Chamber and committees

I think that a lot of economists would not agree with a structurally imposed lack of reciprocity, if I can put it that way.

My other question is about the comments that Dr Anderson made on the achievements of the faculty and the Law Society in getting agreements with other countries when they want to be involved in work in those countries. In my view, Brexit has been a complete disaster, to be honest. Professor Collins talked about our being slightly above GATS or WTO level, which is a disaster for the economy, and we are seeing that in the lost billions.

However, it is now some time since Brexit happened—although it is not so much time since the agreement happened—but surely it should be possible for many agreements to be made more quickly. I know that such things tend not to move very fast. I suppose that what I am interested in—as most politicians would be—is accountability. I am probably asking the wrong people here, but who should we be looking to for accountability for the lack of progress? Is there an extent to which organisations could do more to get the recognition that they are looking for, or is it structurally very difficult to do that without member-state involvement? In my experience, because of the system that we have in Scotland and the UK, many organisations wait for the Government to move on lots of things. Is it not possible for organisations to do more in the meantime, or is that structurally difficult or a resource question?

—especially for those who are losing their winter fuel allowance—[Interruption.]

Does the First Minister agree that the UK budget fails to deliver the transformative change that the people of Scotland were promised and that, in fact, it continues the same broken austerity ideology of the Tories—[Interruption.]

To ask the First Minister what assessment the Scottish Government has undertaken of the impact of the UK Government budget on Scotland. (S6F-03477)

—and for those suffering under the hated two-child cap?

In particular, does the First Minister agree that the UK Government’s decision to increase national insurance contributions could have a severe financial impact on Scotland’s public sector, potentially costing the Government, the national health service, schools and the police and fire services hundreds of millions of pounds? Does he agree that the UK Government must, at the very least, fully mitigate any negative impact on the Scottish Government and on public services in Scotland and that any mitigation must be provided in addition to, not as a substitute for, increases to Scotland’s block grant?

I know that it is hard to listen to, but people in Scotland pay less tax than people in the rest of the UK. Those who pay more are the highest earners, and that is fair, because in Scotland we choose to support our communities and not bail out banks while ordinary families struggle.

The motion suggests that the Scottish Government has failed to deliver better outcomes. Let us look at some outcomes. We have scrapped tuition fees. Every day, we hear stories about people down south who are struggling with massive debts that they have no expectation of being able to pay off before they end their working lives. We have free bus travel for more than 2 million people in Scotland. We have the best-performing core accident and emergency departments in the UK and the highest number of general practitioners per capita in the UK. We have abolished rates for more than 100,000 small businesses, increased international exports by a staggering 69 per cent since 2007 and invested £11 billion in Scotland’s rail infrastructure.

When Westminster imposed cruel policies such as the bedroom tax, it was the Scottish Government that stepped up, by investing £74.8 million to protect people from its worst impacts, and it invested millions more to offset the child benefit cap. Where is Labour on those issues? It is nowhere to be seen when it matters.

Lorna Slater mentioned the article in The Daily Telegraph entitled “Why thousands are fleeing to Scotland—and why you should too”. Even The Daily Telegraph acknowledges that life in Scotland under the SNP is better than it was before and better than it is elsewhere. [Interruption.] I know that, again, that is hard for the Conservatives to accept.

We are seeing more net migration to Scotland, which obviously means that people who read that article believe that life is better in Scotland. One of those new Scots is Ellie Jones, a young woman from Cheshire who came to study at the University of Stirling in my constituency. She graduated, stayed and now works at the university. She shared her experience, saying:

“There are so many benefits that people don’t think about, like free dental care until you are 25. Free prescriptions and eye tests are also brilliant. You don’t realise it until you have them—they are such a big bonus.”

That is the reality for people living in Scotland, yet here we are being asked to trust the economic wisdom of a party whose leader—I do not think he is here now; I think that he has left the debate—once said, “In Liz we trust”. Now, he is back-pedalling, saying:

“We all get things wrong.”

Those are the legacies of Russell Findlay: “In Liz we trust” and “We all get things wrong”. Mr Findlay backed Liz Truss, betting on the one Prime Minister who managed to crash and burn faster than any Prime Minister in recent history, which showed his breathtakingly poor judgment. Now, the Tories are back, urging Scotland to adopt the same tax-cutting frenzy that Truss chased after—the very same agenda that left the UK in economic turmoil.

They really do not like hearing about Liz Truss on that side of the chamber, but we will take no lessons from the Tories. Their track record is loud and clear, as is ours, though in a very different way. The economic change that we should be considering is one that will truly empower people, boost our jobs and provide growth.

There might be a lesson for the Tory party. What it thought was a symbiotic relationship with the Labour Party in this chamber—when it was about always attacking the SNP—was a parasitic relationship. The Tory Party is having its lunch eaten by the Labour Party, which will replace it as the biggest unionist party at the next election. That is the reward that it gets for eight years of sticking with the Labour Party.

Scotland deserves better. We deserve the powers of a normal country with independence. We can unlock our future potential and truly thrive, and say goodbye to Brexit and Liz Truss.

We have to face the fact that Brexit is what broke Britain. We had a number of years of austerity—Labour and Tory—before that, but Brexit broke Britain. As if that was not enough, Liz Truss took her turn and tanked the economy.

The motion that we are debating is hypocrisy at an unprecedented level. The Scottish Government, despite facing obstacles at every turn, has done a remarkable job of delivering economic progress and social benefits that consistently outshine those of other parts of the UK.

Of course, in Scotland, people pay the lowest tax in the UK.

Will the member give way?

That seems to come as a revelation to some Conservatives—which demonstrates their ignorance. [Interruption.]

However, it is simply the case that a majority of people in Scotland pay less tax than those in the rest of the UK. Some people pay more, and those who do pay more tend to be higher earners. [Interruption.]

Will the First Minister confirm that, without ministerial sign-off by the sponsoring minister, who is Mr Swinney, as well as costs not being paid, which has been covered by Collette Stevenson, it is also the case that even parliamentary questions would have gone unanswered, because only ministers are able to answer parliamentary questions? Does the First Minister agree that refusing to answer parliamentary questions would have elicited the same howls of protest from the same Opposition members who are now criticising him for doing his job?