Chamber and committees

The risk is that we have a bill that is supposed to address those fundamental issues in the Scottish education system, but that we do nothing about them. The risk is that we have another two or three years, or however long it is, of further consideration of detail, which I think was the phrase that the cabinet secretary used earlier. The fact is that we have been discussing this, in one shape or form or another, almost continuously for years already, and the evidence clearly suggests that separation is required.

I am also not entirely sure about the issue of cost. To be absolutely clear, I come from the background of the private sector, but I am not sure that I accept the argument that you create lots more costs simply by taking one set of resources and moving them, in reporting and accountability terms, to another body. I am not sure that I understand why, in the public sector, that would automatically create a massive increase in costs. The costs are already allocated; you are simply moving them to a different place, where they will operate separately and independently of the original host. I do not understand that argument. I would be very happy to hear an explanation, which is perhaps more granular than the convener will be prepared to allow here.

I can see that the convener is happy for there to be a granular discussion. I am happy for there to be a granular explanation as to why we suddenly have this enormous expansion of costs. As I said, I come at the issue from a different background of working in the private sector, where, if you decide to reallocate resources, it does not increase the resources; in fact, you are very strongly controlled in relation to not increasing the resources—you simply reallocate them. I do not understand what the granular argument for the increase in costs is.

I am willing to give way; I always give way to the cabinet secretary when she wishes to intervene.

Of course. I always give way to the cabinet secretary.

I am glad that Angus Robertson qualified his caricature of the previous UK Government, because on the whole, working relationships between ministers and officials was on par with what it is now. [Interruption.] Are you denying that?

I am going on the evidence that was presented to the committee. I am going on the words of businessmen—businesspeople—business organisations and companies, which actually want the legal certainty that UKIMA gives them. Let me take the Scottish Retail Consortium as an example. It has talked about how

“Scottish Consumers benefit enormously from open and frictionless trade within the United Kingdom”.

There is NFU Scotland, which describes England as by far the most important market for Scottish agriculture and has stressed the importance of having certainty and legal underpinnings for that marketplace. The Confederation of British Industry Scotland said that

“the UK internal market underpins economic growth and investment stability.”—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 27 March 2025; c 13.]

None of those witnesses advocated for the repeal of UKIMA.

I will not try to pretend that UKIMA is the perfect piece of legislation, nor am I someone who does not think that there is vast room for improvement in the way that Governments work together on our little island. However, I have to say that the evidence that we have had as a committee is not as dogmatic or as unilateral as your document is. Are you not just speaking for nationalism when you say that you are sticking up for one thing or another, instead of sticking up for Scottish businesses and Scottish jobs?

Well, that is—

Oh, I cannot continue?

Cabinet secretary, you spoke about good will. Having received the document last night and listened to you this morning, I find your position incredibly dogmatic. There is absolutely no compromise—it is dogmatic; it is straight down the line. That is not good will on your part, is it? It is bullying—it is about what you want and your insistence that you must have it.

Your position is inconsistent with the evidence that this committee has received. Your grandiose, extraordinary claim is that the internal market act is the greatest threat to devolution that has ever existed, but you are using it simply as the latest weapon in your constitutional warfare with the United Kingdom.

In this committee, we have heard business leaders, farmers and legal experts testify that the act brings stability, legal certainty and confidence for investment.

I ask you outright—is the Scottish Government’s opposition to UKIMA really about the outcomes, or is it all about posturing and optics?

It was.

I explicitly asked the witnesses who have come before the committee whether they want UKIMA to be repealed. You can look at the official record; it is very clear. We can swap quotes from the Official Report if you want. I can tell you, having sat through all those meetings, that businesspeople in Scotland appreciate the legal certainty that UKIMA has given to them.

I will move on to a different issue, which is the effect of UKIMA on the ability of devolution to work and there being an opportunity to create innovation. To consider what the academic experts told us, I will share a couple of quotes from Professor Chris McCorkindale, who is an adviser to the committee, which the cabinet secretary would perhaps like to comment on. Professor McCorkindale said that UKIMA

“does not impose new legal limits on devolved competence”

and that it simply ensures that devolved laws do not create barriers to trade. Angus Robertson just said that we agree that there ought not to be new barriers and that we want to have frictionless trade across these islands, and that is what Professor Chris McCorkindale of the University of Strathclyde said.

Professor McCorkindale went on to say that the effect of the act is “practical” and that Scottish legislation is

“enforceable only against goods and services in Scotland”,

rather than those coming from elsewhere in the United Kingdom. There is nothing unreasonable about that—that is what the effect of UKIMA is.

I have another quote somewhere from David Thomson of the Food and Drink Federation, who said:

“we do not necessarily observe that the internal market act has had a chilling effect”.—[Official Report, Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, 27 March 2025; c 4.]

He was referring to devolved policy making and innovation in policy at the Scottish level.

The problem with Angus Robertson’s position is that he does not accept the nature of the unitary state of the United Kingdom. His position—that the United Kingdom Parliament should not be able to create legislation that gives legal underpinnings to the internal market—is the fundamental stumbling block. I have presented academic and legal opinion that clearly defies everything that he has said this morning.

I just believe that you have created—