Chamber and committees

I will repeat what I said in my original answer. That is an important aspect of promoting better public health, discouraging young people from drinking alcohol and making it easier for people with alcohol misuse issues to recover from them.

There are, of course, difficult issues involved in relation to sporting organisations. We would encourage them to diversify sponsorship away from the alcohol industry.

It is because I agree very much with Gillian Mackay’s comments that we have embarked on the consultation. Some complex issues are involved in it, but it is important that we listen to a wide range of people and, of course, key stakeholders, which we will do. The Government has a good record on implementing sometimes controversial policies, such as minimum pricing for alcohol, to try to reduce the harm that we know alcohol can do. That is the spirit in which we will take forward the consultation.

The UN international day of persons with disabilities is a very important day. It highlights that disabled people continue to experience inequality and barriers. As a mark of respect for the day and to help to promote it, the Scottish Government will be lighting up St Andrew’s house and Victoria Quay in purple. We also provide £5 million to support disabled people’s organisations to tackle inequality and discrimination and promote the rights of disabled people.

We have committed to incorporating the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities into Scots law. We all want to ensure that disabled people benefit from all that we are doing to improve the lives of people and that we achieve equality for all.

First, it is—what is the best word to describe it?—bold for a Conservative to come here and talk about privatisation of the national health service. The Conservatives have done more than any other party in these islands—at times, they have had stiff competition from Labour—to privatise the NHS.

I am intrigued by Douglas Ross’s line of questioning. I did an interview on Monday in which I addressed the comments in the minute. The minute is there. I was not denying then that the conversation had taken place, and I am not denying it now. It was a meeting of some leading NHS directors. As a point of fact, it was not a meeting of NHS board chief executives. The meeting involved conversations, not—to use another word that Douglas Ross used—“plans”.

I will let Douglas Ross into what should not be a secret, but it is clear that he does not understand this. NHS leaders, however much respect I have for them—I have considerable respect for them—do not make Government policy. The Government makes Government policy, and the founding principles of the national health service, which this Government has done more than any to protect and to enhance are not and—as long as I am First Minister—never will be up for discussion.

They are not. I will set out some facts about the NHS. There is higher funding for the national health service in Scotland than there is for England’s Tory-run national health service; there is higher staffing per head of population in Scotland than there is in England; and, of course, thanks to the dedication of every worker who works in it, NHS Scotland is better performing than the NHS in other parts of the UK.

This Government will always work to protect the founding principles of the health service, which is more than can be said—[Interruption.]

As I was saying, that is more than can be said for Douglas Ross. He says that he wants some reality. I will give him some.

Last year, an amendment was passed in the House of Lords that would have protected the NHS by explicitly excluding it from trade deals that could undermine its founding principles. Tory MPs in the House of Commons voted to remove that protection. Guess who one of those Tory MPs was—Douglas Ross. Even when he gets the chance, he does not stand up for the principles of the national health service. This Government always will.

I thank Tess White for raising those issues, which are extremely important to any community that is affected by severe weather incidents. Specifically on the important issue of Brechin, the main flood defence in Brechin, which contains the South Esk river, held. That is despite river levels provisionally reported by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency as being the highest ever on record. It is worth pointing out that, had those defences not been in place, there would have been widespread and potentially dangerous flooding of an estimated 332 properties—beyond anything yet experienced by Brechin.

However, two of the three pump stations that remove surface water from River Street, from run-off and other sources, did not start automatically when water was detected. As soon as that issue was identified, a council officer attended and, at that stage, the pumps were successfully started.

We work closely with local resilience partnerships and it is important that we do so. Any time there is a severe weather incident such as this one, we ensure that any appropriate lessons are learned; that will be the case here and it will be done as quickly as possible. If the member could pass on to the Government any issues raised by locals about concerns that I have not touched on today, we will ensure that those issues are fed into that process of reflection and learning.

Russell Findlay is right about one thing: budgets are extremely tight. They are tight because of Tory economic mismanagement and Tory erosion of our budgets.

On the issue at hand, prison is about punishment, yes, but it should also be about rehabilitation. It is important that we do not lose focus on that. Mobile phone provision, which I think—I will be corrected if I am wrong—is something that the United Kingdom Government did during the pandemic, too, is about ensuring connections between prisoners and families, including children. That is important to rehabilitation, and rehabilitation is important to reducing offending and reoffending.

We will continue to consider all these issues carefully, but we will consider them in the context of a justice system that punishes criminals—that is extremely important—and which also seeks to rehabilitate people who commit crimes and to reduce reoffending, which is in the overall interest of communities across the country.

Although I am of course disappointed by it, I respect and accept the Supreme Court’s judgment on the Lord Advocate’s reference regarding the Scottish Parliament’s powers to legislate for an independence referendum. However, the denial of democracy by Westminster parties demonstrates beyond any doubt that the notion of the United Kingdom as a voluntary partnership of nations is not now a reality, if it ever was.

It of course remains open to the UK Government to respect democracy and reach an agreement with the Scottish Government for a lawful, constitutional and democratic referendum. However, regardless of attempts by Westminster to block democracy, I will always work to ensure that Scotland’s voice is heard and that the future of Scotland is always in Scotland’s hands.

It is quite simple: unionist Westminster politicians want to silence Scotland’s voice, because they are scared of what Scotland might say. Any politician who was confident of their case and of being able to persuade others of their case would not be trying to block democracy; they would be embracing it. I think that we know everything that we need to know about the views of Westminster unionist parties from their determination to block Scotland’s democracy, but it will not prevail.

Unionist politicians with critical faculties and, perhaps, the power of independent thinking probably understand that yesterday’s judgment raises profoundly uncomfortable questions about the basis and future of the United Kingdom. Any partnership in which one partner needs the consent of another to choose its future is not voluntary or even a partnership.

Within the UK right now, it is the case that England could decide to become independent, but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland supposedly cannot. That is not a partnership—it is not voluntary and it is not equal. However, Scotland’s voice will not be silenced. Scotland’s future is up to the people of Scotland, and that will always be the case.