Chamber and committees

Does Professor Collins want to add anything?

Are there any other views?

For obvious reasons, there has been a lot of discussion about EU member states. One comment was made about non-EU member states, and the idea that we are now in the position that they are in with regard to trying to work with the EU.

I wonder if that could be drawn out a little bit more. Are we now in exactly the same position as other non-EU member states that want to work with EU jurisdictions? Do those non-EU member states that have a high level of economic relationship with Europe have in place similar arrangements to what is in the TCA? Have those arrangements developed over time? If we are looking for the TCA, or whatever develops out of it, to be deepened and enriched over time, can any lessons be drawn from other countries that are outside the EU and that have some of the same issues around the lack of freedom of movement and the impact that that has on services? Have those countries found solutions?

The minister is right about the critical aspect of the heat in buildings programme as part of the transition to a net zero society. Over the past few years, the Scottish Government developed a programme that has been well regarded and even described as something that could be a template for action across the rest of the UK. However, in the past few weeks, I have heard increasing rumours of large-scale job losses in Home Energy Scotland and even one suggestion that the entire grant and loan scheme is going to be put on hold. Will the minister take this opportunity to scotch those rumours and make it clear that those changes will not happen? If there is any danger of such changes taking place, will he immediately begin discussions with Exchequer colleagues to ensure that the additional money that is now available to the Scottish Government, following yesterday’s UK budget, is made available to reverse any changes that have been suggested?

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to reduce energy consumption from the built environment. (S6O-03862)

With only four minutes for my speech, I am afraid that I do not have time.

Let us look at the operation of progressive tax in Scotland. Someone who is on £35,000 a year—that is not an exorbitant salary, but it is by no means a low income—pays barely more than £1 a week more in income tax. Those on significantly higher incomes, such as every member of this chamber, pay a fair bit more, and those on extremely high incomes pay their fair share, unlike anywhere else in the rest of the UK. Those on extremely high incomes pay significantly more.

In exchange for all that, we get all those policies that we have chosen to prioritise, whether that is the baby box, free prescriptions, free higher education or the knowledge that we live in a society that has the decency to provide a Scottish child payment to those in need. That is what we all receive from a country that commits to progressive taxation.

Today, we have seen a UK budget that—I will give credit where it is due—begins to change the country’s direction, and some of the ways in which it does so are welcome. I will take the time to study it. However, even the advocates of the Labour Party—their biggest fans—would not suggest that it brings the UK up to the level of investment that we see across the European Union or in the US, through the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, or that would have existed under the Labour Party’s previous £28 billion green policy investment plan. It still leaves the Scottish Government with the responsibility to fund local services, to invest in net zero, to cut inequality and, as Parliament agreed earlier this month, to use every lever possible at our disposal to do those things, including progressive taxation and new local tax powers.

During these debates, various people choose to defy expectations and others confirm them. The Conservatives have played up to their reputation as the pantomime villains of Scottish politics—[Interruption.]—and they have brought a motion to do the same. A few years ago, some of them were determined that Scotland should copy the disastrous mini-budget of Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng. Today, it seems that they are equally determined to drag the behaviour in this chamber down to the level of the House of Commons. I very much hope that they fail.

From other parties, we expect a serious debate. The amendments from both the Government and the Labour Party contribute to a more serious debate. In the Government’s amendment, I do not see anything that anyone could disagree with. It recognises the harm done by austerity, which is well understood in every community across the country, and it recognises the harm done by Brexit, which is well understood in every community, particularly in every business, across the country. The amendment refers to the value of using progressive taxation—which I will come on to in a little more detail later—to pay for things such as the Scottish child payment, free prescriptions and ensuring that people can go to university without ending up tens of thousands of pounds in debt for their tuition fees alone, as happens in England.

The amendment also makes the clear point that Opposition parties that contribute to discussions about the budget have a responsibility to at least try to make the sums add up. If they want more spending, they need to recognise the necessity to raise that revenue through taxation.

As for the amendment from the Labour Party, I am sorry that it is abundantly clear that it has entirely abandoned its support for progressive taxation. When Scotland moved to a five-band income tax system, the Labour Party supported and agreed with that change. Now, it no longer supports it—the Labour Party believes that it is wrong that anyone pays more tax in Scotland.

Let us look at the operation—

There is an urgent need for that investment in net zero, and a need for tackling extreme wealth and tax avoidance.

If the UK will not do it, it should give us the power.

Everything that we do here we do despite our differences. The whole purpose of a Parliament is to bring people together, regardless of what separates us in political, professional or personal terms. That is never more true than at a moment such as this, when we are recognising the loss of someone who made a profound impact over many years.

Every politician, especially those who serve in the highest office, understands the impact on personal and family life. That aspect of the role is a sacrifice for the individual, but it is also a sacrifice for their family and friends, so it is important that the Parliament as a whole recognises the loss that Alex Salmond’s family and friends are experiencing now and that we offer our sincerest condolences.

Especially in the wake of such an unexpected death, it is a moment to begin to acknowledge the impact of the life that has ended. People’s lives and their legacies can be contested and complicated, so this is not a moment for an assessment of the entirety of the man—there will be more appropriate times for that—but we can all acknowledge the scale of Alex Salmond’s impact on Scotland’s politics. The events of the past few years are an important part of his story, but they do not change the fact that Alex Salmond was the political personality who enabled the SNP to advance in its political journey.

When the Parliament first met, 25 years ago, the SNP had just a handful of well-known faces and names in national politics. Suddenly, it was the main Opposition party. Within eight years, it was not only ready to form a Government; it was chosen to do so by the Scottish people. When it did so, Alex Salmond called it what it was. It might seem simple to say it now, but he recognised that the office of First Minister is the highest office in Scottish politics and that the group of people who sit on the front bench of the Parliament, to be held accountable by the representatives of Scotland, are not merely an Administration but a Government. In showing his understanding of that and in giving the right name to this young political landscape, Alex Salmond advanced Scotland’s political journey.

In the early years of the Parliament, the idea of independence was by no means in its infancy. A large minority had consistently supported it, but the case for independence as a viable proposition had barely been developed. Some people will remember Alex Salmond for the phrase

“the dream will never die”,

but, in his time at the forefront of Scottish politics, he did more than most to turn it from a dream into a tangible, imminent choice—something that even its strongest opponents had to recognise as a real choice that Scotland could make work. That legacy endures, and independence remains an undeniably real and imminent choice, there for the taking, if the people will it. [Applause.]