its leadership into order.

We are carrying on doing all the things that we normally do, such as expanding apprenticeships—[Interruption.]

Order.

—delivering childcare, abolishing prescription charges, making sure that council tax is frozen and delivering free education for higher education students. Those are all the things that this Government has done, using the full powers of a devolved Parliament as we are able to use them to deliver economic success for the people of our country.

The Scottish Government’s programme has been well set out to people in Scotland. We will continue to implement the policy programme of the Government. We will set out our budget on 9 October, reaffirming the commitment that we have made to the people of Scotland that we will use the resources at our disposal to strengthen the Scottish economy and to ensure that we protect public services in the manner that we have done to date, that we will take forward the investment in the low-carbon agenda and that we will deliver on our commitments to the people of Scotland.

The referendum last Thursday was an exercise in significant democratic participation in the wellbeing of the people of Scotland. The people came to their conclusion, which the Government accepts, but we will continue to be ambitious for the people of Scotland and to deliver the very best that we possibly can. That ambition has been at the heart of this Government since 2007, and it will remain so.