Chamber and committees

I will say a bit about the bigger picture. Mr Bibby read out a lengthy list of quotes, but he did not quote any of the evidence that we heard about the cause of the issue being not the Scottish Government but inflation, Brexit and huge increases in energy costs, all of which were itemised. There were also quite a number of positive comments, as well as the fact, which was quite surprising to me, that in Scotland, some parts of the sector have higher wage levels than those in London. I mention that for context.

One thing that I find a bit murky is that the tenor of today’s evidence is very different from what we heard last week. Crucially, in relation to the issue of reserves, which is central to a lot of this, I asked Creative Scotland whether a single penny of the reserves had derived from the Scottish Government, and it said no. That seems to be at odds with what you said, cabinet secretary.

From what I read in the evidence, the Scottish Government has continually topped up a reducing level of funding from the national lottery. For clarity, is it your view that the Scottish Government has contributed to the reserves, which are quite legitimately being used in this situation?

Given the undoubted detrimental impact that those decisions will have on Scotland’s ability to meet its net zero targets, does the cabinet secretary agree that that complete lack of consultation or respect in the approach of the UK Government exposes the utter hypocrisy of the Tories and their calls for the Scottish Government to, in the words of Donald Cameron’s amendment in Tuesday’s debate,

“work collaboratively and constructively with the UK Government”,

and is yet another example of a complete lack of respect for the devolved Administrations? Does she also agree that we would think that the Scottish Conservatives would condemn and apologise for the lack of consultation and respect if they truly wanted to see collaborative and constructive working between the two Governments?

I will start by agreeing with the first part of Pam Gosal’s speech in which she mentioned Colourful Heritage and the contribution, which is often unacknowledged, of the then British Indian Army, especially during the second world war. I visited each one of the graves at Kingussie. There are two others at, I think, Dornoch. There is also the makeshift mosque in Lairg, where more than 300 soldiers were accommodated in that tiny village in the Highlands during the second world war.

I am delighted to take part in the debate. I have spoken at one or two of these debates previously, but, because of the role that I had at the time, I have not really had the opportunity to say more about my personal history, as many members have done in the past. I mention that because the last veterans debate that I spoke in as minister was one when I could not easily get a depute or somebody to stand in my place, and I could not therefore go to the funeral of my uncle Robert in Brora. At the time, it struck me that he had served nine years in the Royal Navy and many years after that in the British listening stations up the north-east coast in Scotland, and that each of his brothers and his sister had also served in the armed forces. That was usually in the navy or, in the case of two brothers, during national service in the army. Their father—my grandfather—is listed on a war memorial in Pitlochry. He served with the Black Watch in the first world war.

I also reflected that the same is true for my mother’s side of the family. She had a number of brothers, one of whom retired as a major from the army. He was then murdered in Penicuik when he was overseeing the transition of wages to pay the soldiers after he had retired. He was helping out in that regard. Two other brothers went to Queen Victoria’s school in Dunblane, in my constituency, which was at that time, as it is now, for the offspring of members of the armed forces. I mention that to point out that members of the armed forces and veterans are of us; they are part of our families and the wider society that we all inhabit.

I will make a couple of other quick points. I am glad that the minister mentioned the medal replacement scheme. It would be useful if he could get as much publicity for that as possible. The Scottish Government cannot replace medals, but, when the MOD agrees to replace a medal, it can stand the cost of replacing the medal if it is required to do so. I know that that has been a very welcome measure.

In relation to the physical and mental needs of veterans, which have been mentioned, I mention Rock2Recovery, which is a small charity. Although many people, including Alex Rowley and others, have called for additional support from the NHS, I would not want the support that is provided to other veterans by people who are themselves veterans to be undervalued. Rock2Recovery is a peer-to-peer service and is very valuable for that reason. I encourage the Scottish Government to continue to engage with Rock2Recovery to consider how it can help in relation to veterans who need that service. I also mention Wee County Veterans in my constituency, which does a fantastic job for veterans in Clackmannanshire.

I will make a point in relation to housing, which was mentioned by Edward Mountain. I think that the member said that, when he left the forces, he got £500 and a resettlement course. Things have got much better since then. Well, I can tell him that I got neither £500 nor a resettlement course nor a pension when I left the armed forces, so things have improved a little bit in the meantime.

In relation to Willie Rennie’s points, I disagree with how he would try to address the issue of education. Much of what the Scottish Government has to do must respond to what the MOD does. He mentioned that people can be shifted between different billets. More recently, five or six years ago, there was a situation in Scotland of a family who had been moved from Germany to Edinburgh to Belfast: three different postings, with their family, in the space of 18 months. It is the public authorities that must address that challenge. I think that we do that very well in Scotland. In fact, a great deal has been done in Scotland that is worthy of more comment.

The Scottish veterans fund has been mentioned, as well as the development in relation to the census. We also have a dedicated Minister for Veterans—I think that that post was established under the former First Minister in 2008. It reached a golden period when we had a minister in the Cabinet. Graeme Dey should use that as his gambit to try to get into the Cabinet. He should say that we should have a ministerial-level appointment in the Cabinet. That shows the attention that has been paid to the matter. That is a real success.

I have been aware of how things have changed. I remember saying in 2011 and 2012 that we had to try to address disadvantage rather than provide advantage. That was quite a contentious thing to say at that time, but that seems to be the language that everyone uses now, and things are none the worse for that.

Scotland does a great deal that is worthy of commendation, but there will, of course, always be more to do.

I say to Christine Grahame and Maggie Chapman that I am not a pacifist. I think that it is essential that we have armed forces and that they are well trained and well looked after.

In this debate and too many like it, people have, by and large, veered away from any contention—any kind of political back and forth. I think that that patronises rather than promotes the interests of veterans. They are not people who have to be mollycoddled; they can understand political differences. We should not shy away from that.

On some of the differences, Edward Mountain mentioned that he thinks that the budget for the veterans fund is too small and that we should take money away from overseas trips. I do not know whether that would have included the two trips that I made to the Falklands on the Government’s ticket. If we are going to be contentious, my comment would be that we should not have illegal wars and instead pay the money that is required for proper boots, proper helicopter support and proper tanks for our forces. We could also avoid things such as handing out P45s to service personnel on active service in Afghanistan. We should think about what is really important to veterans in those circumstances.

I do not support Meghan Gallacher’s proposal. We should not marginalise defacing a war memorial, which is an abominable thing to do. We should not take that away from the general remit of the law.

On a note of consensus, Edward Mountain’s point about housing is really important. He identified, as I have in the past, that the MOD has estates in Scotland that it no longer uses. There are hundreds of houses at Craigiehall, and there are other sites as well. If the Parliament comes together, we could spearhead—Edward Mountain will know the significance of that word—a campaign to get the MOD to convert that stock to housing that is made available for veterans. That might require selling off some houses and bringing others up to standard, but it is perfectly possible that we could make a big difference to the housing situation for veterans.

In conclusion, I am very grateful that the Parliament has once again recorded its support and admiration for veterans because of their service and the contribution that they continue to make to society.

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it had with the United Kingdom Government regarding the potential impact on net zero policy in Scotland, ahead of the announcement by the UK Government of its decision to delay key net zero targets. (S6O-02610)

In words more eloquent than any that I can summon, we have just heard from Stephen Kerr the basis of the Conservative attack on the Scottish Parliament. He has stated that the powers in the Scottish Parliament come not from the people of Scotland, but from the Conservative Party. He has also stated that he has the “zeal of the convert”—yet he is trying as fast as he can to run away from Parliament at the first opportunity. People can draw their own conclusions from that.

In my member’s debate in May, which was on a similar topic to this one, I stated that our Parliament was “under attack” by the UK Government. Five months later, the UK is, again, deliberately stripping our Scottish Parliament of its hard-fought-for and hard-won powers. In 1997, around 75 per cent of Scots voted for the creation of this Parliament. Along with my Labour and Lib Dem colleagues, who have been silent on this in recent months, I campaigned not just for the establishment of this Parliament but for it to have tax-raising powers, which the Conservatives bitterly opposed at the time.

Many of us can be guilty of forgetting that there was a time before this Parliament existed. It is important to remember that Parliament was not created by accident but came into being with the support of three quarters of the population of our country, in response to the real and pressing need for Scottish self-Government. The strength of support that delivered that result had built up over decades of Westminster misgovernment of Scotland. There was, not least, the mismanagement of oil and gas. Let us remember that the Labour Party concealed from the people of Scotland at that time, through the McCrone report, the real value of the oil and gas that were under the North Sea.

Let us remember, too, the industrial disputes of the 1970s and 80s, which I mentioned last week, with Westminster Governments being consistently rejected by Scottish voters but governing Scotland nevertheless. Those are just a few of the reasons why that emphatic result was delivered in 1997.

Given the motion that is up for debate, many members will focus on the technical or legislative aspects that have led to the power grab on our Parliament, so I will shift the focus on to the real difference that Parliament has made to the everyday lives of people in Scotland since it was established and will, thereby, prove why the powers of this institution absolutely must be protected.

The progress that has been made under devolution is far too broad to do justice to in six minutes. It includes: lower income tax for most Scots: I remind people that a bigger proportion of people in Scotland pay less tax than they do in the rest of the UK. It includes the lowest average council tax of any UK nation; the expansion to 1,140 hours of free early learning and childcare; the scrapping of tuition fees and prescription charges; free personal care for everyone who needs it; and the Scottish child payment—which, incidentally, supports 7,295 children in Clackmannanshire Council’s and Stirling Council’s areas alone—alongside many other benefits from Social Security Scotland. Those are just some of the measures, none of which featured in Willie Rennie’s speech, that various Scottish Governments have implemented since 1999 that make the lives of ordinary Scots better.

Every day, we can contrast and compare the situation in the rest of the UK and can clearly see the marked difference that this Parliament has made in Scots’ everyday lives. Research backs us up: according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Scotland has a lower poverty rate—at 18 per cent—than England’s 22 per cent and Wales’s 24 per cent, which alone proves the difference that governing our own affairs can make.

This week already—it is only Tuesday—we have seen in the news that the price of water in England and Wales is to increase by £156 a year in order to line the pockets of private shareholders. This Parliament has consistently kept Scottish water in public hands. We cannot compare things here with the fankle over HS2—high-speed 2—that is taking place at the Conservative Party conference; it is ironic to hear Donald Cameron talk about the SNP’s being in disarray when one looks at what is happening in Manchester today. In contrast with the HS2 fiasco, the Scottish Government’s action to scrap peak-time rail fares clearly shows the difference that Parliament can make to ordinary Scots.

Given what I have just said, let us pause for a moment and imagine the harm that would be perpetrated in our country in the absence of a Scottish Parliament, or even if the small degree of self-Government that our country enjoys were to be reduced further, which is exactly what is happening and has happened since the UK’s vote to leave the EU against Scotland’s wishes. The tagline of the Brexit campaign was, “Take back control”, but we did not realise that what was meant was, “Take back control of Scotland”. An example of how the Tory Government is taking back control is its decision to have held back money from Scotland and Wales and then subsequently to re-present it as a gift from the Tory Government.

The UK’s Internal Market Act 2020 has caused damage. We have heard ad nauseam from the Tories that the two Governments must co-operate. Where was the co-operation when Rishi Sunak announced the changes to net zero targets? There has been a complete reversal of some UK Government policies, and the impact that that has had on Scotland is huge, yet there was not a word about the changes beforehand. That is where there is a lack of co-operation, just now.

The damage that the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is doing to democracy in Scotland and in Wales cannot be overstated. Under the act, UK ministers have the power to undermine and override what limited powers our national Parliaments have—in some cases, unilaterally and without consent.

The big problem for the Scottish Tories is that, every year, for as many years as I have been in the Parliament, they uncritically accept whatever attacks there are on devolution, whatever cuts there are to our budget and whatever the latest injustice is to the interests of the people of Scotland. They support what happens every single time, because Westminster is where they take their orders from.

There have always been—there still are—many caveats in the Scotland Act 1998 that allow the UK Government to flex its muscles in Scotland’s democracy. The section 35 order is one such example, of course. Although I appreciate that there is a wide range of views on gender reform in the Scottish Parliament, we must surely all stand up for the ability of our national Parliament to make decisions—including decisions that enjoy cross-party support here—and to implement them, even when they are decisions that we, as individual MSPs, might not agree with.

One of the most shocking things in the power grab has been the complicity of the Labour Party—the self-proclaimed party of devolution. As we have heard already, the Labour-run Welsh Government has consistently stood up for devolution. Mark Drakeford has done that in a way that we have never heard from Scottish Labour members, even from some of the people who used to be at the forefront—as I was in 1983—for the campaign for a Scottish Assembly. They are now very silent on the attacks that come from Westminster. However, as we have heard, Mark Drakeford has spoken out consistently against the attacks on his Government and the Welsh Assembly’s powers.

I thought that I had eight minutes. I apologise, Presiding Officer. The previous member spoke for eight minutes.

But, of course—

I asked about the comparison with England and Wales, and you said that the figure is equivalent. Were you saying that the average for England and Wales, or for the UK and Wales, is equivalent to the European average or to what is spent in Scotland?

You mentioned the UK context, which you said is important for the sector. We have had 13 years of austerity, in which budgets have declined. There is some pretty challenging stuff in your submission, and in what you have said about the Scottish Government. Do you think that the sector is—in the words of Alexander Stewart—being attacked by the Scottish Government or seen as “expendable”? Do you think that you are being treated differently from other parts of the budget?

May I ask a final quick question? I am trying to view the situation from the point of view of a member of the public. For 13 years we have had cuts to the global budget because of austerity. As you said, we cannot take the issue in isolation; we must look at the context. Such cuts have the cumulative effect of wearing people down over time. Do you think that the public would be surprised to find out that it takes until, say, year 13—I am not sure that that is the case; you can tell me if it is not—for you to think about starting to use reserves to address such issues? I realise that reserves can be held for various purposes, including for a rainy day. Do you not think that, after 13 years of austerity, the rainy day might have arrived? How might the public perceive that?

I am quite new to the committee, and I am stunned by how unremittingly bleak the experience has been, although it has been made lighter by the high-quality analogies that have been used. There have been aquatic ones and ones about climate change, which have been better than those I have heard in any other committee I have been on.

The international aspect of the financial pressures is interesting. We heard about high interest rates, inflation, Brexit and a 400 per cent increase in energy costs. You brushed over the implications of that quite quickly, but there will be implications for the Scottish Government across the board, not just in relation to culture.

In relation to the festivals, we are pretty much done—the international reputation has gone, to the extent that people who come here are shocked and want to give us an aid package. I have heard people elsewhere say that we still have an excellent reputation, but I take it that that was for the non-festival sector.

A couple of examples from Canada and South Korea were raised, but they are vitally different from Scotland in important respects. They do not have financial pressures to the same extent, and they do not have Brexit. They do not have devolution, so they do not have a predetermined budget. There was also reference to London, which is not as relevant as it might be. Rather than giving answers just now, if people were able to provide information in writing on what the situation is in Europe or the rest of the UK, that would certainly be useful.

I turn to Mark Ruskell’s question on the transient visitor levy. There is potential there, but I wonder whether it might end up having a very unequal impact, given what the likely dividends would be for different local authorities across the country. I would not be averse to trying to safeguard the dividends. We heard that there is real danger that they might just go into core funding. There are ways in which they could be safeguarded. Local authorities would rail against ring fencing, but perhaps there could be some agreement through the Verity house agreement or others. Would the levy strengthen areas that are already strong and do very little for more rural areas with dispersed populations? I am interested in hearing the panel’s thoughts on that.