First Minister’s Question Time
Engagements
1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-01716)
Engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.
Muchas gracias.
Yesterday, the Spanish Prime Minister made it clear that, by leaving the United Kingdom, Scotland would also leave the European Union and would have to reapply as a new member. What part of that statement does the First Minister not understand?
I have here a full transcript of Señor Rajoy’s statement. This is how he starts:
“I don’t yet know what the White Paper says which was presented by the Scottish President yesterday.”
I have to say that promotion is always welcome, but I would like to point out that page 45 of “Scotland’s Future” makes it absolutely clear that Her Majesty the Queen will continue as head of state of an independent Scotland.
I know that the First Minister likes to quote selectively, but that takes the biscuit. Looking for reaffirmation, where does he find it?
However, let us hear what the Spanish Prime Minister, Señor Rajoy, said.
“I would like that the consequences of that secession be presented with realism to Scots.
Citizens have the right to be well informed and particularly when it’s about taking decisions like this one ... I know for sure that a region that would separate from a member state of the European Union”—[Interruption.]
Order.
I am not sure whether that is the defence that the SNP is going to prosecute. Dearie me.
Señor Rajoy said:
“I know for sure that a region that would separate from a member state of the European Union would remain outside the European Union and that should be known by the Scots”.
The Spanish Prime Minister is being straighter with the people of Scotland than the First Minister is. Since, in any negotiation, Señor Rajoy will have a veto, should the First Minister not listen?
I am not a president, I am a First Minister; and Scotland is not a region, it is a nation. [Applause.]
Order.
The difference is that Scotland will be negotiating its position from within the European Union. There are three questions about that. Can that happen legally? Would it happen? Can the process be completed within 18 months?
I have here a letter from the head of unit of the European Commission’s secretariat-general, which addresses exactly the first question. It says:
“The ongoing democratic process is a matter for the UK and Scottish Governments and the Scottish people, and as you say, it would of course be legally possible to renegotiate the situation of the UK and Scotland within the EU.”
I will put the letter in the Scottish Parliament information centre, so that all members can have the benefit of it.
So, it can happen, legally. Would it happen? I cite Sir David Edward, who was the British judge on the European Court of Justice for 12 years and is the person who knows most about these arguments in Scotland. He says:
“In accordance with their obligations ... the EU institutions and all the Member States (including the UK as existing), would be obliged to enter into negotiations before separation took effect, to determine the future relationship within the EU of the separate parts of the former UK and the other Member States.”
So, yes, it would happen, because the obligation is to do it.
Thirdly—[Interruption.]
Order.
Thirdly, and crucially, having cited Sir David Edward, I will now cite someone whose authority cannot be questioned even by the better together parties: Professor James Crawford, who was appointed and paid by the UK Government to dispense legal advice on this matter. When asked the specific question about the 18-month timetable, he said:
“Well, the Scottish estimate is about 18 months, and that seems realistic.”
We have the European Commission, Sir David Edward, formerly of the European Court of Justice, and the person who was appointed by the UK Government, who says that the timetable is realistic. That is reasonably substantial evidence that Scotland as a nation can negotiate its position to full membership of the European Union.
I know what a nation is; the problem is that the First Minister does not seem to understand what a veto is. It does not matter who else he quotes, if there are 28 states with a veto they can use it if they choose to do so.
This is the First Minister who said that he had EU legal advice
“in terms of the debate”,
which did not exist in terms of reality. The President of the European Commission, Mr Barroso, has said that Scotland would have to reapply to the EU, and now the Spanish Prime Minister agrees with him. However, in Salmond’s world they are wrong. Here is negotiation Salmond style. Yesterday, he said that without Scottish electricity England’s lights would go off—as though he is Vladimir Putin and the rest of the UK is the Ukraine. What is the First Minister going to turn off in Spain—
Members: Fishing rights!
Order.
What is the First Minister going to turn off in Spain if it insists that Scotland is not in the EU? Is he going to threaten to blockade the North Sea again, as he did in June this year?
In terms of—[Interruption.]
Order.
I am sure that Johann Lamont would not want to say something that the Spanish Prime Minister did not say. There was no mention of a Spanish veto in anything that Señor Rajoy said yesterday. However, the question has been addressed directly by the Spanish foreign minister, Señor García-Margallo. In response to that exact question, he said:
“If in the UK both parties agree that this is consistent with their constitutional order, written or unwritten, Spain would have nothing to say, just that this does not affect us. No one would object to a consented independence of Scotland.”
We have an extraordinary situation in which that is what the Spanish foreign minister says but Johann Lamont has the idea that Scotland is a place that no one else in the European Union would want as a member. This nation, with its huge natural resource base, would be welcome in the European Union. Not to realise and understand that point is not to get to grips with the matter. Scotland is a European nation and we want to be a European nation. The only question about our membership is coming from the Conservative Party, many of whom want to get out of Europe. They are the real risk to our EU membership. Can Johann Lamont not embrace the fact that Scotland will be welcomed as a member of the European Union?
I used to say to my children, “What you want is not necessarily what you get.” The First Minister needs to understand that it is not his assertion that matters, but what people are entitled to do. If people cannot agree, they can disagree, or they can agree on conditions, and we do not know what those conditions would be.
The reality is that the white paper—so vaunted, like an Argos catalogue but without the prices—is truly historic: no document has become obsolete quite so quickly. What it says about keeping the pound is just plain wrong. Now we know that what it says about Scotland staying in the European Union is just plain wrong. However, the First Minister thinks that if he asserts things often enough they become true, and that, if he says that it is common sense or as sure as night follows day, his next statement will be believed however unbelievable it is in reality. What does it say about Scotland when Scots have to listen to a foreign Government to find out the truth?
In this exchange, I have cited the head of unit at the European Commission, who says that we could do it legally from within the European Union; I have cited Sir David Edward, a British judge in the European Court of Justice for 12 years, who says that there would be an obligation to have the negotiations; and I have cited Professor James Crawford, the legal adviser paid by the UK Government, who says that the 18-month timetable is realistic. That is a substantial amount of evidence. I have pointed out that the Spanish foreign minister says that
“No one would object to a consented independence of Scotland. ”
That was the precise reason for having the Edinburgh agreement in the first place.
I had heard the one about the catalogue before, because Johann Lamont used it last night—just before, I think, she suggested that she would means test nursery education under Labour’s plans for Scotland.
The question goes to the heart of whether the unionist parties believe that Scotland would be a welcome member of the European Union. We had a definitive answer on that last night from one of the key members of better together—Alistair Carmichael. Now, listen, I would not recommend that people go and watch the programme, because a referee would have stopped things when Nicola Sturgeon was bruising the bruiser. However, Alistair Carmichael managed to complete a sentence, which I think the rest of his colleagues in better together should look at:
“The question is not whether we would be welcome or not; it would be the terms”.
Exactly. I believe that, for example, the terms of Scottish membership of the European Union would not allow €1 billion to be taken away from our rural industries, as the UK Government has done.
Scotland is a European nation. Resource rich Scotland would be welcome. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that. Can better together not just get off the scaremongering and embrace the idea that this nation is a European nation?
Prime Minister (Meetings)
2. To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-01713)
No plans in the near future.
Before I start, I would like to get the Spanish foreign minister out of the way. José Manuel García-Margallo told the Spanish Senate:
“In the hypothetical case of independence, Scotland would have to join the queue and ask to be admitted, needing the unanimous approval of all member states to obtain the status of a candidate country”.
If we are going to quote the Spanish foreign minister, let us do it properly.
On 13 December last year, the Deputy First Minister made a statement to the Parliament on Europe. In that, she told MSPs that she had written to the European Commission President, José Manuel Barroso, to seek early discussions with him on the process by which an independent Scotland would become a member of the EU. She told the Parliament that she would give an update once those discussions had taken place. Can the First Minister tell us why, in the intervening 11 and a half months, we have not had that update?
We would go tomorrow to the European Commission, but it has said that it would need the UK Government—Ruth Davidson’s Government—to agree.
I ask Ruth Davidson to get on the phone to the Prime Minister. Unfortunately, he will not be at his St Andrew’s day reception tonight because he cannot make it, but, nonetheless, I ask her get on the phone to him and ask him to agree that we go together, as the European Commission has invited us to do, to look at the legal case for Scotland being a member of the European Union. Get on the phone—do it reverse charges—and ask your leader for permission.
There is surprise and indignation from the First Minister, and yet he should not be surprised. [Interruption.]
Order.
Anyone who has ever had any dealings with the European Union would know that the head of Commission would speak only to sovereign states on accession issues. The question is—[Interruption.]
Order. Can we just settle down please?
The question is: why did the Deputy First Minister not know that when she said it? That shows just what a shower of rank amateurs the Scottish National Party Government is when it comes to international diplomacy. [Interruption.]
Order. Let us hear Ms Davidson, please.
SNP ministers say that they are right and everyone else is wrong on Europe. They say that the European Commission President is wrong when he says that Scotland would have to join the same queue as everybody else. They say that the Spanish Prime Minister is wrong when he says that we would have to join the same queue as everybody else. They say that the foreign ministers of Spain, Latvia, Ireland and the Czech Republic are wrong when they say that we would have to join the same queue as everybody else.
The First Minister does not understand that it does not matter if he gets 15, 25, 26 or even 27 member states on board because he needs every single one of the 28 Governments to agree to his demands. Is the First Minister winning friends and influencing people by telling them that they are wrong?
Judging by the response of Ruth Davidson’s back benches, this may be her valedictory First Minister’s question time.
Ruth Davidson’s approach was bad enough but, for goodness’ sake, I suggest that she does not get into a debate with Nicola Sturgeon on that topic. The point is quite simple. We have said—it is on public record—that we want to go to the European Commission.
I will provide an interesting update for Ruth Davidson. Yesterday, she said that the European Commission would not talk to us after Scotland voted for independence. The European Commission is prepared to talk to us now but it says that it needs the permission of, and that we must go jointly with, the UK Government. We have asked the UK Government to do that, but the UK Government—which is led by her political party—says that it will not pre-negotiate and therefore it will not go.
It is not the Spanish veto that we must worry about—they do not have one—but the UK Government’s veto.
I call David Stewart to ask a constituency question.
The First Minister will be aware that Flybe is to close its Inverness base with a loss of 35 jobs, which include local flight crew, engineers and pilots. Those losses are echoed in cuts in Aberdeen and beyond. Does the First Minister share my view that a base closure today could be a route closure tomorrow? Will he meet me to join the fight to save the base and local Highlands and Islands jobs?
I certainly agree to meet the member, and we will do what we can to redress the situation. We have held a number of meetings with Flybe. The member knows that there is a general retraction in Flybe services. I am sure that the member agrees with me that, among the reasons that it has cited, air passenger duty has played a key part in the difficulties that it has on the routes that it serves.
Cabinet (Meetings)
3. To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-01714)
Issues of importance to the people of Scotland.
How many of the people whom he listed to Johann Lamont have more power than Mr Rajoy? None of them. It is the Spanish Prime Minister’s word against the First Minister’s word, but Mr Rajoy has the veto.
The First Minister does not need most European Union countries to back Scotland; he needs every single one, and they all know that he has nowhere else to go.
At breakfast yesterday, there was little doubt over Scotland’s place in the EU; by tea time, there was little certainty. What will the First Minister trade to get the Spanish on board?
Señor Rajoy did not say that he would use the veto—that is the point that I was making. Indeed, the Spanish Prime Minister has explicitly said that Spain would not veto because it would be a consented independence. If the Liberal Democrats want to put words into the Spanish Prime Minister’s mouth, that is a matter for them.
Of course, Willie Rennie’s colleague said last night—I think that this was repeated by another of his colleagues this morning—that they acknowledge that Scotland would be welcome as a member of the European Union. That is what Alistair Carmichael said last night.
If the better together parties can get at least to that first base—and not have a situation in which the Liberal Democrats believe that Scotland would be welcome, the Labour Party seems to doubt Scotland’s welcome and the Conservative Party seems to doubt the entire European Union—and if we get to a place of acknowledgement that Scotland would be a welcome member, then we will make progress.
Incidentally, I accept that the white paper has been predicated on the basis that Scotland, as a European nation, would be welcomed by other European nations—we have every possible reason to believe that that would be the case. Given that Alistair Carmichael has acknowledged that, surely Willie Rennie can bring himself to support if not me then at least his colleague.
The First Minister really should not answer the questions that I did not ask. He is obviously relying on his powers of persuasion with the Spanish Prime Minister. However, all of us in this chamber remember his six red lines on the Scotland Act 2012 and that he sold out on every single one of them. That was negotiating with only one Government, and that is why he has been called the worst negotiator in the northern hemisphere.
The Liberal Democrats know all about selling out.
Order.
When the Croatian ambassador was in this building, he said that countries have to
“take pretty much what is offered.”
Every country has had to trade things away to secure a place in the EU. Will the First Minister sell out our Scottish fishermen for a Spanish vote? [Interruption.]
Order.
What about the rebate, the Schengen agreement or the euro? We all know that he will say anything to get independence—[Interruption.]
Ms Adamson!
Who will he sell out to get the vote that he needs?
I remind Willie Rennie that, in negotiations for joining the European Community, as it was then, a civil servant noted bitterly:
“In light of Britain’s wider European interests they”—
the Scottish fishermen—
“are expendable”.
That is an exact quote. I can tell Willie Rennie that, for this Government, Scottish fishing will never be expendable.
Just in case he thinks that that is too dated a quote, I see his colleague Tavish Scott sitting behind him. Let us remember that he had to resign from Government in the Scottish Parliament because he did not think that it was fighting for Scottish fishermen.
Let us also remember the information published by Richard Lochhead that €1 billion is the cost of British negotiation on, and attitudes to, the common agricultural policy. That is a loss to Scottish farmers, even if we were getting the minimum support across the community.
That evidence on fishing, farming and a range of other issues shows exactly why this European nation should represent itself at the top table in Europe.
Social Care Services
4. To ask the First Minister what action the Scottish Government will take to avert the reported pressures on social care budgets undermining care services for older and vulnerable people. (S4F-01715)
Alongside our on-going and absolute commitment to free personal care, the integration of health and social care is needed to ensure that we have effective care services for older and vulnerable people. Earlier this week, our bill to take integration forward passed stage 1. That integration will ensure that the human and financial resources in Scotland’s caring services can be used to best effect.
I am aware—as we all are—that the cuts to our budgets are having huge impacts across this area. In my constituency and elsewhere, because of pressures in the here and now, carers looking after their elderly and vulnerable clients are increasingly close to breaking point. Will the First Minister and his Cabinet colleagues consider whether, in very pinched budgets, we can find some funding to assist in the here and now?
I draw Christine Grahame’s attention to the £120 million integration fund for 2015-16. The final shape of that fund and the nature of the programmes and projects that it will support are currently being determined in partnership with local authorities and the third sector. In addition, the reshaping care fund is making £300 million of change funding available between 2011 and 2014-15 to help to reshape care for older people. Scottish Borders Council and other councils, working with local health boards, have made use of the reshaping care fund. For example, as Christine Grahame knows, Scottish Borders Council has received £2 million from the change funds this year for projects that focus on preventative care, support at home, care in hospital and care in care homes.
I hope that that answer satisfies Christine Grahame that, even despite the huge pressure, the commitment to free personal care is absolute and that the change fund and integration fund will make sure that we are doing everything possible to ensure that the integration between the health service and local authorities in personal care for the elderly and vulnerable has the best possible passage into effect.
The First Minister will be aware of Age Scotland’s concerns that some people are receiving care visits that are as short as seven minutes. Will he ensure that care visits are long enough to provide the care and attention that frail and elderly people require to allow them to live in security and dignity? Will he ensure that care visits are not restricted to 15 minutes or less?
I am sure that Rhoda Grant will want to acknowledge that the United Kingdom Homecare Association has conducted a survey that shows that 58 per cent of home care visits in Scotland last longer than 30 minutes, compared with only 27 per cent in England. It also shows that 89 per cent of visits in Scotland are longer than 15 minutes. Although performance in Scotland is not perfect and is capable of improvement—vigilance is always necessary—in a range of areas it is vastly superior to performance elsewhere. On the basis of the figures from the UK Homecare Association, free personal care is very much a reality. I share Rhoda Grant’s concern, but she should acknowledge that, in Scotland, the local authorities, in particular, are pursuing a policy that is substantially better than that of their colleagues south of the border.
National Health Service (Winter Pressures)
5. To ask the First Minister whether the Scottish Government considers that there is sufficient capacity in the NHS to deal with demand this winter. (S4F-01719)
Neil Findlay will be aware that demand for NHS services—including demand for accident and emergency services—grows year on year. Winter brings additional pressures, not least from norovirus and increased respiratory illness. That is why, earlier this year, we announced that we would be working with the College of Emergency Medicine on a £50 million unscheduled care action plan that would put more key staff, including emergency consultants, in place to tackle unacceptably long waits in accident and emergency.
Neil Findlay should remember that, under this Government, almost 1,000 additional medical consultants have been provided—that includes a doubling of the number of A and E consultants; there has been a 5.5 per cent increase in the number of general practitioners; and more than 1,000 additional qualified nurses have been provided. Winter brings its challenges. We will work with NHS staff and boards to provide the best possible service this coming winter.
I am advised that, this week, patients at Edinburgh’s Western general receiving unit have languished on trolleys for up to 18 hours. This week, we also found out that nine out of 14 NHS boards failed to meet A and E waiting times targets.
It is only November and the weather is mild, yet our hospitals are struggling despite the immense efforts of NHS staff. Why has the Government failed to heed the warnings of the Royal College of Nursing, the British Medical Association, Unison, patient groups and many others, who have said for months and months that the NHS is not ready for winter?
On the unscheduled care action plan, Jason Long, who is chair of the College of Emergency Medicine Scotland, said:
“This is an important initiative that will improve emergency medicine across Scotland, and we welcome the opportunity to collaborate on this initiative.”
The member should look at things from the point of view of where we are. This week, figures have been published that show that, in the third quarter of 2013, performance against the four-hour accident and emergency treatment target was 95.2 per cent. If we look back a few years to 2006, we find that 87.5 per cent of patients waited for less than four hours. I will repeat that: the figure was 95.2 per cent in the most recent quarter compared with 87.5 per cent in April 2006. The then health minister, Andy Kerr, hailed that performance. He said:
“This is the first time we have had comprehensive data ... The data shows that the vast majority of A & E departments are meeting the four hour target ... Investment and reform ... is paying off”.
All that I would say, as gently as possible, is that every one of us would like to see the figure of 95.2 per cent going up to 100 per cent—of course we would—but the Labour Party must explain why it hailed a figure of 87.5 per cent in 2006, yet a figure of 95.2 per cent is now apparently not good enough. Let us look at the reality and the figures and let us recognise the improvements that have been made and the commitment to cope—as far as we possibly can, in good will and good judgment—with the coming winter and the pressure on our A and E units. Let us also remember the people who serve in those units and serve the public, who are doing their best for the health of Scotland.
Barnett Formula
6. To ask the First Minster what the Scottish Government’s position is on the recent comments by the Secretary of State for Scotland regarding the future of the Barnett formula once the economy has “stabilised”. (S4F-01720)
I should pass on my best wishes to the Secretary of State for Scotland as he recovers from last night’s debate.
As the member will have seen, that aspect came up in last night’s debate. On Monday, the report from the all-party parliamentary group on taxation, which includes MPs from the Conservative, Liberal and Labour parties, said that
“the Barnett Formula must be replaced as a priority”
and that we should go over to the proposals of the Holtham commission. We know that the Holtham commission, which was commissioned by the First Minister of Wales, who was lauded by the better together parties when he came to Scotland just last week, forecast a £4 billion cut in spending. That was its assessment. All three of the better together parties are signed up to a £4 billion cut in Scotland’s finances or—to put it in terms that the Tory party understands—a cut of £1,600 for every taxpayer in Scotland.
The secretary of state’s gaffe in saying last Sunday that the United Kingdom economy remains unstable was compounded when he implied that the Barnett formula’s days are numbered. Does the First Minister agree that, as politicians south of the border from all three UK parties are now pressing for substantial cuts to Scotland’s budget—in addition to those that have been endured in recent years—the only way for Scotland to avoid the cuts is for Scotland to vote yes in next year’s independence referendum?
This is where we come to it. I could cite quote after quote from members of all three unionist parties—from the Labour Party, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats—who say, “Scrap the Barnett formula.” Their all-party group has now said what it wants the formula to be replaced with. The academics who were concerned with the Holtham commission told us in the Financial Times that they estimate that the Holtham proposal would mean a £4 billion cut in Scotland’s finances.
That is why we published the white paper—the enormous amount of detail in “Scotland’s Future”—which is our prospectus for an independent Scotland. Let us see from the unionist parties the reality of what their colleagues plan—a £4 billion cut in Scottish finances.
The Barnett formula is an arrangement for redistributing resources around the United Kingdom. The person who is campaigning hardest for the end of Barnett is the First Minister. Does the First Minister understand that if you are not in it, you will not get it?
I will answer with two statistics. We get 9.3 per cent of the spending, but we raise 9.9 per cent of the revenue; 9.9 per cent is greater than 9.3 per cent. [Interruption.]
Order. Mr Johnstone.
That happens to be greater by about £4 billion. It would therefore be a good idea if we got control of the revenue as well as the spending.
Drew Smith’s colleagues have in mind cutting the 9.3 per cent to about 8.3 per cent, which would be £4 billion less. [The First Minister has corrected this contribution. See end of report.] I will put that in the simplest terms that I can for Labour back benchers. If we had raised our own revenue and taxation in the past year, we would have £4 billion more. Under the plans of the better together parties, we will have £4 billion less. Does that complete the calculation?