Chamber and committees

No, I will not. I have only four minutes.

We have the highest tax burden since the second world war—that is what the Tories have done. Apart from being back into recession once again, and apart from having the massive debt that I have just mentioned, we also have the highest tax burden. That is what the Tories do—tax and economic failure.

I am astounded by the brass neck of the Labour Party in trying to put the blame on the Scottish Government, not least when it knows full well—if not from the Scottish Government, then from its friends in the Labour-run Welsh Government—that many of these things are determined by what happens at Westminster. Welsh First Minister Mark Drakeford said:

“We are in this position because of ... the mis-management of the economy and public finances by successive UK governments over the last 13 years and because of unfunded commitments made by the UK Government”.

He knows what Labour cannot admit in the Scottish Parliament, which is that it is because of the policies of the UK Government, including on immigration and on Brexit—which Labour also now supports—and its failure to properly fund public services, that the UK Government is largely responsible for the state of the economy. Labour cannot admit to that. For that reason, we cannot take Labour’s debate seriously. It is not a serious attempt to discuss Scotland’s economy; it is superficial and spurious. There are no ideas and there is no willingness to acknowledge the wider context of the economic situation in which we find ourselves.

Willie Rennie spoke about the independence referendum as being a brake on investment. He perhaps forgets the Ernst & Young report that year that indicated that we had a sparkling year—one of the best years ever for foreign direct investment in Scotland, which is on the record. I do not know why he did not want to acknowledge that and, in fact, tried to turn it on its head by saying that there was less foreign investment.

If we do not have powers over corporation tax, business regulation, immigration or trade, or the vast majority of welfare and tax powers, how can we, or any of the devolved Governments, be in any way responsible for the systemic issues that plague the UK economy?

Indeed, I would argue that devolution was designed to keep it that way. For example, when the Scottish Government opts to differentiate income tax, HM Revenue and Customs is still responsible for collecting that tax, and all taxes that are set in Scotland, and the block grant is then reduced. It is no wonder that that is the case, because if Scotland was to be fully, or even marginally, financially independent, even if it was within the UK, the UK Government, the Labour Party and the Tory party would know that the game was up, and the union would be over before you could say the word “recession”.

There were five periods—five quarters—of recession under the previous Labour Government, but we have not heard that mentioned today. We cannot forget the immortal words of the last Chief Secretary to the Treasury under Gordon Brown—I know that Labour members enjoy this, so I will repeat it. He said that, under Labour, after 13 years in government, “there is no money” left—

Labour started the banking crisis, and it is going back to that. It wants to lift the bankers’ bonus cap. It does not want to lift the two-child cap or the rape clause—it wants to look after the bankers and give them ever more money—[Interruption.]

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your advice on how the Parliament can urgently consider the effects of the very important announcement today by the United Kingdom Government that it intends to authorise a mass release of prisoners from English and Welsh prisons.

The matter is of real concern for Scotland, not least given the opposition to such mass releases of prisoners, especially from the Conservatives. I am aware of the irony that it is their party that supports the mass release of prisoners in this case.

The people of Scotland will require answers to urgent and important questions on this proposed mass release of prisoners. First, given that the reason that is stated for the mass release is overcrowding in English and Welsh prisons and that most commentators will point to the sustained and systematic underfunding of justice services as the reason behind that overcrowding, what is the effect on Scottish prisons of that UK underfunding?

Secondly, there is nothing to prevent any of the hundreds, perhaps thousands of prisoners—we do not have the detail—who are released from their sentence from coming to Scotland and, potentially, reoffending. Such a fear has been expressed very often by Tory members. That could impose a further burden on the Scottish justice system and put further pressure on the prison population here in Scotland. What consideration has been given by the UK Government to those consequences?

Finally, given the potential impact on Scotland, we need to know whether the UK Government consulted the Scottish Government on or even warned it of the proposed mass release—or is it the case that, once again, one of “Scotland’s two Governments” made a decision without any regard to the interests of the people of Scotland or the responsibilities of the Scottish Government?

As I am sure you will agree, Presiding Officer, the UK prison crisis needs to be understood in terms of its effects on Scotland, and I would be grateful for your guidance on how that understanding may be facilitated.

Mr Barker said that you, rather than Government or anyone else, would be aware of points of divergence. Is there any point of divergence on which you have made representations to the Scottish Government and that the Government would be able to address?

I appreciate the huge breadth of the issue and that, even if you do nothing at all, you will diverge, because of the reasons already mentioned. Is there any obvious point of divergence that has caused you concern, that you have made representations on and that might be within the gift of the Scottish Government to address?

I apologise for being late, convener, and I apologise to the panel as well. Even from the part of the meeting that I have listened to, the situation seems disastrous, to be honest. Continual issues of guidance and regulation make for a very hard environment to work in.

However, to stick with EU departure and the TCA, I have two points. First, you mentioned that the lack of any kind of formal monitoring of divergence by the UK Government was crucial. The committee tries to carry out such monitoring, and the Scottish Government is committed to doing that, too. Are those commitments irrelevant? Does the UK have to do that monitoring, because of the relationship with the EU?

Secondly, on the point that you made about uncertainty, I think that most people never saw Brexit coming—not far in advance, anyway—and I predict that most people will not see what will happen next. Things may change very quickly. For example, would going back into the single market change things? It would be disruptive, of course, as a further change, but would it eliminate some of the current problems, or is full EU membership required in order to effect such a change?

Those are my two questions. The first is, is there value to your organisations in committee and Scottish Government monitoring of divergence and the attempt on the part of the Scottish Government to limit divergence, or does it have to be the UK that monitors that? The second is, what might the effect be of going into the single market?

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I was unable to connect to the system. I would have voted no.

I thank those members who signed the motion, allowing it to be debated today. I brought the debate to the chamber to celebrate a significant milestone for the University of Stirling, which is located in my constituency. That milestone is the launch of the winning students 100 programme, as a successor programme to the existing winning students programme, which supports athletes to balance the needs of their studies and the demands of competing in high-performance sport.

The University of Stirling has been Scotland’s university for sporting excellence since 2008, around the same time that the initial winning students programme was launched. Since then, the programme has supported more than 1,700 scholarships, providing crucial assistance to gold-medal Olympians and Paralympians, and European and world champions, including Scottish long-distance runners Laura Muir and Eilish McColgan, and Alloa’s own Olympic medal-winning swimmer, Duncan Scott.

The new winning students 100 programme is the latest development in that proud history. In its inaugural year, it will support 106 students, including Olympic gold medallist curler Hailey Duff; Commonwealth games gold medallist diver Grace Reid; and the under-23s European 10,000m track record-holder Megan Keith, among others. Those others include not least Lewis Stewart, Commonwealth games 2022 gold medallist and Paralympics 2020 silver medallist, and Calum Douglas, Scottish hockey men’s player and Great Britain under-23 champion, both of whom are, I believe, currently sat in the public gallery, along with members of staff from the university who are involved in supporting the winning students 100 programme.

With your indulgence, Presiding Officer, I think that it would be good if members who are present in the chamber showed their appreciation for the efforts of the staff and the students here. [Applause.]

The scholarship includes up to £3,000 in funding, academic flexibility for athletes and a hardship fund to provide additional support to athletes if it is needed. The University of Stirling has brought together a network of 28 sports institutions and 21 education institutions to support the delivery of the programme. Over the past 15 years, both winning students programmes have supported those exceptional individuals through their studies, thereby allowing them also to dedicate themselves to their respective sports.

The commendation for the success of those programmes, however, goes far beyond the University of Stirling. The initiative receives funding from the Scottish Funding Council and from sportscotland, along with other support from the tertiary education sector. That needs to be highlighted and commended as well.

Nevertheless, such programmes require a great deal of organisation and logistical management in the background, and the University of Stirling has been exemplary in its management and delivery of the winning students 100 programme, supported by an experienced advisory board and management group, comprising professionals from both the sports and education sectors, to ensure that the programme operates to extremely high standards.

It takes just a little imagination to realise how much pressure competing in a high-performance sport can put on somebody who is, at the same time, trying to complete their studies, and those students deserve remarkable praise for what they have done. I remember attending a reception at the University of Stirling around three or four years ago with a number of the swimming champions. At that time, the University of Stirling had won more medals than many countries had won at the previous championships. That just goes to show that there is something in the air at the University of Stirling that has led to that astonishing success. Indeed, a member said to me just now, “What is it about Stirling and the surrounding area that seems to be so effective in producing world-class athletes?” It is about not just what those students have achieved in their sport, but the fact that they have done that at the same time as undertaking intensive study, for which they deserve our praise.

I do not wish to take up the full seven minutes, Presiding Officer, so I will conclude. The University of Stirling is the jewel in the crown of Scotland’s sporting excellence and has rightly been recognised as such since the winning students programme was launched—as I mentioned—in 2008-09, supporting some of Scotland’s top athletes behind the scenes since then. It is through those athletes that the winning students 100 programme will continue to elevate our sporting excellence as a country. I wish them all the best in their studies and in their sports. I also wish the University of Stirling all the best, as a remarkable institution that I am proud to represent, and I wish it every success in the pursuit of that goal in the future.

How can that be the case, given the recruitment and retention crisis, the possible selling off of one of the aircraft carriers, and the Ajax tanks fiasco? Surely we could do better in an independent Scotland.

I thank Craig Hoy for giving way and for allowing me to live rent free in his head. I joined the SNP 40 years ago because I believed in the withdrawal of Scottish MPs from the Westminster Parliament. Did he believe in Brexit when he joined the Tories?

As has been mentioned—[Interruption.]