Chamber and committees

As has been mentioned, just before the first world war, there were around 60 independent sovereign states in the world, and today there are almost 200.

Last night, I went to see a production of “Hamilton”. It is amazing how many single transferable unionist speeches from different parties mirror exactly the arguments that were used by the UK back at that time: “You can’t go. You can’t manage on your own. You’re not good enough. You’re too small. You don’t have the experience.” Nothing in the unionist arguments has moved on. That is why there has been the same approach today to the publication of the Scottish Government’s paper—to dismiss, denigrate and talk down Scotland’s potential.

In a little more than 100 years, our world has transformed from being one of very large empires to being one of sovereignty and independence, backed by the UN and the international rules-based system, which the UK Government said that it was happy to break—it was happy to break international law and its word on treaties. Despite that, much of our world is a better, more peaceful and more democratic place, because of the diversity that we now see within it. Unashamedly, my ultimate political aspiration is for our country to join the UN in our own right, as an independent country. I firmly believe that that is the direction of travel that we as a country are taking.

One hundred and fifty years ago, there was no Secretary of State for Scotland or any other meaningful political distinction for Scotland within the UK. One hundred years ago, there was no Scottish National Party to advocate for independence. Thirty years ago, there was no Scottish Parliament. However, just 10 years ago, 45 per cent of Scots voted for full independence. In other words, the direction that the world and Scotland are travelling in is clear—it is the direction of independence and a seat at the UN. We cannot do justice to Scotland’s place in the world without highlighting that fact.

Not only is independence normal; it is essential to having any meaningful say in our increasingly international world. International questions such as climate change and defence require international answers, and the bodies that produce those answers—the EU, NATO and the UN—are clubs of independent states, which the UK is and Scotland, currently, is not. The alternative is to continue to allow Scotland to be represented by the UK Government which, more often than not, has been rejected by Scottish voters and for which Scotland is rarely, if ever, a priority. That does a huge disservice to Scotland’s offering to the world.

Nowhere is that more evident than in defence. We heard Neil Bibby talk about the Royal Marines. Is he aware of the consternation in the Corps of Royal Marines about the latest threat to its existence, following on from threats in the 1980s under Margaret Thatcher and under various Governments since then? There is no confidence that the UK Government will defend the existence of the Royal Marines, so the idea that it can be held up as a paragon of fantastic management of our defence by the UK Government is completely wrong.

The point that is being made is about how much planning and foresight are going into the issue. The comparison that was made by Neil Bibby is based on saying that the UK is doing something that the paper is not, but the UK is not doing it. In 2012, we had a commitment from the UK Government that we would have no fewer than 12,000 service personnel in Scotland. It has ditched that without even telling anybody. We have the lowest UK armed forces numbers since Napoleonic times.

We have a recruitment and retention crisis—nobody wants to stay, because they do not have the equipment that they need. That goes back to Labour’s time, when it could not provide the helicopters or the boots in Afghanistan, and during which it issued P45s to service personnel on the front line.

The UK is no paragon of virtue—that is before we even mention the possibility of selling off the Prince of Wales aircraft carrier, which cost billions to build and would be sold at a discount, or the possible closing down of the Royal Marines because the niche capability that Neil Bibby talked about is not valued by the UK Government.

Let us go back to Labour. For the Nimrod programme, billions of pounds was spent on dismantling something before it was completed. The track record of the UK Government in defence is appalling. The idea that Scotland could not do better is for the birds. We currently have an arrangement whereby Scotland can be dragged into illegal wars.

Let us talk about nuclear weapons. What is the sound of a nuclear Trident submarine drill? It is a “plop” in the water. Hundreds of billions of pounds have been spent on something that has never been independent, does not even work and could not conceivably be used. The UK Government spends that money at the expense of proper training and proper equipment for service personnel. The paper that was produced by the Scottish Government says that we would not do that and that we would not have those nuclear weapons.

We will be dragged, as before, into illegal wars, despite the clear and express view of people in Scotland that they do not want that to happen.

Leaving Scotland’s defence capabilities in the hands of Westminster is failing Scotland’s service personnel. Service personnel have moved from Germany to Scotland to Northern Ireland within the space of 18 months, with whole families made to learn different education systems. The UK defence system is a mess. Everybody knows that—everyone on the Defence Committee at Westminster knows it—but we do not hear anything about that here. We should, because Scottish taxpayers’ money goes into those fiascos.

There has been talk about the Ferguson ferries. Members should consider the aircraft carriers, which are massively over budget, or the Ajax tanks—what a disgrace! There is not a word in defence of Scottish taxpayers from the Tories in relation to any of that, because they see their role here as to defend the UK Government, not to stand up for their constituents.

Independence would allow us to get rid of nuclear weapons, and I totally refute the idea that an independent Scotland would somehow be uniquely incapable of joining NATO. Much of the unionists’ argument relies on convincing people in Scotland that we are uniquely different from every other country in the world and that we cannot manage those affairs. It is our job, and the job of the paper that has been produced by the Scottish Government, to give the contrary argument.

We have a chance to make a different impact in the world—on defence, peacekeeping, climate change and being a constructive partner. We have seen the diminution of the UK’s international reputation over many years. On the matter of taking our country to independence, governing ourselves at home and representing ourselves abroad, we hear from the Tories that they do not like us representing ourselves abroad—

That is the essence of what I stand for, what my party stands for and what the Scottish Government stands for. For that reason, I support the motion in Angus Robertson’s name.

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

I will conclude on this point.

They do not like us representing ourselves abroad—with the honourable exception of Donald Cameron. Labour members of the House of Lords do not want Scotland’s voice to be heard abroad. Taking our country to independence is the way in which we can govern ourselves at home and represent ourselves abroad. As the essence of what I stand for—

As the minister will be aware, industrial action is taking place today in colleges across Scotland because of the on-going pay dispute, which impacts on many of my constituents, both staff and students. Does he agree that both sides need to work constructively for a solution in order for the sector to focus on delivering the high-quality education that its students expect? Can he advise what the Scottish Government can do to support that? Will he restate the Government’s commitment to parity of esteem in the different sections of further and higher education?

To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had with colleges and trade unions regarding pay in the further education sector. (S6O-03137)

I will not. Jackie Baillie would not take an intervention from me and I will not be taking one from her.

What Labour did in 2009-10 is exactly what it did in 1979: it facilitated a long-term Tory Government that was committed to austerity, and Scotland continues to suffer the consequences of that.

Michael Marra mentioned the Scottish Government’s budget and Glasgow City Council. Let us make a comparison with Birmingham City Council, which is a Labour-run local authority. It will be making £1.5 billion in cuts, including cuts to adult social care, and it will be imposing a 21 per cent increase in council tax on the people of Birmingham. Of course, Birmingham City Council has something in common with Glasgow City Council: both have to deal with the legacy of Labour having failed to pay the councils’ female workers for many years.

That is the history of government by Labour, and that is a warning about what we should expect from a future Labour Government.

We have been talking about local government. I remember, having been a local government leader in the early 2000s, telling the Labour and Lib Dem Executive in Scotland that it was once again cutting local authorities’ share of the overall Scottish budget. I was told by both parties that it was not an important indicator, and that I should not worry about it. However, it seems to be very important to Labour and to the Lib Dems now. We have done far more to remove ring fencing and to support local government than Labour has ever done.

Alex Cole-Hamilton spoke about selling off the sea bed cheaply. His is the party that, under Vince Cable, sold off the Royal Mail for billions of pounds less than its market value. We are still paying for that. I will not mention what Ed Davey has done in relation to the Post Office, or the party’s betrayal on tuition fees. However, those things are very important. People think that we should dismiss and forget about the Lib Dems because they are an irrelevance, but we should not forget their record in office.

First, I do not agree with that statement and there is no way of knowing what it is based on. However, the idea that an independent Scotland could not construct a better future than being £2.65 trillion in debt and having the massive tax burden that the Tories have given us is, in my view, for the birds.

We have had 14 years of Tory austerity, which built on the previous Labour Government’s start to austerity way back in 2008-09, and that has had a huge impact on our public services.

We also have to consider the impact on the Scottish taxpayer. For example, they are currently contributing to the Ajax tanks programme. It was meant to cost £5.5 billion and to have produced 589 tanks by 2017. We have had only 44 tanks. The tanks were meant to cost £9 million each, but the current cost is £90 million each, and the programme is seven years late. That is the level of Tory mismanagement of the economy and the impact on the Scottish taxpayer.

The Tory Government, as Maree Todd said, has now said that we cannot have care workers coming to this country because their families cannot come. That has passed without comment or a word of criticism from Tory MSPs, who fail to criticise any action of the UK Government. There is another path for them. Why, if they really believe in support for business, can they not just say that it is wrong for the UK Government to cut our capital budget? What prevents them from doing that? Tory MSPs could do a lot more to stand up for Scotland and add their voices to the case for Scotland.

I turn to Labour. My goodness. Jackie Baillie mentioned the last period of the previous Labour Government. We all know its last words, which were

“There is no money left.”

It started the austerity—

I will, if I am allowed to.