Commission on Scottish Devolution (Report)
Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-4490, in the name of Michael McMahon, on the Calman commission report. We have a little flexibility of time, so members should feel free to take interventions if they wish to do so. I will be able to add on time.
Ten years ago almost to the day, I had the privilege of being one of the 129 members of the new Scottish Parliament. Whatever happens—and a fair bit has happened in the intervening years—no one can take that moment from those of us who were there.
The argument for Scotland to have a greater degree of self-government within the United Kingdom is a political thread that, for Labour, has run from Keir Hardie through J P Mackintosh to Donald Dewar.
I am in no doubt about the purpose of the Scottish Parliament. Labour delivered it to be a powerful instrument of social progress, and so it has been. One of the great achievements of our first four years was to launch an assault on the systems of ownership of the land that we love, with the abolition of 1,000 years of the yoke of feudal tenure, the right for communities to buy and manage the land on which they live and work, and the right to roam across the land, which is a commonwealth for all. In only 10 years, the patterns of land ownership have begun to shift away from wealth, privilege and absenteeism towards community ownership and mutualism.
Our Parliament was delivered to bring politics closer to the people whom it governs, and so it has done. I remember a young woman telling a harrowing story 10 years ago at a voluntary sector conference. Her husband had been diagnosed with early-onset Alzheimer's and he was incapable of taking decisions with her about the family's finances, so the bank had frozen their joint bank account. Not only did she have to deal with the care of her husband in the face of that most tragic of diseases, but she could not access any of the family's resources. All that, because the laws that governed such incapacity in Scotland were 400 years old.
Even worse, the new law that was required had been drafted 15 years earlier and was ready and waiting, but it had never been enacted because it was Scotland-only legislation and parliamentary time at Westminster had not been found for it. Jim Wallace and I took the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000 through the Parliament. The Parliament was able to say, "This is the first piece of major, substantive legislation we will pass." Scotland went from having the most obsolete incapacity legislation to the most modern incapacity legislation in Europe. The law is used by as many as 100,000 Scots every year, so pretty well every family in the country has benefited from it at some time.
We could say the same of our world-class homelessness legislation, the first smoking ban in the United Kingdom, and so it goes on. However, closeness means more than just responsiveness in legislation. The public gallery in the Parliament is never empty and surprisingly often it is full. I remember responding to a debate as Deputy Minister for Community Care on the shortage of British Sign Language trainers and hence of signers. I turned up to find hundreds of BSL users from all over Scotland who had come to watch the debate. A watched parliament may still boil sometimes, but at the very least it has to treat the people's issues seriously while they look on.
Devolution has demonstrated that it can carry visionary and historic legislation, that it can serve the people's interests, and that it can drive change in Scotland. The Calman report's authors said:
"devolution has been a remarkable success".
However, they also said:
"the present system also has shortcomings."
Indeed, our headlines sometimes reveal a Scotland that is lagging behind and not living up to its potential. In primary 5 mathematics and science, we are 20th and 22nd respectively in a league table of 36, and we are falling down the list. We are still the sick man of Europe; although we are getting healthier, we are doing so more slowly than is the case in comparable countries. We have more than twice as many drug-related deaths per head as any other European country has. In international reports we are sometimes called the most violent country in the world, with record levels of alcohol abuse, knife crime and murder. It is clear that there is still much to be done.
Calman's conclusion was that devolution is lop-sided. All the significant legislative powers that should properly have been devolved to Holyrood were devolved, but the Scotland Act 1998 provided limited devolution of fiscal power.
The Commission on Scottish Devolution represents a remarkable achievement, and I welcome Sir Kenneth Calman to the public gallery. The commission was cross-party and it was driven by the Scottish Parliament, against the will of its executive arm. It was also cross-Administration, with support from the UK Government, and it was cross-sector, with its members' mix of business, voluntary sector and political backgrounds. However, it delivered a unanimous report.
At a time when the people's trust in their politicians is as low as we have known it to be, the commission's recommendations are not about giving more power to members of the Scottish Parliament; they are about accountability and giving more power to the people who elect us. The Calman process was characterised by rigour, attention to evidence and the breadth of consensus that the commission commanded throughout the process.
To maintain that consensus and momentum, the steering group has quickly established itself and begun to discuss how to progress Calman's proposals. Only the Scottish Government stands aloof and alone, outside the consensus, in defiance of the will of the Parliament—the very body to which it is democratically accountable. We should not be surprised, given that whenever the heavy lifting on devolution is to be done, the Scottish National Party is always posted missing—from the Scottish Constitutional Convention onwards. I paraphrase a saying from that time: when it comes to Calman, the Scottish Government says no, but we are the Parliament of Scotland and we say yes.
The Calman process, with its rigour, substance and ability to reach out and build consensus, has simply underlined the emptiness of the vessel that is the national conversation, which has reached out only to the twilight world of the SNP's midnight bloggers. Consultation events are now just platforms for First Minister's speeches of notoriously stultifying length. The national conversation is not even a dialogue of the deaf; it is a monologue of the monotonous—[Interruption.]
Order.
The national conversation is a national embarrassment and the Scottish Government should put it out of its misery and stop wasting taxpayers' money on it.
From the sidelines, the SNP tries to pick and choose elements of Calman to suit itself. A nationalist party is squirming and spinning to avoid proposals that would give the Parliament greater fiscal powers. Perhaps that is because Calman looked carefully at the SNP's core proposal—that Scotland should build its future on oil—and found it to be simply foolish.
How did the Calman commission consider the Scottish National Party's central proposition, which is that Scotland should be an independent country, given that Sir Kenneth ruled that out at the first press conference that he gave on his appointment?
Members of this Parliament know that the SNP's core proposal, in fiscal terms, is all about oil—
No, no, now come on—
Order.
Calman examined that in great detail and concluded that as oil income can veer wildly from £1 billion to £12 billion per annum in only months, the instability that such a basis would create in the Scottish economy would be an unsustainable risk. The fact is that if we sum all the oil revenues since 1980, they still do not reach one quarter of the funds that were made available last year to our two biggest banks to prevent their collapse. That shows the strength of devolution in the UK—it shares risk and economic instability across the bigger economic unit.
Is not Iain Gray just giving another example of the too poor, too wee and too stupid argument that has failed the Labour Party for 50 years and which is why it is in opposition in Scotland?
There is no question but that Scotland could go forward as an independent country. The question is whether we would be better or worse off. The answer is clearly that we would be worse off.
Calman considered all that at great length and concluded that the fiscal arrangements for the Parliament must balance equity throughout the UK and accountability for spending decisions. That principle led the commission to its proposals on income tax, locational taxes and the power to create new ways of raising taxation. Having clear choices about taxation and expenditure for more than a third of our budget would mean a significant shift in accountability for the decisions that we take in the Parliament. Calman's proposals on income tax are linked to the welcome suggestion that the Scottish Government should have borrowing powers to manage our capital programme.
Calman's recommendations would not make politics in Holyrood easier, but they would make it better. Future Scottish Governments would be unable simply to slide by the question of how and to what degree Scots should be taxed. They would be unable to turn any criticism of their budget decisions into a complaint about the settlement that they receive from somewhere else.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry—I am in the last minute of my speech.
Calman's proposals would mean that when Scotland's economy performed well, we would benefit.
I began with a reference to our 10th birthday. Birthdays are not about how big a present we can extract from family and friends. Birthdays are about growing, taking more responsibility, finding our place in the world and giving more back.
"This is about who we are, how we carry ourselves."
Donald Dewar said that on the first day, and that is what Calman is about: greater responsibility and greater opportunity. The Parliament created the Calman commission and now the Parliament should take forward its recommendations.
I move,
That the Parliament warmly welcomes the Calman Commission on Scottish Devolution's report, Serving Scotland Better: Scotland and the United Kingdom in the 21st Century, which is based firmly on evidence and engagement with the people of Scotland; thanks the chair and members of the commission for their work on behalf of the Parliament and the UK Government; agrees that the commission's report is a comprehensive response to the remit approved by the Parliament on 6 December 2007; welcomes the establishment of the steering group to take forward the report's recommendations to strengthen devolution and enable the Parliament, through new powers and responsibilities, to serve the people of Scotland better in the United Kingdom; calls on the Scottish Government to make fully available the resources of the Scottish administration to cooperate in this respect, and calls on the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to continue to allocate appropriate resources and funding to enable the Parliament to support the work of the steering group and consider the recommendations that apply to the Parliament.
I will contextualise our debate not by going back a mere 10 years, as Iain Gray did, but by going back more than a century. In the past century, many twists and turns have occurred in the process—it is a process—of Scottish self-rule. In 1885, the office of the Secretary of State for Scotland was re-established. In 1888, at the Mid Lanark by-election, what was to become the Labour Party and its candidate, Keir Hardie, fought on a platform of home rule for Scotland. In the declaration of Perth in 1968, the Tories finally converted to some form of home rule. I pay tribute to the Liberals, too, who have a long and consistent record on the matter.
Each party has contributed, but I am in no doubt—the Parliament should be in no doubt—that the petrol in the engine of change is the SNP. The pressure of the SNP has continued to drive forward the process—as then, and now, too. [Interruption.]
Order.
When self-government finally started to take place in 1997, it was not the result just of activity by the mainstream political parties. Iain Gray repeated the idea that Labour delivered devolution, but it was the choice of the Scottish people in a referendum.
Allow me to make progress.
As we started with the Scottish people underlining what they wanted to do then, let us have the confidence to move forward and to ask the Scottish people what they want to do now.
We are marking 10 years of devolution. The Parliament has passed numerous pieces of landmark legislation, but neither it nor democracy is static; they must respond to changing times, attitudes and outlooks.
I agree, as I have already said, that the Parliament has passed much landmark legislation. With the exception of the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill, which we finally got to yesterday, can Mr Russell point to any landmark legislation that his Government has passed in the past two years?
Every piece of legislation that this Parliament—[Laughter.] I am sorry that the Labour members criticise themselves out of their own mouths. They have not wasted their time on the legislation for which they voted; we have all been working to improve Scotland.
I will refer to the role of the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill. It is interesting to note that no less a person than the Terminator himself—not Iain Gray, as was obvious from his speech, but Arnold Schwarzenegger—said last night:
"Scotland's ambitious and comprehensive targets"
in the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill
"encourage other nations to step up to the plate".
In everything that the Scottish Parliament does, it is an exemplar of change. The turmoil at Westminster shows how sensible we have been in making the Parliament an example to others, but we can continue to move forward.
I pay tribute to the members of the Calman commission. It may have had as many peers on it as are in Gordon Brown's Government, but it genuinely tried to examine the issues in Scotland and there are issues in its report on which we can agree. Indeed, I am happy to say that there is no difficulty with ensuring that we make progress on three out of the four main areas of recommendation not in six months, in a year, or at an unspecified time when the consultative group gets round to it, but now. We can do things now: we can devolve responsibility for electoral administration, solve the problem of air-guns in Scotland and get drink-driving limits and speed limits right for Scotland. The Parliament also has it within its power to consider the issues with the way in which it conducts its business, and it is moving towards doing that. Those changes, too, can take place now. Clearly, other partners are involved in intergovernmental relations—the Welsh and Northern Irish have to be part of it—but I announce that I have asked my officials to start to draft amendments to the memorandum of understanding, which is not concluded yet, so that we can propose the Calman changes this summer. We are moving forward on each issue.
Will the Scottish Government instruct its civil servants to co-operate with the UK Government in developing the work of the steering group and the Calman commission's proposals?
The civil servants who work with me on such matters are never done working with officials in London on a range of issues, including the Calman proposals. When questions are asked about the cost of the national conversation, we have to factor in the considerable cost of working with, supporting and being kind to the Calman commission and ensuring that it was well guided on the realities of Scotland. We do that.
Only on one area is there substantive disagreement, which needs to be listened to. Calman's recommendations may appear to give Scotland more control over its finances, but the reality is very different from the appearance. On a superficial level and a deep level, Calman offers nothing to Scotland in fiscal terms. Indeed, it could actually make things worse in our fiscal activity.
Rubbish.
I hear Rhona Brankin shouting as ever. I shall not miss that noise during the recess. Far from it. I hope that I do not start hallucinating about it.
I will examine criticism of Calman not from us—it is easy to criticise—but from Professor Drew Scott, Professor Ronald MacDonald, Professor Paul Hallwood, Professor Neil Kay, Professor Andrew Hughes Hallett, David Simpson, Professor Rod Cross and Professor Farhad Noorbakhsh, who signed a letter to The Scotsman last week. They said:
"The Calman Commission proposals will do little to enhance the ability of a Scottish government to introduce measures necessary to improve Scotland's underlying economic growth rate, or to balance the Scottish economy through good times and bad. The degree of accountability is illusory, especially since so much of the spending will be underpinned by the Barnett block grant."
There is an answer to the question of fiscal responsibility in this Parliament.
Is the minister's answer the Crown dependency idea that was put forward by his colleague Kenny Gibson in motion S3M-4447, which seems to be the new SNP idea of where Scotland's future will lie?
I am a great supporter of my colleague Kenny Gibson, but I do not consult him on Crown dependencies, alas. I am sure that Kenny Gibson, when pressed, will talk about that issue.
Let me tell the Parliament what the Scottish Government is thinking. The Scottish Government's paper on fiscal autonomy, which was published in February, made a strong, coherent case for Scotland's having full control of its own finances. That case has been supported previously by members of the Liberal party, the Conservative party and the Labour Party. It is the only coherent way forward for responsibility for the Parliament, and the fact that Calman refused to recommend it says much more about Calman's inability to think outside the box than it does about what Scotland actually needs.
We are fully prepared to move forward on the things that we can do, and we will do. However, on the things on which there is substantial disagreement, we must debate what Scotland needs, rather than what the Labour Party wants, because those two things rarely, if ever, go together.
Let me say a final word about the real process of discussion that Scotland needs. I welcome what Calman has contributed, but it is not enough. We can move forward with some, but not all, of what it has contributed. However, the real energy in the debate comes not from Calman but from the people of Scotland, who over the past year have contributed to the national conversation and attended repeated meetings throughout Scotland.
Will the minister give way?
No. I am sorry.
Will the minister give way?
No. I am sorry. I have invited Rhona Brankin to attend a national conversation meeting, and I will not take an intervention from her on this matter until she comes to one. There is a challenge for her. I look forward to that debate; I am sure that we will be able to sell tickets for it.
The amendment in my name provides the opportunity for the Parliament really to move forward, not to juggle ideas and semantics. If the Parliament is keen on the Calman recommendations—those that can be implemented—we can implement them now. My amendment allows the Parliament to do so.
I hope that it is not narrow party advantage but, genuinely, the national interest that drives Iain Gray. If he and his colleagues want to vote in the national interest, they should vote for the amendment in my name. At the end of the day, we will know whether Iain Gray, the Tories and the Liberals really want change, or whether they want to pretend about change. The real history in Scotland is that change is driven by people and by the SNP. It will be the same again on this occasion.
I move amendment S3M-4990.1, to leave out from the first "Parliament" to end and insert:
"welcomes the constitutional debate in Scotland; notes the Calman Commission on Scottish Devolution's report, Serving Scotland Better: Scotland and the United Kingdom in the 21st Century, and puts forward a plan for implementation that (a) urges the UK Government to work with the Scottish Government to implement now those recommendations for additional powers that have attracted consensus by devolving electoral administration (5.1), airguns (5.13), licensing of controlled substances for treating addictions (5.14), drink-driving limits (5.15) and national speed limits (5.16), (b) calls on the Parliamentary Bureau to consider the recommendations that apply to the procedures of the Parliament, (c) further calls on the Scottish Government to work with other devolved administrations and the UK Government to take forward recommendations on the relationships between the respective governments, and (d) calls for continued debate towards a decision by the Scottish people on the merits of the Calman Commission on Scottish Devolution's financial proposals in contrast to those that would offer real financial independence for Scotland."
If the petrol in the engine of change is the SNP, bring on the post-carbon economy with all haste. Let the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill, which we passed yesterday, be implemented as soon as possible.
I thank Sir Kenneth Calman, his fellow commissioners and the secretariat to the Commission on Scottish Devolution for all their hard work.
In the 18 months between the Parliament voting to create the commission and the publication of the report earlier this month, the commission has engaged widely with Scots in all walks of life and all parts of the country. Many submissions were received, and witnesses gave evidence on a range of issues. I was pleased to give the commission my views when it took evidence from MSPs. David Cameron, George Osborne, Philip Hammond and David Mundell all took part in the process. I am sure that members throughout the chamber will concede that a great deal of work has gone into the report.
The commission's work was a real national conversation, unlike the sham spectacle of the SNP's so-called national conversation, which was a series of public relations stunts designed to further inflate the ego of Mr Salmond, if such a thing were possible.
Will the member give way?
Not at the moment. I am just about to refer to Mr Russell.
The national conversation was also designed as a forum to intensify the decibel levels of Mr Russell's orations—again, if such a thing were possible.
I say to Annabel Goldie—very quietly and gently—that she is very welcome to attend a national conversation event. I am sure that she would draw more people than I do.
The national conversation speaks for its limited and self-serving self. It can best be described as an SNP internal chit-chat forum. The contrast between the work of the commission and the national conversation could not be clearer. The report stands witness to the scale of the task that the commission undertook.
In this short debate, the Parliament cannot be expected to reach a consensus view on the merits, or otherwise, of every proposal in the report. Indeed, it would do a disservice to the work of the commission if any member did anything other than give serious and thoughtful consideration to the report—consideration that will, inevitably, take time. We all must take that time to get things right.
Along with my colleagues at Westminster, I will listen very carefully to what my party has to say. It is right that a mechanism such as the steering group is set up to give the unionist parties a forum in which to continue to engage. However, the steering group can steer only when the parties to it have reached a settled position, without which it cannot, of course, deliver anything at all.
I am interested in the point about the issues needing time and careful consideration. There are a number of issues in Mr Russell's amendment upon which there is absolutely no disagreement among any of the political parties in terms of the powers that could be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. What is the obstacle to that happening?
As I have made clear in my remarks to date, the process upon which we are embarking, post publication of the report, is hugely significant and must not be rushed. We must get this right.
I welcome the report, but I will not accept uncritically the Calman recommendations. I will give thorough reflection to the detail of the proposals. That said, I will not reject out of hand proposals over which the commission—whose remit was endorsed overwhelmingly by this Parliament—spent months deliberating. In our 2007 manifesto, the Conservatives acknowledged the need for a debate on devolution powers and funding. I repeat what I said earlier: I want our response to the Calman recommendations to be right, not rushed. Whatever we do to the devolved settlement must be built to last; it must be a secure legacy from this generation of MSPs to future generations of Scots.
I am a committed unionist. I will do nothing to put at risk a partnership that has served our nation well for centuries. That is the agenda of another party. However, as we recognised in 2007, when we voted to establish the commission, devolution was at a crossroads. At that time, we asked a simple question: is the current arrangement incapable of improvement? I believe the answer to that question was no. For instance, I believe that devolution has been done a disservice by the lack of mutual respect between Governments and Parliaments. We need to see a vast improvement in that area.
The answer that flows from the simple question "Can things be improved?" is fundamental for those of us who are unionists. Is the best way of securing Scotland's continued place in the United Kingdom to reject all change? I am clear that the answer to that is no. Rejecting any and all change would be to play into the hands of the separatists and to stoke the fires of resentment that the SNP Government has been busy igniting over the past two years.
Given my strong and unwavering commitment to the union, let me make it clear that supporting the creation of the commission was not a decision that I entered into lightly. I believed it to be—I still believe it to be—the best way of progressing the unfinished business of building a stable devolved settlement that will secure Scotland's place in the union
As the Daily Telegraph noted on the Calman report:
"The timid will warn that this could weaken the Union, but why should it? Separatist tendencies are more likely to flourish if Scotland continues to have a client relationship with Whitehall".
Commitment to the union is not measured by hostility to devolution any more than Scottishness is measured by support for separation. I am British and Scottish and proud to be both. An overwhelming majority of people inside and outside the Parliament believe in devolution, not separation. We do so because we believe it to be in Scotland's best interests that we remain part of a greater whole, and because we believe that Scotland's distinct needs and desires can be accommodated within a union that has evolved over centuries, at the core of which is a recognition that we have much to gain in working together.
Supporting the unionist motion tonight will be a sign of self-confidence, not a sign of weakness, on the part of the unionist parties. It will be a signal that we have the courage to consider change and that far from wanting to weaken the union, we share a common aspiration to strengthen it. I remind the Parliament of the central remit of the Calman commission, which is to
"continue to secure the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom."
That is the acid test that will underpin all the deliberations of my party.
I am no unionist—I believe in a federal United Kingdom and a federal solution to the needs of this country. After listening to this morning's performances, my view that there is a need for such a fundamental change to the whole of the country has not changed; indeed, it has been enhanced. Mr Gray mentioned that the public galleries in the Parliament are not often full. Gosh, it is just as well, given that what we had from the leader of the Labour Party in Scotland and from Mike Russell were speeches aimed at the members of their own parties rather than at the country. If ever there were an issue that should be about the country, it is the one that we are discussing this morning—that is what we should be trying to achieve.
I congratulate Kenneth Calman and his commissioners on their work, and those who supported them in that work; I also congratulate them on putting up with some of the observations that I made.
As a party, we have been in favour of home rule for more than 100 years. We recognise that the Scotland Act 1998 was not the final word and that more could be done to build home rule for Scotland. As Liberal Democrats, we argue for change and for a different approach. That is why we pushed forward the Scottish Constitutional Convention as it delivered the Parliament and why we built support for Calman's 10-year review of where Scotland is and where we should travel to. The Steel commission, chaired by a former Presiding Officer, did groundbreaking work that set the agenda and created a dynamic for change. I would argue strongly that the cutting edge of change on the Calman commission has been provided by my colleague Jim Wallace.
Calman's proposals will have a real impact. On jobs and the economy, Calman points the way forward on, for example, how to pay for the new Forth bridge. We all remember the SNP Government's statement of last December, which implied that it had an agreed approach to the funding of the Forth bridge, but it turned out that it had not. On 4 March, the UK Government announced that it had come up with a £1 billion package to pay for the bridge, but it had not. Calman means that the age of announcement without money is over—and not a moment too soon. The powers proposed in his report will provide the opportunity to get on and get building.
This week, the Parliament passed the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Calman opens the door to radical thinking on how to link that legislation with measures that can make the new law do something. An action plan is one thing; an action plan strengthened by a progressive tax regime is better still.
On social justice, the Calman proposals mean that a fair replacement for the council tax could go ahead. We have still not had the full inquest into the mysterious and sudden death of the SNP's proposals for a local income tax on 11 February, but the fingerprints—in the form of opposition from the UK Government and disengagement by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs—seem to be all over the body.
Calman changes all that. It can give the Scottish ministers and the Scottish Parliament a direct route to using the tax man. It gives us the chance to bring in a fairer system of local tax, thus avoiding the SNP's approach so far, which has been to allocate £500 million to freeze the council tax, even though the biggest benefit has gone to the richest people living in the biggest houses.
Stop talking about yourself.
That is a cheap one.
Calman continues the process of ensuring that this Parliament has responsibility for both sides of the balance sheet. That is a theme, a principle and a practice that we should use wisely for the people whom we serve.
I am pleased that the leaders of the Labour and Conservative parties here and at Westminster have agreed to form a delivery group, but it must be about implementing Calman. The old establishment politics of Westminster—which fool no one, alienate yet more of the public across the UK and fail utterly to recognise the desire for something different—have no place here.
Mr Scott made a point about the importance of implementing the Calman commission's recommendations. Will he comment on the point that I raised with Annabel Goldie, which was that there are issues in Mr Russell's amendment on which I understand there is no disagreement among the political parties in this Parliament? Why cannot we press ahead with the implementation of the agreed provisions right now?
I am all in favour of pressing ahead on agreed areas "right now", to use Mr Swinney's words. However, as he knows as a minister of the Scottish Government—indeed, he makes this point regularly in the chamber—a minister cannot always do things "right now". If he sets out a timescale and is prepared to work with the steering group to deliver the aspects of the Calman proposals on which there is agreement, I will be more than happy to see him there. I hope that the SNP will play a full and constructive role in exactly that process. On that, I am sure that Mr Swinney and I could agree.
We need a strengthened Scottish Parliament within the UK—that is what all the parties have to want to deliver. I warn those who prevaricate, dither and dream of long grass: it will not wash. I listened carefully to the qualifications that Annabel Goldie issued. I say to her that either this reform gets done or she will be run over by the people's impatience with tired old establishment politics.
The opportunity and appetite for stronger devolution with more powers for our Parliament is with us. When the Calman commission was founded, the Scottish Government said that it would not get anywhere and it would not propose radical change, but it has. The SNP amendment shows its commitment to get involved—that is good, but let us see it in action now. The proposed changes require legislation and new rules at Westminster and Holyrood. The Scottish Government should give its political support and release the practical expertise of its civil servants to assist in the process.
Now is the moment for those in the Government who want to see more powers for this Parliament to be part of the plans. I cannot conceive why any nationalist can be against change and reform that strengthens this Parliament's accountability. The SNP cannot pick and choose: being against change is not an option for the SNP or for any others. Let us get this done and move the country further forward towards a stronger home-rule Parliament that is a stronger Parliament within the UK, a Parliament with a purpose and a Parliament with powers for a purpose.
We come to open debate. As I indicated earlier, I have a little flexibility, but speeches should be around six minutes.
Like other front-bench speakers, I will begin with history. However, let me propose a slightly less partisan view of Scotland's future than that which we heard from the SNP seats.
When it comes to constitutional reform, Scots like their politicians to co-operate. From the national covenant in the immediate post-war years to the Kilbrandon commission in the 1970s, the constitutional convention in the 1990s and the Calman commission today, Scots have wanted consensus solutions when it comes to the constitution and have distrusted political parties that try to ram their pet constitutional schemes down Scotland's throat. It is a lesson that Labour learned the hard way in the late 1970s, and we all paid the price in the 1979 referendum; it is a lesson that the Conservatives relearned in the mid-1990s when they tried to stand against the tide of change and the national groundswell for a Parliament; and it is a lesson that the SNP still has to learn, because it is always looking for a me-myself-I solution.
Can the member relate that thesis to, for example, how the results of the European elections turned out in Scotland? It does not seem to be an exact match, by any manner of means.
My point is that, when it comes to constitutional change, Scots want consensus and do not want to be railroaded into the views of any one political party.
The SNP is always looking for a me-myself-I solution. That was true when it stood apart from the Scottish Constitutional Convention; it was true last year when it stood apart from the Calman commission; and it was true again yesterday when it stood apart from joining the Calman steering group.
The SNP's me-myself-I attitude is at the heart of the problem with the SNP amendment. I draw members' attention to the small print of that amendment. If we accepted it, we would carve this Parliament—the Parliament that gave birth to Calman—out of any further role in amending its own powers, in improving relations with Westminster, or in implementing the new financial powers. We, this Parliament, would be relegated to simply fixing our own procedures.
I therefore urge all members to ponder the implications of the SNP's amendment, especially in relation to financial powers. The amendment calls on us to hand over all negotiations to a Scottish Government that does not even believe in the proposed powers. Just today, we have heard from Mike Russell that he believes that the Calman financial proposals could "make things worse". Well, thanks but no thanks. I do not want those who rubbish the plans to be charged with delivering the most radical shake-up in Scotland's finances for a century. What will they say to the Whitehall warriors or the Treasury die-hards—the officials who fear that Calman is the thin end of the wedge, weakening the Treasury's grip on Whitehall? They might say, "Look, guys. We don't believe in these plans either. We think they'll make things worse—but we'd like to have them anyway." I have been there, negotiating for financial powers for Scotland with Her Majesty's Treasury; if one takes a sceptical, half-hearted and partisan approach, it simply does not work.
The Treasury and Whitehall mandarins, whom the member so demonises, are accountable to Labour ministers. Do Labour ministers share the scepticism of which she speaks about Scottish autonomy?
No, they certainly do not. However, the point that I am trying to make is that delivering Calman will not come from one party trying to trump another. Delivering Calman will come from building more consensus, not from fomenting domestic division; and the building of the consensus necessary to deliver Calman can come only from this Parliament—a Parliament that was itself brought into being through cross-party co-operation and one that is given legitimacy by an electoral system that reflects all shades of opinion. Parliament must be confident enough to embrace the evidence of its fellow countrymen, as captured by the Calman commission.
Calman is not about embracing what Mike Russell so derisively claimed was just "what the Labour Party wants". That was a typically calculated insult. It not only dismisses the commissioners of all parties and none but turns its face against the expert financial group on which the finest minds that Scotland could offer were dedicated to the problem. Instead of choosing those plans, Mike Russell chooses to focus on the single dissenting voice in the expert group. To die in a ditch for a single dissenting voice, and to stand against the consensus of everyone else, is simply not in the nation's interests.
If we agree to the motion, Parliament can choose to become Calman's champion. We will lay down a marker that this is the place that brought Calman into being and that this is the place that will uphold Calman's conclusions. We are the best hope for Calman, and we will fight for that vision. We cannot agree to an amendment that would mean that this Parliament was pushed sideways, marginalised and forced out of the debate on the realisation of its own future.
We, here, need to be at the heart of the next steps. We are the key to keeping the cross-party consensual approach alive and to delivering what Scotland wants—which is the lesson of constitutional change in this country.
Well, well, well. What a pathetic sight we have before us today. The three unionist parties—sworn enemies of one another—are huddling together for warmth, sheltered only by the thin blanket of Calman against the storm of support for self-determination that is beginning to rage outside. Let me tell them that their shelter will soon be swept away.
We need look only at the track record of the three parties. As recently as 2007, Labour was arguing against the need for any further alteration to the devolution settlement. Presumably it agreed with the view of the former Labour secretary of state that devolution had killed the demand for independence "stone dead". However, it is now enthusiastically welcoming the transfer of further powers to Scotland.
Moreover, only a few years ago, the Conservatives were strident opponents of devolution—and yet here they are, supporting Calman with an enthusiasm that has caused the ghost of Michael Forsyth to reappear and rattle his chains at them.
We should above all spare a thought for the poor bewildered Liberal Democrats. Throughout the years, the poor lambs have argued for a federal UK, but they have been lured into supporting a commission that has been actively instructed not to consider such an option. How foolish they must feel now.
We should also consider Lord Foulkes, who, when the commission visited London, took time out of his second job—or is it his first?—to argue for an English Parliament, which is another subject that Calman is not allowed to consider. Meanwhile, Helen Eadie has argued bravely against fellow party members, MEPs David Martin and Catherine Stihler, in favour of Scotland being given the power to carry out separate negotiations with the European Union. That subject is also out of bounds to Calman. Of course, we could have a constitutional settlement that would allow separate negotiations and the creation of an English Parliament—if only Helen Eadie and Lord Foulkes would support it.
In fact, that whole subject of what the Calman commission has not been allowed to consider is very apposite to this debate. Having been denied the chance to investigate the options of independence and federation, it has had to ignore not just one elephant in the room but a whole herd.
As for the commission's recommendations, we welcome the few morsels that it has tossed our way, such as the control over speed limits, air weapons and our elections.
Ooh.
As all of us—except, perhaps, Mr Gibson—agree on the need for such powers, surely we can arrange for these transfers as soon as possible.
However, the need above all else to preserve the UK's integrity means that no power of any importance will be transferred to Holyrood. Indeed, the income tax proposals are worse than useless—they are dangerous.
A major part of the Calman report is its emphasis on the value of the UK. In the context of this debate, does Dr McKee believe that the UK has any value?
Yes. Although I do not believe in the political union of these islands, I believe totally in their social union. Indeed, the Scottish National Party has said nothing against that most important union.
As Professor Andrew Hughes Hallett warned the commission in his evidence on what he termed the west London question, it is wrong to make a Government rely on income tax revenue when, apart from having the ability simply to adjust the rate, it does not control the economic levers necessary to influence how much it will bring in. The Secretary of State for Scotland, among others, has already claimed that after years of union the Scottish economy is so debilitated that, to survive, it has to be linked to the economy of the rest of the UK. If this mismanagement of our affairs continues—and why should it not under the union?—a further deterioration such as that forecast by Professor Brian Ashcroft will result in more unemployment, lower incomes and less income tax revenue at the very time we need to maintain public expenditure.
Does Dr McKee not accept that the Calman commission's income tax proposals will allow the Parliament to invest more in ensuring that the growth of the Scottish economy is the key priority?
No. It is one thing to set the rate of income tax, but the amount of income tax that comes into the country depends on decisions that are made outwith the Scottish Parliament and over which we have no control. Under the Calman proposals, we will not have any ability to borrow for revenue expenditure, which will leave us with a huge deficit and result in less investment in hospitals and schools.
Will the member give way?
No, I need to make progress. If I had 12 minutes, I would be happy to take every intervention.
Let us be certain that the UK economy and Scotland's part in it has been grossly mismanaged. Opposition members point gleefully to the Irish economy as a warning of the dangers of independence, but I have to tell them that the rest of the world regards the UK as a real economic basket-case. Indeed, our currency and credit rating have both been downgraded. Our fiscal deficit as a result of the downturn might be broadly in line with that of other countries, but we have an enormous trade deficit and the worst level of personal indebtedness in the western world. In the UK, that figure is 180 per cent of total income, compared with 140 per cent in the United States and 100 per cent in Germany. Take all those together and we have a recipe for forthcoming economic disaster.
There are several reasons why that scenario has come about, but Calman puts his finger on one disaster that affects Scotland in particular. He says:
"Established economic theory suggests that, in order to achieve intergenerational equity",
some gas and oil revenue should be invested for the future. He then remarks that the way in which "successive UK Governments" have used such revenues has been "controversial". That is "Yes Minister"-speak for "extremely foolish". If Scotland had had control over its economy and followed Norway's example, we would now be investors in the International Monetary Fund rather than approaching that organisation with a begging bowl.
Calman has failed to respond to the true needs of Scotland. It never could, but the mere existence of the commission's report is a milestone on the road to independence and, as that, we should welcome it.
I warmly welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. I am a strong supporter of devolution and, like many others in the chamber, I campaigned for the establishment of this Scottish Parliament. I was part of a trade union campaign to secure a yes-yes vote in 1997. Wendy Alexander touched on that this morning when she said that that cross-party approach to a wider campaign achieved a great result and showed that, in the main, political parties can put aside their differences when it matters.
I was immensely proud when the Parliament was reconvened in 1999. I was fortunate to be asked to give oral evidence early in that first session and see at first hand how the Parliament was working. Such public and personal milestones will be similar to those experienced by hundreds throughout Scotland, but they would not have been realised without devolution or without our building a Parliament that is accessible as an institution as well as in many other ways.
Before I entered Parliament, I worked for the Scottish Trades Union Congress, so I engaged with MSPs, parliamentary staff, Government officials and ministers on a regular basis. I could see at first hand that as the Parliament developed there were areas in which people would feel that it was right for the Parliament to consider the relevance of increasing its powers. For me, today's debate is about recognising the progress made in the past 10 years—and few would deny that we have made progress. Iain Gray touched on that subject this morning when he said that Scotland has led the way on issues such as free personal care.
Does the member acknowledge that the publication of the Calman report in the Parliament's 10th anniversary year is a happy coincidence and that, in fact, the commission was established in 2007 as a knee-jerk reaction to a minority SNP Government?
I apologise to Ms Mitchell—I did not hear her intervention because the speaker on my desk did not work.
Today's debate is also about recognising the excellent work undertaken by the Calman commission. It has impressed many people across the political spectrum and commentators in the media. It was summed up nicely by Iain Macwhirter in the Sunday Herald when he said:
"This is not only a serious and scholarly piece of work, it is also a model of clarity".
Not many reports or publications in recent times have had such praise.
Like Annabel Goldie, I am convinced now more than ever that people are not persuaded by independence but desire increased fiscal autonomy and want more powers to come to Scotland. Unlike some in this chamber, the vast majority of Scots do not believe that independence is the answer to all our ills.
I need only look around my constituency to see why people are not falling over each other to support independence and why devolution is popular. Devolution does not put thousands of defence jobs at risk at Rosyth and on the Clyde. Devolution is the best of both worlds for those workers because it provides 50,000 high-quality defence and aerospace jobs throughout Scotland. Scotland is able to benefit from allocated Ministry of Defence work while, at the same time, we can use our powers over economic development and our skills to maximise Scotland's capacity to deliver those huge projects. We have powers to contribute to those skills and infrastructure because of devolution and our place in the United Kingdom.
Even now in the current settlement, there appears to be a mental block in the Scottish Government with regard to defence-related employment, with little or no mention of the sector in the Scottish Government's economic strategy.
While we are on the subject of that strategy, when I was having flick though it again recently—as I do when I try to get to sleep at night—I noticed that the Scottish Government argues for greater devolution of employment policy. It says:
"further devolution of employment policy would improve accountability and provide greater coherence between economic and employment policy, allowing the balance between workers rights, the level of minimum wage and the need for a flexible workforce to reflect Scottish labour market conditions."
If the Scottish Government believes in further devolution in those areas, why has it not made any attempt to put forward the case as part of the process? I cannot recall the Scottish Government making arguments on those issues in the chamber.
On reflection, I am pleased that the Government has not done so. Sir George Mathewson, the First Minister's chief economic adviser, described UK employment law as "frightening" and the associated red tape as "horrific" when he gave evidence to the Parliament's Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, so I wonder what economic policy and direction the SNP would argue for. What balance would the SNP desire between workers' rights, the level of the minimum wage and a flexible workforce? What would that look like? Judging from the views of Sir George Mathewson, it does not sound pretty, and it is certainly not the long-term, high-quality approach that we need to take for economic development in Scotland in the 21st century.
I believe that devolution has been a success, although the process has had its challenges. The commission's first conclusion,
"that devolution has been a remarkable success"
and a sustainable one, is a view that I hope everyone here in the chamber can share—and not just everyone in here, but the majority of Scots too.
Although we have our political differences, I am disappointed that the Scottish Government is reluctant to take up the offer of being on the steering group. I am particularly supportive of greater co-operation between Parliaments, which is one of the commission's key recommendations. As parliamentarians, we all have responsibility—and I would argue that we have a greater responsibility now more than ever—to make what we do here and what is done at Westminster increasingly relevant.
Despite the occasional showboating and spin-driven demands from the Scottish Government, I believe that interaction between the Governments has been very constructive. It has needed to be, because of the recent challenges that we have faced on a UK basis, which have had Scottish implications. Swine flu is the most recent example, but there was also the bombing at Glasgow airport a couple of years ago.
Similar dialogue between Parliaments is a welcome recommendation, and I believe that it would strengthen democracy, lead us to greater accountability and enhance devolution. That is what will make a difference to Scots, and it will make a difference here in the Scottish Parliament—it will bring the Scottish Parliament closer to the Scottish people. That is why I am pleased to support the motion.
There are a couple of things that I wish to make clear at the start. First, no party in this land reconvened this Parliament; it was Scotland's people who did it, and it is Scotland's people who will deliver further for this nation. Secondly, I want to make clear the reality of where we are today in relation to funding. With minor exceptions, the Scottish Parliament is just another department of the UK Government for the purposes of funding. Strangely, the role of arguing for a fair share for Scotland rests with the Secretary of State for Scotland rather than with the Scottish ministers. After all, the secretary of state is the only one who sits at the Westminster Cabinet table.
One of the minor exceptions was that the Parliament was to be responsible for local taxation. However, now that we have a Scottish Government that wishes to exercise that responsibility—by abolishing the discredited council tax—the resources to deliver such a change have been redefined as no longer being in the Scottish block. Effectively, Westminster removed that devolved power, telling this Parliament, "If you reform local taxation to lift poorer people out of the tax net, we will remove the benefits from Scotland's poor—but continue to subsidise a regressive local tax in other parts of the UK".
Given time, I could go on to cover the examples of free personal care, student grants and housing benefit, all of which have been debated at length in this chamber. I am sure that members have seen a pattern emerging over the past 10 years. As has been said,
"Power devolved is power retained."
After 10 years, we now know how that retention is exercised: it is through the control of finance.
Calman is offering more of the same: devolution in theory; Westminster control in practice. Calman's proposal is to forget the 3p optional Scottish income tax and to adopt an obligatory 10p Scottish income tax. That tax is obligatory, as it is hedged about with conditions and hard-wired to policy decisions that still lie with Westminster. To do other than apply the 10p tax would be to risk the sort of quagmire of negotiation with the UK Treasury from which this Parliament and Scotland have already suffered the consequences. The inflexibility of the proposed arrangement is its biggest drawback—proof of Powell's adage that power devolved is power retained.
Will the member give way?
No.
There is no scope for altering the balance between the upper and lower rates and for changing allowance rates—it is yet another regressive tax to be foisted on the Parliament.
Calman moots further borrowing powers. Although those powers may be welcome, the fact that he has designated Jim Murphy as the only banker in town severely undermines their value. Without effective borrowing powers, the Parliament would be taking a significant risk in varying levels of taxation. As Professors Andrew Hughes Hallett and Drew Scott have argued, the Calman proposals would result in financial instability. Because of overreliance on one taxation stream and the inability to borrow to smooth variations in income, the Scottish Government could be forced to cut costs or raise taxes during a downturn, thus inflicting even further damage on the Scottish economy. The combination of Calman's tax and borrowing proposals could result in the Scottish Government having to make in-year alterations to budgets as income tax projections varied. The problem with Calman is the problem with devolution—a lack of balance.
To operate financial powers effectively, it may be necessary to make a series of adjustments to achieve our objective. That is real responsibility and control. Whether by accident or design—I will leave members to work out for themselves which it is—Calman would leave the Scottish Government accountable to its electorate for decisions forced on it by Westminster's continued control of the Parliament's finances. Calman proposes that we should get responsibility with no control, while Westminster retains control with no accountability.
I hear the case that the member makes—that the Parliament should have total control of all levers of the Scottish economy—but it is the SNP's policy that, on independence, the Bank of England should continue to set interest rates for an independent Scottish currency, before Scotland adopts the euro, for which the European Central Bank controls interest rates. Surely, in the global economy in which we operate, co-operation is inevitable in some areas.
I have often found that, when the Opposition has to listen to the truth, it reverts to its tired old arguments. All Governments and Parliaments should be accountable to their electorate. When the Scottish people decide that Scotland will be independent, the independent Government in Scotland will be accountable to its electorate for all the decisions that are taken in this independent country. That is why the SNP's amendment calls for continued debate, why decisions on matters as important as the Calman proposals should be taken by the Scottish people, and why those who care about the future of Scotland should vote for the SNP amendment.
The report of the Calman commission has been written by unionists, for unionists, and has been faithful to the remit that Parliament approved for the commission—that, in coming to its recommendations, it should secure Scotland's continued position within the United Kingdom. That does not mean that we must automatically sign up to every one of the recommendations, whether they relate to improving relationships between Scotland's two Parliaments and Governments, enhancing financial accountability, devolving further legislative and executive powers or—as they do in a few instances—re-reserving powers to Westminster. As Annabel Goldie made clear, all the recommendations will require careful consideration. Parliament will have to consider its procedures and to weigh the implications carefully before deciding what changes to make to its modus operandi.
Given the genesis of the commission, it is entirely appropriate that its recommendations should be taken forward under the aegis of a steering group on which the unionist parties in Scotland's two Parliaments are represented.
The member said that he needs some time to consider all of Calman's recommendations, but there has been a little time. Would he care to tell us some of the things in Calman with which he feels instinctively that his party would not agree?
I am very supportive of the respect agenda and of improving co-operation between Scotland's Parliaments and Governments. Calman makes some excellent suggestions in that respect, which I hope we can progress through the steering group and other agencies, including this Parliament, through its current review of our standing orders, which will no doubt be carefully considered by the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee.
Will the member take an intervention?
I would like to make some progress.
I am a member of the only party in Parliament that is unionist by name as well as by inclination. Like Annabel Goldie, I am Scottish and British and proud to be both—a dual identity that we, with the overwhelming majority of our fellow Scots, share and cherish. The aim of sustaining and strengthening the political, economic, monetary and social union that is our United Kingdom rings forth from virtually every page of the Calman report, which is why the motion emphasises that fundamental point. It is the very purpose and intent of the Calman commission and it is fundamentally different from the purpose and intent of the Scottish National Party, whose intent is to destroy that union and establish a separate Scottish state.
However, given that support for independence is no higher today than it was 10 years ago, when Parliament was established, we have nothing to fear from making sensible and considered modifications to the devolution settlement in the light of our experience.
Will Mr McLetchie set out for us whether there are elements of the Calman commission report with which the Conservatives disagree in principle, so that we can have some sense of whether we are dealing with a combined package or a pick-'n'-mix approach to the recommendations of the Calman commission?
I will be happy to give Mr Swinney an answer to that question. We have had discussions within our own democratic party, which likes to consider such matters as a whole before rushing to any conclusions, unlike the dictatorial manner in which the SNP conducts its affairs.
Most attention has centred on the report's recommendations in relation to tax—rightly so, given that the commission was asked specifically to consider financial accountability. The report is particularly good in pointing out that in federal and semifederal systems of government, funding of the devolved tier comes from a mixture of taxes that it raises itself, taxes for which there is shared responsibility, and grants from central government. Accordingly, at issue is the appropriate mix of those elements, taking into account equity, accountability and efficiency.
Full fiscal autonomy, whereby Parliament would have to raise every penny that it spends, is rightly dismissed as being impractical and tantamount to independence. What we need is a measured discussion about degrees, rather than a strident debate about absolutes. It is reasonable to ask whether the balance is right or should be tilted further in favour of greater tax-raising powers. That is the conclusion that was reached by the commission, but even if its recommendations were implemented in full, two thirds of our budget would still be grant-financed through the Treasury via Barnett or some similar formula.
To those who say that giving Parliament more powers will lead inevitably to an increase in taxes, I point out that that has not, with the powers we have, been the experience to date. Admittedly, the SNP got off to a particularly bad start in that respect with its notorious "Penny for Scotland" campaign in 1999—which was conceived, of course, by one Michael Russell—but the voters quickly saw through that one. It is true that the Liberal Democrats have from time to time flirted with increasing taxes, and there has always been the odd back-bench Labour MSP who could be guaranteed to suggest that it was necessary to increase spending levels, even if that was not the official position of the Labour Executive.
However, in the past two years we have seen a council tax freeze and—thanks to the efforts of the Conservatives in successive budget negotiations—we now have in Scotland the most generous small business rates relief scheme in the United Kingdom, which is helping tens of thousands of our small businesses to survive the recession. Accordingly, in recent times this has been a tax-cutting Parliament, not a tax-increasing one.
To put all the discussion about tax and tax raising into perspective, we have far more to fear from tax rises emanating from Westminster that are necessitated by Gordon Brown's catastrophic mismanagement of the public finances, than we have from any of the changes that may flow from the Calman report and the consequent actions of the Scottish Parliament. We all have a part to play in resolving that problem in a responsible manner throughout the United Kingdom. The Calman commission is fundamentally about enabling the Scottish Parliament to play its part in doing so.
I support the motion.
I am pleased to take part in the debate and to support the Labour motion.
The title of the Calman report is "Serving Scotland Better: Scotland and the United Kingdom in the 21st Century". It is important to keep in mind the reasons for setting up the commission under the leadership of Sir Kenneth Calman. Its task was to find out how the Scottish Parliament might better serve the people of Scotland and improve the quality of their daily lives, to find out how the Parliament might be made more financially accountable, and to secure Scotland's place within a modern UK with a multilevel system of governance.
Does David Whitton accept that the commission would not have been set up had the SNP not won the election?
No.
It is fair to say that the establishment of the commission was met with a lot of cynicism from SNP members and their friends in the media. It is a credit to the members of the commission and Sir Kenneth Calman that the final report is so thoughtful, well written and well considered, with unanimous backing for proposals that are in some cases fairly revolutionary, and that it was published on time. I pay tribute to the commission. I wrote that before I knew that members of it would be in the public gallery today.
Since the report was published, there has been a lot of focus on the proposals to improve Parliament's financial accountability. To recap, Calman recommends cutting basic and higher rates of income tax by 10p in the pound, with a corresponding reduction in the block grant; replacing the Scottish variable rate of income tax with a new Scottish income tax rate; devolving to the Scottish Parliament stamp duty land tax, the aggregate levy, landfill tax and air passenger duty, again with a corresponding reduction in the block grant; giving Scottish ministers borrowing powers; and strengthening intergovernmental relations that deal with finance. The commission justified those recommendations in the report by stating:
"In our view these recommendations will give the Scottish Parliament real financial accountability, and will do so in a way"
that will not undermine the union. Linda Fabiani might not agree with that, but I do.
Does David Whitton accept that concern about financial accountability really emanated in the Parliament from the escalating cost of the building—it rose from £40 million to £400 million—rather than from any real concern about the block grant?
Today is not the day to rehearse old arguments about the cost of the Parliament building. The building is here to stay, as is devolution.
The proposed arrangements in the Calman report will make it clear that the Scottish Parliament is not wholly dependent on another Parliament for its funding and that it is responsible for raising its own revenue in a way that is fair and accountable to its electorate.
A headline in the SNP's house newspaper, the Sunday Post said:
"The SNP can't hide their delight over Calman".
The newspaper's political editor, Mr Campbell Gunn, who is a man of influence in the ministerial tower, observed that
"the Nationalists have most to be happy with and are privately hugging themselves with delight."
I can certainly believe that Mr Russell would hug himself. I watched his performance on "Newsnight Scotland" on Tuesday; there was no mistaking the self-satisfied grin on his face during it.
If Mr Russell is happy, should the rest of us be happy too? Happy is certainly not a word that would be used to describe the comments of Professor Andrew Hughes Hallet, who is a member of the First Minister's exclusive travelling dining club. Professor Andrew Hughes Hallet, whom Mr Russell mentioned, said that the Calman financial proposals are
"a disaster waiting to happen".
Mr Russell referred to economists who are opposed to the financial plans. I simply point out to him that there were another seven eminent professors on the expert group that was led by Professor Anton Muscatelli, and none agrees with Professor Hughes Hallet or his co-signatories.
Does David Whitton accept that economists disagree on the proposals? That is a fair point. Neither Mr Whitton nor I are economists, and it is important to listen to each side of the debate rather than to dismiss views out of hand, as Wendy Alexander regrettably did, or—as I hope Mr Whitton is not trying to do in some curious way—smear economists by party affiliation. Many economists have party affiliations, and not only to the SNP.
I am grateful to Mr Russell for pointing out that I am not an economist. I did not smear any economist—I merely pointed out that other professors of economics disagree with Professor Hughes Hallett. No one denies, as Mr Russell has said, that there is still a lot of work to do on the financial aspects of the report.
The report states:
"We realise that these changes are significant ones, introducing a degree of uncertainty and the possibility of some instability into the funding system. Tax receipts might be more or less than expected, especially when the new system is bedding in. We need to ensure those uncertainties are managed, and we therefore recommend a staged implementation process, beginning with developing the necessary systems of tax collection and budgetary decision-making, and moving step by step thereafter."
It could not be clearer.
The UK Government agrees that financial accountability could be achieved by moving to a system in which a greater proportion of our budget comes from our own decisions. I thought the SNP and its supporters wanted that, but it is clear that I was wrong.
I beg to differ from the comment that the financial proposals are
"a disaster waiting to happen".
I also disagree with the First Minister's statement that such measures need to be decided by referendum. The people of Scotland voted in favour of devolution more than 10 years ago, and decided in a referendum that they wanted their own Parliament with tax-varying powers. The Calman commission proposals are aimed at making that devolved settlement stronger.
At the 2000 election, the people of Scotland voted by two thirds to one third in favour of parties that support the union. Those same parties established the Calman commission. That was the will of Parliament: we do not need another referendum to implement the commission's findings.
The expert group, in determining its proposals, considered international examples from Canada, Germany, Australia and the Basque Country in Spain. According to the report, although those examples offered lessons and insights, none of the models could simply be transferred to fit Scottish circumstances. The group found that the funding system for the Scottish Parliament must be tailored for Scotland in order to support the relationship that we have with the rest of the UK.
The editorial headline in The Scotsman said, "Clever Calman offers something for everyone". The piece went on to say that the tax proposals are the equivalent of having your cake and eating it. I think that would appeal to the First Minister.
As other members have done, I warmly thank Sir Kenneth Calman, his commission members and all his staff for their excellent work. I give particular thanks and praise to Audrey Findlay and Jim Wallace, the Liberal Democrat members of the commission. It is no secret that Jim Wallace needed some persuasion to go back into the world of commissions on the future of Scottish devolution, but I think that his role was vital.
When the commission was first proposed in the summer of 2007, there was a fair degree of cynicism in certain quarters. Labour had just fought an election on a position of absolutely no change, and the Conservative leadership was hardly associated with stronger powers for the Scottish Parliament—indeed, I have heard a fair degree of qualification and back-pedalling this morning from certain individuals in the Conservative seats in the chamber.
By December 2007—when this Parliament approved the creation of the commission jointly with the UK Government—we had started to make significant progress. However, despite that, Labour MPs briefed in early 2008 that the commission was as much about considering the return of powers to Westminster as it was about considering new powers for Scotland.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will do so shortly—I will first conclude my point.
The Prime Minister was briefing that he would rather call the set-up a review than a genuine heavyweight commission.
Why did Nicol Stephen and his party agree to set up a commission under terms that explicitly refused to consider the federal solution that his party has always advocated?
We certainly did not do that. I believe that the prize is considerable. The petty political points that are being made mask the fact that this is a crucial debate and review.
Individuals in the Labour Party were wrong, and the SNP's approach has been wrong, just as it was wrong to distance itself from the constitutional commission that created the Scottish Parliament in the first place. However, I am pleased that there were strong voices in the Labour Party and that Jack McConnell and Wendy Alexander won through with their views. No single party was allowed to control the Calman commission. Strengthened by the joint backing of the United Kingdom Government and the whole of the Scottish Parliament, it came to its own independent, objective and forward-thinking recommendations. There was great potential for it to go wrong, but there was a great prize should it go right.
I ask members to listen to this quotation from Iain Macwhirter's comments on the recommendations. He wrote that the report is
"arguably as important as the 1988 Claim of Right and the 1997 Devolution white paper. By making the intellectual case for a degree of fiscal autonomy so cogently, it has set Scotland on a new course which should lead, at the very least, to a new federal United Kingdom within 10 years."
The Calman commission has rightly received a great deal of cross-party praise. It builds on the work of the constitutional commission that shaped devolution, and builds on the Scotland Act 1998, which delivered the Parliament, and the Steel commission, which led the way forward. Its importance is that there is now the genuine prospect of a strong, home-ruled Scotland in a new federal system within the United Kingdom. There has never been a better prospect of major constitutional reform that would sweep away the archaic, centralised, corrupt and broken system that we witness at Westminster. The UK remains far too centralised a nation and the time is right for major change.
As for the Calman proposals, I would have liked them to go further in some areas—I make no secret of that. For example, a figure has been quoted of approximately £5 billion of tax being raised in Scotland compared with Parliament's £30 billion of spending. I believe that, in time, that balance should shift. However, the proposals overwhelmingly represent significant progress and should be implemented without delay: they are to be strongly commended. They answer in detail the question of what more powers for Parliament means, and form a detailed blueprint and a radical set of proposals to transfer more power to Scotland. We still, however, have no clarity on the detail of independence—just warm, soft-focus assertion.
Some people ask how far all this can go. I do not have a simple answer, but I know one thing for certain: the end point that I support is a federal state with genuine devolution of powers to communities and people. That is not nationalism or independence. In many ways, it is the opposite of the centralised and monolithic national state that is obsessed by sovereignty and self-importance. Nobody today suggests that France, Germany, the United States or Spain is on the verge of internal splintering into separate states, yet they have either federal systems or major decentralisation of power.
When I first visited Spain in the 1970s, it was an utterly centralised state that was ruled by a dictator, General Franco. In the past few decades it has been transformed. Regions such as Navarre, Catalonia and Galicia now have some of the most radical devolution of powers anywhere in the world. In one region, all the taxes are collected locally and a balancing payment is made to Madrid. No doubt Spain's equivalent of the Treasury mandarin argued that it would all be too difficult, complex and unworkable, and no doubt there were plenty of cautious, conservative politicians there, too—there always are—but it has been done, and can be done here in Scotland, too.
Is this the end of the journey? I believe not. Not only must the proposals now be implemented, but we must go forward and go further in the future. There is still much to do.
I thank the Calman commission for preparing the Opposition parties' response to the SNP Government's national conversation.
The commission's report outlines many potential adjustments to Scotland's current devolved state, many of which should be implemented without delay. The SNP's primary concern will always be that the Scottish Parliament should have the powers to meet the needs of the Scottish people. It will come as no surprise to members that I can see Scotland's potential as a nation and the overwhelming benefits that would come with independence.
Our agenda has always been to deliver for Scotland. I regret that unionists appear to share that agenda only when they have been backed into a corner by electoral defeat and it is politically expedient to do so. None of us should pretend—as David Whitton did—that the Calman commission would have existed if there had been no SNP victory in 2007. Des Browne said that he saw no need whatever for a review of the Scotland Act 1998, and Gordon Brown supported that view. We now see more clearly than ever that only a vote for the SNP is a vote for positive constitutional change.
On the subject of voting, it is curious that the unionist cabal that established the commission is reluctant to put the Calman recommendations to the people. It is entirely predictable that the unionist parties will oppose a referendum if it is proposed by the SNP, but why will they not seek the will of the people for their proposals? Do they fear that the people of Scotland will not rejoice as they sell our country short? What happened to the sovereignty of the Scottish people, the proclaimed DNA of the Scottish Constitutional Convention and the claim of right, which Nicol Stephen talked about?
It has been suggested that the Calman report is bold and radical, but if anything it is rather timid and represents a wasted opportunity. Heaven forbid that democracy should get in the way of plans to provide a sop to Scotland's ambitions. The fiscal proposals in Calman appeared in no party's manifesto and were opposed by Labour at the most recent election. The people of Scotland—not a commission, not Iain Gray's boss Jim Murphy, and not Westminster—should have the final say on constitutional change, but their voices will not be heard. Let the odds and ends be delivered today; let the people decide on greater autonomy tomorrow.
I remind members that the Calman commission was initiated with a specific political agenda: the shackling of Scotland even more tightly to Westminster control, as David McLetchie made clear. Therefore, the commission's non-consensual recommendations should be subjected to due process. The proposals should be considered in a wider context of ideas, given that the commission admitted that it ignored a gamut of topics that it was not thought politically expedient to consider.
It has been revealed that the so-called independent expert group was banned from speaking out on the proposals, to make the public think that the report is unanimous. On Friday, members of the group and local economists were permitted to speak out clearly on the ill effects of the fiscal proposals, which came as no surprise, given that the proposals were made with only Westminster's needs in mind. Members of the expert group have spoken out about political manoeuvring and lack of consideration behind the scenes.
How could Scotland be accountable if a natural increase in tax revenue as a result of a well-managed economy would be taken back through a reduced block grant? What happened to Tory and Labour horror at the prospect of the tax man dealing with different tax regimes north and south of the border if a local income tax were to be introduced?
It is interesting that there has been no mention of powers that Calman recommended be returned to Westminster, such as powers in relation to charity law—a proposal to which the voluntary sector and numerous organisations are utterly opposed. I hope that unionist politicians who speak in the debate will address that. We should accept the Calman proposals that would take Scotland forward, but not those that would take us backward.
Why did former Labour ministers call the Calman proposals "incoherent"? Unionists claim that allowing Scotland to lower corporation tax would provide no net economic benefit. Is there no world outside the UK? Would not we benefit through additional investment from overseas? Scotland deserves better. Such issues should be considered as part of a conversation in which varying points of view are heard, rather than masked, in order to block Scotland's ambitions.
If, like other SNP members, Kenneth Gibson does not support the Calman proposals, would he prefer the status quo? That seems to be what he is arguing for.
If Pauline McNeill had been listening she would know that we accept proposals that would take Scotland forward, but also think that we can go much further.
As well as the commission's seemingly predetermined fiscal recommendations, I note its implication that Scotland is uniquely incapable of managing an uneven oil-revenue stream, despite Norway having shown the way in that regard. The commission hand-picked figures from "Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland" reports to show years of budget deficits in Scotland, but I suspect that if the SNP was not riding high in the polls, the commission's analysis would have shown annual surpluses. The commission used deficit figures to justify the alleged benefits of the union, but the figures represent the failure of the union. If oil revenues are so unpredictable and inconsequential, why does Westminster's grasp tighten with each passing day?
Page 262 of the report says:
"depletion can be counterbalanced by investing sufficient revenues either in an investment vehicle such as an oil fund or in long term capital investments."
Iain Gray grossly misrepresented that in his woeful speech. The report also says that
"Substantive borrowing and investment powers could enable … revenue variations to be mitigated."
When will Westminster gain confidence in Scotland's people? I will answer the point that Robert Brown made in his intervention on Mike Russell. Despite having fewer than 200,000 souls between them, the Crown dependencies of the Isle of Man, and on Jersey, Guernsey and the other Channel Islands enjoy full fiscal autonomy, social security powers and control of their immigration and energy policies. According to the commission, managing all that is beyond the ability of Scots. Those islands are entirely self-supporting and receive no subsidies from the UK, although they total among them only the population of Aberdeen and lack the vast natural resources and industry that we enjoy.
The SNP wants only equality for Scotland—the equality that other European nations take for granted—and not this dog's breakfast. Why do the commission's toffs and placemen and their backers in Parliament have such a catastrophic lack of faith in the Scottish people that they offer us only crumbs from the table?
The commission recommends retaining the Barnett formula until a needs-based formula is introduced. We have long proposed such a formula. However, Scotland needs no lessons in our dependence on the union. Scotland needs full fiscal autonomy as an independent state. Let the people decide.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate, which represents an important exploration of several issues that have an impact on the quality of decision making in Scotland. The debate is not and should not be simply about constitutional models. As ever, Kenny Gibson creates a false division between unionism and separatism. The debate should be about good government. I am as happy to condemn the Thatcherites in the SNP as I am to condemn those in the Tory party.
The debate is about how power is used, what its purpose is and how accountable we are for what and how we spend. We need to explore how we ensure effective and responsive government and active engagement with individuals and communities. We must work with people on their priorities, recognise conflicts of priorities in our communities and be honest about the choices that we make.
Does the member accept that accountability has been remarkably improved with the advent of a minority Government, as opposed to the blurring under the coalition Government?
I reject that absolutely. I will talk later about the consequences of minority government, one of which has been silence from back benchers about anything that front benchers have done, which, as a former minister, I assure Margaret Mitchell was not the case in the eight years in which we were in power.
Aw.
If SNP members' only contribution to tackling their leadership is to shout at me, that is feeble indeed.
We need to understand that structures of power at all levels of government are important. The challenge for those who wield whatever power they have is to be open, transparent and focused in what they do.
This year marks an important anniversary—10 years of the Scottish Parliament. It is important to reflect on what has been done and how it has been done. The Scottish Parliament was brought into being by a Labour Government that understood that a link exists between what is promised and what is delivered. It is interesting that the Labour Government had the courage to draw on the Scottish Constitutional Convention's work and to open itself up beyond its own decision making. The Labour Government went a stage further by supporting the development of the Parliament's workings through the consultative steering group rather than imposing structures on the Parliament. Structures were therefore established that challenged the executive, whoever was in power. In the same way, the central power at Westminster devolved and delegated power away from itself to the structures of devolved Administrations that could and do challenge Westminster. That is in stark contrast to the role that Mr Russell perceives for his party and to how he operates.
The debate about the Scottish Parliament should not simply be about powers or be defined by the idea that the more powers someone has, the more powerful they are. It should be driven by the purpose of powers. We say that the Parliament is reconvened, but we should recognise that it is and should be an entirely different body from the Parliament as was, because what matters is using powers in the interests of the many and not the few. Central to the review of the Scottish Parliament and the devolution process is building partnerships across the United Kingdom and creating economic and social opportunities by harnessing resources throughout the United Kingdom to ensure basic minimum rights in these islands.
I particularly welcome what the Calman commission highlights about the social union: not only the social ties—the family, professional and cultural ties—that bind the United Kingdom together but the common expectations for social welfare. That refutes Dr McKee's argument that it is possible to have the strength of the United Kingdom's social union without its political union. If one of the strengths is the welfare state—pensions and so on—one wonders what upheaval would be caused by ripping it apart. I do not see what the social union can be if Scotland is independent.
I am baffled by that argument because its final logical extension is that Scotland should join up with any country that is socially progressive, depending on how socially progressive that country is. That is nonsensical. The guarantee of citizens' rights and responsibilities comes from the state, and an independent Scotland with a written constitution and a bill of rights would be far better able to provide that guarantee and far more radical than the United Kingdom is at present.
I am quite happy if Mr Russell finds what I say puzzling. The social union that is recognised in the Calman report and which we recognise is also about the welfare state, social security and mutual protection. It would be exceptionally difficult to maintain that if Scotland were to break away from the union.
It is important to recognise that, as Calman says, devolution works. I contend that that is because its creation was open and inclusive and involved people. We must also acknowledge the importance of making it work by keeping the Parliament's structures alive and energetic. We have seen the importance of that in Mr Russell's approach today. I wonder how he can make the Scottish Parliament strong when, in any battle between making devolution work and the opportunity to promote its own narrow interest, the SNP will always promote division. It is disturbing that the new Scottish Government has excluded Parliament, ignored votes of the Parliament and imposed tough control on its back benchers in the chamber and, I suspect, committees. It is sad that the test of much Scottish Government action is whether it can be done without parliamentary scrutiny. That is not a simple party-political point; it is about the systematic downgrading of the Parliament and a retreat to administrative devolution, which is an irony.
Were many of the powers that ministers are using to implement policy not introduced by legislation that the previous coalition Executive bludgeoned through in the face of the rest of the Parliament?
I speak from personal experience when I say that it was not possible to bludgeon anything through the coalition. I will take Tricia Marwick through chapter and verse on the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill and the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Bill to show her that it simply did not happen that way. Because of negotiation and co-operation between the parties, not one bill that was introduced to the Parliament came out the other end of the process the same. In fact, some of the conflicts between the parties came out into the open, whereas we can only puzzle at what disputes there are inside the SNP.
In my last moments, I will discuss charities. We must recognise the importance of not imposing unfair or unnecessary burdens on charities. However, given Mr Russell's puzzlement about why creative Scotland cannot be a charity, there is reason to examine how the Charities and Trustee Investment (Scotland) Act 2005 operates to ensure that its core principles of independence, charitable purpose, transparency and public benefit are sustained.
The equalities agenda provides a clear example of the Parliament's powers being misused to disadvantage the people of Scotland. I urge members to engage with the process of making the Parliament work in the interests of the people of Scotland rather than individual party interest.
The Labour motion is based as much on fantasy as on reality. The question is where to begin. Why not at the start? Well, not quite at the start but four lines in, Michael McMahon's motion states that the Calman commission's findings are
"based firmly on evidence and engagement with the people of Scotland".
Oh dear. Talk about weak foundations. I did say that the motion was based on fantasy.
Of course, Calman's findings are based on evidence, if one accepts that it is okay to decide on the questions that are to be asked as part of the process of collecting such evidence and to agree that it is okay to restrict the scope of any answers that are given. Strike them from the record if they refer to independence—what a joke! That makes a mockery of the idea of real and full engagement with the Scottish people. To rule out independence and to look only at devolution is, at best, unionist navel gazing. Not considering independence was the fault line that ran through Calman, which was a closed shop in terms of its agenda. Those who wished independence and those who—heaven forbid—wanted to consider it as an option did not need to apply. The British parties employed the thought police right from day one when it came to aspects of empowering the Scottish people, our nation and the Parliament.
Three lines on, the motion states that we welcome
"the establishment of the steering group to take forward the report's recommendations".
The people of Scotland do not need a steering group to give an emphatic yes to whether Scotland's Parliament should take decisions on air-guns, drink-driving limits or speed limits. There is overwhelming support in the Parliament and in Scottish society at large for such steps. Given that there is clear agreement, let us get on with the job. Why wait? It is time to act and deliver on those aspects of Calman now. However, that is not what the motion calls for. The motion calls for a steering group to be set up, but a steering group is unnecessary and will only create delays and, potentially, disputes.
We must unite around what we agree on and act to deliver without delay. The Labour motion takes Calman from being a closed shop and turns it into a talking shop. The Scottish people deserve far better. They deserve a Scottish Parliament that represents the Scottish people, not one where the Opposition parties are agents of the British state, rather than advocates for the Scottish people, which is disgraceful.
Is Bob Doris seriously challenging the democratic legitimacy of the Parliament, which was elected by the people of Scotland, under proportional representation, in the way that was approved in the referendum?
I am proud of the Parliament, but I am also proud of the Scottish people. Sovereignty does not lie in this chamber; it lies with the people. Mr Brown's party would forbid the people from deciding their own democratic constitutional future.
What have Labour and the Liberal Democrats to fear from asking the Scottish people what they think about independence? Perhaps it is not a case of having nothing to fear but fear itself, but, rather, of having nothing to fear but the ballot box. After all, for Labour, losing Scottish elections for the first time in 2007 was followed by losing European elections in Scotland, too. Labour is trying to limit and control the constitutional debate because it is trying desperately to retain a grip on power, rather than considering what is best for the people of Scotland. It is hardly surprising that Labour does not know what is best for the Scottish people, given that it was driven from power in 2007 because it turned against the Scottish people.
The Parliament is at its best when it strives for consensus. I am sure that members will agree that I am second only to Mr Kenneth Gibson in trying always to achieve consensus in the Parliament. However, it is clear that we do not have consensus on independence. Some people in the Parliament want to alter the financial arrangements between Scotland and the UK by playing with income tax levels. Others might want to look at VAT, corporation tax, or control over the taxation regime for oil and gas, which would secure revenues for the Scottish people. There are a variety of views.
Some of us just want good old independence for the Scottish people. We want the ability to use our resources, to raise our own revenues and to decide whether to send our men and women to war and whether to have or reject weapons of mass destruction such as Trident. We just want independence—the natural, honest, dignified position of any self-respecting country.
I tell the British parties not to use Calman as a fig leaf to protect the embarrassment of the British state. Whether or not members believe in independence, they should let the Scottish people decide.
Will the member give way?
Yes, if Jeremy Purvis is wearing his fig leaf.
My suits have been described as many things, but not that.
There are three aspects of the British state, two of which are the head of state and the currency. The SNP policy on independence for Scotland includes retaining the British head of state and retaining the British currency and interest rates that are set by the Bank of England. What else would the member cede to London on independence?
That intervention shows that the Lib Dems have not got a clue on the constitution. If the United Kingdom wished to get rid of its head of state tomorrow, the UK would be a republic, irrespective of what the Scottish people wanted.
But—
Excuse me. Jeremy Purvis has had his turn.
If the UK decided to join the euro tomorrow, we would join the euro, irrespective of what the Scottish people wanted. Independence would let the Scottish people decide.
Where the report states the obvious in cherry picking a range of powers, for example on speed limits and air-guns, on which we all agree, let us deliver on those proposals. We have consensus, so there is no need to faff about with steering groups in order to move forward on those areas.
Where consensus does not exist, let us test Calman's fiscal tinkering against independence in a referendum. After all, we are all democrats. Why would the British parties fear democracy?
The debate is important not only for the Parliament but for the country at large. That is bound to be the case, given that the future of Scotland and its relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom are at issue. As Johann Lamont rightly said, the debate should be about good government; it should also be about accountability and Scotland's view of itself. All those important aspects were highlighted by the Calman commission.
The Calman commission and its report have some interesting features. First, there is widespread recognition that the report is a landmark report that will and should frame the basis of Scotland's constitutional relationship with the UK for the next generation. A number of commentators in the national media have recognised that. Among many comments, they talked of
"bold proposals to empower Scotland"
that would
"change the face of UK politics forever".
An issue that has been understated here today is the implications of the changing devolution arrangements in Scotland for the future of the United Kingdom. That is also not recognised in London as much as it should be.
I mention in passing—this is partly for Ian McKee's benefit—that commentators have recognised repeatedly that Calman moves the nations of the United Kingdom much further towards a federal or quasi-federal relationship. That was not marked out in the Calman remit, although it did not rule out the possibility in talking of strengthening the United Kingdom.
I am sure that the member honestly believes that—indeed, it may be true, although I am not sure that it is—but how can he reconcile what he is saying with what David McLetchie said in his strong and passionate pro-union speech? If the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives are members of the same steering group, how can they possibly take forward those proposals?
I will come to that. The matter goes to the heart of the debate, which is about achieving consensus on the future of Scotland and working together with other parties.
The point that I was trying to make is that a federalism is a philosophical and practical political position that the Liberal Democrats have long supported, as members around the chamber recognise. It matches the position in many if not most of the mature democracies, large and small, across Europe, the Americas and the Commonwealth. The Calman commission drew much inspiration from those examples. Our relationship with federalism has its roots deep in Scotland's past, for example in the contribution that Scots made to the federal constitution of the United States, among other countries. Indeed, it was also the position of choice for the Scottish commissioners of union in 1706.
The second feature of note, which Wendy Alexander touched on in her thoughtful speech, is that Calman was based on drawing together people on arrangements that can and do attract widespread support. Calman should not split our people. I say to Alex Salmond and Michael Russell that, unlike them, Liberal Democrats are always ready to put our proposals into the pool of debate, as we did with the Steel commission. We have always believed that the constitutional future of Scotland should be built on the widest possible, most inclusive consensus.
Will the member give way?
No, I am sorry—I do not have time.
I cite the example of Northern Ireland, where, through great pain and trauma, it was discovered that it was possible for the same state to encompass an identity that was both British and Irish. In a memorable phrase, Charles Kennedy, my party's former leader, said that he saw no contradiction in being a Highlander, a Scot and a Briton, but the SNP cannot stomach an eminently sensible and dynamic solution to recasting our constitutional arrangements on this overcentralised and mixed-up—in terms of people, I mean—island. The SNP is like a rather picky piranha fish. It devours the tasty bits down to the bone but leaves the bits that it does not like, and the body is damaged by the whole process. We need to have consensus. [Interruption.]
Order.
The Calman report was unanimous which, as Tavish Scott rightly said, was a remarkable achievement. Liberal Democrats, along with members of the Labour and Conservative parties and people of no party affiliation, brought their views to the process, examined the evidence and agreed on the direction of travel. The report does not present a pink tartan version of a utopia; it offers a practical agenda for immediate reform and change, and suggests a distribution of powers and a system of fiscal accountability that have a purpose but which, as many speakers have said, also reflect the broad sentiments of people in Scotland.
Unlike many SNP members, Calman recognised the worth and value of the United Kingdom. The UK has been somewhat undervalued in recent years, but it is fair to say that the First Minister was noticeably subdued when the UK Treasury bailed out Scotland's largest banks. It does not take an economist to recognise that it needed resources on the scale that the UK could bring to bear to deal with such matters. I seem to recall that, at the time of Northern Rock's difficulties, the First Minister suggested that an independent Scotland would be able to inject £100 billion—it might have been £500 billion; I cannot quite recall. Whatever the figure, it was certainly many times the size of the Scottish budget.
Taxation and the proper distribution of fiscal powers are at the heart of Calman and form the key groundbreaking element of the proposals. Attention has focused on the responsibilities for income tax that would be transferred to Holyrood, but the introduction of a proper borrowing power and a power to introduce specified new taxes are equally important. Calman's recommendations provide for a substantial measure of fiscal accountability for the SNP—if it remains in government—and for everyone who values fiscal reality in this Scotland of ours.
Broadly speaking, I think that the existing division of legislative powers has stood the test of time. The idea that the Governments and Parliaments here and in Westminster could have a closer relationship is interesting. It has long struck me as odd that the Scottish Parliament has a European committee, but no UK committee, nor any developed arrangements for partnership and exchange with the UK Parliament and Government. Perhaps we were too busy getting the institutions going, but that is an issue that needs urgent attention.
Scotland and England are probably the oldest national states in the world. They were among the first countries to form a voluntary union, which has been a highly successful enterprise for more than 300 years. It has changed and been modified over time. On many occasions, the political and economic landscape has been transformed to meet the needs of the age, as happened in recent years with the establishment of the Scottish Parliament.
The Calman report does not offer the simplistic nostrums of independence or the safety valve of being able to blame Westminster. It offers more Government accountability, the more difficult challenges of partnership and the fiscal responsibilities that come with borrowing and taxation powers. It also offers us increased powers of the right kind, to further the interests of our people. The UK is greater than the sum of its parts but, in Scotland in particular, its parts can achieve more for themselves and for the union if they have effective and relevant powers. The Calman report points the way forward.
I thank the Labour Party for giving us the opportunity to debate issues arising from last week's publication of the report of the Calman commission, which is, of course, the report that the SNP told us would never appear. The SNP told us that the commission would never be established, that it would simply be a talking shop and that it would propose nothing of merit. In every criticism of the commission, the SNP has been proved utterly wrong.
Despite his party having got it colossally wrong, Mr Russell, who is never a man to be easily embarrassed, surpassed even himself in bare-faced cheek when he pleaded with the three unionist parties to back his amendment. The SNP played no part in the Calman process, voted against it when the proposal was put to the Parliament 18 months ago and has consistently sniped from the sidelines. Now it wants to take charge. It does not have a chance, but if Mr Russell wants to try to persuade me, I will listen with interest.
Does the member not accept that there is more joy in heaven over a sinner that repenteth? With the amendment, we have the opportunity to deliver what he believes in. Why will he not vote for it?
There we have a sinner repenting and accepting that maybe there is, after all, some merit in the Calman proposals. It gladdens my heart to hear Mr Russell now committing the SNP Government to the idea that Calman was a good thing after all. I just hope that his SNP colleagues will agree with him.
I take the opportunity that is afforded by the debate to thank every member of the Calman commission for the extensive work that they carried out on behalf of this Parliament and the UK Government. From the Tory side, I specifically thank the two Conservative members of the commission, Lord Selkirk and Lord Lindsay, for their contribution.
Surely even critics of the process would accept that the Calman report is an extensive and well-researched piece of work. The commission carefully considered a range of issues, collected a great deal of evidence, engaged various people who are experts in their field and produced a thorough and comprehensive report. In her speech, Wendy Alexander made excellent points about the quality of work and the breadth of opinion encompassed in the commission's outcomes.
The Calman commission was established pursuant to a motion that was agreed by the Parliament by a large majority on 6 December 2007, so it has always had a popular mandate to pursue its work. As Annabel Goldie said earlier, the report's conclusions do not represent the last word on the next stage of devolution, but they represent a very important contribution to that debate. The steering group that has been established will now take forward the discussion.
The open process that the Calman commission pursued in reaching its conclusions contrasts sharply with the narrow approach taken by the SNP Government in its so-called national conversation. Of course, it was never intended to be a conversation at all. The First Minister is far too fond of the sound of his own voice to allow other opinions to be heard. Indeed, less generous souls than me might claim that that malady also afflicts the Minister for Culture, External Affairs and the Constitution—at least, occasionally.
The key test for the national conversation is this: if the public response to it is against independence, will the SNP agree not to pursue that policy? Everyone in the chamber and throughout Scotland knows the answer to that question: not a chance. The national conversation is a fraud, because it has a predetermined outcome. Worse still, the national conversation is a fraud that we, the taxpayers, are paying for. Unlike the Calman commission, it has no parliamentary mandate to operate. It is a vanity exercise for the First Minister and the SNP and it provides no useful function. Surely it is now time that it was gently laid to rest.
As Nicol Stephen said, the Calman commission's report has attracted praise from across Scotland. For example, David Lonsdale, deputy director of the Confederation of British Industry Scotland, said:
"The commission's report is undoubtedly a very good and thorough piece of work".
He is a Tory councillor.
David Lonsdale's view was echoed by Grahame Smith, general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress—I do not think that he is a Tory councillor. Michael Clancy, of the Law Society of Scotland, said:
"The Commission's work represents a detailed and worthwhile examination of the devolution arrangement."
Eileen Maclean, of the Association of Business Recovery Professionals, said that she was delighted with the report's recommendations. In contrast, all we have had on the national conversation from civic Scotland is silence. There has not been a word of praise for an exercise that has delivered no more than a forum for insomniac cybernats.
At least we heard an attempt earlier in the debate by some SNP members, such as Linda Fabiani, to engage seriously with some of the issues. That exposes the dilemma at the heart of the SNP. There are some slightly more sensible members on the SNP seats who are interested in the Calman process and want to engage and have a debate about whether it is right that more powers should come to the Parliament. However, other SNP members are obsessed by the idea that Calman is simply a unionist plot. As ever, Kenny Gibson and Bob Doris did not disappoint when it came to making that accusation. My colleague David McLetchie made the key point. He was right to say that the Calman commission is a unionist report that is about moving Scotland forward in the context of the United Kingdom, which is why we support it.
Today is an important day for the Scottish Parliament and for Scotland. In welcoming the Calman commission report, we are now moving on to consider the next stage of devolution. We are doing so in a positive and inclusive manner, with the support of the Parliament. What a contrast that offers to the negative and insular view of the SNP. When the Parliament votes tonight to support the motion, it will be speaking for Scotland and sidelining the irrelevant argument for separation. I will have pleasure in supporting the motion.
This has been an important debate. On behalf of the Government, I welcome the debate and I welcome the contribution that has been made by the Calman commission. The Government will set out its response to many of the questions that have arisen—Mr Russell did that earlier, and I will also do so now.
There has been much talk today about mutual respect and the nature of parliamentary debate, and I want to make one parliamentary point. Our debates would be enhanced if members who participated in them were here for the opening and closing speeches, so that we could have full and rounded parliamentary debates. I regret that the leaders of the Conservative party and the Labour Party are not here for the closing speeches. For the parliamentary process, it would be appropriate if they were here.
John Swinney will have noted that the First Minister has not been here at all.
My point is not about members who have not been here. My point is that the Conservative and Labour leaders contributed to the debate but are not here now to respond to the debate as it concludes.
Murdo Fraser—I see him muttering to me from the sidelines, as he often does, in the nature of the politics of Perthshire and Angus—said that the Government had got it "colossally wrong". I am not altogether sure that "colossally" is a word—you would be able to tell me, Presiding Officer. However, when I consider the reaction of the Scottish public during elections in this country, I am not sure that the Government has got it colossally wrong.
What my colleague Kenny Gibson said earlier caused some irritation; he never causes irritation to members on the Government front bench, but he obviously does elsewhere in the chamber. He caused some irritation when he said that we had the Calman commission only because the Scottish National Party had won the election in 2007. That comment brought forth howls and jeers, screaming and gnashing of teeth and all the rest of it. However, let us remember Nicol Stephen's point. At the 2007 election, the Liberal Democrats argued for more powers for the Parliament—they have made similar points consistently for more than 100 years; the Conservatives were not exactly enthusiastic about extra powers for the Parliament; and we had a resounding clarion call from the crowd on the Labour benches that there was no case for more powers for the Parliament. Mr Gibson and Mr Stephen may have expressed the idea in slightly different fashions, but their views were consistent: we would not be having this debate if the Scottish National Party had not formed the Government in Scotland in 2007.
My colleague Linda Fabiani made the important point that no one party reconvened this Parliament. Let us stop all this nonsense about one single party being responsible. We are here because the public were convinced of the argument and voted for it in a referendum. I seem to recall that some of the characters on the Conservative benches were far less enthusiastic than they are now about the concept of a Scottish Parliament.
Does the cabinet secretary agree that the likelihood of the Scottish Parliament coming back into existence would have been significantly diminished had it not been for the work of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, in which his party did not play a part?
The Scottish Constitutional Convention created a concept of how the Parliament might come forward. It did not get its way on all matters; it demanded powers that we do not currently have. However, I ask Mr Brown to remember that, in the referendum of 1997, enthusiastic support was given to the concept of a Scottish parliament by the Scottish National Party. We campaigned for it. Some of us, including—I am not sure that I am allowed to say this—the Deputy Presiding Officer and me, voted in the House of Commons for the establishment of a Scottish parliament. We did so a great deal more enthusiastically than my friends and colleagues on the Conservative benches—not that any of the Conservatives here were around to accompany me in the task from 1997 to 1999.
I have been probing into the speeches made by members of the other parties, and it is interesting to try to detect how much glue is in the package. Tavish Scott tried to probe into that, and Margaret Mitchell certainly probed into it very effectively in her intervention on John Park. It was convenient that he did not manage to hear her. If he had heard, he would have understood her point.
I thought that, for a man who is enthusiastic about everything, David McLetchie was at best awful half-hearted in his response to my question whether he supported all the recommendations in the commission's report. I believe that Mr Scott said that those who dream of the long grass will get a rude awakening. I hope that he will deploy his troops in getting some action on these matters.
What interests me—what has always interested me—is how we make progress on the constitutional question. Indeed, that is what brought me into politics.
I invite the cabinet secretary to clarify the Scottish Government's policy on Calman's financial proposals. Is it, as the amendment states and as we have heard this morning, the policy of the Government to wait until after a referendum before it does anything to assist in the implementation of Calman's financial proposals?
Before I deal with that point, I want to make one further point about how we make progress. I have been trying to probe members' objections to taking forward the various issues—airguns, electoral administration, the licensing of controlled substances for treating addictions, drink-driving limits and national speed limits—that are set out in Mr Russell's amendment. I believe that we all agree on them; I am certainly unaware of any disagreement in the chamber in that respect. I have asked everyone the same question: why on earth do we simply not make progress on those matters? No one has challenged my view, but I am still waiting for an answer.
I got some help with my question from what Sir Kenneth Calman himself said in response to a question from Glenn Campbell on "Newsnight Scotland" on 15 June. The question was:
"can your report be cherry picked or is it a complete package, all or nothing?"
It was doubtless posed in the usual charitable fashion in which such questions are usually asked. Sir Kenneth said:
"I think there are lots of bits, as I mentioned, which I think can be implemented quickly and easily without too much fuss, others will take a bit of time to think through. I don't think cherry picking is a phrase I would use with this report."
Sir Kenneth's response to Glenn Campbell's question might have been somewhat elegant, but his point is clear: there are certain issues of simple practical effect on which we can make ready progress. Those issues are set out in Mr Russell's amendment. My point is that we should not be setting up big steering groups; we should just be taking action.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
I will take the member's intervention, as long as it is about taking action.
My interventions are always about taking action.
When the First Minister said that he would include Calman in the referendum, which parts did he have in mind?
The member's question brings me on to the point made by Wendy Alexander. In the referendum on the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish people were asked about—and voted for—a specific proposal on tax powers. As a result, I believe that any move to revise those tax powers must be put to the people of Scotland in a referendum.
The question of income tax powers is a fundamental part of the Calman report. Members have argued that having those powers would significantly enhance our autonomy and accountability. However, if we had been debating local income tax, Mr Whitton and Mr Brownlee would have been at the front of the queue to tell me that such a tax was a volatile and unstable proposition, because we could not rely purely and simply on the stability of income tax revenue. If the same argument is applied consistently across the range of financial powers, we can, as my colleague Linda Fabiani pointed out in her excellent speech, conclude only that we need a fuller range of economic powers if we are to deliver the economic growth that is required to fuel the Scottish economy. That flatly contradicts the point that Malcolm Chisholm made in his intervention on Ian McKee.
Moreover, under the Calman recommendations, we would have not a scintilla of the significant powers that we require to tackle climate change and other environmental problems. The climate change levy, fuel duty and vehicle excise duty all remain reserved to the UK Government. We should by all means have a discussion about the powers that we require, but we should also have a genuine enhancement of our responsibilities and accountability.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
I think that the cabinet secretary is beginning to wind up, Ms Alexander.
I ask Wendy Alexander to forgive me, but I am reaching the conclusion of my speech.
I will conclude, as I conclude every speech that I make in this Parliament, on a note of consensus—in stark contrast to the pitiful language that Robert Brown used about piranhas and all the rest of it, which does not take us terribly far forward. I will try to reach that point of consensus in my remaining moments.
Mr McNulty made an excellent closing speech on behalf of the Labour Party in yesterday's debate on the Climate Change (Scotland) Bill. He told Parliament that we had all found our way through the legislation and arrived at a good strong bill as a consequence of discussion and dialogue in the chamber. The crucial thing that he said was that nobody went into the debate saying, "You're wrong and I'm right." As a consequence, we ended up with legislation that this Parliament has every right to be justifiably proud of having passed. I am not fussed whether the bill passes Iain Gray's test of being landmark legislation, although I think that it passes that test.
The minister really must conclude.
I hope that the Parliament can find some way of progressing the consensus agenda. Mr Russell's amendment is clear that there is a sequence of issues on which we are utterly united. Let us get on with it and strengthen the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
I will summarise Labour's position today. We are for stronger home rule for Scotland and modernising our relationship with the United Kingdom, and we affirm that Scotland's interests are best served by developing the Calman proposals through joint working by the parties that support them and, through the steering group, by both Parliaments. I put on record our thanks to Colin Boyd and Murray Elder, the Labour nominees on the Calman commission.
Given the Tory "think twice" referendum slogan, who would have thought, 10 years ago, that we would be working with them to make devolution stronger or that, with the Liberal Democrats, we would be on the verge of delivering real, radical change—or, as Nicol Stephen said, very considerable change?
Tavish Scott was right to say that we are already moving for that change and that it should be achieved as soon as possible. Nicol Stephen was right when he said that there might be a case for going further still in the future. It is important to note that the Calman report addresses that point when it says that we can take the balance of our accountability even further.
Such is our belief—it is a mutual, common belief—that Scots want to see more financial accountability and strength in devolution that, despite the policy differences between the three parties, we are able to work together to bring about that change. That is something that the SNP simply does not get.
You talk about having stronger home rule, with which I think everyone in the chamber agrees. Do you share my view that no powers should be returned to Westminster?
Remarks should be made through the chair.
The Calman commission certainly does not recommend that any significant powers should return to Westminster.
Ten years on from when this Parliament began, we have found the constitutional confidence to take devolution to the next stage—a devolved Scottish Parliament that is well and truly established, that already has a permanent future and that is part of the democratic landscape of modern Scotland. It is fair to say that the Labour Government in 1997 was the engine of change—the SNP cannot deny that.
The Calman commission proposals strengthen our place in the UK and give us a stronger basis for accountability. Kenneth Calman and his team were the right people to consider devolution for us—they are serious people who drew serious conclusions.
At Our Dynamic Earth on Monday 15 June, the cynics were challenged with a radical set of proposals—that the Scottish Parliament would set the Scottish rate of income tax, that there would be borrowing powers and that there would be important changes to Scottish procedures.
The scope to increase public spending at our own hand was rubbished by Ian McKee as being a "few morsels". Linda Fabiani's critique characterised the SNP's position: it would rather have the status quo than any financial change, if it cannot get what it wants.
I believe that the country wants us to promote the idea of and mechanisms for the two Parliaments working together to give Scotland more influence over its own affairs.
Does Pauline McNeill believe that a vote in support of the motion is a vote to implement the Calman proposals on tax as they stand, or a vote to discuss their practicality? Does she support the list of powers to levy and implement as yet wholly unimagined new taxes, which David Whitton did not touch on?
A vote for the motion is a vote for taking forward the Calman proposals through joint work with Jackson Carlaw's party and the Liberal Democrats. Our votes will force the Scottish Government to work and co-operate on taking the proposals forward.
There is one huge difference between the SNP and the parties that support the motion, apart from the obvious difference over the constitution. We are and will be responsible for change, we will make it happen and we will see it through to delivery. Scotland's future should be dominated not by an eternal debate about nationalism and constitutional arrangements, but by a debate about our democracy, our governance and our hopes and aspirations for educational attainment, health, the environment, improving cancer care and creating jobs.
Let me be clear: we are working to take the Calman recommendations forward. Some of them will require more consideration than others. Wendy Alexander was so right when she said that the ownership of that work must lie with this Parliament, in conjunction with the Westminster Parliament. It is not a matter of simply handing over powers to the Scottish Government, which does not even believe in the Calman recommendations and which is setting out to undermine what we are trying to achieve.
Some changes to the Scotland Act 1998 and to the Parliament's standing orders will be required, and there needs to be some analysis of that work. However, even this morning, Michael Russell and the other ministers still refuse to affirm that the steering group will get the Scottish Government's co-operation. They still refuse to say what action they will take in relation to the commission's financial proposals.
If we think back to the claim of right, we can see that it was a package for devolution. Donald Dewar made the argument successfully, and it formed the basis of the work of the parties in the Scottish Constitutional Convention. Furthermore, it had the support of the Scottish people. People need to work together from the beginning, rather than the SNP simply cherry picking the bits that suit its own aim of independence at the end. What SNP members are asking for is already work in progress, and they know it. Their demands are stage acting, and they know that they are marginalised. Of course, we would welcome any co-operation or consensus that the SNP was willing to offer.
Will the member give way? I am about to offer.
I believe that members will vote for the motion. I hope that Mike Russell will confirm that, if the SNP loses the vote, it will give full co-operation to the steering group.
I want to scotch this nonsense once and for all. Scottish Government officials have been working with Calman during the process. We have been giving support and information, and we will continue to do so. I ask the member for an assurance that she will back the positive proposals for implementation that are on the table today. We should not delay any further; let us just make them happen. Why will she not give us that assurance?
Mike Russell speaks with forked tongue. What he says is not clear cut. There should be co-operation from the Scottish civil service. If he has just affirmed that that will happen, we welcome it.
The SNP wants to take the country where it clearly does not want to go. As Murdo Fraser said, it has used every available Government platform and taxpayers' money to promote independence—calling it "a national conversation". The SNP's mission in government is to destroy the union and to undermine what we are setting out to achieve through stronger devolution. In the past few days, SNP members have behaved like impatient children. History is repeating itself: they got out of the convention and out of the commission, and now they are out of the steering group.
The Government has a duty to represent the interests of the whole nation, not simply the narrow interests of itself and its supporters. If it wants to act in the interests of the country, it should be willing work with us now. The SNP is desperately trying to turn the process into one of demands; in reality, the other parties are working together.
Scotland's future should not be dominated by eternal debate about nationalism and constitutional arrangements. It should be about our democracy, governance and aspirations for education, health and the environment. In time, people must be able to rely on Scotland's Parliament to debate the issues that matter to them: equality, jobs, youth training, health and educational attainment. We have been challenged on those key issues. Of course, the progress that we have made is not enough. We have different visions of Scotland's future, but the time is right for us to mature the devolution settlement so that we can achieve progress.