Referendum Consultation
The next item of business is a statement by Alex Salmond on the referendum consultation. The First Minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interruptions or interventions.
13:35
Presiding Officer, the people who live in Scotland are the best people to make decisions about their own future. Of that there can be no doubt. In May last year, those people—the people of Scotland—gave this Scottish Government an overwhelming mandate, because of a record of good government, a clear vision of the future and the promise of a referendum on independence.
Today, the Scottish Government published the consultation paper, “Your Scotland, Your Referendum”, which sets out how we intend to fulfil that commitment. The document gives the people of Scotland the opportunity to offer their views on how the referendum on our country’s future should be carried out. It sets out some key principles on which the referendum will be based—most important, that the referendum should meet the highest standards of fairness, transparency and propriety. The most important decision by the people of Scotland in 300 years must be beyond reproach.
Let me begin with the referendum question. The question that we intend to put to the Scottish people in the referendum is set out on page 11 of the consultation paper. It is short, straightforward and clear, so let me read it to the Parliament. The question is: “Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?” [Applause.]
We have a great deal of questions to get through, so I would appreciate it if members would save any applause for the end of the statement and not interrupt during it.
We have set out the question in the consultation paper so that people who want to do so can provide their views on the question and other aspects of the referendum, through the consultation process. The question is designed to comply with the Electoral Commission’s guidelines, which are that referendum questions should present the options clearly, simply and with neutrality. The question that we have published today aims to do all three and will of course be subject to testing, using a sample of voters.
The regulation of the referendum will be an essential element in ensuring its fairness. The regulator must be a body that has the professionalism to ensure that the vote is above reproach. It is no less important that the regulator be accountable to this Parliament for its work. As members know, the Government has had concerns about the best way to ensure that accountability. Last year, however, the Scottish Parliament passed legislation to give the Electoral Commission a role in regulating local elections in Scotland. The commission will report to this Parliament on how it carries out that role. We therefore have the opportunity to build on that and on the commission’s experience of supervising two referendums in 2011, by appointing the Electoral Commission to regulate the referendum.
The consultation document that we published this afternoon seeks views on the roles that we propose for the commission and for the electoral management board for Scotland. The electoral management board, which was developed by the Scottish Government with electoral professionals, was established in response to a recommendation of the Gould report into the conduct of the 2007 Scottish parliamentary elections. Our proposal today is that that board should be responsible for the management of the referendum.
One area on which we agree with the United Kingdom Government is the geographical basis of the franchise. The people who live and work in Scotland are best placed to decide its future. Our proposal is therefore that eligibility to vote in the referendum should reflect the internationally accepted principle that the franchise for constitutional referendums be determined by residency. That is the approach for Scottish Parliament elections and it was the approach for the 1997 referendum on devolution.
The one area where we propose to extend the franchise relates to young people. The Government and, I should say, leading figures in the Opposition have been consistent in their commitment to extending the franchise in all elections to 16 and 17-year-olds. It is right that our young people should have the chance to play their part in decisions about their community and country. Where we have been able to include 16 and 17-year-olds in elections that have been the responsibility of this Parliament, we have done so. If a 16-year-old in Scotland can register to join the Army, get married and pay taxes, surely he or she should be able to have a say in this country’s constitutional future? In our consultation, we are therefore seeking views on our proposal to extend the right to vote in the referendum to 16 and 17-year-olds who are eligible to be included on the electoral register.
Just as we do not intend to artificially restrict the franchise, we should not restrict the scope of options that might command wide support in Scotland. The United Kingdom Government argues that there should be no question in the referendum about full or further devolution within the United Kingdom and that the choice should be between full independence or the status quo. The Scottish Government’s position is for independence. Therefore, that option will appear on any ballot paper in a straightforward manner—we have set out our proposal for the question in the consultation document, as I said. However, this is a consultation with the community of the realm of Scotland and it is imperative that the referendum is seen to be fair, democratic and inclusive. If there is an alternative of maximum devolution that would command wide support in Scotland, it is only fair and democratic that that option should be among the choices that are open to the people of Scotland. We will not, as the UK Government seems to want, eliminate that choice simply because it might be popular.
We will hold the referendum in the autumn of 2014. The United Kingdom Government argues that, because the referendum is so important, we should rush ahead with it. We are taking a rather more rational and sensible approach. The consultation document sets out in the clearest form the steps that will need to be taken to prepare for the referendum. It shows that the autumn of 2014 is the soonest that the referendum can be held in a way that meets the high standard that the people of this country have the right to expect.
We share with the United Kingdom Government a wish that the referendum should be decided by the views of the electorate on the future of their country and not on the technical disputes about parliamentary competence. We have set out in the past how the Scottish Parliament could hold a referendum that we are satisfied would be within its present competence. To ensure that the referendum is, in effect, beyond legal challenge, we are willing to work with the UK Government. I look forward to my discussions with the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Prime Minister in the coming days and weeks. However, let me be clear: the terms of the referendum are for the Scottish Parliament and the people of Scotland to decide. That is the mandate that was given to the Scottish Parliament by the people, and responsibility for carrying through the will of the electorate now rests with the Parliament.
I am sure that it is not lost on members—it certainly could not be after time for reflection—that today is the birthday of Robert Burns, our national poet. It is a remarkable testament to the power of Robert Burns that, on the 253rd anniversary of his birth, we still toast the poet and the man in his many different guises and continue to explore his work and find inspiration in his words. For today’s purposes, I want to invoke Burns the democrat, because the choices that Scotland faces are, fundamentally, matters of democracy.
Our country faces a new constitutional future and we must take the best path for our people. I am told that there are members of the House of Lords who believe that it is in their province to set boundaries on what Scotland can and cannot do. Perhaps they should be reminded that Burns’s great hymn to equality has been heard in this Parliament before, when Sheena Wellington sang “A Man’s a Man for a’ That” at our first opening in 1999.
“Ye see yon birkie ca’d, a lord,
Wha struts, and stares, and a’ that,
Though hundreds worship at his word,
He’s but a coof for a’ that.
For a’ that, and a’ that,
His ribband, star and a’ that,
The man of independent mind,
He looks and laughs at a’ that.”
From ploughman poet to literary legend, Burns’s journey was remarkable. Three centuries on from the 1707 union, the people of Scotland elected a majority pro-independence Government—the Government that I am proud to lead—to revisit that decision. This time, the decision will be made democratically, by the people of Scotland.
During the 2011 election campaign, I said that Scotland was on a journey—there is continuity, and a sense of purpose. As one of my best friends in life and this Parliament’s much-missed colleague Bashir Ahmad once said, it is not where you come from that matters, but where we are going together. It is my belief and this Government’s belief that Scotland is going forward together towards a more prosperous and fairer society and that today is the latest significant step along that path.
To quote the words of James Robertson, a contemporary poet of whom Burns would undoubtedly have approved:
“The road that was blocked has no end
The unknown journey is known
The heart that is hurt will mend
The bird that was trapped has flown.”
The bird has flown and cannot be returned to its cage. I believe that this journey represents the aspirations and ambitions of the people of Scotland.
Today, as we pass another milestone, we reach out to the other parties across this Parliament in a spirit of consensus, urging them to contribute to this consultation on the referendum, for which the people voted in such large numbers. I urge them, in expressing their views, not to listen to voices from elsewhere. Why not, instead, take the lead from the people of Scotland?
In the election, we set out our immediate focus on addressing the pressing economic challenges and strengthening Scotland’s recovery. Today’s decline in the UK gross domestic product figures underlines the urgency of that objective. Therefore, our immediate constitutional priority is to improve the Scotland Bill to give it the job-creating powers that this country desperately needs.
Those vital tasks underpin the timescale for the referendum, and we will continue to use all the powers currently within the control of this Parliament to boost jobs, growth and recovery. However, there can be no doubt that this Parliament needs full economic powers so that we can do more for Scotland.
The next two and a half years promise to be among the most exciting in Scotland’s modern history. At the end of that period, in the autumn of 2014, people the length and breadth of our country will have their say in Scotland’s independence referendum. Independence, in essence, is based on a simple idea: the people who care most about Scotland—that is, the people who live, work and bring up their families in Scotland—should be the ones taking the decisions about our nation’s future. No one else is going to do a better job of making Scotland a success. No one else has the same stake in our future. The people of Scotland should be in charge.
Independence will give us the opportunity to make different decisions and to implement policies designed for Scotland’s needs. That means that we will be able to make Scotland the country that we all know it can be: a wealthier and fairer nation; and a country that speaks with its own voice, stands taller in the world and takes responsibility for its own future. Independence is about Scotland rejoining the family of nations in our own right. We can be both independent and interdependent: we can stand on our own two feet while working closely with other nations, our friends and our neighbours.
When the United Nations was formed, there were just over 50 independent countries in the world. Today, that figure has risen to almost 200. Of the 10 countries that joined the European Union in 2004, a majority had become independent since 1990, and Scotland is bigger than six of them. All of those nations now have a seat at Europe’s top table—a right that Scotland should enjoy, too.
Scotland’s home rule journey is clearly part of a bigger international picture. After all, independence is what we seek as individuals, whether by buying our first car or our first home. It is the natural state for people and nations around the world. Not being independent is the exception. This Parliament in Edinburgh already takes a range of key decisions when it comes to running our schools, hospitals, police and much else besides. Independence will mean that we are also responsible for raising our own money.
Scotland is a land of unlimited potential: its culture, history and reputation for innovation are renowned throughout the world; our universities are world class; and our energy resources are unrivalled in Europe. Indeed, on current figures, we would have the sixth-highest gross domestic product per capita among Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries.
With independence, we can have a new social union with the other nations of these islands. We will continue to share Her Majesty the Queen as head of state. However, we will not have our young servicemen and women dragged into illegal wars like the one in Iraq, and we will not have nuclear weapons based on Scottish soil. [Applause.]
Order.
Independence will create a new, more modern relationship between the nations of these islands—a partnership of equals.
I want Scotland to be independent not because I think that we are better than any other country, but because I know that we are just as good as any other country. Like those other nations, our future, our resources and our success should be in our own hands. [Applause.]
Order. The First Minister will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement and in the consultation paper. I intend to allow around 40 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. It would be helpful if members who wish to ask a question could press their request-to-speak button now. Time is tight, so I ask that the questions and the answers be as succinct as possible.
As this is Burns day, I am tempted to reflect on my party piece at Burns suppers, when I do the reply to the toast to the lassies and call in aid Rabbie Burns against the pomposities and vanities of men. However, I shall resist the temptation to share some useful quotations today. I will reflect simply that Burns, as with others, called on us to be humble and to face and recognise the humility of our position and our responsibilities towards all the people of this country.
I thank the First Minister for his statement. He will know that I asked to hold all-party talks on the referendum, so that everyone in our country could have confidence in that referendum and its outcome. We must recognise that we all love our country, whatever constitutional settlement we support. The most important thing is that whichever side wins the referendum, it and the process leading up to it should be conducted in such a way that, the day after it, all Scots can come together to fulfil our national duty to make Scotland all that it can be.
I regret very much that the First Minister has continued to decline the all-party talks that I offered. Sadly, the consultation process has done little for those who fear that the process is not a fair one.
The First Minister asserts as truth his view of the future of Scotland and misrepresents the position of those who want to remain in the United Kingdom. Indeed, he tries to define the position of those who believe in devolution, saying that they must have maximum devolution. Let those who disagree with Scotland being separated from the rest of the United Kingdom shape their own position and let not the First Minister define it for them.
Does the First Minister recognise that those of us who wish to stay in the United Kingdom want Scotland to be a strong country? Why does he belittle Scots—and generations of Scots—by saying that we are not equal partners with the other nations in the United Kingdom? Indeed, why does he assert as fact that we all wish to be independent of each other when we all know, as families and communities, that we want to come together in partnership and co-operation? Does he recognise that those of us who argue for Scotland being strong in the United Kingdom do so because we believe in the first principles of co-operation and partnership, not in separating ourselves off from others?
Even at this late stage, given the willingness of the First Minister to meet and negotiate with Westminster and to meet the world’s press in Edinburgh Castle, will he acknowledge the importance of coming together with the political parties in this chamber, who represent the majority of Scots who do not support the separation of Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom, to reach a consensus on the platform on which we will be able to engage in a serious debate about the choices facing Scotland, and not just hear his assertion of his position and his misrepresentation of those who disagree with him?
To be clear, we have published “Your Scotland, Your Referendum”. That is the consultation document for all of Scotland. I will be delighted to hold talks with Johann Lamont and the leader of any other party represented in this chamber—as well as of some outside this chamber; let there be no doubt about that. That is why we are publishing a consultation document.
However, members should remember that the consultation is not just for political parties; it is for the community of the realm of Scotland. I am sure that Johann Lamont has noted, as I have, that many representatives of civic Scotland have been speaking up and coming forward in recent weeks. In particular, some have been shaping their ideas for what they regard as a sensible proposition—not least Henry McLeish, one of my predecessors as First Minister, who has been extremely outspoken in that regard.
The consultation document could not be clearer: we offer people who think like that the opportunity to come forward with their ideas. Johann Lamont says that I am trying to shape the policy of the Labour Party—I suppose that somebody should be shaping the policy of the Labour Party. However, when I last checked, Labour Party policy was for the Scotland Bill, which is currently trundling through the Houses of Parliament in Westminster without the addition of economic powers, which are one of the things that the people of Scotland supported so strongly in the recent election. If Johann Lamont wants to come forward with a further policy, I gently suggest to her that she should get on with that process, otherwise it seems that a range of people across civic Scotland will get there first.
Johann Lamont implies that I did not argue in my statement that independence and interdependence are one and part of the same process. That is exactly the point that I was making. In the argument about equality of status, I believe that a relationship between equal independent nations is a thoroughly healthy relationship to have.
I do not have to look too far beyond the recent past to find Labour spokesmen and Labour politicians complaining when measures that were against the will of the Scottish people were enforced on this Parliament against its will. Only recently, we united as a Parliament to attempt to resist some aspects of the Welfare Reform Bill. I merely suggest that a relationship that is based on the equality of independent status would be a fundamentally better relationship across these islands than the rather unequal relationship that we have at present.
I thank the First Minister for early sight of his statement and for his referendum consultation, which by some counts is the fourth of its kind in his attempt to hold a vote on separation. It is, of course, running alongside the UK Government’s consultation, and I urge as many people as possible to respond to both.
The First Minister says that he should be judged on the mandate that he received from the people of Scotland last May, which, by anyone’s reading of his manifesto, is to hold a referendum on independence: a single straightforward question on whether we want to be a separate country or remain part of our United Kingdom.
The people of Scotland want and deserve a fair, legal and decisive referendum held as soon as possible. What the First Minister posited today is a fair and decisive legal question, which I welcome, and we now need to ensure that it is asked in a legal referendum. Will the First Minister now co-operate with Her Majesty’s Government to ensure that that is the case, resolving remaining issues of franchise and timing?
We want co-operation, not confrontation; an outcome that is decided by the voters of Scotland, not by the law courts; and a clear answer to that one question, which will finally resolve the issue. Scotland wants to move on from the process of the referendum so that we can look at the substantive issues surrounding the sovereignty of our nation: the key questions that the First Minister has so far been unable to answer, on Scotland’s currency, her membership of the European Union, our defence and energy policies and our welfare state. They are areas of pressing concern.
However, the process matters too. That is why I ask the First Minister to enter into further discussions in good faith to ensure that Scotland sees both of her Governments and both of her Parliaments working together to resolve the remaining process issues so that we can engage in the real debate. Will he do so?
Yes, in the statement that I just made I said that we will co-operate, and I have welcomed the offer of a section 30 order. However, the Conservative leader will understand that very few people in Scotland think that that offer should be accompanied by Westminster pulling the strings of Scotland’s referendum. I do not understand why anyone in Westminster should regard that as a good thing to do. Already, we have seen a substantial reaction against the apparent wish of—or the semblance of an attempt by—Westminster to dictate the terms of a referendum that, surely, is for this Parliament and the people of Scotland to decide. I remind the Conservative leader that her party went into the recent election opposed to any referendum. It seems a bit rich that, having opposed a referendum point blank, the Conservative Party now wants the terms of that referendum to be dictated by a party and a Parliament that have consistently opposed it.
If the offer of the section 30 order is made in good faith, that is the basis for co-operation. I welcome the welcome that has been given by Ruth Davidson to parts of my statement. However, I draw attention to the timetable that has been set out clearly in the consultation document, which I believe sets out exactly why that timing is required for proper and full consideration of the most important decision that this nation has taken for 300 years. It sets out the process in detail. I remind Ruth Davidson that the UK Government’s consultation paper asks, in the consultation element, for views on the “question or questions” in the referendum. I am sure that she would not want to give the impression that the UK Government has prejudged its own consultation, regardless of what many people outside the chamber might well believe.
I point out that, in our timetable, we set out a process. The UK Government’s consultation contains an aside, which I do not think was meant to be at all humorous, in which it says that it managed to run a successful alternative vote referendum in the space of a year. Maybe running a referendum on a policy that nobody actually supported, in a way that thoroughly confused the electorate and which had a dramatically low turnout in every part of the country that was not holding parliamentary elections, is good enough for our friends at Westminster. However, I think that Scotland’s referendum should be based on the impeccable process in the timetable that is set out in our consultation document. That will allow all of the people of Scotland to contribute to the process this year, the Scottish Parliament to determine the legislation next year and the nation to take, in two years’ time, about the most important decision that it has taken for 300 years. Let us do it in a careful, proper and considered manner.
I thank the First Minister for providing an advance copy of his statement.
Today, we will see much pomp and ceremony up at the castle, but we will still have few answers about independence. It is more Shakespeare than Burns—much ado about nothing. While independence dominates the work of his Government, our country is gripped by unemployment and rising costs. I want home rule within the UK family. Can the First Minister tell me whether, if devo max got 99 per cent of the vote, his Government would guarantee to honour the wishes—the will—of the Scottish people?
Given the fact that the Liberal leader does not want that option on the ballot paper, I am not certain how to answer the question. Sometimes I think that it is an advantage and sometimes I think that it is a disadvantage, but I have been knocking around in Scottish politics for a reasonable amount of time, so I have very clear memories of luminaries such as Lord Steel arguing passionately in the House of Commons for a multi-option referendum. I also remember the Liberal Party campaigning overtly for a multi-option referendum in the 1990s. There is a range of ways of doing this, and it is not beyond the wit of man to devise a referendum that allows a clear answer but does not deny a body of opinion in Scotland the opportunity to have its option on the ballot paper.
As for quoting bards from south of the border or north of the border, I was rather struck by Burns’s view on coalition government:
“Yon mixtie maxtie, queer hotch-potch,
The Coalition.”
A yes vote in the referendum that the First Minister has just set out would see Scotland take her place in the world as an independent nation. Can he confirm that one advantage of that independence is that Scotland could be a nation without the obscenity of nuclear weapons in her waters?
Yes, I can, and yes, it will be.
Last night, the First Minister spoke in London on the relationship that an independent Scotland would have with the rest of the UK. I represent the Borders. Can he assure my constituents and the businesses there that an independent Scotland will be the best friend and neighbour to the rest of the UK?
Yes, I can. The response to that argument seems to be rather more positive among our friends south of the border than it is among the Opposition parties in the Parliament. The idea of a country standing on its own two feet, being an independent country and co-operating with its friends and neighbours is not something that many people in England find difficult to understand. It is therefore perhaps surprising that a few people in the Parliament have trouble with that internationally recognised and extremely common concept.
I am pleased that the Government’s consultation document, which was published today, acknowledges that an independent Scotland would open formal negotiations with the EU. Of course, many of us have known for some time that that would be the case. Having conceded that principle, will the First Minister publish the legal advice that his Government has commissioned on that issue?
I have referred before in the chamber, and I can, for Patricia Ferguson’s benefit, refer again, to a range of legal authorities who support the Scottish Government’s position. Just to correct her, I say that it has never been our position that there would not be negotiations; the point is that negotiations would be held from within the context of the EU.
The precise point was made best by Lord Mackenzie Stuart. The United Kingdom was formed by the treaty of union between Scotland and England in 1707. If that union is dissolved, two successor states will be created, each of which will have the same obligations and rights as the other and both of which will negotiate their position from within the context of the EU.
I say to Patricia Ferguson that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that there is any body of opinion in the EU that would not welcome Scotland and the rest of the UK to continuing membership of that organisation.
The First Minister and I are both old enough—unfortunately—to remember the 1979 referendum, whose process was gerrymandered by the Westminster Parliament. [Interruption.]
Order. Please let us hear the member.
Does the First Minister agree that, if the coming referendum process is to have any legitimacy, it must be developed in Scotland rather than restricted by conditions that Westminster has imposed? Is it therefore essential that as broad a cross-section of Scottish society as possible is engaged and involved in shaping the referendum through consultation, evidence taking and debate within and without the Parliament? That is much more likely to happen through the Scottish Parliament than through any UK Parliament.
I remember two things in particular about the 1979 referendum. I remember the 40 per cent rule that was introduced into the franchise. It was supported by the Conservative Party but was introduced by a Labour member of Parliament called George Cunningham. Such a process was quite uncommon then but is becoming ever-more common in the current House of Commons.
I also remember Lord Douglas-Home, the former Prime Minister, telling the people of Scotland that they should vote against the proposal, because he was sure that a better form of government would be coming forward very soon. The people of Scotland waited for that during the long years of the Governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major. Those of us with long enough memories will not be taken in by any such ruse again.
I point out that it was a Thatcher Government that the SNP ushered in.
Section 1(3) of the draft bill sets out the date of the referendum as “[insert date]”. Why can the First Minister not tell us his preferred date now? Although we want an earlier referendum, will he guarantee that, on his timescale, it will be held no later than autumn 2014?
Yes, I can do that. It will be held on the timetable that has been outlined. I suggest that Richard Baker reads it.
I am genuinely interested to hear what Richard Baker has to say about this, but if we adhere to the requirements—or, at least, the suggestions—of the Gould commission in relation to the timing of votes following legislation, I think that it will be extremely difficult to short-circuit that timetable. I do not think that we should short-circuit it; instead, we should take our time to have proper consideration on the timetable that has been set, which goes up to the date of the referendum in the autumn of 2014.
I am not certain of Richard Baker’s activity in politics way back in 1979 but I commend to him the autobiography of James Callaghan, the Labour Prime Minister of the day, who blamed Labour anti-devolutionists for his Government’s downfall. Perhaps Mr Baker should do some reading.
The consultation proposes to give the right to vote to all those living in Scotland who are on the electoral roll. I am from England—I was born in Barrow in Furness. Will the First Minister encourage all those in Scotland, no matter where they come from, to join the debate between now and 2014?
The member makes the very important point that the people of Scotland are those who live in Scotland, who have chosen to make their home and livelihoods in Scotland, who pay taxes in Scotland and who are part of the Scottish community of the realm. That is the right franchise to have in a referendum. It conforms to other international experience; it is the right thing to do. As I said in my statement, we are interested not in where people come from but in where we are going together as a country.
As someone who has signed the votes at 16 pledge, I want to ask the First Minister about that aspect of the franchise. Will he clarify whether having votes at 16 will require 14 and 15-year-olds to be added to the public electoral roll? If so, how does his Government plan to address the obvious child protection issues that arise from that challenge?
Not only is the process laid out in the document, which I suggest that the member reads, but the practice has already been carried forward in elections to health boards without any difficulty whatever. If the member is saying that the Labour Party now supports votes for 16 or 17-year-olds, except in the case of the Scottish referendum, I think that its members should explain what they were doing in the House of Commons, supporting an amendment to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in the AV referendum. I really think that the days of saying one thing in this chamber and another in the House of Commons are over for the Labour Party—although, given the embarrassment that members on the Labour benches must feel at the activities of their House of Commons front benchers in siding with the Tories on every single issue, I can well understand why they would like to excuse themselves.
Does the First Minister’s Government intend to falsify the opinions of any other constitutional experts to justify a muddled, two-question, multi-option referendum?
Here was I thinking that, as an ex-leader of his party, David McLetchie would rise to the occasion. However, he has disappointed me on many occasions and unfortunately has done so again.
David McLetchie would do well to reflect on the Conservative Party’s record on its approaches to referendums, not least the introduction of the 40 per cent rule. However, I hope that even he will look at the consultation paper that has been published and, whatever else he might say, do, disagree with or agree with, he will at least say that the process that it sets out is above and beyond reproach.
I thank the First Minister for his statement.
It is clear to me that independence would deliver to the Scottish Parliament the powers that we need to ensure a prosperous and just Scotland. Can the First Minister confirm that, ahead of the vote in autumn 2014, the Scottish Government will come forward with a prospectus such that we can ensure that there is a comprehensive debate in which all the people of Scotland will be fully engaged?
Yes, I can. That is in the timetable that is laid out in the document, of course. We are following a process, the precedent for which, obviously, is the 1997 referendum. A white paper was published and then the votes took place. A white paper, of course, gives people the full range of information that they are due and are entitled to so that they can decide their vote. The white paper will be published next year. That is set into the timetable that is laid out in the consultation paper.
Now that the 1 o’clock gun has been fired to start yet another constitutional consultation process, will the First Minister take time to reflect on how he wants that process to proceed? Does he agree that close aides, party members and supporters on all sides should promote informed debate that is devoid of abuse and personal attacks on individuals who may hold a different view?
Yes, I do.
I speak as someone who was born in England of an English mother. Given the proximity of my constituency to the English border, can the First Minister confirm that the current harmonious sharing of services—English patients go to Borders general hospital and Scottish elderly people go to care homes in Berwick—will continue with independence?
Yes, I can.
Does the First Minister acknowledge that the referendum that approved a Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom in 1997 did so on the basis of a detailed and specific devolution scheme, which was put in place within a few short months of the election of the Labour Government? Why does he believe that the Parliament is incapable of considering the responses to his consultation and passing the referendum bill, which has been published today in draft, for a further 18 months? Why does he believe that the Scottish people are incapable of having an informed vote for a further year? Will he reconsider the timetable or, at the very least, respond to the question that he has already been asked this afternoon and tell us specifically the date on which he intends the referendum to be held?
The timetable is very detailed in a range of ways. Lewis Macdonald would do well to consider that the legislation has to go through the Parliament in a proper fashion. I have lost count of the number of times when exigencies or other matters, particularly legal matters, have been brought to the Parliament and it has rightly had to adopt a shortened procedure. I see absolutely no reason why there should be a shortened procedure for the referendum bill—I see that Lewis Macdonald agrees with that. We have built that process into the timetable that is published in the consultation document, and I commend it to Lewis Macdonald. The timetable encompasses the publication of the white paper. In that way, we are following the precedent of 1997 exactly.
I hope that we can have a genuine debate. I was struck by Lewis Macdonald’s contribution to the debate last week, but I disagree with him about how the referendum in 1997 was presented. I think that imperative to its success was the fact that the self-government of devolution and the self-government of independence were not presented as opposites. That is why I was able to stand on a platform with Donald Dewar and why both of us argued together in a way that did not allow the no campaign to divide us. I recommend that Lewis Macdonald look back at the House of Commons debates and the referendum campaign, which allowed that approach to develop. Who knows? Perhaps he or other Labour members may be able to stand shoulder to shoulder with us again when we get to the campaign proper.
Does the First Minister agree that Westminster’s attaching conditions to the section 30 offer is unacceptable and might be considered as playing politics with an offer that was made ostensibly to achieve legal certainty?
People of a more cynical disposition than me might come to that conclusion, of course. Michael Moore has made it clear that the objective of a section 30 order is merely to be helpful and to enable the Scottish Parliament. If the offer is made in a genuine way and the consultation is genuine and asks people questions about one question or two questions, of course the negotiations should present us with no trouble.
We will find out soon whether it is a genuine offer to enable this Parliament to fulfil the mandate that we undoubtedly have. Evidence from the polls suggests that most people would not take kindly to the idea of strings being pulled from Westminster on a decision on the future of this Parliament or this country.
I welcome the consultation, as I am sure will many people whose support for independence is based first and foremost on the issue of Trident.
Does the First Minister agree that those voters need to know more than just the current Government’s policy? They will need certainty that no future Scottish Government—after the referendum or after the next election—will be able to put the issue of Trident back on the table and strike a deal during the negotiations for transitional arrangements with the UK about the continued existence of Trident. Will he contemplate the options for a prohibition on any future Scottish Government from striking such a deal?
In technical terms, the Government—whether in this session of Parliament or in any other—is unable to bind its successors, which would have to be voted in by the people of Scotland.
It is inconceivable that an independent nation of 5.25 million people would tolerate the continued presence of weapons of mass destruction on its soil. I do not believe that any Government that put forward such a proposition would be elected by the people of Scotland. Patrick Harvie and I will have to express our joint trust in the good judgment and wisdom of the people of Scotland on whom they elect and for what purpose.
The First Minister has set out an orderly timetable leading us through an independence referendum to a first Scottish general election. Does he agree that if the people of Scotland vote for independence, it will be for all parties in this chamber and beyond to put forward their positive vision about how best we can use those powers so that the sovereign right of the people of Scotland can fully determine not only the form of government but the type of government best suited to their needs?
I take Jim Eadie’s point. In all fairness, in an interview during the Labour leadership campaign Johann Lamont made the very fair point that in the context of an independent Scotland—she was not saying that she supported it—the Labour Party would put forward a policy programme that it believed was in the best interests of the Scottish people. I take Johann Lamont’s word on that—I think that it would also be the view of all parties. Jim Eadie can therefore be reassured that all politicians who want to serve the Scottish people want to serve them to the best of their ability, whatever the constitutional context. Obviously, I hope that that context is independence, but that is an assurance that is shared across the chamber.
It is important that any referendum is legally competent and does not simply have the status of an opinion poll. Will the First Minister therefore state what advice he has taken from the Lord Advocate on whether the referendum would be legally binding? Will he publish that advice?
I give the member some general advice. There is no such thing as a legally binding referendum in a pure sense in the United Kingdom because the United Kingdom principle is of course one of the sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament. The vast majority of referenda that have been conducted in the United Kingdom in recent years have been conducted as consultative referenda. They have force, of course, because most democrats—just about every party—acknowledge the will of the people.
On the issue of legal advice, Mr Kelly should know that no Government that I know of—the only example that I can think of is the forced publication of the legal advice on Iraq—publishes or confirms such things. Every document that the Scottish Government has published fully conforms to the legal position as we understand it; otherwise, we would not publish the documents.
I congratulate the First Minister on his statement and the clear intention, which he has just illustrated, to state that the Scots have a choice between the sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament—the Parliament at Westminster—and the sovereignty of the people in Scotland.
Of course, we represent the people in only limited ways, because it was Westminster that decided how far we should be able to govern ourselves. I think that that is the issue in the minds of Scots at present—they lack the confidence that we could govern ourselves properly.
Can the First Minister assure me that, during this fair referendum, a fair contrast will be put? We know what we can get if we vote for the continuation of the union: the worst health statistics in Europe; our men and women sent to fight in wars that we should have nothing to do with; low rates of growth; and continuous frustration, as exemplified in this Parliament by the many petty things that we are not allowed to do as a sovereign Parliament. If the First Minister contrasts that with what we should be able to do to achieve our optimum as a nation among nations, co-operating with those with whom we have most in common, he is likely to have the referendum outcome that he seeks.
Finally, will the First Minister have nothing to do with a second question? He cannot deliver the answer.
I am grateful for 90 per cent of Margo MacDonald’s questions—I will concentrate on that.
I know that Margo MacDonald’s voice will be clearly heard, both in the process of agreeing the terms of the referendum and in the conduct of the referendum campaign itself. I offer her this observation. I think that there are recent signs in Scottish politics that the people of Scotland want to hear positive arguments correctly deployed. I think that the success of the Scottish National Party in last year’s election in particular was an assertion that a positive vision of the future will triumph over a negative campaign.
The only circumstance in which negative campaigns triumph is when they face other negative campaigns. The job of those of us, such as Margo MacDonald and me, who believe in an independent Scotland is to ensure that we put forward in a considered and entirely positive way the vision of what this country can achieve. If we hold to that positive vision of the future of Scotland, we will triumph over any negative campaign that may be levelled against us.
On the referendum franchise, I ask the First Minister about a strategy to ensure that habitual non-voters and those who are not registered to vote are fully engaged not just in the consultation process but in the independence referendum itself. Those people often come from the most deprived communities, which, in my opinion, will have most to gain from Scottish independence.
In the consultation paper, there is a section in which we put forward an idea to increase turnout. However, I agree with Bob Doris that increasing turnout is not just a matter of facilitation and making it easier for people to attend the polling station; it is also about motivation and people’s wish to turn out, have a say and feel that their vote makes a difference. He is wise to draw attention to that.
I hope and believe that the response to the consultation paper will be strong and will signal a great level of interest among our fellow citizens. Bob Doris is right to point to the fact that it is in everybody’s interest that the referendum turnout is maximised and that as many people as possible are able to vote. Above all, he is correct to draw attention to the idea that people have to be motivated to vote and have to believe that their vote will make a difference to the future.
From answers to parliamentary questions, we know that the Scottish Government spent at least £400,000 on its last historic consultation—the national conversation—not including staff time. How much more public money will be spent on the independence question between now and the spending limits coming into effect? Will any Government money be spent on supporting others, including groups outside Parliament, to develop almost-but-not-quite-independence options?
When we look at Scottish Government expenditure on publications or special advisers, we see that it is a mere flea-bite compared with the extraordinary expenditure of the previous Labour Government and, increasingly, the present coalition Government. Indeed, the current UK Government seems to be staffing all of Downing Street with special advisers whose job is to intervene in the referendum campaign—even people who were, until recently, advisers in this very Parliament.
When it comes to looking at the efficient use of public money, this party’s approach has a great deal to commend it. Perhaps that is one reason for the election result last year.