Scotland’s Future

– in the Scottish Parliament at on 21 August 2014.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Tricia Marwick Tricia Marwick None

Good afternoon. The first item of business is a debate on motion S4M-10843, in the name of Alex Salmond, on Scotland’s future. I give all members a bit of warning that time is really tight.

I call Alex Salmond to speak to and move the motion. First Minister, you have 14 minutes.

Photo of Alex Salmond Alex Salmond First Minister of Scotland, Leader, Scottish National Party

It gives me great pleasure to speak to the motion in my name, supported by my colleagues. Today, 120-plus members of the Parliament are debating Scotland’s future. In four weeks’ time, the people of Scotland will get the opportunity to decide on Scotland’s future. That peaceful and consented process and the debate and discussion that are taking place across the country are not unique in the world, but they are rare and precious and we should regard them as such.

The referendum has re-energised politics in Scotland. I was canvassing in Northfield in Aberdeen a few weeks ago when a 16-year-old girl ran across the street and demanded to know whether she was on the voters roll to vote in the referendum. I was not even canvassing her house at the time.

That is an example of an enthusiasm seldom seen by any of us before. There is an enthusiasm to participate in the referendum that we have not seen for any Westminster or Scottish election. I know that all of us will have had similar experiences, often with people who would not normally be interested in the political process. They all want to have their say in this great national debate.

The referendum has inspired an outpouring of ideas about the sort of country that we seek—the sort of Scotland that we want. Very often—this has been a hugely positive development—those things have been outside what we might call traditional party political structures. People who have felt excluded from the normal political processes have responded enthusiastically. New media has thrived and town hall meetings have been packed in villages and towns across the country. After the referendum, one of the challenges for all of us will be to retain that sense of creativity, energy and engagement as we work together to build a better country.

Photo of Willie Rennie Willie Rennie Liberal Democrat

I share the First Minister’s ambition for us to use the energy from the referendum for the good of politics in the long run. I hope for a no vote, as he hopes for a yes vote, but I hope that we will capture the energy.

I will bring the First Minister back to some of the detail. In the past week, Crawford Beveridge, Professor Stiglitz and the First Minister have all used the term “transition” in respect of the currency. Will the First Minister tell the chamber about that new aspect of his policy?

Photo of Alex Salmond Alex Salmond First Minister of Scotland, Leader, Scottish National Party

If there were a new aspect of the policy that was not contained in the fiscal commission’s report of more than a year ago, I would look at Mr Rennie’s question with a bit more consideration. What has been said is exactly what the fiscal commission working group said more than a year ago.

I have recommended a number of times that Mr Rennie read the white paper on independence. I also recommend that he read the fiscal commission working group’s report, to see the profound common sense that that galaxy of distinguished economists has presented—lo, even unto the Liberal party—and to consider that. In there, he will find the answers that he seeks.

As we did two weeks ago, we all—even Mr Rennie—agree that Scotland has got what it takes to be a successful independent country, so let us use this occasion and this national debate to celebrate our country, our people and our potential.

Scotland is one of the world’s wealthiest nations. Our gross domestic product per head is higher than that of the United Kingdom as a whole, France and Japan. We have contributed more in tax revenues per head of population than the rest of the UK in each and every one of the past 33 years.

We have creative genius. We are a nation of innovators. We have a brilliant manufacturing industry and a truly world-class food and drink industry.

We have astonishing natural resources. We have huge potential in renewables and—yes—an oil and gas industry that will produce many billions of barrels of oil for many decades to come. Many of us regard that as a substantial bonus for the nation of Scotland, not a burden that will have to be tolerated.

The Presiding Officer:

Order.

Photo of Lewis Macdonald Lewis Macdonald Labour

I am grateful to the current member for Aberdeenshire East for giving way in that gracious fashion. Can he tell me, in light of the revision this morning of his central estimate of future oil production from 24 billion barrels of oil equivalent to 15 or 16 billion barrels, his revised estimate of the revenues to come from oil in the next five years?

Photo of Alex Salmond Alex Salmond First Minister of Scotland, Leader, Scottish National Party

If the member had been following the debate at First Minister’s questions, he would know that I pointed out from the work of Alex Kemp that the 16 to 17 billion barrels seem to go up to 2050, and that, as there is further to come after that from the more than 100 fields that are expected to be developed at that stage, Mr Kemp thinks that it is entirely reasonable for the UK oil industry’s forecasts of up to 24 billion barrels to be perfectly realisable.

I know that Lewis Macdonald thought that I was being unfair, but I was not. The reason that I referred to his being a member for Aberdeen is that I was trying to create a link with those members from Aberdeen who have in the past suggested that perhaps the oil was running out. As Lewis Macdonald and I well know, it is a long time since we had a Conservative member for an Aberdeen constituency, but in the 1970s there was one. The late Iain Sproat, who was then Conservative MP for Aberdeen South, speaking in the House of Commons in 1976 said that oil will last for only another 20 to 30 years. If we had believed what the Conservative Party and the Labour Party had to say in the 1970s and 1980s, there would not be any oil left at all now. Therefore, if Lewis Macdonald will pardon us for saying so, we think that 18 or 17 billion barrels to 2050, and up to 24 billion barrels in total, is a fantastic resource and bonus for the Scottish people.

Above all—

Photo of Alex Salmond Alex Salmond First Minister of Scotland, Leader, Scottish National Party

If the member gives me a few seconds, I will make some progress and then gladly take an intervention.

I was going to say—and I know that the Conservative Party have this dear to their hearts—that the challenge is not to establish the enormous wealth of the country: that is a given. The challenge is to ensure that the people of this country have the opportunity to share in that enormous wealth.

At its heart, the case for independence is a simple one. It is better for all our futures if decisions about Scotland are taken by the people who care most about Scotland—the people who live and work in this country. No one, but no one, is more likely to create a fair and prosperous country than we will.

Eighty per cent of Scotland’s MPs at Westminster opposed the current UK Government’s wider changes to social security, and 90 per cent of them opposed the bedroom tax. With independence, the people of Scotland will get the policies that this democratically elected Scottish Parliament votes for, 100 per cent of the time.

It is worth looking at this Parliament’s record; I will be generous to all the parties on all sides of the chamber. The first session of Parliament introduced world-leading homelessness legislation. The second session of Parliament tackled Scotland’s health inequalities through the ban on smoking on public places. The third session of Parliament reintroduced free university tuition and unanimously passed ambitious climate-change targets. The current session of Parliament is seeing world-leading action to address Scotland’s relationship with alcohol, and legislation to expand and transform early-years education and care.

Alongside that, we have adopted policies to support economic growth: cutting business rates, promoting Scotland abroad and giving co-ordinated support to infrastructure and to key sectors of the economy. We now have higher employment and lower economic inactivity than the rest of the UK.

That does not mean, of course, that this Parliament has not sometimes taken the wrong course, but it reflects the fact that members of the Parliament from all parties have worked together to reflect the values, priorities and aspirations of the people who voted for us.

Because of that, this Parliament has been able to resist the privatisation and constant reorganisation that has been pursued in the national health service south of the border. However, funding for our national health service is still at the mercy of a Westminster Government that is led by a party that, in the words of Alistair Darling, relishes

“the chance to swing the axe at the public services millions rely on.”

It was Nye Bevan who once said of the national health service that you do not need a crystal ball

“when you can read the book.”

Today, we can read the book produced by the Labour Party called “The Choice: NHS”, which discusses what Labour calls “the Tory threat”. It says that under the Tories the prospect for the NHS is that

“more services are likely to be charged for, with fewer services provided free at the point of need.”

It follows that, if patients are charged and private money replaces public money, those cuts in public spending are passed directly on to the public services of Scotland under the devolution settlement. Therefore, increased privatisation and charging in England, on top of the £25 billion of cuts promised by George Osborne, are a direct threat to national health service funding in Scotland.

Photo of Malcolm Chisholm Malcolm Chisholm Labour

I am glad that the First Minister has moved on from the early scares about privatising the health service in Scotland and from the earlier misinformation about privatised services costing less money. However, now that he has moved on to charging, does he not realise that the reason why Labour is saying what it does is because we know full well that no UK Government would be elected that had pledged to abolish healthcare free at the point of need? That will not happen and it is an insult to the people of England to believe that it will happen. [Interruption.]

The Presiding Officer:

Order.

Photo of Alex Salmond Alex Salmond First Minister of Scotland, Leader, Scottish National Party

Andy Burnham is saying that the Conservative Party is going to abolish free healthcare. Has Malcolm Chisholm really got to the stage at which he is defending the Tories as defenders of the health service? [Interruption.]

The Presiding Officer:

Order.

Photo of Alex Salmond Alex Salmond First Minister of Scotland, Leader, Scottish National Party

Can he not understand what Unison said in its blog this afternoon about the threat from Westminster cutbacks to the health service in Scotland? People will be astonished that the Labour Party has come to the stage that it has to defend Tory cuts and privatisation of the health service so that it can defend the better together campaign.

The contrast of the constitutional guarantee that independence gives to the health service is quite a different matter. We can guarantee a fairer Scotland because we can guarantee that the minimum wage rises in line with inflation. We can guarantee to ensure greater gender equality in the boardroom and in the workplace. It will be a fairer Scotland because we can outlaw outrages such as the bedroom tax, which 90 per cent of MPs in Scotland oppose.

At the moment, the Government is launching its assault through austerity on the poor, and it is also starting to replace Trident, at an estimated lifetime cost of more than £100 billion. Would it not be rather better if we could remove Trident, abolish measures such as the bedroom tax and get on with building a decent society for the Scottish people?

Alongside building a fairer country, let us create a more prosperous country that can offer a lifetime opportunity for the people of Scotland. At present, almost 70,000 people leave Scotland every year, with more than half of them aged 16 to 34. Every single family in Scotland knows of a friend or family member who has to leave to get a job or further a career. We have huge hydrocarbon reserves for the next half century, but we need to build the renewable wealth that will last for ever. We want to transform childcare provision to unleash the full potential of all of our population. With independence we can use our wealth and control over our taxation to attract more employers to invest in Scotland, creating more and better local jobs, and more opportunities for young people closer to home that will keep families together: a powerful legacy from a yes vote.

We believe that, if we take the powers that we need and use them well and work hard, over time we will create a more prosperous country and a fairer society.

In four weeks’ time, when the polling stations open, it will be the first time ever that the people of Scotland have had democratic control of their own destiny. [Interruption.]

The Presiding Officer:

Order.

Photo of Alex Salmond Alex Salmond First Minister of Scotland, Leader, Scottish National Party

This is the first democratic referendum on national independence.

When the polls close, let us not hand that control back. Let us keep Scotland’s future in Scotland’s hands and then come together to build the better Scotland that we know is possible. We have the ability, the talent and the resources in abundance. The people of Scotland are waking up to the greatest opportunity that we will ever have. On 18 September, let’s take it.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that Scotland is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, is rich in human talent and benefits from vast natural resources; believes that a Yes vote on 18 September 2014 is the opportunity of a lifetime to build a fairer, greener, more prosperous country for everyone who lives in Scotland; agrees that the best people to take decisions about Scotland’s future are the people who care most about Scotland, those who live and work here; further agrees that an independent Scotland will protect the founding values of the NHS, build a more secure, sustainable economy with greater job opportunities and will provide parents, children and disabled people with the support expected of a decent society, and agrees therefore that Scotland should be an independent country.

The Presiding Officer:

I call Johann Lamont to speak to and move amendment S4M-10843.1. Ms Lamont, you have 10 minutes.

Photo of Johann Lamont Johann Lamont Labour

As I came in to the Parliament this morning, it felt to me that this was a very important time in the history of this place and of our country. It is an immense privilege for me to speak on behalf of the Labour Party and to move an amendment in my name at the point when the people of Scotland are making an important decision. If we are to come together after that decision has been made, it is important that we do not impugn the motives of those who are arguing for no or for yes—we all care deeply about our country.

Before I set out the case for a no vote, I want to talk about how we got here and the importance of settling the question. Earlier today, I had my weekly set-to with the First Minister and we debated the current issues in our usual robust and forceful way—it is important that we do that. Over the next four weeks, we will no longer be focusing on debating with each other; we will be talking directly to the people of Scotland—something that I have welcomed and relished since the debate began. I recognise the interest and appetite in our communities and towns to have such debates.

It is no secret that I did not support holding a referendum. While I respect the mandate that the current Government has to hold it, I believe that its prominence has had negative consequences. Only last night, a woman expressed to me her concerns about the way in which families and communities have been divided and, equally, about the way in which Scotland has been on pause on the big decisions facing our country.

It is incumbent on us all to find a way through the debate without leaving us so damaged at the end that we cannot go back to democratic debate and policy making. I embrace the opportunity that the referendum presents—the opportunity finally to answer the constitutional question and agree among us the settled will of Scotland. Whatever happens on 18 September, Alex Salmond can claim this important legacy: the question on Scottish independence will have been put to the Scottish people and they will have been given a fair opportunity to answer it.

For those who have argued for Scottish independence for so many years, I am pleased that they will get the opportunity to test their argument in a vote. For those of us who believe that we are better off as part of the United Kingdom, we will get the chance to reaffirm our place in the UK. If we vote no, the UK will no longer be a historical decision taken by the few; instead, Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom will have been actively confirmed and decided by the democratic will of the people. For all of us who care about a better Scotland, it is vital that we agree on a settled constitution and get on with the job of delivering that vision.

I have heard many times over the last few weeks that this is not a vote for Alex Salmond. I agree. However, it is his prospectus that is being put to the Scottish people, so I congratulate the First Minister on his determination in bringing this referendum before us and giving us the opportunity to settle the question once and for all.

The First Minister will not be surprised to know that there is much that I disagree with in his statement. My party has made clear this week its feelings on the latest NHS argument. I also do not believe that the people of Scotland should be going to the polls with such little certainty on something as basic as the currency. I have serious doubts about the cavalier economic assumptions and estimates that have been presented to counter the predictions of the independent experts who say that we will have £6 billion-worth of cuts to make. Indeed, in the past 24 hours, those doubts have been compounded by comments made by Sir Ian Wood.

It is for Alex Salmond to decide which arguments the yes campaign will deploy. That will not stop me asking the hard questions, rebutting his assertions and countering his claims. I will put forward our case as to why people should vote to stay in the UK.

Photo of Johann Lamont Johann Lamont Labour

Let me make some progress.

Ultimately it will be for the people of Scotland to decide who is right and what is best. I have every confidence that they will get that decision right.

As a young woman I instinctively believed that Scotland should stay in the United Kingdom, but in the last period I, like many of my fellow Scots, have tested the arguments. While some people have come to a different conclusion, there is no doubt that people who are voting yes and those who are voting no often share the same ambitions for a fairer, more equal Scotland. That will be the challenge for us after the referendum vote.

I hope that the people decide to vote no, because I believe that it is in the best interests of Scotland. I believe it with my head and with my heart. With my head, I look at the economic forecasts from the experts and I believe that the strength of the United Kingdom gives us the best chance of achieving our goals here in the Scottish Parliament.

On areas such as pensions and welfare, I believe that the pooling and sharing of resources across 60 million rather than 5 million makes sense. On jobs, I believe that, by being part of something bigger, we are given the security and the opportunity that we want. On the currency, I believe that we should be in a monetary union with the rest of the United Kingdom, but with Scottish voices representing us at the heart of Government.

Those are the arguments of the head, but the arguments of the heart are every bit as strong. I believe in working in partnership and in co-operation with our friends and neighbours, whether they are in Liverpool or Manchester, Belfast or Cardiff, Glasgow or Edinburgh. That is a co-operation that saw us stand up against fascism, create the welfare state, create the national health service and make significant steps on the road to tackling inequality and disadvantage. Those prizes came out of Westminster, and, throughout that whole period, the SNP opposed Labour Governments that delivered that change.

Photo of James Dornan James Dornan Scottish National Party

The member talked about the health service, standing against fascism and so on. All of those things are positive reasons for and good things that came out of the union. Could she give us an example of something over the past 20 years that shows how the people of Scotland have benefited from being a member of the union?

Photo of Johann Lamont Johann Lamont Labour

The national minimum wage, tackling poverty, creating greater equalities in our communities and creating this Parliament, which brought power closer to people.

At the heart of this matter—this is why it matters to me in my soul—is that, when I look at the rest of the United Kingdom, I do not see people whose job is to do us down; I see families who are facing the same challenges as the family that I have and families across Scotland. I believe that we should celebrate what we have in common, not emphasise our differences.

I believe that borders—literal or metaphorical—should be broken down, not thrown up where they are not necessary. It is simple for me. I believe that sovereignty lies with the Scottish people, and we can choose to share that with our neighbours when it is in our interests without compromising our Scottishness. Therefore, I disagree with Alex Salmond. He disagrees with the values that are at the heart of the Labour Party—that, by the strength of our common endeavour, we achieve more than we achieve alone. [Interruption.] People who have said, right throughout time, not to vote for the Labour Party can hardly say that they have concerns about the Labour Party now.

The Presiding Officer:

The member is not giving way.

Photo of Johann Lamont Johann Lamont Labour

I remind people that, in 2010, Alex Salmond told the people that he wanted them to vote for the Liberal Democrats rather than for a Scottish Labour Prime Minister, but we will put that to one side. Let us agree on this: whatever the result, Scottish politics will never be the same again. If there is a yes vote, that seems obvious. However, I believe that it is equally true if there is a no vote. In one month, the constitutional question will be answered and the settled will of the Scottish people will be decided, whether that is to go our own way or to continue to work in partnership with our neighbours.

I have never claimed that a no vote will unlock a bounty of treasures and opportunity. Indeed, I welcome the comments of Nicola Sturgeon and John Swinney that independence, equally, is not a magic wand. Even Alex Salmond admitted that we would face serious challenges and that it would not be easy. To my mind, a constitutional arrangement is not an end in itself. We disagree about what the best arrangement is for delivering our ambitions, even though many of those ambitions are shared right across the chamber.

Therefore, on the constitutional question, on which we fundamentally disagree, let the people of Scotland decide on 18 September, and then let us get on with the hard work of changing Scotland, whatever hand we are dealt. Let us move past grievance and alibi, and talk about what we can do rather than what we cannot. We all agree that the educational attainment gap in Scotland must be improved if we are to achieve a fairer society. We all recognise that our NHS and our care system face real pressure from changing demographics, and that we must act and innovate if our sick and vulnerable are to get the treatment that they deserve.

I make this commitment: if there is a yes vote, I will accept it. However, if there is a no vote, I demand an equal commitment from the people on the other side of the chamber. That is because not only will politics never be the same again; it cannot ever be the same again. Rather than have a politics that elevates the interests of party and the political priorities of politicians, we need another kind of politics. We need the Parliament to mature and do its job, opening up its thinking to the challenges that people face in the real world with decisions that will define the future of our country and the wellbeing of our people.

We stand at an important moment in the history of our country. The challenge for all of us in here is that we cannot go back to the politics of the past few years. It is incumbent on all of us to accept the result on 18 September, come together and start doing the business of creating a fairer, more equal society in this country.

I move amendment S4M-10843.1, to leave out from first “agrees” to end and insert:

“looks forward to the democratic decision of the people of Scotland on Scotland’s future and recognises that it will be they who determine whether Scotland leaves the United Kingdom or continues to enjoy the benefits of devolved government within the UK; believes that remaining in the UK is best for jobs, best for schools and hospitals, best for business and best for pensions, and that a strong Scottish Parliament, which will gain new powers, backed up by the strength and security of the UK, represents the best of both worlds for Scotland; notes that, if the Scottish people say ‘No Thanks’ to separation, Scotland will continue as a partner in a political, social, economic and currency union that pools and shares resources with its closest neighbours and friends in England, Wales and Northern Ireland; looks forward to that positive partnership continuing to evolve in the event of a No vote, and resolves to support every effort to unify the country again once the votes have been counted”.

Photo of Ruth Davidson Ruth Davidson Conservative

Like many members in this chamber, I have made more speeches on the constitution in the past two and a half years than I can remember. I have made speeches in church halls, in town halls, in school halls and in conference halls. In every one, I have made the economic and political arguments for staying together. I have made some personal arguments, too. However, I do not think that, in any of those speeches, I have fully articulated what I feel—the sense of loss that I would have at seeing my country broken up before me and the grieving that I would do if it came to pass that Britain no longer existed.

I am Scottish first. I will always be Scottish first, and I will always put Scotland first. Nevertheless, there is a part of me that feels that I get to be British, too, and it feels to me as if those who are proposing separation want to take that British part away from me, tell me that it is bad, broken or wrong and throw it in the bin, giving me something less in return. I do not believe that it is broken, bad or wrong.

When I look at Britain, I see one of the great nations of this earth. Yes, Britain has a large economy, sits at the top table of the world’s decision-making bodies, is a trading powerhouse and all the rest of it. More than that, though, I see a country that is willing to shoulder a burden and that offers a platform of opportunity, and that makes me proud. I am not blind to Britain’s faults—

Photo of Ruth Davidson Ruth Davidson Conservative

I may be jeered or sneered at, as I am being today, but, looking around the world, I think that we are one of the good guys. We are one of the countries that others aspire to be like. From our art to our freedom, our humour, our decency, our sense of fair play and—yes—even our politics, we make a huge contribution to this planet. I want us to keep doing that, and I want us to keep doing it together.

Photo of Annabelle Ewing Annabelle Ewing Scottish National Party

The member suggests that people look up to the UK as it currently is. Do they look up to the UK being the fourth most unequal society in the world?

Photo of Ruth Davidson Ruth Davidson Conservative

It is not the fourth most unequal society in the world. Since 2010, inequality has been reducing—the member knows that because her own Government has stated that that is true.

Bob Doris (Glasgow) (SNP) rose—

I want us to keep contributing to the world together, and I want to stand shoulder to shoulder with my friends, my family and my allies in England, in Wales and in Northern Ireland, too. I want us to continue to make that contribution.

The Presiding Officer:

Sit down, Mr Doris.

Photo of Ruth Davidson Ruth Davidson Conservative

There are people alive in the world today because Britain shoulders her share of the burden and because we act together. We are the second biggest giver of overseas aid on the planet. Children are saved by our immunisation programmes who would otherwise die. It is not that an independent Scotland would not give aid—of course, it would. However, it is precisely because of our size and scale that we are able to do more with what we have.

I know that I have talked of this before in the chamber, but I have never been prouder of my country than when, as a young journalist, I was sent to Kosovo to see the Black Watch and saw soldiers of my age and younger, who went to my school in Buckhaven and schools just like it, patrolling the streets, protecting schoolchildren from attack, clearing bombs and stopping bullets. The First Minister called our involvement in Kosovo “unpardonable folly”. He is entitled to that opinion. However, I know that the world is a safer place for Kosovars, ethnic Serbs and Albanians because of the servicemen and women of our country and because we have an integrated fighting force and the capability to act.

Photo of Ruth Davidson Ruth Davidson Conservative

Not at this time.

Even here at home our research and medical expertise reach far beyond our borders. Because of the UK’s support structure nine out of 10 women and eight out of 10 men are surviving skin cancer, which is in part thanks to the work that is being done at the University of Dundee—Scottish expertise, UK support, worldwide benefits.

Photo of Ruth Davidson Ruth Davidson Conservative

The world is a safer place because of our ability to act, and of course that ability must be used judiciously. There are people who are huddling on a mountainside in Iraq who have cause to thank us for using our troops to deliver them to safety. [Interruption.]

The Presiding Officer:

Order.

Photo of Ruth Davidson Ruth Davidson Conservative

There are people in Kosovo who would not be alive had we followed Alex Salmond’s advice on the situation.

That is how it should be—we are stronger, safer and better able to deliver because of Black Watch soldiers serving next to their Royal Welsh colleagues in Pristina, because of Department for International Development teams operating in Africa being run from East Kilbride and because of academics from across the UK conducting research in Scottish universities.

Labour migration is estimated to be up to 75 per cent higher because the UK is one country. The UK is four nations but a single state. I want a kid growing up in Birmingham who is good at science to decide that they want to work with the Dolly-the-sheep team. I want a student in Aberdeen to decide that London’s tech centre in Shoreditch is for them. At the moment, it does not matter whether you are Scottish, English, Welsh or Northern Irish, because people can go anywhere and do anything and all be equal under the union flag.

I am 35 years old. In those 35 years, I have never lived or worked anywhere other than Scotland. I love to travel, but I always know where home is. The Scotland that I know and love is part of the UK. Scotland has been shaped by the UK and it, in turn, has done the shaping.

Every UK success in the world is our success, too, because we built the UK and we have driven it. Britain did not colonise us; it does not oppress us. Britain only exists because of us. Leaving it would be to lose something and to see what is left behind become diminished, too.

I have heard the nationalists’ arguments and, while I do not agree with them, I respect them. In return, I ask that they see what I see. I see them asking us to vote for something less than we have. [Interruption.]

The Presiding Officer:

Order.

Photo of Ruth Davidson Ruth Davidson Conservative

I do not want something less. I want to be part of something bigger, to put all the strength and resource, imagination and infinite talent that we have in Scotland and to put that towards a common endeavour with our friends, neighbours, allies and countrymen in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The UK is ours; we built it. To leave it would be to lose something of ourselves and to leave behind less.

I move amendment S4M-10843.1.2, to insert after “within the UK”:

“is proud of the contribution that Scotland makes to the UK as well as the benefits that it receives; recognises the shared institutions that have grown and developed over time to the benefit of all nations in the UK and is committed to furthering these shared institutions;”.

The Presiding Officer:

If a member is not taking an intervention, I ask that other members sit down, please, and stop standing in the hope that they might do so.

Photo of Willie Rennie Willie Rennie Liberal Democrat

When I heard Ruth Davidson talk about her pride in being Scottish, I shared her pride. When I heard Scottish National Party members scoff at her claim about being Scottish, I was disgusted by their attitude. The SNP does not have a monopoly on being Scottish: I am as proud a Scot as its members are, and they should not deny that.

When I was 17, I became politically active. I did so because I was impatient for change. I wanted to tackle injustice and to make the world a better place. That drive is as strong today as it was 30 years ago. For me, liberalism was the answer; it still is.

I want to help all individuals achieve great things. I want people to be all that they can be and to fulfil their potential. When I shout, “Freedom!” that is not a cry for national freedom; rather, it is a cry for individual freedom. As my great Liberal forefathers would have said, our vision is for freedom from ignorance, poverty and conformity. That is why I support education from the early years and throughout life; that is why personal freedom is important, too—to live life as you wish as long as it does not impinge on someone else’s freedom.

As a Liberal, I believe in the outstanding power of the individual to do great things. Human nature is innately good, generous and open. That is why I have never warmed to nationalism, as I have always viewed its central philosophy as inward rather than outward looking. It divides rather than unites. I recognise that not all supporters of independence regard themselves as isolationists, but the effect and outcome of their desired destination feed that philosophy.

Of course Britain is not perfect, but it is not as imperfect as the nationalists would like people to believe. The fact that it is not perfect does not mean that I want to break it up and the fact that I want change does not mean that I want just any change that happens to come along.

There is a lot to be proud of in our United Kingdom, a lot that helps people to achieve great things. Let us take science and innovation. Even though Scottish universities form only one tenth of the UK university base, they get 13 per cent of UK funding against a population share of 8 per cent. That is 50 per cent more than elsewhere in the UK. That happens because of the combination of talent and access to that bigger pool of funding.

Photo of Alex Salmond Alex Salmond First Minister of Scotland, Leader, Scottish National Party

I struggled to understand the idea that liberalism was incompatible with wanting an independent Scotland. I could not understand that. I heard today that John Barrett, the former Liberal MP for Edinburgh West, is voting yes in the referendum—he has publicly announced that today. Is that not an indication that it is perfectly proper to be a loyal Liberal who avows liberalism and to support yes in the referendum?

Photo of Willie Rennie Willie Rennie Liberal Democrat

Members of our party are free to vote as they wish. We are not the strict party that the SNP seeks to be, driving out division and difference.

I respect John Barrett for who he is—[Interruption.]

The Presiding Officer:

Order.

Photo of Willie Rennie Willie Rennie Liberal Democrat

I wonder whether the First Minister agrees with John Barrett’s criticism of him, because I suspect that he does not. There is not necessarily unity on that.

Let us take energy. To achieve our ambitions for Scottish renewable energy, it makes sense to share the UK consumer base during development to advance renewables and keep energy bills lower.

Let us take food and drink. Scotland and Scottish businesses have been able to take good advantage of our natural food and drink products, to innovate and to add value to Scottish produce. The global network of 270 UK embassies, consulates and trade missions supports those businesses. In the past four years, UK exports have risen by 28 per cent to Brazil, by 55 per cent to India and by 115 per cent to China. Our ambition should be that those embassies step up their work for us to open doors to new markets, not close their doors to Scotland.

Let us take the single market, regulatory regime and currency that the First Minister refused to talk about. They mean that a business here in Edinburgh can trade across the UK with limited barriers. That trade is worth 270,000 jobs to Scotland.

Those examples speak to the United Kingdom as a great platform from which Scots can be all they can be.

I do not want a Scotland that retreats from other countries, cutting two thirds of our overseas representation just when there has never been a better time to promote Scottish excellence and businesses. I do not want a Scotland that cuts the opportunities for Scottish universities to keep the huge funding boost that they get from the UK at the moment when the 21st century western economies demand more innovation. I do not want a Scotland that shrinks our ambition on climate change with our great renewable energy developments just when the climate needs the whole world to rally round.

My ambition is to build on the 250,000 jobs that come from trade with the rest of the United Kingdom, to use that large network of embassies and to increase UK research funding, not cut it. That is our positive vision.

I simply do not accept that the maximum potential of people in Scotland can be achieved only if we create a separate nation. A no vote is a vote of confidence in the ability of Scots to be all that they can be and to aspire in the finest traditions of our nation, confident to be part of something bigger, with the global reach of 60 million people, within a UK economic base with broad shoulders, and proud to stand with the rest of the UK family, together. We are truly better together.

I move amendment S4M-10843.1.1, to insert after “both worlds for Scotland;”:

“applauds the ambition of the people of Scotland to reach their individual as well as collective potential in all spheres of life, building on the achievements of Scots over the last 300 years and recognises the array of additional opportunities that they each enjoy as a strong part of the UK family of nations;”.

The Presiding Officer:

We move to the open debate. I reiterate that we are extremely tight for time this afternoon. There is a distinct possibility that at least one member will not get to speak at all and we may have to cut some of the speeches by a couple of minutes.

Photo of Aileen McLeod Aileen McLeod Scottish National Party

I am delighted to speak in the debate and to set out the reasons why I want to see Scotland’s future decided by the people who live and work in Scotland. That can be assured only with a yes vote on 18 September.

Last weekend, like many in the chamber, I read with considerable interest the report in Sunday’s Observer that Professor Sir Tom Devine, one of Scotland’s outstanding public intellectuals, will vote yes in the independence referendum. The point is not simply that one of Scotland’s most internationally acclaimed academics has endorsed Scottish independence, important as that is. More significant are the reasons that he gave for reaching that decision. Professor Devine stated:

“It is the Scots who have succeeded most in preserving the British idea of fairness and compassion in terms of state support and intervention. Ironically, it is England, since the 1980s, which has embarked on a separate journey.”

In those short sentences, Professor Devine expressed exactly what an increasing number of Scottish voters, particularly among the undecided, know to be true—that if we are to continue to deliver, and to be able to deliver, policies that reflect our shared commitment to uphold the values of fairness, compassion and social justice, which have been at the very heart of public policy in Scotland for decades, we must choose independence over the status quo.

Nowhere are those values of fairness, compassion and social justice more in evidence than in Scotland’s national health service. Today, the Scottish NHS is publicly funded and delivered and its staff—the doctors, nurses and a vast array of trained support workers—work tirelessly to support the sick and vulnerable across our communities. There is no doubt in my mind, and there should be none in the minds of Scotland’s voters, that the only way of ensuring that Scotland’s NHS remains true to the founding principles that Nye Bevan set out all those years ago—that it should meet everyone’s needs, be free at the point of delivery and be based on clinical need and not the ability to pay—is to vote for independence.

Photo of Aileen McLeod Aileen McLeod Scottish National Party

As the First Minister made clear on Monday, those principles will not be mere aspirations or guidelines in an independent Scotland. Aspirations and guidelines are vulnerable to betrayal as political fashions change, as has clearly been, and remains, the case south of the border.

Photo of Aileen McLeod Aileen McLeod Scottish National Party

Instead, in an independent Scotland, we will seek to enshrine the NHS principles in a written constitution for an independent Scotland, thereby ensuring that no future Government can undermine what is a foundational building block of a fair and just society, and protecting future generations from the vagaries of neo-liberal political opportunism. [Interruption.]

Mr Findlay can laugh.

Photo of Ruth Davidson Ruth Davidson Conservative

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

Photo of Aileen McLeod Aileen McLeod Scottish National Party

On Tuesday, the health secretary set out the risks to Scotland’s NHS under the status quo.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

The member is not taking an intervention.

Photo of Aileen McLeod Aileen McLeod Scottish National Party

Of those risks, none is so great as the risk to the Scottish budget from the continual cuts imposed on public spending by the Tory and Liberal coalition Government—cuts that the Labour Party is committed to implementing should it be elected in the UK general election next May. As the health secretary also said, for every £10 that is cut by Westminster from spending on health and public services, £1 will be lost to Scotland’s budget for public spending on essential services, including health, here in Scotland.

Photo of Aileen McLeod Aileen McLeod Scottish National Party

Not just now.

Independence will ensure that Scotland’s finances are under the control of this Parliament and that the people of Scotland are thereby free to make their own choices about the quality of public services, including health services, that they want to have available for themselves and their fellow citizens now and in the future.

What is most extraordinary in this entire debate is the position of the Labour Party in Scotland. It seems that in every other part of these islands—in England and in Wales—we hear Labour politicians issuing dire warnings of the devastating impact that Tory-Liberal spending cuts and privatisation are having on the NHS in England and Wales. From Andy Burnham in Westminster to Mark Drakeford in Cardiff, the clarion calls have gone out to save the NHS from privatisation and cuts.

The irony is that in that regard I agree with the Labour Party in England and the Labour Party in Wales. Contrast those positions with that of the Labour Party in Scotland, where we find Labour campaigning hand in glove with its Tory and Liberal Democrat partners, which are the very parties wielding the public spending axe in Westminster, trying—

Photo of Aileen McLeod Aileen McLeod Scottish National Party

—to convince the Scottish public that Scotland’s NHS is safe inside the union. [Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Order. The member is in her last minute. [Interruption.] Order, please. I did not hear what Mr Findlay said. If it is in the Official Report, I will check it. Time spent discussing, jeering, interrupting—

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Mr Maxwell!

Any time spent doing that will be taken out of back-bench speeches.

Ms McLeod, please continue.

Photo of Aileen McLeod Aileen McLeod Scottish National Party

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

I do not buy that, and it is increasingly clear that a majority of Scottish voters are not about to be fooled into believing it either.

The message to the Scottish electorate is clear: if you want to protect Scotland’s NHS and public services from the privatisation and cuts coming from this and future UK Governments at Westminster, on 18 September you should vote for independence.

People across Scotland are waking up to the fact that voting yes on 18 September will give us the one opportunity to ensure that we protect our NHS. It is not only for this generation that a yes vote is so important. It is to secure for future generations an NHS that not only remains true to the principles that were set out by Nye Bevan all those years ago but in every respect is representative of the fundamental values of Scottish society.

I support the motion in the First Minister’s name.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Before we continue, I reiterate that I will not add any time on to members’ speeches to allow for interruptions. Unfortunately, speeches will probably now have to be reduced.

Photo of Lewis Macdonald Lewis Macdonald Labour

An independent Scotland, or a political, social, economic and currency union with our closest neighbours and friends: at the end of this campaign, it is a very simple choice, and it is a choice for the people of Scotland to make.

The campaign really is historic, because after 15 years of devolution we stand at a crossroads and the choice that we make will set the direction for future generations as well as our own. The decision of the Scottish people in 1997 to set up this Parliament was a decision that no future Government could overturn. The choice of either independence or union will be decided by the self-determination of the Scottish people and will be just as irreversible a decision.

Whatever we choose, there are tough challenges ahead. The world remains a dangerous place, divided and ill-divided. Finite resources must by definition come to an end, and competitive advantage must be won and won again in every generation.

Sir Ian Wood has had some important things to say on these issues this week, laid out in full in today’s Press and Journal. I first worked with Sir Ian when I was vice-chair of the Government oil and gas industry forum PILOT a decade ago, when he chaired the industry leadership team. Even at that time, his clear focus was on what more could be done to maximise the recovery of oil and gas from the North Sea.

Sir Ian Wood is happy to work with Governments of any party, as ministers well know. When he says that he cannot stand idly by while his words are misquoted in the referendum debate, we should all pay attention to what he actually says. Sir Ian Wood has never said that there are 24 billion barrels of oil equivalent waiting to be extracted from the UK continental shelf. His report says that there may be as little as 12 billion barrels, or as much as 24 billion barrels, but nothing is certain other than the scale of challenges to be overcome along the way.

Sir Ian Wood believes that, if Government implements all his recommendations for taxes, licensing and regulation and if the industry gets back to carrying out new exploration—it has largely ceased to do that—and finds a lot more oil and gas in future years, it might be able to produce between 15 billion and 16.5 billion barrels of oil equivalent over the next 40 years.

Photo of Lewis Macdonald Lewis Macdonald Labour

Not at the moment.

If that is done, future revenues for Government might come in at around £5 billion a year, as they did last year. That is £2 billion a year less than the Scottish National Party predicted, or a shortfall of around £370 a year for every man, woman and child living in Scotland.

Even more important than the numbers is what Sir Ian Wood has said about the impact of independence on that vital industry. Costs in the North Sea rose by 15 per cent last year and exploration in UK waters is at an all-time low. Stability and certainty going forward are critical to maximising economic recovery. In Sir Ian Wood’s view, a yes vote in the referendum

“would inevitably cause a significant loss of momentum over the next three or four years—a critical development period in maximising recovery of our reserves.”

None of the optimistic projections that he or anybody else has made will be realised unless we secure that certainty. That is why he chose to highlight the risks of a vote for Scottish independence.

A yes vote would not bring certainty and stability to the North Sea. Instead of a single fiscal, licensing and regulatory regime across the UK continental shelf, we would have one regime in Scottish waters and a different regime in the rest of the UK. That clearly has implications for employment in the sector, not least in Aberdeen, from where many companies operate their entire UK assets. It also means that much time and many millions of pounds would be spent disaggregating the assets and liabilities of companies that operate across the UK continental shelf, although that time urgently needs to be spent on creating a new approach to maximising recovery in the future.

It makes more sense for the offshore industry in Britain to stay together, and the same applies across the economy. The United Kingdom provides Scottish business with a home market of more than 60 million people. That would no longer be true in the event of independence.

The other day, I received a letter from Richard Lochhead, who wanted to talk to me about access to that home market for Aberdeenshire farmers. He said that they should not worry about losing preferential access in the event of a yes vote, because

“Britain is a geographical term”, so Scottish farmers could still describe what they grew as “Produce of Britain”. Britain is indeed the name of an island, but it is much more than that: it is also the name of a state, a culture and a country that we share with our closest neighbours and friends.

Those who work in Scotland’s food and drink sector have to make a choice, just like those who work in our oil economy and everyone else who has a vote next month. [Interruption.]

Photo of Lewis Macdonald Lewis Macdonald Labour

They have a choice to stay together, renew our union and seek to make it stronger and better in the years ahead or, alternatively, to listen to Mr Salmond and walk away. That is a choice not just for this generation, but for the generations to come. I look forward to the majority of the people of Scotland voting no next month.

Photo of Kenneth Gibson Kenneth Gibson Scottish National Party

Despite Alistair Darling’s refusal to admit during the recent televised debate that Scotland could be a successful independent nation, other prominent unionist politicians, including the Prime Minister, David Cameron, accept that it could be. How do we know that? We know that because David Cameron said so. He said:

“Supporters of independence will always be able to cite examples of small, independent and thriving economies across Europe such as Finland, Switzerland and Norway. It would be wrong to suggest that Scotland could not be another such successful, independent country.”

However, the Labour amendment seeks to leave out everything after the first “agrees” in the Scottish Government motion, including the first line, which says:

“agrees that Scotland is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, is rich in human talent and benefits from vast natural resources”.

Sadly, the other unionist amendments are in similar vein. I wonder what makes people so unable or unwilling to see the obvious positives in their own country. Do they not believe that we are rich in human talent? Why can they not acknowledge our vast natural resources?

Scotland is the 14th wealthiest nation in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and there is no doubt that it has a dynamic and successful economy, a highly skilled workforce, strong manufacturing, tourism, knowledge, and growing food and drink sectors. The most recent industry figures show that turnover in the Scottish food and drink sector alone reached £14 billion in 2012, which is a 40 per cent increase since 2007.

It is no wonder that, over the past five years, Scotland’s finances were stronger than the UK’s as a whole by £8.3 billion, or £1,600 per person. That is undoubtedly one of the reasons why the ratings agency Standard & Poor’s stated:

“Even excluding North Sea output ... Scotland would qualify for our highest economic assessment.”

Of course, it would be foolish to underplay the importance of our oil and gas resources, which is something that the doomsayers have strived to do since the no campaign began, and not least today. New discoveries in the Clair field suggest that there is plenty of life in Scotland’s oil and gas industry. As BBC news has pointed out,

“Oil industry experts have described it as a ‘monster’ field containing an estimated eight billion barrels of oil and some analysts believe oil produced there could see the Atlantic overtake the North Sea as the UK’s biggest oil-producing region.”

Only the no campaign would try to persuade Scotland that oil is a burden and that nuclear weapons, which, as Michael Heseltine admitted last week, have hindered exploration and exploitation of fossil fuels in the west, are an asset.

Why do we have some of the highest levels of child poverty in the western world? Why are working families relying on food hand-outs? Why is our state pension among the lowest in Europe relative to earnings? Why do people living in an oil, gas and renewables-rich nation suffer fuel poverty? Why have living standards fallen in each of the last five years and why will they not reach 2002 levels until 2009? It is because welfare, pensions, energy and defence policies are controlled by Westminster. To me, it is obvious that decisions that are made in Scotland for Scotland must surely be better for the people living here than decisions that are made elsewhere on our behalf.

Only with a yes vote can we ensure that Scotland’s wealth is placed in Scotland’s hands and used to improve our society. Only with a yes vote can we use the powers of independence to establish policies that are tailored to Scottish needs and create more opportunities for the people who live here, including the nearly 40,000 young people who feel the need to leave Scotland every year. With independence, Scotland would have access to Scottish taxes that currently flow to the Treasury and would cease to pay for Scottish members of Parliament and our share of running the House of Lords or Trident.

With independence, even relatively small changes could make a big difference. For example, according to aviation industry leaders, the abolition of air passenger duty would double the number of visitors to Scotland within five years, thereby greatly enhancing our international connectivity and bolstering our tourism industry and all the jobs that go along with it. The Scottish Government’s transformational childcare proposals would lead to increased participation in the labour market, which would further expand our economy.

The opportunity to make Scotland wealthier is, alone, an argument for Scotland to reassert itself as an independent nation. However, there are consequences of remaining shackled to Westminster. According to Oxfam, Britain’s five richest families are now worth more than the poorest 12 million people and, in the years ahead, welfare cuts will see more disabled people in Scotland losing disability benefits and more children pushed into poverty. Adam Smith said:

“No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.”

Canon Kenyon Wright outlined his concerns about the impact of a no vote in The Scotsman this week. He said:

“Don’t be fooled by the various vague promises of more devolution. The press called me the Godfather of Devolution. Well, ... I tell you this—the child has grown up and outgrown devolution, no matter how Max, for two reasons. Firstly, because it leaves crucial constitutional and economic areas to be decided by London. Secondly, because devolution is power by gift; or, perhaps, it is really power on loan, for gifts can’t be taken back. Power devolved is power retained.”

In yesterday’s Herald, Alan Taylor wrote:

“all the fresh, innovative, imaginative ideas have come from those eager for change. They are the ones who want to make a fairer, more equitable society and who have inspired people to become involved in the hope of making that happen. They have made an often selfless investment. The same cannot be said for many on the No side. What they want to do is protect what they have”

For those in the yes campaign, the referendum is not about protecting vested interests. It is about Scotland, our country and our people, being all that it and they can be. Colleagues, it is surely time that Scotland rejoined the family of independent nations and set about creating the better Scotland that we all wish to see. To do that, I urge everyone in our country to vote yes on 18 September.

Photo of Patrick Harvie Patrick Harvie Green

The First Minister began by saying that the referendum debate has re-energised Scottish politics, and I believe that that is true. As the First Minister said, there has been an outpouring of ideas and enthusiasm. Members on both sides of the debate have recognised the need to retain that energy and engagement after the vote. I believe that Scotland can be proud of the debate that has been taking place. What has re-energised Scottish politics has been not members of the Scottish Parliament debating here in the chamber, or other politicians and political parties, large or small, but the broad, creative, inclusive national debate that has been taking place in communities throughout Scotland. That is the debate of which Scotland can be proud.

As we think about how to retain that energy, engagement and creativity after the referendum, we can be clear about one thing: we will not achieve that if politicians on either side, whoever wins or loses, pull up the drawbridge and decide that they know what Scotland wants. The engagement has to continue in a participative sense, ensuring that all people feel able to shape Scotland’s future direction.

Some people have suggested that this debate will cut us off from one another in our communities and from friends and family south of the border. Nothing could be further from the truth. By bringing us more into connection with the question of power in our society, the debate is giving us the ability to build the kind of relationship that will be beneficial to all.

I spoke recently in London to Green colleagues and a range of Green Party and other activists from England and Wales. They are looking at the opportunity for democratic renewal throughout these islands that could come from Scottish independence. They are looking at the opportunity to question the existence and renewal of weapons of mass destruction on these islands that could come from Scottish independence. They are looking at the opportunity for a clean, renewable energy system that could come if Scotland ensured that we harnessed its renewable energy potential, not just for our needs but for export. There are opportunities, not just for Scots to make decisions about our domestic affairs but for a better relationship within these islands.

Whether there is a yes vote or a no vote, there will be a danger that politicians on the winning side will be triumphalist and decide that they know what is best. In the case of a no vote, that will be one flavour of devo max or another. I have friends and party colleagues who might vote no in the referendum, but none of them is voting no because they are signed up to one of the—in my view—slightly dubious versions of devo max that have come from the UK political parties, which seem to me to be designed not to transfer the ability to run different economic policy in Scotland but rather to transfer the responsibility for implementing the cuts that will come from ideological austerity economics south of the border.

I also have friends and colleagues who will vote yes in September—indeed, like me, most of my party colleagues will do so. We might be voting yes in sympathy with some of the elements in the famous 650 answers in the white paper, but we are not in sympathy with all of them. We will vote yes on the basis of a question. Every member in this chamber, and every voter in the country, will vote yes or no on the basis of the question that is printed in black and white on the ballot paper. Should Scotland be an independent country?

The ethos of participative engaging and re-engaging in political debate that we have enjoyed over the past few months would be undermined if the winning side in either scenario pulled up the drawbridge and said, “We know what to do next, on every question.” A mandate on issues that are currently reserved will be sought in 2016 if we are independent; it is not what is sought next month.

For example, the Greens will never agree with Governments, whether they are in Edinburgh or London, who simply want to secure the conditions in which to maximise oil and gas extraction, burning through the stuff ever faster. There is an absolute contradiction between the goal of extracting fossil fuels from the North Sea ever faster and the goal of keeping carbon fossil fuels out of the atmosphere, to which both Governments, north and south of the border, have committed.

We will never agree with the exposure of our economies, not just in Scotland but throughout the UK and in much of the western world, to the carbon bubble. A dramatically overvalued industry is sitting on reserves of four or five times more carbon than we can afford ever to burn. We need to break our reliance on the carbon bubble before it bursts.

I finish on a point on which I am sure that we can all agree—I certainly hope so. It is not so very long since we gathered in what used to be our temporary home, at the top of the Royal Mile, to mourn the passing of our friend Margo MacDonald and to hear of her call for us to treat one another as opponents, perhaps, but never enemies in this debate. In these last few weeks, every one of us has a responsibility to remember that, every day that we get out of bed and go into the communities that we represent in Scotland to continue the debate. We have a responsibility to remember it every day as we end our campaigning—to treat one another with respect and to have the debate in the spirit of friendship that Scotland deserves.

Photo of Joan McAlpine Joan McAlpine Scottish National Party

It is very telling that, in drafting their amendments, the better together parties could not find it in themselves to leave the first clause of the Government motion in place:

“That the Parliament agrees that Scotland is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, is rich in human talent and benefits from vast natural resources”.

Whatever their views on the constitution, I would have thought that we could all agree that Scotland is a wealthy country, that it is rich in talent and that it has vast natural resources. That statement is rooted in fact and is backed up by countless authorities, which colleagues have quoted.

On 2 February this year, the Financial Times said that Scotland is

“richer than the rest of the UK and in the top 20 countries globally in terms of GDP per head”.

Only yesterday, the world’s most eminent economist, the Nobel prize-winning Professor Jo Stiglitz, told Bloomberg that Scotland could be an independent country. I was also encouraged to hear Professor Stiglitz acknowledge the different directions that the Scottish and Westminster Governments were taking, in his view, in relation to social policy, with the Scottish Government having a far greater commitment to social democratic values and public services.

Professor Stiglitz’s book is called “The Price of Inequality”, so he knows what he is talking about. This is the best opportunity to address inequality—a yes vote is the best opportunity that we will ever have to address inequality. I want to talk in particular about the geographical inequality that pulls our young people out of Scotland, towards London and the south-east.

On several occasions, I have had the pleasure of speaking beside Dr Philippa Whitford, the consultant breast surgeon who is one of the most inspirational figures in the grassroots movement for yes that has brought our country alive in recent months. Philippa is one of a growing number of clinicians to speak out about the threat to the Scottish NHS from the privatisation agenda in England, which my colleague Aileen McLeod outlined. However, as Philippa speaks to full halls all over the country, she makes another striking point. Most of her patients are older women and, like any good doctor, she asks them what support they have at home to help them to recuperate from surgery. Far too often, they tell her that they have no support because their grown-up children have moved away—sometimes abroad, but more often to the south of England.

As the First Minister said, Scotland loses almost 40,000 young people every year, and they are our brightest and best. According to recent figures from the Office for National Statistics, Scotland has the best-educated population in Europe, in terms of not just the high proportion of people with degrees but the high number of people with good vocational qualifications. In an area that this Parliament fully controls—education—we have established ourselves as a world leader. However, in an area that we do not control—economic and fiscal policy—we are victims of our success in education, because we cannot provide the sort of jobs that those highly educated and ambitious young people want.

That is not a new trend. Professor Tom Devine, our most eminent historian—who, as my colleague Aileen McLeod said, has come out for yes, like so many other Scots—wrote in his book on the Scottish diaspora about the union dividend, which resulted in huge mass migration from Scotland.

Scotland was the only country among European countries of a similar size—Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Ireland—to have a falling population between 1950 and 2000. That trend has reversed under the present Government, but we need to do so much more because the outward migration of our young people is greater than in other parts of the UK. That is partly because of the pull of London: eight out of 10 new jobs in the private sector are created in London, and the sort of jobs that are being created in London are attracting our young people. London has 14 per cent more jobs in the top employment categories of managers, professionals and technical staff than Scotland. That imbalance has existed for many years.

Business research and development in the UK is concentrated in the east and south-east of England, a pattern that has held since at least 1990. Scotland has a very low business R and D spend of 0.5 per cent of GDP.

That explains why, despite being one of the richest countries in the world according to the Financial Times, Scotland is still losing its best talent and why, even in these better times when Scotland is doing relatively well economically—according to Ernst & Young, we are one of the best-performing areas for inward investment—we are still losing a high proportion of our young people to outward migration. We need the fiscal levers that are reserved to Westminster and the Scottish tax revenues that flow there to keep our most precious resources of all: the aspirational young Scots who leave in search of a better life.

The economist Margaret Cuthbert thinks that these things are only going to get worse. She says:

“The regional disparities” in the UK

“are not some short term phenomenon. Rather they are the result of the fast growing south, particularly London and the City, acting as a magnet for capital and labour from the other parts of the UK.”

Borrowing a rather more colourful phrase from the coalition’s business secretary, Vince Cable, I believe that London is “a giant suction machine”, swallowing up not just Scotland’s wealth but our future wealth creators.

That is why I am urging a yes vote. Independence is our greatest opportunity to combat the power of the “giant suction machine” that Mr Cable has so vividly described. We can do that in several ways, and over the past weeks and months we have outlined several plans for growth, including “Reindustrialising Scotland for the 21st Century: A Sustainable Industrial Strategy for a Modern, Independent Nation” and the jobs plan. By taking our economy and our future into our own hands, we can create a much better future for our young people and keep them here in Scotland.

Photo of Alex Rowley Alex Rowley Labour

As someone who came into this Parliament only in January—and under circumstances that I certainly did not want—I am delighted that we have reached this point. I will be even more delighted when we get to 19 September, regardless of the result, because we can then start to focus on what I came into this Parliament to do, which is to fight for the communities that I represent and a better Scotland. I have found it difficult to do that over the last period because, regardless of our views on the matter, the whole focus seems to have been on the referendum.

I have never had any problem with my identity: I was brought up—and have always been proud to be—a Fifer. I was brought up by my mum, who, although she did not have any label, could be fairly described as a socialist. She brought me up to believe that we had to fight for better opportunities for working people, that working people had never got anything for nothing and that we always had to fight for what we got. It would be fair to say that my mum was not keen on the Tories—and neither have I been.

That is my starting point in looking at the best way of moving forward with regard to this debate. Joan McAlpine talked about our talent going south, but what angers me and, I think, many people is seeing the masses of young people in Scotland—Scotland’s precious resource—not getting the opportunities. If we are talking about ambition for Scotland, our ambition must be to give every child, no matter what household or area they were born into, the opportunity to achieve their full potential. Surely the key objective that we must fight towards is the eradication of poverty and deprivation right across Scotland. We must be tough on poverty, and tough on the causes of poverty. However, when I look about me, I have to say that I have seen more direction, more policy and more political leadership with regard to tackling poverty and inequality and giving young people opportunities in the past two and a half years of a Labour administration in Fife than I have seen in the past seven years of the Government led by Alex Salmond.

For a start, we need to invest in housing. Surely every child has the right to a roof over their head, but over the past seven years the money that has come into local authorities for housing has been cut. We also need to focus on early intervention and family intervention. One of the first things that the Labour administration in Fife did two and a half years ago was redirect £8 million into family centres to focus on those in greatest need. We can either introduce populist policies that make us popular with everyone, or prioritise and direct resources at communities, schools and the areas that need them most—and that is what there has been a lack of.

When I think about the issue, I think about how we can best move forward and tackle the priorities. I conclude that the way to do that is to pool and share resources across the United Kingdom. We need a strong Scottish Parliament that uses the powers that we have. Another point that must be made is that I have yet to see the use of a range of powers that the Parliament has and which we could use to tackle inequality across Scotland.

Photo of Joan McAlpine Joan McAlpine Scottish National Party

The member talks about pooling resources across the United Kingdom. The UK welfare cuts will take £6 billion out of the Scottish welfare budget and will result in up to 100,000 children being plunged into poverty. How does he see that as a fair pooling of resources?

Photo of Alex Rowley Alex Rowley Labour

Under the previous Labour Government, more than 1 million pensioners were lifted out of poverty across the UK, and many of them were in Scotland. Under the previous Tory Government, pensioners had to choose between heating and eating, which is unacceptable. Under Labour, more than 200,000 children in Scotland were lifted out of poverty.

As a teenager, I was a shop steward in the National Union of Public Employees when that public sector union campaigned for a national minimum wage. I was told at that time—even by some trade unionists—that that would never happen, but it did happen, under a Labour Government.

We need a poverty strategy for Scotland. We must devolve powers to local government. We must look at this place again, because I am not convinced that it is working to create joined-up government that will tackle inequality and poverty. The best opportunity to tackle the big issues and give every youngster in Scotland the best chance in life comes from a strong Scottish Parliament that is focused on doing that as part of a strong United Kingdom.

I would describe myself as not just a socialist but an internationalist. At a time when we have many problems around the world, we need to look outwards, not inwards.

Photo of Stewart Maxwell Stewart Maxwell Scottish National Party

Four weeks from today, the people of Scotland will decide between two futures. We can vote no and accept the consequences of leaving our national health service in the hands of Westminster parties that are intent on cuts, austerity, health charges and the privatisation of our NHS. We will also have to accept the years of austerity and the damage to our cherished public services that will flow from the £25 billion of cuts that the UK Government will implement, irrespective of the party that forms that Government after the 2015 UK general election.

Alternatively, the people of Scotland can choose to vote yes and take Scotland’s future into Scotland’s hands. We can choose to protect our NHS from the market-driven ideology of the Westminster parties that is unpicking the NHS south of the border; we can choose to rid our country of the wasteful and immoral weapons of mass destruction that despoil it; we can choose to invest in transformational childcare policies for families across Scotland; and we can choose to have an education system that is based on the ability to learn and not the ability to pay.

I consider it a great privilege to be part of the historic events that are taking place in Scotland, but I know that some in the chamber would rather that none of this was taking place. They think that having a democratic debate and a passionate discussion about Scotland’s future and how we can create a better society is somehow a distraction—it is just a wee thing.

I challenge those members to recall any other time in recent memory when town and village halls have been filled with people wanting to re-engage with the democratic process and when talk of what we can do has replaced the depressing dirge of what we cannot do. That enthusiasm arises because the independence debate is opening up new possibilities about how we can create a fairer and more prosperous society and about how we can take Scotland’s vast wealth and make it work for the many and not just the few.

Photo of Johann Lamont Johann Lamont Labour

I am happy to concur with the member that this democratic debate has been exciting and energetic. Will he confirm that he will accept the result of the vote and that, if it is a no vote, he will make devolution work?

Photo of Stewart Maxwell Stewart Maxwell Scottish National Party

We have always said that we will accept the democratic decision of the Scottish people, and I am surprised that Johann Lamont has to ask yet again such a really rather silly question.

People feel a new-found sense of empowerment. They are waking up to the opportunities of independence and are realising that Scotland is not a poor country but in fact one of the wealthiest countries in the world. It is wealthier per head than countries such as France and Japan, and wealthier than the rest of the UK, but it does not feel that way, and it often does not look that way.

Those new-found feelings of opportunity, hope and ambition contrast sharply with the disempowerment and stagnation of the Westminster system. After all, that is a system that regularly imposes Tory Governments on Scotland without any democratic mandate from the Scottish people. Scotland’s future must be in Scotland’s hands.

Our Parliament has already shown that, where we have the power, we make the best decisions for Scotland, and nowhere is that more evident than in our education system. While we have adhered to the principle of access to education based on the ability to learn and not the ability to pay, Westminster is burdening English students with fees of up to £9,000 a year. A Sutton Trust report concluded that many students will still be repaying student loans into their 40s and 50s, and that some will never clear their debts.

However, having a bit of power over a bit of the system is akin to a boxer fighting with one hand tied behind his back. He might strike the odd blow, but ultimately he cannot win. Our lack of macro-economic power means that more than 700,000 Scots have emigrated in the past 10 years, including more than 30,000 young people a year. We need to ensure not only that we continue to be a world leader in education, but that the Scottish Parliament has the economic levers to create opportunities for our young people here at home in Scotland.

If people choose to travel the world to seek out new opportunities and experiences, that is absolutely fantastic, but if they are forced to leave, splitting up families because they can only find work elsewhere, that is a failure and a disgrace. Watching the grandchildren grow up via Skype is not the kind of future that I want for the families of Scotland.

The no campaign continually uses the negative language of splits and separation to describe the universally recognised normal state that others call independence, but the truth is that independence will provide us with the opportunities to keep families together. It will allow young people to choose to stay and work here in Scotland, near to their families, if that is what they want to do.

However, Westminster’s damage has extended beyond its failure to balance economic opportunities across the UK. The UK Government has made it increasingly difficult for international students to study here. Professor Wright of the University of Strathclyde said that UK Government policy on international students was “a disaster” that makes us “less competitive”.

International students contribute hundreds of millions of pounds to the economy every year, yet Westminster’s ideologically driven immigration policy is putting that at risk. To prevent further damage to our economy and to our higher education sector, Scotland needs a yes vote and the transfer of powers over immigration to the Scottish Parliament.

Every day, on doorsteps and in public meetings throughout Scotland, more and more people are waking up to the opportunities of independence.

Photo of John Scott John Scott Conservative

The member should draw to a close, please.

Photo of Stewart Maxwell Stewart Maxwell Scottish National Party

The referendum is about many things, but fundamentally it is about the desire to seize the opportunity of a lifetime; to choose between two futures that could not be more different; and to decide whether to leave our future in the hands of Westminster or to bring power over Scotland home to Scotland. That is no wee thing.

All three generations of my family are united in saying, “We choose hope over fear and we choose Scotland over Westminster, and on September 18 we choose yes.”

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Members have up to six minutes, as we are very tight for time.

Photo of Kenneth Macintosh Kenneth Macintosh Labour

There have been too many political funerals in the past year. I was saddened by Sam Galbraith’s death earlier this week. He was a combative politician, but he somehow managed to be both spiky and very likeable at the same time. His death got me thinking about how far we have travelled since those heady days of the new Scottish Parliament in 1999. We may recently have forgotten, but the early days and years of devolution were marked by a sense of common purpose and a willingness to work together.

The huge expansion of nursery education, the introduction of free personal care and the growing self-confidence that allowed us to ban smoking in public places are all products of devolution—not of independence, I note, but of devolution within the United Kingdom.

In fact, it struck me in passing—SNP backbenchers may find this hard to believe—that there was also a time when John Swinney, Nicola Sturgeon and their Cabinet colleagues were among the staunchest advocates of a strong Scottish Parliament holding a potentially overbearing Executive to account. How times change.

However, that train of thought took me, like Patrick Harvie, straight to the very moving celebration of Margo MacDonald’s life, and in particular to her parting message, which was read by her husband Jim Sillars, appealing for—whatever the result of the referendum in four weeks—divisions to end, and for us as a nation to seek unity of purpose. That is a message that I have taken comfort from in the face of the occasional bad-tempered spat or ill-judged intervention and—I admit—when struggling to contain my own frustration at what I often feel is the pointlessness of the offer that is before us.

What I have found even more encouraging is that underneath the froth of constitutional discussion, I can see common themes underpinning many of the contributions from both sides, and a meaningful, achievable political vision for Scotland around which we could coalesce post-September.

Those themes—ideas that support our building a modern progressive country—are echoed by voices from civic Scotland. For example, the Church of Scotland’s recent publication “Imagining Scotland’s Future: Our Vision” talks about the church’s commitment to ensuring that issues of social justice will be a focus for action after September, regardless of what happens. The Scottish Trades Union Congress in its “A Just Scotland” report similarly talks about the quality and the collective values of the labour and trade union movement. I thought that teachers’ union the Educational Institute of Scotland put it very well when it said that

“we are not ‘neutral’ ... we firmly believe that ... it is imperative that there emerges a strong sense of the type of Scotland we wish to live in, irrespective of the constitutional settlement.”

Photo of Kenneth Macintosh Kenneth Macintosh Labour

I will in a second, perhaps.

Many political observers have commented that the SNP has tried to reinvent itself over the past couple of decades as a party of the social democratic left. I have highlighted previously my misgivings that populism is as powerful a force within the SNP as genuine progressivism, but nonetheless the fact is that ministers feel obliged to use the language of progressive politics simply to ensure that their assertions on the constitution have a chance of being heard. Some contributions, such as the repeated and increasingly desperate attempts to trade on the legacy of Nye Bevan, are slightly cringeworthy, but they are a recognition of where both mainstream and majority political opinion lies in Scotland.

Even though the result of the 2011 election might not necessarily suggest it, most analysts viewed the Labour and SNP manifestos at the time as being remarkably similar documents. The point that I want to emphasise is that there is much in the way of common ground between Labour and the SNP.

Photo of Clare Adamson Clare Adamson Scottish National Party

I absolutely agree with Mr Macintosh that there is much in our history and experiences that binds us together. Indeed, I come from a very similar background to that of his colleague, Mr Rowley. Does it not concern Mr Macintosh that his colleague Roy Hattersley said on Radio 4 this week that he does not think that the Labour Governments of Blair and Brown had been real Labour Governments because when he now challenges the Tories about the consequences of soft-touch banking and the damaging welfare reforms, he is told that they were started under Labour Governments? The only chance for Labour values to be reflected in the governance of this country is through a yes vote for independence.

Photo of Kenneth Macintosh Kenneth Macintosh Labour

Unfortunately, despite my attempts, Clare Adamson has made a very small party-political point rather than rise to the constitutional debate that we are having today. I acknowledge that it is difficult to put political tribalism behind us, but I am appealing to the SNP to try to do so after 18 September. That will be difficult for members of the Labour Party, too, because many supporters and members of the party are cynical about the SNP’s commitment to progressive politics and see it simply as a means to an end: a nationalist vision for Scotland.

However, many of us across Scotland and across political parties are agreed on not just the necessity of reducing the inequality that divides our society, but on giving political importance and priority to reducing it. We agree on the priority that we need to give to promoting a sustainable economy, to decent jobs, to a more caring society, to supporting education not just as the route out of poverty, but as the route to genuine national prosperity, and to an emphasis on common wellbeing and not just on wealth.

Constitutional change is not a pre-requisite for agreeing to any of the above. In fact, I believe that it is clear to most Scots that not only do we not need independence in order to deliver progressive change, but that breaking away from the United Kingdom would positively damage our chances. Separation would threaten the very social solidarity that we are striving to build, and would create new divisions, rather than heal existing ones.

I think that we can unite in pursuit of a better Scotland, but let us not break up the NHS or give up our currency. We do not need independence to deliver childcare. Let us vote “No thanks” and deliver a better Scotland together.

Photo of Annabelle Ewing Annabelle Ewing Scottish National Party

It is an absolute privilege to have been called to speak in this key debate on Scotland’s future. What a momentous moment we have arrived at in our country, when in just four weeks we will have the one opportunity of a lifetime to decide what kind of country we want to live in and what kind of country we wish to build for future generations.

On Thursday 18 September we will, each of us, have the opportunity to make a choice between two futures: a Scotland that controls her vast resources and puts them to use to build a better, more prosperous and fairer country, or a Scotland whose decisions continue to be taken by out-of-touch Westminster Governments that we do not vote for, which place a ceiling on our ambitions and squander our resources. Aspiration to something better, or the same old same old from Westminster—that is the choice of two futures that faces all the people who live and work in Scotland on 18 September.

Many areas of importance to our daily lives have been discussed this afternoon. In the time that remains to me I, as a member of the Welfare Reform Committee, would like to direct my remarks to the important issue of welfare. What has emerged very clearly from the inception of the work of that committee over the past two years or so is that the welfare system that is, sad to say, still controlled by Westminster, is no longer fit for purpose, and is being dismantled before our very eyes, with the safety net that should be embodied in it being removed by stealth. What other conclusion could be reached by people—people at home, who have the notion of the common weal—when we look at the deeply damaging impacts of so-called welfare reform on individuals and families across Scotland?

Who could not feel diminished, as a human being, by Westminster policies that force people who have motor neurone disease to take in lodgers in order to avoid paying the bedroom tax, or that harass recently bereaved widows to leave their homes of many decades because the UK Government says that they have too many rooms? I see the Tory front bench laughing, as they did in the debate last week. I do not think that that is funny; I do not think that the lady who came to the Welfare Reform Committee to give evidence on that very issue thinks that it is funny.

Who could not feel diminished by Westminster’s work capability assessments—which were, of course, introduced by the previous Labour Government, with the help of Tony Blair’s friend the Tory Lord Freud, and which have been kept on by the Tories? Those assessments turn medical orthodoxies on their head by finding vulnerable ill people somehow fit for work and forcing them to go through hoops in efforts to maintain their health, their sanity and their dignity.

Who would not feel diminished by Westminster Government policies that will see more than 100,000 disabled Scots lose some or all of their disability benefits as a result of the roll-out of the new personal independence payment—a benefit that was introduced by the current UK Tory-Liberal Government and which Labour plans to keep?

Of course, a welfare system should have the objective of supporting people into work that is paid at a decent rate, but at the same time, who would wish to choose a society in which a bit of help is taken away from some of its most vulnerable members? That is the miserable, rotten place that we have reached under the union. For me, that is the unacceptable price that our most vulnerable members of society—our poorest members of society—are now paying for the union.

Scotland is wealthier per head than the UK, France and Japan, yet we have in the past year alone seen 22,387 children having to rely on food banks in order to eat. The country has vast resources both in human talent and natural resources, but if we stay on the Westminster path, we will see 100,000 more children being pushed into poverty by 2020.

It does not have to be that way; we cannot, each of us, in all conscience allow it to continue to be so. This is the opportunity of a lifetime—the opportunity to say that we want a decent society that has fairness at its heart. That is what voting yes means; that is what voting yes is about; and that is what voting yes will deliver for Scotland.

Photo of Baroness Annabel MacNicoll Goldie Baroness Annabel MacNicoll Goldie Conservative

This is an important day for this Parliament because, whatever the outcome of the referendum, this Parliament will change.

When we meet again in this chamber after 18 September, Scotland will have decided her future. Either she will have rejected the United Kingdom and endorsed separation, or she will have rejected separation and endorsed the United Kingdom. It is right that, in this place of all places, we mark today the magnitude of that decision by holding this debate.

It is important to be clear about what the referendum is not about. It is not about whether Scotland can be independent. It can be. It is not about whether we are doing down independence or talking up the union. It is quite simply about what is the better future for Scotland. It is not about whether one likes or dislikes Tories, Labour or the Lib Dems, however much some of the yes campaign might want to reduce it to that.

The referendum is certainly not about who is the better Scot or the bigger patriot. We all believe in our country, we all love our country and we are all fighting for what we believe is the best future for Scotland. Alex Salmond believes that separation is patriotic. I believe that partnership is patriotic. It is very importantly that the referendum is not a choice between independence and no change. David Cameron, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg have all committed to including more powers for the Scottish Parliament in their manifestos, and to delivering on that in Government. The Scottish Parliament will get more powers.

Photo of Jim Eadie Jim Eadie Scottish National Party

Baroness Goldie rightly says that the unionist parties have committed to saying that there shall be more powers for the Scottish Parliament—guaranteed. Can she tell us which ones and when?

Photo of Baroness Annabel MacNicoll Goldie Baroness Annabel MacNicoll Goldie Conservative

That will be very much down to the electorate, who will decide which party’s proposals they favour. The common theme from all of those politicians is that there will be more powers for this Parliament.

In the time that is allocated to me, I cannot deliver a forensic and lengthy dissertation on the merits, attributes, strengths, stability and security that are implicit within the partnership that is the United Kingdom, but I do not have to. The case for staying within the United Kingdom is so compelling and so self-evident that brevity is all that I need. It is a partnership of over 60 million friends and customers, working with each other for each other; a partnership with over 30 million people paying taxes and contributing jointly to our common good; and a partnership in which businesses, not least in the financial sector, can invest and operate freely because of a UK-wide system of regulation. It is a partnership that, in a global age, gives us a global reach, in the United Nations, the G7 and G8 groups of major powers and in the EU, which allows us to help those who are less fortunate; a partnership that, in an age of international uncertainty, gives us a strategic defence capability and a global diplomatic presence; and a partnership that has an established, proven and respected currency—the pound. In all of those are strength, stability and security.

Alex Salmond does not want that. He wants separation: an irrevocable and irreversible step. There are two certainties about Alex Salmond, and I am sorry that he is not here to hear this paean of praise. The first is his passion and enthusiasm for what he wants, and the second is his complete and utter inability to tell the rest of us what we will get. What will be our currency? He does not know. Will we have a central bank to support it? He does not know. When will we get into the European Union? He does not know. What conditions will be imposed on Scotland’s EU membership? He does not know. How will we pay the pensions of an increasingly ageing population? He does not know. How many thousands of defence jobs in Scotland will be lost? He does not know. What will be our credit rating? He does not know. What is the effect of our biggest trading partner becoming our biggest commercial competitor? He does not know. How will Scotland deal with a continuing budget deficit? He does not know. Will he cut expenditure or put up taxes or do both? He does not know. And, if it all goes belly-up, what will we do and who will we turn to? He does not know.

I have compared that gamble to being asked to put one’s life savings on a 100 to 1 outsider with a limp at the 3.30 at Ayr. Given the recent telling interventions from Sir Ian Wood and Dr Anna Gregor, the odds have just lengthened. I am not going to take a punt on Scotland’s future. On 18 September, I shall choose partnership and say no to separation. I shall choose mutual support and say no to severance. I shall choose union and say no to isolation. I shall choose certainty and say no to risk. I shall do that because I have the best of both worlds—I know that—and so do hundreds of thousands of voters the length and breadth of Scotland. On 18 September, united and together, we shall reject independence.

Photo of Rob Gibson Rob Gibson Scottish National Party

The choice today is between the hope and opportunity of independence and the austerity and indifference to Scottish needs that characterise so many policies of the unionist parties. How dare Scotland vote to end poverty and create a fairer nation for rural and urban Scots alike?

It was ever thus. When the radical young Robert Bontine Cunninghame Graham MP was arguing about Scottish home rule in the House of Commons in 1889, he suggested that the demand came not from any sentimental ground whatever, but

“from the extreme misery of a certain section of the Scottish population, and they wish to have their own Members under their own hands, in order to extort legislation from them suitable to relieve that misery.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 9 April 1889; Vol 335, c 97.]

In 2004, I commented that

“Over a century later that misery takes startlingly similar forms, such as lack of steady work, poor health, shortage of decent housing, serial misuse of our land and sea resources and yet more unwanted wars.”

Just yesterday, the poverty and social inclusion project confirmed that that misery continues. The director of Poverty Alliance, Peter Kelly, has said:

“It should not be the case that, in 21st century Scotland, one in four adults has skimped on their own food to ensure others in the household eat. The fact that 30,000 children in Scotland live in families who cannot afford to feed them properly is a national disgrace.”

Today, food banks are the mark of misery from Wick to Wigtownshire. That shows that fair sharing of our resources does not exist.

For example, half of rural Scotland is in the hands of about 430 people. In response, the land reform review group’s report “The Land of Scotland and the Common Good” shows how to end speculation on our land and how to put that land into the hands of our people in order to feed and house us and to sustain the nation. Land reform has progressed, in part, under devolution, but independence is needed if we are to control tax avoidance and property trusts that are based in tax havens, and we need tax powers to incentivise better land use. Those powers are conspicuously absent from the unionists’ list of “more powers” that will be transferred if we vote no. Westminster has never shown the slightest wish to relinquish tax powers that are fundamental to our most basic needs and resources.

What about food production? The scandal of the common agricultural policy settlement that was brokered by the UK in Europe shows how limited Scotland’s devolved powers are. Scotland gets a lower average rate of subsidy per hectare than any other member state in Europe, and a lower rate than the rest of the UK itself gets in basic payments. The same goes for rural development. Scots farmers and crofters will lose €1 billion before 2020 because we are not at the top table.

Despite that, under the SNP Government, Scotland’s food and drink sector has produced the third-highest per capita output in Europe, with only Iceland and Ireland ahead of us. With independence, we can fully promote our food and drink overseas and properly resource export certificates, unlike the UK’s dilatory bureaucracy.

Clean energy is key for rural and island Scotland, and our renewables already meet almost half of Scotland’s electricity demand. Our output has more than doubled since 2007 and the aim is to banish fuel poverty, which is one of the three major markers of deprivation, and which is hitting old rural housing hardest. The renewables industry has wide general public support. Despite the scare stories of the better together campaign, between January 2010 and April 2013 the industry announced £13.1 billion of investment promising 9,100 renewables jobs across Scotland. That will benefit local contractors, shops and hotels and will build our economic resilience.

Westminster, unlike the Scottish Government, is gung-ho for fracking and offers a huge support package for new nuclear power at Hinkley Point. With a no vote, would it try to dump the waste in Scotland?

With Scotland’s energy wealth, consumers should not face rising prices, the misery of fuel poverty and the risk that our renewable energy ambitions will be thwarted. We need a smoothly functioning energy market. We need Westminster to listen to and join with us, rather than to ignore us. Underinvestment in energy generation over decades has led to a looming security-of-supply crisis, most of all in England. Off the shores of my constituency in the Pentland Firth we have infinite tidal power. That is the symbol of opportunity compared with the lack of ambition in Westminster.

Let us turn these days of hope into years of opportunity with a tidal wave of yes votes. It is an honour to support the First Minister’s motion.

Photo of Margaret McCulloch Margaret McCulloch Labour

The decision that we make in just a few weeks’ time has been described as the biggest political decision for Scotland in 300 years. It is indeed the opportunity of a lifetime; it is our opportunity to settle this constitutional question once and for all.

As has been said, between now and polling day, my Labour colleagues and I will campaign for a no vote because we believe that we achieve more when we pull together. When the votes are counted and the results are declared, we will accept the judgment of the people of Scotland, whatever they have decided. I hope that others will respect the people’s judgment, too, even if the vote does not go their way next month.

When we say that the referendum is a big decision, that is not just because of the ramifications that it may have, whatever the final result, but because of what the turnout levels might be. The press have quoted estimated turnout levels of 80 per cent. We have to go back to the 1950s to find a turnout figure that has exceeded 80 per cent in a general election. I will not predict what the level of voter participation might be but, like most people, I expect turnout to surpass the previous general election’s figures, even if it does not match the most optimistic estimates.

The operation that we are expecting on the day and overnight, as well as the operation that we are seeing to get people registered and to manage postal votes in all Scotland’s 32 local authorities is unprecedented. The size of the operation, the scale of the decision and the nationwide effort to ensure that the people of Scotland have their say reinforces that basic point.

It is not a majority in this Parliament that will determine the outcome of the referendum; rather, that will be determined by a majority in the country. On 18 September, the future of Scotland is in the hands of Scotland’s people. We have a choice. Much of the debate has, understandably, been an attempt by politicians to frame that choice for people. The purpose of a political campaign—this is also part of politicians’ unwritten job description—is to persuade and convince, to make people see how our beliefs and priorities lead us to approach decisions in different ways and come to different conclusions.

As others have done, I will set out what the choice is about on 18 September. We could vote as the Scottish Government wishes, but what we would gain from independence must be balanced against the new pressures that we would face, the uncertainties that would remain and what we would lose from leaving the UK. Alternatively, we could democratically decide as a nation to share power with the UK—a union in which we have representation; a union that is becoming less centralised and more flexible while still retaining its essential strength.

We have a strong Parliament in Scotland—it is growing stronger—and we are part of something bigger. We have a resilient economy with oil and gas, whisky and renewables, and we have an integrated market with the rest of the UK, where we sell more goods and services than we do in the rest of the world. We have sweeping powers over economic development and planning and we are part of one of the world’s largest economies with a stable currency and the Bank of England behind us.

What we have is not perfect; neither is what is on offer in the white paper. However, in constitutional terms, we have the best of both worlds and the best of both worlds is best for Scotland.

Most people who are making their minds up about the referendum next month want to do what is best for their community, their family and the country. The Labour amendment makes clear what we believe is best for Scotland, but that is for the people to decide. I trust the people’s judgment; whatever the decision—yes or no—when Parliament reconvenes next month, we must respect that decision and make it work.

Photo of Bruce Crawford Bruce Crawford Scottish National Party

Like others, I find it a privilege to be asked to speak in this final debate in the Scottish Parliament before the people of Scotland decide our future in just four short weeks’ time.

It has been a long campaign since the signing of the Edinburgh agreement—which signed us all up to respect the result, by the way—in October 2012, but now we enter the end phase. Colleagues and friends I have spoken to across the political divide have expressed a range of emotions and experiences.

I can truly state that it has been the most rewarding and liberating campaign that I have ever been involved in. To have had the chance at this remarkable time in Scottish history to discuss with many thousands of people the opportunities for my country’s future has been a hugely uplifting experience.

That feeling has been shared by many in the yes campaign teams across the country. New and enduring friendships have been forged with people who have never before been politically active. People’s lives have literally been turned around, as a woman who has become an important campaigner as part of the Stirling yes campaign told me last week. The campaign has provided her with a new positive focus in her life and given her an injection of new energy that she thought she would never see.

That has happened only because she and countless others have been involved in a campaign that has tried hard to be relentlessly positive about the opportunity that independence brings for Scotland. It is a campaign centred on hope, aspiration and being all that we can be while giving Scotland the opportunity to make her own mark on the world stage. It is a campaign of which, incidentally, I am incredibly proud.

Two small words sum up best why I want Scotland to become an independent country: dignity and respect. I want the opportunity to be able to decide our own future with the security and dignity that being in control of our own lives brings. I also want to ensure that our people have the chance to live in dignity and that our children do not have to live a life of poverty.

It is an unfortunate fact that, no matter who people in Scotland have voted for at Westminster, the gap between the rich and the poor has only become larger. Figures from organisations such as the Child Poverty Action Group tell us that, as a result of Westminster policies, we can expect another 100,000 children to be in poverty by 2020.

That is not acceptable in modern-day Scotland. We are a rich country—I know of no one who now seriously doubts it—but we have been warned what to expect if we stay on the current course. The people of Scotland are waking up to the fact that independence provides them with the opportunity of a lifetime to change the structure of how we are governed and create a better and fairer future for all our people.

Of course we will make mistakes, but they will be our mistakes and we will have the dignity of putting them right for ourselves. Yes, we will need to face up to the real challenges that independence will bring, but we will do that with the dignity of being able to tackle those challenges using our people’s undoubted skills, intelligence and ability.

The dignity of being normal is all that I seek.

The respect that Scotland has on the world stage matters very deeply to me and goes to the core of why I think that it is hugely important that Scotland chooses to vote yes. A yes vote will make me very happy, but the respect that we will gain from having a constitution for Scotland that outlaws weapons of mass destruction from our land is what I seek most. Providing Scotland—and, indeed, the rest the UK—with the opportunity to press the restart button on the obscenity of nuclear weapons is, on its own, reason enough for me to want independence.

The debate on whether Trident should remain on the Clyde has tended to centre on the cost, the economy and its effectiveness or otherwise as a deterrent. Yes, the cost of renewing Trident is truly abhorrent at £100 billion, and more and more significant military experts question its strategic relevance in today’s world but, for me, the debate goes way beyond those parameters. I want the respect of living in a normal country, because not having nuclear weapons is the normal condition of the overwhelming majority of the world’s countries. I want Scotland to be respected and not feared, as the UK is, through the politics of power and domination and through hanging on to the last vestiges of its imperial past.

This is Scotland’s one opportunity to gain respect by building an alternative future as a co-operator and a peacemaker, promoting international law and social justice. This new beginning is the one opportunity for Scotland to be a beacon of hope for a world that so desperately needs it, given the conflicts all over the world—

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

Will you draw to a close, please?

Photo of Bruce Crawford Bruce Crawford Scottish National Party

—in Syria, Iraq, Gaza and Israel, Ukraine, Somalia, Afghanistan, Libya, west Pakistan and Sudan. The list goes on and on. I say to Alex Rowley and others who have made accusations that this is not isolationism but internationalism in action.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

You must close, please.

Photo of Bruce Crawford Bruce Crawford Scottish National Party

In conclusion, I say that I want the respect of living in a normal country without weapons of mass destruction. That is what I seek, and a yes vote is Scotland’s one opportunity to achieve that, by putting Scotland future in Scotland’s hands.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

I call Bob Doris, who has up to three minutes. We will then move on to the closing speeches.

Photo of Bob Doris Bob Doris Scottish National Party

Thank you for finding the time, Presiding Officer. I know that time has been tight in the debate.

I became politically active when I was 17 years old because of a UK Tory Government that Scotland did not elect, that was not accountable to Scotland and that did not represent the values of the people of Scotland. I am now 41 years old and I see another UK Tory Government wreaking havoc in the communities that I represent. That is a fundamental reason why I want a yes vote.

I get sick and tired of hearing misty-eyed romanticism about the UK. That does not exist in the towns, cities and villages across Scotland, but let me tell members what does exist there. Food banks exist in the towns, cities and villages across Scotland. Men, women and children are going to food banks because of the £6 billion of UK welfare reforms in the past five years. I know individual female constituents who are now unemployed because of reforms to the tax credit system. Working poor are now benefit-dependent poor.

I also know individual constituents who are among the 100,000 adults with disabilities who are being targeted by the current UK Government and are, to be frank, terrified that the abandonment of disability living allowance and the move to personal independence payments and the roll-out of universal credit will leave them much poorer. I know families whose kids have been pushed into poverty because of UK tax credit reforms for children. No member in the chamber should give me misty-eyed romanticism about the UK, because it did not exist then and it does not exist now. We want a better future for the people of Scotland.

In the minute or so that I have left, I will make some suggestions. One is to increase the minimum wage by at least inflation every year. The poorest workers would have been £600 better off in the past five years had a UK Government done that. Another is to abolish the roll-out of PIP, which is a commitment that this Scottish Government has given. Another is a root-and-branch review of benefit sanctions that are targeting the most vulnerable in society. That would happen with a yes vote.

Another is to uprate carers allowance in line with jobseekers allowance so that the weakest people in society can benefit. Another is to make the tax system fairer, particularly for women, with an earnings disregard that would allow women to earn more money before benefits started to be clawed back. Those are real equality measures.

Do you know something, Presiding Officer? It kind of does not matter whether any member in the chamber agrees with any of the suggestions that I make. The people of Scotland will decide, in the first election after Scotland votes for Scottish independence, how we make society fairer and more socially just. However, one thing is for sure. That can happen only by bringing democracy back to this country and only with a yes vote.

The Deputy Presiding Officer:

We move to the closing speeches.

Photo of Willie Rennie Willie Rennie Liberal Democrat

It has been, in parts, a half-decent debate, although perhaps not one fitting to the historic moment, given the decision that we will face in a few weeks’ time.

Bruce Crawford started off by saying that he is trying hard to be relentlessly positive in this campaign. He must not have been speaking to Aileen McLeod, Joan McAlpine, Kenneth Gibson, Rob Gibson, Annabelle Ewing or even Bob Doris, who sometimes tries to be positive.

One would think from the speeches today that there was nothing good about the UK. I have already said that the UK is not perfect, but it is not as imperfect as SNP members sometimes want us to believe.

We have heard about the creation of the trusted and respected BBC. The national health service, whose budget has expanded every year since its creation—spending on the NHS as a share of our national income has doubled in the past 50 years—has now been judged the best in the world by the Commonwealth Fund. The welfare state is worth billions, even though it goes through substantial changes. We had the defeat of Nazi Germany. The state pension has grown by £800 since 2010 thanks to the triple lock.

The UK is seen as a force for good around the world. We hold tremendous soft power. We were judged the greatest soft power in the world by a specialist magazine that covers global affairs. As a family of nations, we are using that to tackle gender-based violence, to campaign against the death penalty, to fight for religious and sexual freedom, and to champion the rule of law. Together we have the second largest aid budget in the world. For a relatively small country that is a great achievement.

Those are things that we can all be proud of and factors that the nationalists omit as they seek to break up the United Kingdom.

Photo of Dave Thompson Dave Thompson Scottish National Party

Has Willie Rennie spoken recently to Alan MacRae, the Lib Dem candidate who stood against me in 2011, or Dr Michael Foxley, the erstwhile Lib Dem leader of Highland Council? They would not classify themselves as nationalists, as Mr Rennie says, but both have decided to vote yes.

Photo of Willie Rennie Willie Rennie Liberal Democrat

Dave Thompson obviously was not here earlier. Unlike the nationalists, we tolerate difference and respect people’s different views. The SNP could learn one or two things from that.

Of course we want the United Kingdom to change. I favour home rule in a federal UK, which is the basis of our plan for more powers, published by Sir Ming Campbell. People know that there is something missing from this Parliament. If we want to do something different, sometimes we cannot because we do not have the necessary financial power. Our plan sets out proposals for the Scottish Parliament to raise the majority of the money that it spends, through the transfer of income tax, inheritance tax and capital gains tax, as well as the proceeds from corporation tax.

That means that if we want to cut taxes for those on low and middle incomes, as we have done at Westminster, that can happen. If we want to increase childcare, which the SNP members resisted for so long but which we have made progress on, we can raise the money to pay for it if that is required. If we want to do something different in our domestic affairs, Holyrood will have the power to do so.

Of course people need to vote no next month to see further development of devolution, which has been widely praised. If they vote no, they need to know that more powers will be on the way. The beauty of those proposals is that we have the broad shoulders and the strength of the United Kingdom behind us, to ensure that we can continue to make devolution the great success that it has been since its creation. People have security about that because Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have committed absolutely to different but substantial change. That is definitely on the way.

I genuinely admire the nationalists’ passion for their cause of national independence. What I regret is that their passion drives them rarely to question the consequences of their plans. What will be the hit on public spending from the first six years of the policy to cut corporation tax for big business? How will we get the correct balance in our armed forces, and from where will the security for Scotland come while we are waiting? How will we tackle the £6 billion black hole identified by the Institute for Fiscal Studies? From where will the promised £2.5 billion of extra money for welfare come? It was not identified in the white paper, and if it is not in the white paper, it does not count.

What services will be cut if the oil revenues are not as wildly optimistic as the nationalists claim they will be? Most fundamental of all, what will the currency be?

Members: The pound.

The Scottish Government reads out a list of options for the currency.

Photo of Tricia Marwick Tricia Marwick None

Order. Willie Rennie is in his last 30 seconds.

Photo of Willie Rennie Willie Rennie Liberal Democrat

One minute, all the options are ruled in; the next, they are all ruled out. We need clarity on that issue.

If we do not get clarity on all those fundamentally important questions for the future of our country—I have the interests of this country as much at heart as the SNP does—and if the SNP is to have any hope of anywhere near a respectable result, it needs to answer those questions so that people have the knowledge, the truth and the facts when they go to vote on 18 September.

Photo of Gavin Brown Gavin Brown Conservative

The nationalist case is not just that we would be a successful independent country; the case that the Scottish Government is campaigning on is that we would be a country that is wealthier than the rest of the UK. That is what it is putting forward to the people of Scotland. It claims that we will be £5 billion—£1,000 per head—a year better off and, as a consequence of that, it is able to put forward the policies that it does.

It is time for a bit of realism from the Scottish Government, because the independent economists and analysts say that it is likely that we would be financially worse off as an independent Scotland and poorer than we would be if we were to remain part of the United Kingdom. Analysts will say that we would begin life in 2016-17 in a weaker financial position, and that that would become more challenging as time moves on.

That is probably why the white paper has figures for a single year only. If a business goes to a bank wanting to borrow £1,000, it has to show a five-year business plan, but the Scottish Government thinks that it is acceptable to put forward one year’s figures when it is deciding to separate and break up a 300-year union.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies was very clear. It thought that the deficit that we would face would be 5.2 per cent of gross domestic product. On the other hand, the Scottish Government claims that our deficit would be 2.4 per cent, potentially up to 2.8 per cent. If the IFS is right—and most economists agree with it—we would need to have greater austerity in an independent Scotland than we would as part of the United Kingdom, regardless of who was in power at Westminster and here. The IFS said:

“the main conclusion of our analysis is that a significant further fiscal tightening would be required in Scotland, on top of that already announced by the UK government, in order to put Scotland’s long-term public finances onto a sustainable footing.”

The Scottish Government has managed to give the impression that we would be richer by doing two things. The first has been by looking back into the past and talking about what would have happened five or 10 years ago instead of talking about what will happen in 2016, were we to be independent. The second thing that it has done is to assume that we could have only a high oil price and production scenario, which is a completely false prospectus. Anyone anywhere knows that that is very unlikely to happen year in, year out.

In its financial paper, instead of looking at what it thought the finances would be, the Scottish Government’s starting point was, “We have to show that we would be better off than the rest of the UK.” It then put in the figures to try to prove that that would be the case. The only figures in its financial paper assume what it calls scenario 4 for oil. It discards any other potential scenario for oil. In its paper, of course, it makes it look as though we would be better off and that we would have more money to spend, but that works only if we pull in £7 billion in oil revenues in year 1, £7.3 billion in year 2, and £7 billion after that. That was the question that Lewis Macdonald put to the First Minister during his opening remarks—what would the tax revenues from oil be like? The First Minister spent two minutes responding to the question on oil revenues, but he did not come anywhere near answering it.

Nobody out there—not a single person—agrees with Alex Salmond’s figures on future revenues from oil.

Photo of Gavin Brown Gavin Brown Conservative

The First Minister would not give way to me, but I will gladly give way to him.

Photo of Alex Salmond Alex Salmond First Minister of Scotland, Leader, Scottish National Party

Sir Donald MacKay, who spent 25 years as an adviser to successive secretaries of state for Scotland, agrees with the Scottish Government’s oil forecast. [Applause.]

Photo of Gavin Brown Gavin Brown Conservative

I do not know why members are clapping. It is clear that Mr Salmond has not even read the three-page letter from Sir Donald MacKay because, on his central scenario—I can see that Lewis Macdonald knows what I am going to say—he is almost £1 billion out from the Scottish Government in year 1 and almost £1 billion out from the Scottish Government in year 2. Even the person whom the First Minister quotes in his support does not agree with him on the figures for the first and second year of so-called independence.

If Sir Donald MacKay is right, we will suddenly have to find an extra £1 billion from somewhere, but what if Sir Ian Wood is right, and we are £2 billion out for each of the first five years of separation? Suddenly, there will be an extra £10 billion to be found. What about if the other economists are right, too? There will be billions to be found.

Independent analysts show that we would be slightly poorer financially were we to separate. If that is the case, there will not be the money to fund the tax cuts that the SNP says that it will bring in, or for the extra pensions, the extra welfare, the childcare or the protection of the NHS, and there certainly will not be money to put aside for an oil fund.

Photo of Drew Smith Drew Smith Labour

The debate marks the final consideration of the issue by the Scottish Parliament, but neither I, the Deputy First Minister nor any other member will have the last word on the question because, rightly, the decision is now a matter for the people of Scotland. Self-determination is their right, and they will decide whether Scotland leaves the United Kingdom or whether we continue devolution within the United Kingdom. When we next meet, their answer will be known and all will be bound by their decision, with a responsibility to make their choice work.

We in the Labour Party believe that the Scottish Government has failed to make a compelling economic, social or political case for ending our partnership with the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Our view is the minority one in the Parliament, but I believe that it will be the majority wish of Scotland’s people. When the old Scots Parliament, to which the First Minister is fond of referring, decided for union some 300 years ago, ordinary Scots were not asked. The course of history was set by Scottish men, untroubled by the people’s will. Today, this democratic Parliament, a modern institution that was created in a spirit of hope and progress, calls for the people to decide their own future.

I believe that a no vote will represent a decision to democratically join Britain and to continue devolution. It will send a message to the rest of the UK that Scots want and choose to work with our closest neighbours and friends for the benefit of all our people. Scotland will never be the same again, whatever the result, and Britain will be forever changed, too. With Scotland as a committed member of the United Kingdom, we will all be bound to put forward our political arguments in that spirit, and that will be a healthy thing.

The long campaign that has already run has re-energised my party in our belief in an idea that is bigger than independence. It involves the pooling and sharing of resources across the UK; a strong Scottish Parliament that is backed up by the strength and security of partnership; and social progress and change here in Scotland and across the UK. That remains an idea and an ideal that is worthy of the Labour movement.

The campaign has been a long one. Throughout 300 years of union, voices have been raised for repeal. All my life, this question has been the dividing line of Scottish politics. For some on the other side, it has been a motivation that has driven lifelong political activism. Over the past seven years, Government has in our view been on pause but, in the SNP’s view, it has been preparing for the next four weeks and for the day when Scotland will decide its future.

We on this side of the chamber can acknowledge the achievement of nationalists in getting to this point, even if they have failed to convince us of their case. We will all welcome an answer to the question, and we are committed to putting this Parliament back to work in the nation’s interest, whatever the result.

I hope that the debate that will continue, not in the Scottish Parliament but in the homes, schools and workplaces of Scotland, will be worthy of us all. The Government motion makes, by and large, familiar arguments. After all, independence was the nationalists’ answer when the great Labour Government of 1945 was building our welfare state. It was their answer when the previous Labour Government created this Parliament and embarked on its quest to tackle child poverty and build a fairer economy. It was their answer when the banks were booming and when the banks went bust. Today we heard little that is new. We heard the same arguments, which have been rehearsed over so many decades but are soon to be settled.

Our questions have been consistent throughout two and a half years of campaigning. How is the enormous risk to our public finances, which independent experts have identified, to be managed? How do the admirable ideas about a better society, to which we should all aspire, square against corporation tax cuts and the creation of competition on this island, which will inevitably lead to a race to the bottom, for Scots and our neighbours? What are the set-up costs? What will be the cost of renegotiated European Union membership? How can it be that postal voting will begin in just days but a party that has campaigned for an independent Scottish state for nearly 90 years cannot tell us what its plan is if a currency union, which is not in the SNP’s gift, is not agreed to?

What is the principle behind breaking up so many of our institutions and starting afresh, when there is so little evidence that people’s hopes and aspirations in life differ greatly on either side of the Tweed? Are Englishmen and Scots really so different that no form of Government between our nations can be made to work? Are our values so different from those of the Welsh that they preclude any adjustment of our partnership such that we can continue to live together under different devolved Governments but within one union? Is the desire of people in Belfast for recognition of national differences so far removed from the sense of identity of Glaswegians, Highlanders, Borderers and Aberdonians that we cannot share citizenship in a United Kingdom?

I acknowledge the right of nationalists to put the case that nationhood must be demonstrated by independence. I even accept that some nationalists will carry on making that case even if the nation tells them that it does not agree. I also acknowledge that not everyone who is arguing for a yes vote is a nationalist. I hope that many of those people will put the enthusiasm that they have found in this debate back into the mundane old world away from constitutional politics—those questions of decent housing, fair pay and the chance to better our lives and those of those around us.

A positive choice to work together is the best option for Scotland. The existence and extension of devolution mean that Scotland can have the best of both worlds. The struggle to make Britain better governed and a better place to live is a bigger idea than the idea of withdrawing into ourselves. To say that the Tories can never be defeated is the politics of despair, just as to say that Tories do not and will not exist in Scotland is conceit.

Time is running out in the debate and in the campaign. For many months we have heard the Scottish Government make the case for freedom, armed with focus groups, unhearing of those who do not agree with it. The challenge for us all over the next four weeks is to put the case as well as it deserves to be put, for tomorrow’s generation, so that when today is history they will be able to discern the honest disagreement that there was among us and understand the decision that we took.

Malcolm Chisholm mentioned the national health service. Labour has a special attachment to the national health service. It is Labour’s greatest achievement in office and our biggest task is always to defend it. However, the NHS does not belong just to the Labour Party; it belongs to people throughout Britain. Devolution allows us to steer our own course, but the ideals of the NHS are burned deeply in our sense of who we are whether the service is administered from Cardiff, Belfast, London or Edinburgh.

There are ideals on either side of the debate, and to pretend, when all the arguments for independence have fallen away, that the cause is somehow the defence of our national health service is to cheapen the value that is placed on Britain’s greatest achievements, across the nations of the UK. Indeed, it is to dishonour the genuine and heartfelt arguments that nationalists have made for an independent Scotland over many decades.

The Presiding Officer:

You need to start winding up, Mr Smith.

Photo of Drew Smith Drew Smith Labour

I hope and believe that Scotland will choose partnership over disunion on 18 September, and I hope that that is done on the basis of an honest evaluation of the merits of the arguments. We covet, as much as any member on the other side covets the prize of independence, the prize of returning this modern institution of men and women to the work that it was created to do, ending grievance and enabling a new politics in Scotland to flourish at last. I urge the Scottish Parliament to support the amendment in the name of Johann Lamont.

Photo of Nicola Sturgeon Nicola Sturgeon Scottish National Party

Ken Macintosh started his speech with a reference to the late Sam Galbraith and I want to end the debate today—on behalf of all of us, I am sure—by paying tribute to Sam Galbraith. In the early years of the Parliament, I shadowed Sam Galbraith in his role as education minister. It is fair to say that I learned a thing or two about the art of politics from him. He would have been on a different side of the debate from me but, had he been here today, he would have injected into the debate wit, spirit and a good old dose of straight talking. Those are characteristics that we will all miss, and our condolences are with his family. [Applause.]

It is a real privilege to make the last speech in the last debate in this Parliament before the referendum—before our once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to put the future of our country exactly where the future of our country should be: in the hands of the people who live here.

Today marks the day that the debate formally moves out of the chamber to the doorsteps, the streets, the communities and the workplaces of our country. I say “formally” because, in truth, that is where the debate has always been.

I have been active in politics for 28 years now and—as others have said—I have, for all my life, never known a more vibrant, engaged, enthused and informed debate than the one that we are having right now. This week alone, I have attended public meetings with combined audiences of nearly 3,000 people: people crammed into village halls, church halls and school halls, actively imagining what a better Scotland could look like. We should all be proud of that. More than that, we should all be determined not to let that evaporate. We should be determined to build on it.

During her speech, Annabel Goldie was asked what further powers Scotland would get if we voted no. Her answer was that it would depend on the party that won the next Westminster election. That is the nub of it: if we vote no in four weeks, control over our future passes straight back to the Westminster establishment. Only by voting yes will we keep power here in our own hands.

Photo of Baroness Annabel MacNicoll Goldie Baroness Annabel MacNicoll Goldie Conservative

I thank the cabinet secretary for taking an intervention. I am sure that she did not deliberately intend to misrepresent me. I said that the solution would rest with voters. That is right and proper. Voters will be given proposals and they will decide what they want. That is called democracy.

Photo of Nicola Sturgeon Nicola Sturgeon Scottish National Party

I think that Annabel Goldie has made the point that I was trying to make.

Today, I will do what I will be doing each and every day between now and 18 September—I will make the positive case for Scotland being an independent country.

Photo of Nicola Sturgeon Nicola Sturgeon Scottish National Party

I will make some progress and take the member’s intervention later.

I want Scotland to be independent not because I think that we are better than any other country but because I know that we are every bit as good. I want us to be independent not to break the ties of family and friendship that bind the countries of the British isles but to ensure that we can play our part in that family of nations on the basis of equality. I want us to be independent not just so that we can celebrate what is great about our country but so that we have the powers in our hands to tackle what needs to be made better about our country.

Ruth Davidson asked us to see what she sees. I do see what she sees. I can see our achievements as a country and I am as proud of them as she is—many of those achievements are shared by our friends across the United Kingdom. However, unlike Ruth Davidson, I cannot close my eyes to the 100,000 children who are being sentenced to a life of poverty by Westminster policies that we cannot stop. I cannot close my eyes to the 100,000 disabled people who are having their support ripped away from them.

I will not close my eyes to the obscenity of billions being spent on nuclear weapons while cuts threaten our health service and parents struggle with the cost of childcare. I will not close my eyes to the democratic outrage that sees Scotland time and again landed with Tory Governments that we did not vote for. If we vote no, we continue to be bystanders in these decisions; if we vote yes, we get to come off the sidelines and be the ones in charge of shaping this country.

Canon Kenyon Wright, the architect of devolution—and someone who is voting yes—summed it up this week when he asked:

“Where should the final word over Scotland be—in Westminster or in Scotland?”

To me, the answer can be only Scotland. I will never understand why good men and women in the Labour Party prefer Tory Government at Westminster to Scotland governing ourselves.

Photo of Willie Rennie Willie Rennie Liberal Democrat

The Deputy First Minister has less than five minutes to answer the many questions that have been posed across the chamber on oil, currency, corporation tax and so many other issues. Is she going to bother even to try to answer those questions?

Photo of Nicola Sturgeon Nicola Sturgeon Scottish National Party

I have four weeks to continue doing what the yes campaign has been doing: answering questions and campaigning. As we have done so, support for yes has risen and will continue to rise.

This has been a heated debate, but one fact that has been established beyond doubt is that we are one of the world’s wealthiest countries. I find it sad that politicians on the no side struggle so hard to bring themselves to admit that. Last night, I attended in Leith a very good debate of undecided women at which Kezia Dugdale and Cat Headley, two rising stars of the Labour Party, put forward the case for no. They did that very well, but during the debate, under scrutiny from the audience, they were forced to admit that the better together leaflet that claims that Scotland is poorer than Pakistan was “probably misleading”. You bet it is misleading—it is outrageous, and if there is any decency on the part of the no campaign it will be withdrawn.

The reason why the no campaign cannot admit what the rest of us know is that once it does so the rest of its case falls apart. Once it has been established that we can be independent—and we can—the question becomes: why should we not be? Why should we not take control of our resources and make our own decisions? Why should we not take the power to protect our national health service? Westminster cuts threaten our precious NHS. I know that; the public know that; and Labour in Wales knows that. It is tragic beyond belief that Labour in Scotland has become so assimilated by the Tories in the no campaign that it cannot see the reality that is staring everyone else in the face. Drew Smith said that the public own our health service, but in England it is increasingly Virgin Care that owns the health service. We need to vote yes to ensure that that never happens to our health service.

As with the NHS, so, too, with welfare. [Interruption.]

The Presiding Officer:

Order.

Photo of Nicola Sturgeon Nicola Sturgeon Scottish National Party

Johann Lamont says that we need to stay with Westminster to pool resources. That is not the reality for hundreds of thousands of people across our country; the reality for them is the pulling away of vital resources. There was a time when Labour would have stood up for those people, no matter what establishment it had to challenge to do so. Today Labour stands up for the right of the Tories to do them down, and that is a disgrace.

At the heart of the yes campaign—[Interruption.]

The Presiding Officer:

Order! Let us hear the Deputy First Minister.

Photo of Nicola Sturgeon Nicola Sturgeon Scottish National Party

At the heart of the yes campaign is not only a pride in our country but an ambition to make our country better. Independence is not a magic wand, but it is a huge opportunity. It means that the decisions about how we use our vast resources as a country—the decisions that shape our country—lie with us, the people who care most about this country, the people who live here.

Four weeks today, I will proudly vote yes, not to fulfil a lifetime ambition—that will be an added bonus—but to play my part in building a better country for my niece and nephews and every other young person in this generation and for generations to come. I will do it because I believe that no one will ever make a better fist of running this country than the people who live here.

Above all else, I will vote yes because I have confidence in the people of this country. We are a fantastic nation, but we can be so much better. Voting yes gives us the opportunity to ensure that we are.

It is my great privilege to support the motion in the First Minister’s name and to ask all the people of Scotland to vote yes on 18 September.