Chamber and committees

The Scottish Government will certainly not take any lectures from a party that has not won a national election in Scotland since the 1950s. There was a Scottish Parliament election last year, and a record number of members of this chamber were elected on a manifesto commitment that the people should be able to express their view on Scotland’s constitutional future as an independent country. We still live in a democratic state, the people have had their say, the people’s decision should be respected and they should have a vote next autumn on Scotland’s independent future. My advice to those parties that are pursuing the argument of democracy denial is that they really should give up on it.

The implication of independence is that Scotland will be wealthier and fairer. On average, independent countries comparable to Scotland that are cited in the first paper in the updated independence prospectus have national incomes that are £14,000 greater per head than ours.

As Mr Bibby is aware, the leader of the United Kingdom Labour Party said:

“let me be very clear: with Labour, Britain will not go back into the EU. We will not be joining the single market. We will not be joining a customs union.”

That is the bad news, but there is better news. Keir Starmer also pledged that

“Labour would eliminate most border checks created by the Tory Brexit deal”.

I think that Donald Cameron is making the mistake of rereading his election leaflets from last year, when that was the position of the Scottish Conservatives, while the position of the Scottish National Party and the Scottish Green Party was that the people should have their say in a referendum. His party lost the election and the SNP and the Greens won the election. We form a Government in this place, and a majority of MSPs wish the people to have a say in a referendum. So long as we live in a democracy, we should act on the wishes of the electorate. It is a shame that some parties in this chamber do not believe that.

I gently suggest to Neil Bibby that, if he wants to get full answers to questions, making points of order in the middle of ministers’ attempts to answer them is probably not the best way to do so.

The best path for Scotland’s future is to become independent, to rejoin the European Union, to manage our borders appropriately and to escape the disastrous Brexit-based economy that Labour and the Tories are intent on inflicting on people in Scotland.

I ask Neil Bibby to reflect on Sir Keir Starmer’s commitment that

“Labour would eliminate most border checks created by the Tory Brexit deal”.

Is that a commitment or is it not?

The Scottish Government continues to engage with international partners to encourage cultural, economic and policy collaborations that attract investments and create domestic opportunities for people in Scotland.

My visit to Iceland for the Arctic Circle assembly allowed me to promote Scotland’s expertise in relation to challenges and ambitions that we share with our Arctic neighbours, including in relation to decarbonisation, energy solutions and rural wellbeing. It was hugely worth while to attend the assembly to present an update on the Scottish Government’s Arctic co-operation and to hold bilateral meetings with the Prime Minister and foreign minister of Iceland; ministers from Greenland, the Faroe Islands, Canada and Singapore; and delegates from the United States, Norway and Japan. The assembly hosted the largest-ever contingent from Scotland. I put on the record my appreciation to President Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson for organising the Arctic Circle assembly.

The exponential pace at which the Arctic region is warming is a matter of deep concern. As one of the first countries in the world to declare a climate emergency, we recognise the vital importance of taking immediate action domestically and encouraging ambitious measures internationally.

The Scottish Government is fully aware of Scotland’s key geostrategic position as the world’s most northerly non-Arctic nation. As new shipping routes become viable, we are ideally located, and have clear credentials, to become a subarctic maritime transport and logistics hub.

The receding sea ice in the Arctic creates threats as well, which we must be alert to. At a time when the Arctic is the focus of renewed geopolitical and security considerations, it is crucial that we develop a full understanding of the threats that our communities and critical infrastructure could face.

UK Government policies are making major economic challenges—such as inflation, inequality and the cost of living crisis—worse. Instability and uncertainty are increasing as financial markets express a lack of confidence in the UK Government’s economic management and competence.

Scotland has an abundance of skilled people, innovative businesses and natural resources. We have everything it takes to be just as successful as comparable independent European countries. Independence is essential to building a stronger economy, a more just society and a Scotland that works for everyone, for this and future generations. We are fully committed to holding an independence referendum in October next year, pending the decision of the Supreme Court.

I refer Sarah Boyack to the answer that I gave a moment ago. She was elected to this place opposing a referendum on Scotland’s future, but a majority of MSPs were elected to deliver one.

The question is not an either/or one. Yes, we need to deal with the social and economic challenges—in particular, those that are being exacerbated by the UK Tory party—but the idea that we should somehow park democracy while that takes place is misguided and wrong. As democrats, we should deliver on what the public has voted for and not block democratic choice.

I agree entirely with what Emma Harper has said. Let us remember that it is Brexit that is creating borders. If the UK Government takes a sensible approach to its relationship with the EU, many of the measures that we talk about in our paper could be extremely minimal. Nobody sensible would argue that Scotland could not remain in the common travel area. Although I cannot speak for the UK Government, that is not only in Scotland’s interests but in the interests of everybody in the United Kingdom.

On 11 October, the secretary of state replied to my letter of 5 October, which outlined the Scottish Government’s fundamental opposition to the bill. Our position remains that we would like the bill to be withdrawn or, at the very least, significantly changed in order for Scotland’s interests—and devolution generally—to be protected.

Mr Rees-Mogg’s response did not alleviate our concerns about the bill, and my officials, along with devolved Government colleagues, have been engaging weekly with the UK Government officials who are in charge of the bill to make clear the necessity of those changes.