Meeting of the Parliament

Meeting date: Thursday, October 27, 2011

Official Report 1011KB pdf

---

Points of Order

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek clarification, further to the points of order that were raised earlier. Professor Qvortrup was clear that the Scottish National Party’s two-question referendum is untenable, but today the First Minister delivered a fabricated endorsement to the chamber. He quoted a letter that turns out to have been written not by the professor, but by the First Minister’s special adviser in his own office this morning. This is a blatant attempt to nobble an academic, to doctor the evidence and to pull the wool over the eyes of the people of Scotland. An apology is not enough. Presiding Officer, will you make time for an early meeting of the Parliamentary Bureau so that a full debate can be held on the Government’s conduct on this matter?

It is, of course, open to any of the parties to make that request to the bureau.

A number of similar points of order have been raised throughout the day. The First Minister is now in the chamber. If he wishes, I will be happy to accept a point of order from him.

Presiding Officer, do you want me to speak now or at the close of this business?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer—

I am sorry, Mr Henry, but you cannot interrupt a point of order.

Presiding Officer, I gave a response to Parliament at First Minister’s question time today that I would now like to correct. I believed that the words that I used in response to Murdo Fraser were going to be included in a letter from Professor Matt Qvortrup to The Times newspaper. I now know that that was not the case and, therefore, apologise to the chamber for my mistake. It was never my intention to mislead Parliament, so I wished to correct the record at the earliest opportunity. I was given a message shortly before I entered the chamber that was wrong, and therefore my response was incorrect. The responsibility for that is mine, and mine alone, which is why I apologise to the chamber for the misinformation.

The good news is that I have now spoken to Professor Qvortrup this afternoon—something that I should perhaps have done before First Minister’s question time. I now fully understand his position, which is that, if we wish it, it is entirely feasible to hold a two-question referendum on Scotland’s constitutional future in a fair, reasonable and clear manner, provided that certain conditions are met. Furthermore, as one of the world’s foremost experts on referendums, Professor Qvortrup has agreed to put his services at the disposal of the Government and the Parliament—if it wishes—to bring about a two-question referendum, should that be the will of the Parliament, when the time comes.

One thing is absolutely clear above all else: in the second half of this parliamentary term, there will be a clear question in the referendum that consults the people on whether they support Scotland becoming an independent nation.

Mr Henry, do you wish to continue with your point of order?

Yes, Presiding Officer. Thank you for allowing me in.

I welcome the comments from the First Minister, but that is not what I wish to consider. I recognise the right of members to raise points of order during debates, and I understand that you, Presiding Officer, are constrained in that you have to accept them and listen to them. This is not a criticism of the First Minister, because circumstances just developed, but I would argue—I hope that you will reflect on this—that it would have been better to take the First Minister’s reply after the conclusion of what is a significant and important debate. What we have done is interrupt the flow of the debate. That is maybe something that we could look at for future reference.

I thank Hugh Henry for that very helpful point of order. I agree with all that he has said. It is rather unfortunate that the debate has been interrupted by points of order, but as you rightly said, when the points of order are made I have no alternative at the moment but to accept them. It is something that I will reflect on, and it is something that the Parliament and the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee should reflect on, too.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My point of order is further to the one that I raised earlier this afternoon on the same issue.

I welcome the First Minister’s apology to the chamber for misleading the Parliament in response to a question from me at First Minister’s question time. It speaks volumes about this Government that, when it comes to its flagship policy of an independence referendum, it misleads, manipulates and manufactures evidence in support of its stance and browbeats and bullies those who dare to take a contrary view.

Presiding Officer, can you ascertain from the First Minister whether, in addition to apologising to Parliament, he has apologised to the esteemed academic, Professor Qvortrup, for misrepresenting his view?

That is not a matter for me.