Chamber and committees

In 1979, I tried to be a proxy for my mother’s vote in the referendum that year, but, at 17, I was too young to do that. I am just thinking about all the different conditions that have been applied. Can any of the witnesses say what is so different about Scotland?

In 1979, we had the 40 per cent rule, which was unheard of, whereby the votes of the dead counted for the status quo. We have talked about confirmatory referenda and, although I see some merit in the final shape of an independent Scotland being subject to a vote, the idea of having to say again that we want the same thing is not something that I could see happening anywhere but Scotland.

The idea has been raised that different parts of Scotland—I know that this has not been advanced by the witnesses, but it certainly was by Jamie Halcro Johnston—could vote differently at the same time. It is funny, because I did not recall such voices during the Brexit referendum, when every part of Scotland voted to stay in the EU and we were utterly disregarded. That idea did not count at that point.

Also, if this is merely a distraction, and the SNP is not serious about it, call its bluff—go for it; have the referendum. That is the best way you can kill it off.

Why is it always that we come up with these strange mechanisms or different conditions? Compare that to the Brexit referendum, when there was no white paper, no background, no conditions attached—and, on the point about a 50.1 per cent result, in the case of the Brexit referendum, the result was 52 per cent to 48 per cent but nobody is questioning its legitimacy; it was a simple majority. Why is it that such conditions seem to be talked about or brought into the equation only when we talk about Scotland? Is it simply because the Brexit referendum was one that, for his own reasons, the Prime Minister of the UK wanted and the independence referendum is a referendum that the UK does not want, or is there something specific about Scotland, which we cannot quite discern, that makes it subject to all these conditions?

This is my last question. We have an off-the-shelf agreed solution as to how this should be conducted, but it will not be agreed to by the UK Government. You made the point earlier that it is at times of relative calm that you can perhaps have more chance of an agreement. Also, I think that you very helpfully mentioned the extent to which, if you want to see a referendum, broadening it out and having a more discursive approach to it could be beneficial. Patrick Harvie and I are involved in the early stages of setting up a convention to that effect.

However, if the UK Government continues to say no up until the election, and if the election returns the majority that I certainly would hope for, there is very little chance at of getting any agreement at that stage. I can see the UK Government coming straight back and saying, “Let’s discuss the ground rules again.” The chance will have gone. It will be very similar to 2014, when it promised all sorts of things, such as enshrining the Sewel convention in law, putting the Scottish Parliament on a firm footing and making it a stronger Parliament. The exact reverse happened afterwards. Would you agree that there is very little prospect after the election of getting the kind of calm that you say is necessary to ensure agreement and it would be straight into a binary approach again?

I am sorry for referring to Professor Blick as Professor Rodger earlier—that was a name that came up on the screen. I am interested in your view on those two questions.

If I understood you correctly, the first part of your answer was about a high bar—I think that you were talking about transferring, possibly to the Scottish Parliament, the power to decide or having an agreed mechanism. Given the possibility of increasingly emphatic wins for pro-independence or pro-referendum parties in Scotland, given what may well happen in Wales shortly and given what is due to happen at some point in Northern Ireland, do you see the UK Government continuing to present such a bar in the future? Will it continue to refuse to countenance granting that high bar? If you do not see that, what would change the position?

Will the member confirm his position, having had explained to him by Christine Grahame the fundamental tenet of this Parliament that the Presiding Officer and not the Government of the day decides whether something is compliant with the Scotland Act 1998? He should not have had to have that explained to him. It is a fundamental thing. You have been here for four years. You should know this stuff. Having had it explained to you by other members, do you still intend to try to effect a major change by transferring the power to the Government of the day from the Presiding Officer? Is that really your intention?

Will the member take an intervention?

Get on with it.

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on what response it has had to its letter to the United Kingdom Government regarding the fishing and coastal growth fund. (S6O-05195)

The UK Government’s unresponsiveness is appalling. The Scottish Government was clear in its expectation that Scotland’s fishers needed and deserved to maintain an arrangement outside the Barnett formula that recognised the relative size and importance of fishing industries across the UK, and that Scotland should receive at least 46 per cent of the fishing and coastal growth fund. The Labour Party has ignored Scotland’s Government and insulted our fishing industry. Does the cabinet secretary agree that Scottish Labour MSPs need to decide whether they are backing our fishing industry and communities or their bosses at Westminster?

To follow up on what the member was saying, and the intervention from Kenny Gibson, the member might be aware that two years’ time marks the 1,000th anniversary of the tale of when King David I was about to be gored by a stag in Holyrood park in 1028. A cross appeared in the stag’s antlers, which gave this Parliament its name: the holy cross, or Holyrood. Does the member think that we should be looking to ensure that we commemorate that as well, as a part of Scotland’s heritage?