Chamber and committees

I think that I have just answered his question pretty fully.

I have two final points to make. First, if Douglas Ross really believed what he just said about Scotland’s independence movement, he would be desperate for an independence referendum. The fact that he is running scared of an independence referendum proves him wrong.

Secondly, I welcome the announcements this week for the Clyde, but it is a fact that most people across Scotland and, indeed, the UK who are watching television right now will be watching the chancellor on his feet in the House of Commons announcing significant, deep, real-terms cuts and tax rises. That is the price of a Tory Government, and that is why an increasing number of people in Scotland want this country to be independent. [Applause.]

Those are important issues. I will address the budgetary issue first. I do not like the budget situation that the Scottish Government faces, but the hard reality is that, this year, our budget has been eroded to the tune of £1.7 billion because of inflation. Our budget is effectively fixed: we have no levers to increase the revenue that is available to us within this financial year, so we have to make very difficult decisions. We have been open with the chamber about those decisions and, if any member thinks that we should make different ones, they can put the case to us. What they cannot do is magic up more money for this financial year.

That is the reality that Anas Sarwar’s colleagues in Wales openly recognise. They are facing tough decisions as well and are making clear that, without additional funding from the UK Government, tough decisions are inescapable. That is the reality that we face: none of us likes it, but we cannot escape it.

We have more GPs per head of population than other parts of the UK do, but we want to grow our GP workforce, which is why the target that I have spoken about and the progress that has been made against it is so important—as is the redesign and reform work that we are doing that relates to wider primary care teams. None of those things is easy. All of us acutely understand their impact on patients and the pressure on our NHS.

We will continue to support people who work in our national health service, and we will try to recruit from overseas as much as we can, which is something that Labour, inexplicably, seems to have set its face against. We will continue to take steps to support our NHS during these tough times, because that is what it deserves and what the people of Scotland expect from us.

Anybody can say that we should do things differently, but they cannot deny the reality. Even within that reality, Scotland has proportionately higher funding for our national health service than have other parts of the UK—including Wales, where Labour is in government—and Scotland has higher staffing levels. That is the measure of the priority that this Government gives, and always will give, to the national health service.

The chancellor had only really begun to go into the detail of his statement when I left the office to come to the chamber, so I have not yet seen all the detail. We will assess the impact fully, but it is clear from what we know and from what the chancellor indicated before getting to his feet today that the United Kingdom Government is repeating the mistakes of the past. It appears to be reintroducing austerity, which does not work and will have significant consequences for people, businesses and public services.

The plans are likely to worsen the extreme pressures that are already being faced as a result of inflation and rising interest rates. We have called for an alternative approach that avoids prolonging the recession that the Bank of England forecasts—I understand that the Office for Budget Responsibility confirmed today that the UK is currently in recession. I hope that that alternative approach is listened to. The UK is almost unique among wealthier countries in reintroducing austerity. It is the wrong approach and it will have a significantly adverse impact on people and public services across Scotland.

Kenny Gibson is absolutely right to talk about the impact of Tory mismanagement. From the chancellor today, we are hearing about tax rises and spending cuts. According to the chancellor, more than half of the black hole will be filled by spending cuts, which will have a significant impact on public services, including the national health service.

We know that, although global factors are at play, much of that stagnation is caused by UK-specific factors. Brexit is a long-term and permanent drag on the UK economy; its effects are catastrophic. Of course, Tory mismanagement through the mini-budget—which the Scottish Conservatives now like to pretend never happened—is exacerbating that impact. People, businesses and public services are paying the price for all of that.

Finally, the alternative to Tory mismanagement of our economy is self-management of our economy, otherwise known as independence.

I absolutely agree. Right now, we are experiencing what happens when we allow others to take decisions for us instead of taking those decisions for ourselves.

No matter how the Tories try to dress up today’s statement with all of the spin that they will use, they are reintroducing austerity and they are doing so at a time when our public services have not yet properly recovered from the last period of Tory austerity. That is the reality, and the Conservatives cannot deny that.

Of course, countries across the world go through difficult times, and some of these issues are global, but most countries do better when they control their own destinies and future. That, too, will be true when Scotland becomes independent.

I am happy to give further consideration to that point and to look carefully at the research that underpins Pauline McNeill’s question. I think that it is the case—and that it is well understood—that many women who are in prison will be the victims of abuse and will be vulnerable in many respects. There are similar vulnerabilities for many men who are in prison as well, but we are, rightly, focusing on the issue of women right now.

The number of women in prison has reduced over recent years, and we want to see that trend continue so that those who offend are treated appropriately. The points about the support for women who have suffered domestic abuse while they are in prison and also upon their release are important, so I undertake to give the points that Pauline McNeill has raised today proper consideration and come back to her once we have had the opportunity to do so.

I agree with a lot of what Richard Leonard has said. I suspect that I agree with more of it than Anas Sarwar does; his face has been pretty impassive as Richard Leonard has recounted all those policies, which I suspect are not Scottish Labour policies.

The fact of the matter is that, with the very limited—[Interruption.] If it is Scottish Labour’s policy to replace the council tax with a land value tax, I will be happy to hear that and to hear the detail of that. However, the fact of the matter is that—with our limited tax powers, of course—we have a more progressive system of tax. Our income tax, which is the tax over which we have our main tax power, although it is far too limited in terms of the overall suite of tax powers, means that, if you earn more in Scotland, you pay slightly more, and if you earn the least, then you pay slightly less tax than you would elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

If Richard Leonard wants us to be able to consider and introduce a wealth tax, he really needs to argue for the powers to lie in this Parliament to do exactly that. We will always favour progressive taxation, but we need more powers over taxation in this Parliament to give effect to that.

What we have done this week is both increase the value of and extend the reach of the unique Scottish child payment, putting money directly into the pockets of those who are at the lowest end of the income spectrum and lifting children out of poverty. That is a shining example of how we can use powers when we have powers in the hands of this Parliament.

First, as the world cup gets under way later this week in Qatar, I think that it is a really important moment for all of us, regardless of party or anything else that might divide us, to stand in solidarity with the LGBT+ community in Scotland, in the United Kingdom, in Europe and right across the world. I hope that that will unite all of us.

The attendance or otherwise of SFA officials is a matter for the SFA. Governments should not intervene in decisions that sports governing bodies take, but I would certainly hope that anybody attending the world cup in Qatar in any capacity will take the opportunity to express solidarity with our LGBT+ community. I think that, over the next few weeks, it is even more important than sport that we take the opportunity to stand up for human rights and the dignity of those in that community, and that we unite around that sentiment today and right throughout the period of the competition in Qatar.

Before I go on to the detail of that, I will make a general point that I have made before in the chamber. If Douglas Ross wants to have a debate about the benefits or—as he would see it—otherwise of independence, I would really welcome that. Let us have that debate and then let us let the people of Scotland decide the outcome in a referendum. If Douglas Ross was really confident in his arguments, he would have the courage to have that debate not just in the safety of the parliamentary debating chamber, but out there, in towns, villages and communities all over Scotland.

I believe that the expertise and the skills of our shipbuilders on the River Clyde are world class, and I believe that they would compete successfully for work across the world, regardless of the constitutional future of Scotland. That is the confidence that I have in our shipbuilding industry.

Before Douglas Ross tries to argue against that, I point out in relation to some of the work that was announced this week for Harland & Wolff, for example, that, at one point, the UK Government intended to hand all of that overseas and to complete the contract internationally. Therefore, the point has been made on that matter.

Of course, an independent Scotland, like independent countries all over the world, would, as a full member of NATO, have naval capabilities of its own—capabilities that could and would be served and improved on by our world-renowned shipbuilding industry and expertise. The difference between me and Douglas Ross is that I have confidence in our industry in all circumstances—he clearly does not.