Chamber and committees

No. We are saying that there is a secretariat and that we are content with its functioning.

I will hand over to Mr Mackie to—

I would say that the organisation of the UK Government is for the UK Government.

I will first share my observation on Dunlop, and I will then ask Chris Mackie to come in—with your permission, convener.

The thing that I find most interesting about Dunlop relates to funding. I note that the UK Government did not follow the Dunlop recommendations on arrangements for spending in devolved areas. The Dunlop review recommended that there should be agreement between the UK Government’s departments and relevant devolved Governments on any funding bid to encourage cross-border collaboration or working. That does not happen. In fact, that is the opposite of what is being pursued on local growth funding. We might come back to that issue because, curiously, the current UK Government is taking a different approach in Wales from that which it is taking in Scotland, and we might wonder why.

Nonetheless, Mr Kerr asked about Dunlop, and that is one of the most interesting points.

He talked about a number of things. He said that there should be a senior Cabinet position with responsibility for constitution-related matters. In practice, that has happened. Under the last UK Government, Michael Gove was seen—

That is certainly the case. A majority of members in the Parliament have voted for there to be a referendum, and that counts for something. It should count for all democrats, and that should not be denied by any democrat. I do not think that votes for the Scottish Green Party, which is a party that has a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum, are worth any less than votes for the Scottish National Party or any other party when it comes to matters that are debated in the Scottish Parliament. That is why I believe that, if the Scottish Parliament votes for something, it should happen.

I agree with Mr Kerr and Mr Halcro Johnston that this question is deeply political. However, it is only political—with a capital P—because the parties that oppose independence have departed from the principled position on self-determination in Scotland that they used to have. Now, because they would rather not have a referendum at all, those parties are dancing around a number of rhetorical approaches to suggest that a referendum be held not now, but at some distant point in the future, with some imagined but not elucidated level of mandate that is different from now. The inference is that 50 per cent of the vote is not enough, and that is from a party that held the Brexit referendum after winning a percentage vote share in the 30s—and which, incidentally, has not won a national election in Scotland since the 1950s. To be lectured on democratic processes by that party is a bit rich.

I agree with the principle in Mr Harvie’s question that, if the majority of parliamentarians in this Parliament wish for there to be a referendum, that is what should happen. My point is simply that, given the politics of the issue, it may be a stronger case to exactly match the precedent and circumstances of 2011. That does not discount my views as a democrat, because this is a question of principles. My principle as a parliamentarian and a believer in parliamentary democracy is that, if a majority of members in the Parliament wish something to be so and were elected with a manifesto to do that, then that is what should happen.

Mr Adam is again correct. Especially after yesterday’s opinion poll in Wales that confirmed the leading position of Plaid Cymru and the appalling levels of support for the Welsh Labour Party and the Welsh Conservative Party, and given the polls in Northern Ireland, I have absolutely no doubt that the prognosis that Mr Adam draws to our attention regarding the likely outcomes of elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will mean that, for the first time, there will be heads of government in three of the four nations of this United Kingdom who believe in fundamental constitutional change.

I would wish there to be a mechanism that was agreed by all. However, if there is not, I think that, as never before, we will have a debate—in England as well, given that potential and likely outcome of the elections next year—on the fact that the status quo is not sustainable, that it rests on an unwritten constitution, that it not being written in stone is not a strength but a weakness, and that it undermines democratic rights in Scotland. That is not sustainable.

The only thing that was confirmed was the UK Government’s position. From memory, I prompted Mr Thomas-Symonds to tell me the UK Government’s position on negotiations—indeed, he did not volunteer the information—which had been in the newspapers. He said that the UK Government favoured long-term stability for fisheries but gave no insight into what that might mean.

I think that, at the time, because it was thought that there would not be a clamour for another referendum, that was a simple thing to concede because, intellectually, if one is in favour of the right to self-determination and one is a democrat, how could one say anything other than that?

I have not spoken with any members of the Smith commission since, but I have no reason to believe that they acted in bad faith then. However, I think that, having said what they said then and given the situation in which we find ourselves now—a Parliament with a majority elected for there to be such a referendum—there is a significant inconsistency there.

The only explanation that I can alight on is not intellectual. It is a political consideration that the starting position for a referendum campaign is that, de minimis, 50 per cent of those who express an opinion on how they would vote—yes or no—would vote yes. Therefore, it is more of a consideration about the risk of losing a referendum than about the principle of either democratic values or democratic processes.

I cast no aspersions on the members of the Smith commission then, but I am interested in hearing what they would say now. It would be very inconsistent of them, or, indeed, of the political parties that signed up to the commission’s recommendations—including the Scottish Conservatives, Scottish Labour and the Scottish Liberal Democrats—if they now take a position that is diametrically opposed to that which they agreed to in 2014.

Stephen Kerr is conflating two different things: first, the right to be able to decide, and, secondly, coming to a view on the principal question. Those are quite distinct.

I gently draw his attention to the percentage with which the UK Conservative and Unionist Party was elected under David Cameron and under which it delivered a Brexit referendum. That Government was elected on a percentage that was not more than 50 per cent; the percentage was, by my memory, in the mid-30s. That Government then legislated for the Brexit referendum that delivered the result that it did. I deploy that fact in my answer to Mr Kerr because he supported the Conservative Party when that Government was elected, he supported a Brexit referendum and I think that I am right in saying that he voted in favour of Brexit.