Chamber and committees

There are two elements to the question that Mr Greer has asked, and I understand entirely why he is raising the issue with me. The first element relates specifically to the Flamingo Land development. I had better not say anything specific about that, because a potential appeal could be made.

The second element is about the provision of exclusivity agreements in principle. There will, of course, be mixed opinions about that, but part of the purpose of exclusivity arrangements is to accelerate planning developments that, in other circumstances, many of us might approve of. For example, renewable energy developments might be speeded up as a consequence of exclusivity arrangements that can be arrived at. We must take a broad view of such questions, because developments and opportunities that would be beneficial to the national interest might be able to be supported by moves of that type.

However, I hear Mr Greer, and the important points that he has made are on the record.

I very much regret the circumstances that Anas Sarwar puts to me about Karen Campbell’s case, because it is obviously in the interests of the national health service for its employees to be treated timeously, as is the case in all walks of economic life, to ensure that people can get back to their work. Therefore, I fundamentally accept the importance of the point that has been put to me.

However, there are legitimate challenges that are being wrestled with in relation to the impact as a consequence of the increased demand on services that arose from the Covid pandemic. The Government has expanded national health service staff resources over a number of years. Nursing and midwifery staffing is up 17.5 per cent since the Government came to power. We have seen a 68 per cent increase in the number of medical and dental consultants who have been recruited since this Government came to power.

Therefore, the Government has been investing. We have taken decisions to allocate more investment than would have been the case had we just passed on Barnett consequentials, because we have been prepared to take the decisions that Mr Sarwar no longer supports with regard to taxation in order that we have more resources available in the national health service. One of the Government’s key interventions has been to ensure that we focus at all times on maximising the number of staff that we have available, despite the challenges of increasing demand on the service.

First, I am very sorry to hear of the circumstances in South Queensferry. It is a beautiful part of our country and an iconic location, and I am sorry that members of the public are experiencing what they are experiencing.

The Government engages substantively on the question of road safety. The Cabinet Secretary for Transport has been briefing Cabinet on her concerns about road fatalities, which are a very serious and current problem, so that issue is very much on the Cabinet’s agenda. I am very happy to have discussions with Mr Cole-Hamilton on the subject and to determine what further action can be taken.

The incident last night that Alex Cole-Hamilton raised will have involved police interaction, and I am sure that the police will have been involved in other instances of that kind. I am happy to host discussions to see what more can be done to address the situation.

There may be some legislative issues that may be worth considering. I fear that some of those will not be within our areas of responsibility because they are road traffic issues, but I am happy to explore all possibilities.

I do not have that specific figure in front of me now, but I can tell Douglas Ross that, in a whole variety of different sectors, there is provision available for young people to participate in developing their skills—whether that is in the provision of college places around the country, in the provision of modern apprenticeships, in the development of foundation and graduate apprenticeships, which are part of the Government’s reform programme, or through making available university places. We find that a record number of young people from Scotland are participating in higher education and, much to my satisfaction and to the satisfaction of the Government given its policy objectives, a record number of young people from deprived backgrounds are taking part in higher education.

I accept that we must always keep those issues under review, which is why we commissioned the Withers review, and we are taking forward the reform of post-school education as a consequence of that work to ensure that Scotland’s skills system meets the needs not only of the population of Scotland but of the businesses of Scotland, and in support of our approach to investment in our country, too.

Obviously, I am very familiar with the contents of this morning’s Audit Scotland report. The Audit Scotland report highlights the challenges that exist in the public finances. The Government is supporting the college sector with £750 million-worth of investment in the current financial year. I welcome that commitment, because it has been delivered against the backdrop of a really difficult financial climate for the public services, which was created by the economic mismanagement of the public finances by the most recent Conservative Government—[Interruption.]

From my experience of taking part in every year of this Parliament since it was reconvened 25 years ago, one thing is clear—no matter where any of us sit in this chamber, we each stood for election because we care deeply about Scotland’s future. We stood for election because we know that decisions about Scotland’s future are best determined by people who live in Scotland. No matter where we sit in this chamber, we agree that it is our aspiration that Scotland maintains her place in the world as a modern, diverse and dynamic nation.

Scotland is the home of poets, painters, engineers, doctors and thinkers throughout the ages. We are a nation on the cutting edge of solving many of the 21st century’s most complex challenges. We are an outward-looking country that values our relationship with our neighbours and friends across the world, and it is in that spirit that I open the debate this afternoon.

There exists in Scotland a range of opinions and emotions that we must embrace and discuss openly and respectfully. As I am about to set out, to do so is to maintain the very health of our democracy itself—a democracy that each of us has stood for election to represent. It is a story of the pursuit of self-determination, which found new momentum when, in 1997, the people of Scotland voted overwhelmingly to reconvene the Scottish Parliament. It was clear then, and it is clear now, that Scotland is a nation with all the talent, creativity and ingenuity to chart her own course and to steer her own democratic institutions.

The positive impact of devolution is indisputable. For 25 years, devolution has improved the lives of people in Scotland, making this a better and fairer place to live, through policies such as equal marriage; free personal care for older people; minimum unit pricing for alcohol; free bus travel for more than 2 million people; a ban on smoking in public places; land reform; and—something that is very close to my heart—action on child poverty through measures such as the Scottish child payment.

Among many other achievements since 2007, this Government has used the powers of devolution to introduce the baby box, which supports every baby born and resident in Scotland to have the best start in life by providing families with essential items that are needed in the first six months of a child’s life. We have also ensured that Scotland-domiciled students continue to receive free university tuition, unlike elsewhere in the United Kingdom, given that we abolished the graduate endowment fee in 2008. We have introduced free prescriptions, which are now £9.90 per item south of the border, which is a huge cost for low-income families.

Our council tax reduction scheme reduces the tax bills of more than 450,000 people in Scotland, and free personal and nursing care has been extended to everyone who needs it, regardless of age. There is the affordable housing programme, which has delivered 128,000 affordable homes, the majority of which are for social rent. Of course, there is also the provision of 1,140 hours of funded early learning and childcare. If families were to purchase the funded childcare that is provided by the Scottish Government, it would cost more than £5,500 per eligible child per year.

None of that has been achieved by the Scottish Government in isolation, but through the strength of this Parliament and our common commitment to Scotland’s self-determination. Therefore, regardless of where members sit in this chamber, and regardless of whether members view everything that I have listed as successes, I trust that members will agree that people living in Scotland are substantially better off with a Parliament that fights their corner, leads for progress and champions the value of our unique and diverse communities, from every single corner of our country.

Each of us in the chamber is extremely fortunate, for the Parliament gives us each a voice, and whenever we enter this building, as unique as Scotland itself, it reminds us of our duty to ensure that the people of Scotland are heard, too. Our modern, diverse and dynamic democracy is our greatest asset. In many ways, 2014 was a year that proved that. The bill on equal marriage passed, which was one of the most progressive equal marriage bills in the world, and it sent out a clear message about who we are as a nation. Turnout for the independence referendum was the highest recorded at any Scotland-wide poll since the advent of universal suffrage.

That referendum was preceded by a genuine and serious national debate on the future of our nation. I wish to acknowledge that the national debate was not easy for every voter. There were certainly lively discussions, but maintaining a healthy democracy is hard, because it requires us to navigate our differences respectfully. If that were easy, we would not observe the sharp rises in populism that can emerge in times of economic hardship and uncertainty. However, when I think back to 10 years ago, I can think of no better example of modern democracy in action. Both the Scottish and the United Kingdom Governments published detailed papers of their arguments. There were vigorous campaigns and grass-roots involvement of people across the country, and the historic importance of the decision was reflected in the length of time allowed for both sides to make their cases.

The people of Scotland were able to take their decision. My firm view is that the people of Scotland should have the opportunity to take that decision again. This Parliament has confirmed its belief that it should be open to any nation of the United Kingdom to choose to withdraw from the union by democratic means. That is my view, and I believe that that view of this Parliament should be respected.

It is clear that, since the 2014 independence referendum and, sadly, since Brexit, which Scotland did not vote for, the powers and autonomy of the Scottish Parliament have been eroded. They have been eroded, on the excuse of Brexit, to enable Westminster to overrule this Parliament. The people of this country who voted for this Parliament to have the powers that it does were not asked whether they wanted the powers to be eroded.

I will explain to Mr Ross exactly what has happened, if he is not familiar with what he has voted for. This Parliament had exclusive power over a range of competences devolved by the United Kingdom Parliament. That was what was put to people in the 1997 referendum, and it was supported by three to one, if my memory serves me correctly. However, the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 gives the UK Government the ability to legislate on and act in those areas. That is called the erosion of the powers of the Scottish Parliament.

That is before I get to the point that, between 1997 and 2019, when there were Labour, Conservative and Conservative-Liberal coalitions in Westminster, the Sewel convention was never ignored on any occasion. However, following that period, the Conservative Government ignored, superseded and countermanded that on countless occasions, legislating over the heads of this democratically elected institution. That should be a matter of the greatest concern to the Conservatives, as it is to me today.

Scotland has prospered with the use of the devolved powers that we have at our disposal. In the aftermath of the 1997 referendum, Scotland demonstrated that we had the capability to assume those powers. Since then, Scotland’s economy has outperformed the UK in growth, in gross domestic product per person, in growth in productivity, in earnings growth and in foreign direct investment. We have an impressive record on GDP per capita, which has grown faster than the UK’s since 2007. Since 2007, productivity in Scotland has grown at an average rate faster than that in the rest of the United Kingdom.

When we look at the evidence from comparable independent European states—many of which are the same size as Scotland—we can see that they perform better than the United Kingdom. For me, that poses the question, “What is the opportunity for Scotland to move forward?” The opportunity for Scotland is to ensure that we deploy the strength and capability of our country to the maximum effect for the future of our country, ensuring that decisions made in Scotland by the Scottish Parliament are respected and able to be effective across all the areas of policy that any Government would take for granted.

I believe that an independent Scotland should be able to rejoin the European Union and pursue the prospects of growth and opportunity that so many of our people and our businesses want to enjoy. I believe that an independent Scotland could deliver a fairer and more welcoming system of migration, helping the economy to grow while addressing depopulation challenges and supporting vital public services. I believe that an independent Scotland would remove, sensibly and safely, nuclear weapons from Scotland’s shores for good, and that an independent Scotland would be able to benefit from the terms of a written constitution and from investment in our public services, using our wealth to secure the future of our country.

All of that is possible, based on the experience of devolution and Scottish self-determination, and on the principle that decisions taken about this country are best taken by the people who choose to live here and those who are elected to act on their behalf. That is the foundation of the argument for Scottish independence. It is the foundation of what people have experienced with devolution. It is urgent and essential that Scotland becomes independent, and the motion in my name sets out that case.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Government should use all its powers to build a modern, diverse, dynamic nation, and further agrees that it is only with all the powers of a normal independent nation that Scotland would truly be enabled to take its own decisions to fully meet the needs of the people of Scotland and create their best future.

Will Mr Ross give way?

What the Scottish Government has been doing since 2007 is building more affordable houses per head of population in Scotland than have been built in any other part of the United Kingdom. It is delivering 128,000 affordable homes. Perhaps Mr Sarwar would check his details and his facts before he poses the question to the Government of what issues we have attended to when—

A Labour member has shouted out to me, “What emergency?” We are focused on ensuring that we take the actions—