Devolution Review

– in the Scottish Parliament at 9:15 am on 6 December 2007.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Alex Fergusson Alex Fergusson None 9:15, 6 December 2007

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S3M-976, in the name of Wendy Alexander, on a new agenda for Scotland.

Photo of Wendy Alexander Wendy Alexander Labour

Today's debate goes to the heart of our nation's future. Look back over the past two decades. The Labour Party, in partnership with others, 20 years ago breathed life into the fledgling Scottish Constitutional Convention. Ten years ago, the party legislated to create the Scottish Parliament. Now, a decade later, we are ready to lead on the constitutional debate once more.

Think of all the women and men, from all parties and none, who fought for devolution over the years. This Parliament stands as fine testimony to their work. If we are to continue to pay tribute to their memory, we should be willing to reflect on where we are 20 years after the convening of the Scottish Constitutional Convention and almost a decade after the Scotland Act 1998 was passed, which Donald Dewar himself openly acknowledged would not be the last word on the devolution settlement.

Photo of Tricia Marwick Tricia Marwick Scottish National Party

I am curious about your embracing of devolution. Only two years ago, you sent an e-mail to Jim Sillars saying that there had not been an original idea from the Labour Party in Scotland for 50 years.

Photo of Alex Fergusson Alex Fergusson None

I would be grateful if members remembered to speak through the chair, not directly to other members.

Photo of Wendy Alexander Wendy Alexander Labour

Ms Marwick's comment is an example of the fact that the SNP clearly has its own agenda. It is a perfectly honourable agenda, but, more important, it is not Scotland's agenda. As the SNP knows only too well, the people of Scotland did not vote for independence in May. Indeed, the SNP gained success only by promising that a vote for the SNP would not lead to independence. [ Interruption. ]

Photo of Wendy Alexander Wendy Alexander Labour

I believe that Scots seek a future that gives them the chance to walk taller without having to walk out. Scotland wants a future that is built on discussion and dialogue, not on division and dissent. There is desire in Scotland for further change—devolution is a process not an event. However, for us, that will always be in the context of a union, which we believe has the interests of Scotland at heart.

This historic motion provides that opportunity. It is a bold, cross-party and cross-border initiative to look again at how this place best serves the interests of Scotland. It is an historic motion with an historic purpose. The motion is, I think, the first time that the principal Opposition parties have worked together not merely on a reactive basis but on a proactive one. And despite the bluster that we will hear shortly from SNP members, the truth is that it scares them stiff.

Offering Scotland what it wants—speaking for Scotland, standing up for Scotland, siding with Scotland—is much more attractive to Scots than using them to push a party's own political agenda.

Photo of Nicola Sturgeon Nicola Sturgeon Scottish National Party

Does Wendy Alexander think that doing what she did during the Scottish election campaign—telling Scotland that it was subsidised and could not stand on its own two feet—constituted standing up for Scotland?

Photo of Wendy Alexander Wendy Alexander Labour

The difference between Nicola Sturgeon and me is that she wants to tell Scots what country to live in, whereas we want them to have the chance to have the country that they live in work better. That is why the motion proposes setting up a new Scottish constitutional commission, which could embrace the very best thinking across the country—cross-border, cross-party and constructive, right for the times and right for the nation. It is perhaps little surprise that the Scottish Government cannot go along with those sentiments.

Photo of Wendy Alexander Wendy Alexander Labour

I have given way already.

The SNP amendment predictably calls for us to participate in the national conversation, but how can the SNP possibly claim to be leading a conversation when it has already decided what the only acceptable outcome will be? Worst of all, it has no parliamentary mandate whatsoever for the conversation. How can the SNP possibly justify the use of taxpayers' money on something that is little more than propaganda? To those who doubt that that is happening, I suggest a look at the Minister for Environment Mike Russell's thoughts on "unionist sophistry" on the Government's website.

There is a shortage of many things in the Government's programme, for example 1,000 policemen, smaller class sizes, properly funded universities, student grants and first-time buyer grants. However, there is apparently no shortage of green ink. Alex Salmond said at the start of the session that he wanted a new politics and respect for Parliament, yet on one of the SNP's flagship policies, which is using taxpayers' money, he failed even to consult the Parliament. That does not constitute either respect or a new approach. It is a mistake that the motion's supporters will not repeat. That is why we are having today's debate.

I believe that the Parliament will offer its backing to the motion and that it will allow us to take forward a genuine national conversation—one that is in tune with the views of mainstream Scotland. The people of Scotland wish to remain part of the United Kingdom. We share a common identity and a common citizenship, and we have shared interests. At a time of growing concern over issues that know no borders, such as the fight against global warming or global terrorism, why can we not continue as one country on this one small island?

Photo of Alasdair Allan Alasdair Allan Scottish National Party

If, in its separate national conversation, the Labour Party has no fear of the answer to the question of independence, why is it afraid to ask it?

Photo of Wendy Alexander Wendy Alexander Labour

Many of us are interested in knowing whether the Government believes that its bill on the referendum is competent or incompetent, legal or illegal. We have spent three months asking the question, and still we have not got an answer. Let us ask again: is the SNP's flagship bill on the referendum competent for this Parliament?

Photo of Nicola Sturgeon Nicola Sturgeon Scottish National Party

The answers to Wendy Alexander's questions are: competent and legal.

Photo of Wendy Alexander Wendy Alexander Labour

I simply have to ask the Deputy First Minister why, for three months, she has refused to give that response in a parliamentary answer. I worked for an Administration that brought forward a referendum within three months, so why has the SNP been so slow to make progress?

It is clear that Scotland wants to walk taller within the United Kingdom, not to walk out. How do we move forward? How do we align power and responsibility more closely within this place? Let us address the case for greater financial accountability. The review of Scotland's future should be about more than party politics, which is why the leaders of the three main Opposition parties in Scotland—I pay generous tribute to Annabel Goldie and Nicol Stephen—have worked together not only in this place but with our UK counterparts to agree this approach.

Today, the Parliament has the chance to offer its support for an independently chaired commission

"to review the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998".

We are actively encouraging Westminster colleagues to support the commission. However, it begins today with this Parliament backing the initiative.

Photo of Wendy Alexander Wendy Alexander Labour

No. I have taken a large number of interventions. Let me move to the end of my remarks.

One aspect of the original Scottish Constitutional Convention was the way in which it harnessed the expertise of civic Scotland to the cause of home rule. To succeed, the new commission must take the debate beyond the Parliament. It must build on what we have learned over the past decade. It should draw upon business leaders, the public sector, trade unions, voluntary groups and academia. Moreover, Scots of all walks of life should have the chance to contribute to the debate. If the new commission is set up early in the new year, it can deliberate for a period of months, and consider the detail of how Scotland should move forward.

Alex Salmond once said that he would not trust my party to deliver a pizza, let alone a Parliament. Well, we delivered a very successful Parliament, in which we sit today. [Interruption.]

Photo of Wendy Alexander Wendy Alexander Labour

The Scottish National Party should be careful before it attempts to strangle at birth an initiative that is based on what the people of Scotland want. It is depressing that the SNP has not allowed the initiative to proceed. We have a different viewpoint. We want to make the United Kingdom work, and we understand that the SNP wants to make it fail. That is the other dividing line between us. Many of us, in all other parts of the Parliament, favour constitutional discussions not for their own sake, but because it is right to ask whether improvements can be made. If the only reform alternative that people can see is separatism, they can be forgiven for assuming that that is their only choice. Today is the start of providing a better alternative. A new Scottish constitutional commission will help us on the road to doing just that.

I move,

That the Parliament, recognising mainstream public opinion in Scotland, supports the establishment of an independently chaired commission to review devolution in Scotland; encourages UK Parliamentarians and parties to support this commission also and proposes that the remit of this commission should be:

"To review the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 in the light of experience and to recommend any changes to the present constitutional arrangements that would enable the Scottish Parliament to better serve the people of Scotland, that would improve the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament and that would continue to secure the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom", and further instructs the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body to allocate appropriate resources and funding for this review.

Photo of Nicola Sturgeon Nicola Sturgeon Scottish National Party 9:27, 6 December 2007

I begin by assuring the chamber that everything that I am about to say is intentional. No third parties have been involved, and every word is entirely permissible. [ Interruption. ]

Photo of Nicola Sturgeon Nicola Sturgeon Scottish National Party

I have listened carefully to what Wendy Alexander has said over the past few days—that is, of course, when she has not been asserting her right to remain silent.

Photo of Mike Rumbles Mike Rumbles Liberal Democrat

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Will you rule on whether that comment constitutes discourtesy to another member?

Photo of Alex Fergusson Alex Fergusson None

Given that it was made in the very early part of the speech, I will not rule it as discourteous, but I ask Nicola Sturgeon to stick to the subject matter of the debate.

Photo of Nicola Sturgeon Nicola Sturgeon Scottish National Party

On the subject matter of the debate, I was extremely interested to read Wendy Alexander's speech to the University of Edinburgh just last Friday. I strongly echo the sentiments that were expressed in that speech, in which Wendy Alexander called on Parliament to take

"greater responsibility for financial matters."

She expressed great concern about the exercise of power without financial accountability. In light of recent events, I am not sure whether she was talking about Scotland or Wendy Alexander and the Labour Party. I suppose that that is open to question. [Interruption.]

Photo of Nicola Sturgeon Nicola Sturgeon Scottish National Party

To be serious for a minute, I doubt whether there is anyone in Scotland right now who is prepared to take lectures or advice from Wendy Alexander or the Labour Party on matters of responsibility or accountability. [ Applause. ]

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is it in order for the Deputy First Minister to continue not to address the terms of the motion but to wander on to other subjects?

Photo of Alex Fergusson Alex Fergusson None

I have asked members to try to stick to the subject matter of the motion.

Given today's political temperature, it would be very helpful if they did so.

Photo of Nicola Sturgeon Nicola Sturgeon Scottish National Party

Presiding Officer, I am sure that you will be aware that I was referring to Wendy Alexander's speech on the constitution that was delivered just a few days ago.

As I said, I doubt whether anyone in Scotland today would be prepared to take lectures and advice from the Labour Party on questions of responsibility and accountability—anyone, that is, except the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. The membership and supporters of those two parties might be sitting at home this morning scratching their heads, wondering why they are bailing out a discredited Labour Party that is in total and utter meltdown.

Photo of Murdo Fraser Murdo Fraser Conservative

If it is so bad for us to engage with people who are accused of breaking the law, what are the SNP and its leader doing writing to Robert Mugabe, seeking support for their nuclear policy? [ Interruption. ]

Photo of Alex Fergusson Alex Fergusson None

Order in the chamber, please.

Photo of Nicola Sturgeon Nicola Sturgeon Scottish National Party

This Government is extremely proud of its non-nuclear stance. We are proud to say that we do not want nuclear weapons on the River Clyde.

I return to the constitution, which is what everybody wants me to talk about. The truth is that Wendy Alexander is not leading the debate about Scotland's constitutional future: the debate is being led by the SNP Government, through the national conversation. The truth is that Wendy Alexander is following the debate, and the other parties are, frankly, trailing along in its wake. Do not get me wrong—I warmly welcome that. It is a sign of enormous progress that the Labour Party, so stout in its defence of the status quo just a few months ago in the Scottish election, is now arguing for more powers for the Scottish Parliament. Whether Wendy Alexander has managed to persuade any of her bosses in London of the argument is an entirely different question. Only a few weeks ago, Des Browne described devolution as an event, not a process, before going on to remind Scotland, in rather threatening tones, that Westminster could take powers away again if it wanted to. Perhaps Wendy Alexander has some persuading to do in her own party before she can come along here and start lecturing the rest of us.

I welcome the conversion of Scottish Labour, and indeed the other parties, to the cause of more powers for the Parliament.

Photo of Malcolm Chisholm Malcolm Chisholm Labour

Does Nicola Sturgeon accept that the views that Wendy Alexander expressed last week were views that she has articulated for a very long time? Those views are shared by a large number of people in the Labour Party, including me. Will Ms Sturgeon give Wendy Alexander credit for leading the campaign for greater powers for the Parliament?

Photo of Nicola Sturgeon Nicola Sturgeon Scottish National Party

I had the pleasure—and it was a pleasure, most of the time—of debating with Wendy Alexander on many occasions during the Scottish election, and I did not once hear her articulate the argument that she has articulated this morning. Instead, I heard her repeatedly tell the people of Scotland that they were somehow uniquely incapable of having financial powers and standing on their own two feet. So I think that this is a conversion, albeit a welcome one. All three Opposition parties now support more powers for the Scottish Parliament, which is a huge step forward.

Photo of Nicola Sturgeon Nicola Sturgeon Scottish National Party

No. I have taken a number of interventions. I will make some progress now.

The Opposition parties should make an effort to define what they mean by more powers for the Scottish Parliament. The SNP and the SNP Government know what our preferred option is—it is independence for Scotland. We want Scotland to have the same rights and responsibilities—no more, no less—as every other country in the world. As we have shown over the years, we will always support more powers for Scotland, but our preferred option is independence, and the ability for Scotland to compete and succeed on the basis of equality with other countries throughout the world.

I accept that not everyone in the chamber or in Scotland agrees with our position. That is why the national conversation is so open and inclusive. The reason it has been the most successful consultation ever undertaken in Scotland is that a range of views have been asked for and a range of views have been expressed.

If we all now accept—as we seem to—that the status quo is not an option, the onus is on the Labour Party, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to define their alternative to independence. If the debate is a sign that the Opposition parties are prepared to engage in that task, it is indeed welcome.

Photo of Nicola Sturgeon Nicola Sturgeon Scottish National Party

No, I will not just now.

There is another question that the Opposition parties must address, and it is fundamental: once the various politicians and parties in the Parliament have decided their preferred option, how do we ensure that the people of Scotland get to decide theirs? It is legitimate for us to have different views, but the future of Scotland is not a matter to be decided by the so-called great and good behind closed doors; it should and must be decided by the people of Scotland.

Photo of Nicola Sturgeon Nicola Sturgeon Scottish National Party

No.

As Wendy Alexander rightly said, the Parliament was created by democratic mandate, but the idea that its powers could be substantially changed without a democratic mandate is inconceivable to me. The real question for the Opposition parties today is this: once they have decided what their preferred option is, will they be prepared to put it before the people of Scotland in a democratic referendum? Will they have the courage to do that? Let them answer that question. If the answer is no, nothing else that they say in the course of the debate will deserve to be taken seriously.

Photo of Nicola Sturgeon Nicola Sturgeon Scottish National Party

Perhaps Jackie Baillie should listen to this important democratic point: the evidence is that, regardless of their views on the best future for Scotland, the vast majority of people in Scotland believe that the issue should be decided in a democratic referendum. Let us hear the Opposition parties answer the question today. Will they put their preferred option to a referendum—yes or no?

Photo of Alex Fergusson Alex Fergusson None

The member is in her last minute.

Photo of Nicola Sturgeon Nicola Sturgeon Scottish National Party

I welcome the debate. It is probably the best sign yet of the enormous progress that Scotland has made since the election of this SNP Government in May. Scotland is moving forward—this Government is leading it forward—and I welcome converts to the cause of more powers for Scotland wherever they come from. I look forward very much to the debate and to the day when Scotland wins her independence again.

I move amendment S3M-976.2, to leave out from "recognising" to end and insert:

"welcomes the Scottish Government's National Conversation which has reinvigorated the debate on Scotland's constitutional future and caused the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties to seek an agreement on more responsibilities for the Scottish Parliament; congratulates those parties on their changed position; believes that independence and equality offer the best future for Scotland, and supports a referendum in this parliamentary term in which the people of Scotland have the right to choose independence, the status quo, or more responsibilities for Scotland."

Photo of Annabel Goldie Annabel Goldie Conservative 9:38, 6 December 2007

If a week is a long time in politics for some people, 10 years can take us to a different era. Ten years ago, the Conservative party had lost the general election and was opposed to devolution, but 10 years on it looks forward to winning a general election—not something that the SNP can anticipate. [ Interruption. ]

Photo of Annabel Goldie Annabel Goldie Conservative

Ten years on, the Conservatives are positive participants in devolution. That is why we are well placed to be objective but constructive in contributing to a review of devolution.

We are in a new era, and political debate must reflect that. That is why I open the debate for the Scottish Conservatives with great pleasure. Over eight years in the Parliament, I have spoken on important matters on many occasions, but today is different: this debate is the most important in which the Scottish Parliament has so far engaged, because it is the start of devolution phase 2, a process that will chart the direction of the Parliament and the future of Scotland in the 21st century. The process is more important and bigger than any one political party, and the challenges that individual parties or politicians face at this time are secondary to the overstraddling political importance of taking it forward.

Photo of Alex Neil Alex Neil Scottish National Party

I congratulate Annabel Goldie on travelling over 10 years from being anti-devolution to being pro-devolution. At that rate of travel, will she be in favour of independence in 10 years' time? As former minister Allan Stewart pointed out, independence is more logical than devolution.

Photo of Annabel Goldie Annabel Goldie Conservative

In eight years in this Parliament, I have always found Mr Neil's taste to be too racy for my comfort, and I would certainly not pledge my or this country's future to the direction in which he wants to travel.

In this Parliament and in Scotland, there are two approaches to Scotland's constitutional status. The minority Administration, comprising the Scottish National Party as the Scottish Government, seeks independence; the majority presence in the Parliament, comprising the Labour Party, the Scottish Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, supports our continuing partnership with the United Kingdom. The minority view—the SNP view and the nationalist conversation—is all about tearing up our constitution and ripping Britain apart. My desire—our desire and the majority desire—is to build on what we have and take it forward.

There we have it: the minority political presence that wants to weaken, waste and wreck is on the margins of public opinion, while the mainstream of Scottish public opinion—the majority view—is our view, which seeks to strengthen, support and secure.

Photo of Richard Lochhead Richard Lochhead Scottish National Party

I have a question on public opinion. According to Wendy Alexander's speech, the constitutional commission could be set up and report in a matter of months. If Annabel Goldie's view is that the people of Scotland should not thereafter be asked for their view via a referendum, what should happen to the report's conclusions?

Photo of Annabel Goldie Annabel Goldie Conservative

It is clear to me that what the motion embraces and what the commission would be charged to do would all operate within the existing constitutional framework of the United Kingdom. That would not require a referendum.

I do not support the Scottish National Party's objective of independence, but I support the present constitutional status of Scotland and I share the other two unionist parties' objectives of wanting to secure that position and explore any possibilities that will improve our devolved governance.

I will make it clear how I, as a Scottish Conservative, regard Scotland in 2007. I am proud to be a Scot and I am proud to be British. The two are not mutually exclusive—indeed, they happily co-exist. During the Scottish Parliament elections, I argued that being part of the United Kingdom opens doors for Scotland, that it gives us influence in world affairs and that that influence, if wisely exercised, gives us authority in world affairs. At the same time, devolution has responded to our country's desire for a greater say over its domestic issues. As a Scottish Conservative, I am driven by an overarching goal of creating a strong and prosperous Scotland within a strong and prosperous United Kingdom. I am driven by what unites us in these isles, but the nationalists are driven by a desire to divide the nations of the United Kingdom.

Rejecting independence is not anti-Scottish or unpatriotic; it is quite simply wanting the best for our country. I say clearly to Alex Salmond—wherever he is—that the Scottish National Party does not have the monopoly on Scottish patriotism. It is a proud and deep emotion, shared by millions of people outwith the Scottish National Party. Our saltire and the lion rampant are the symbols of our nation, not the badges of nationalism.

The Scottish Government's nationalist conversation is not the one that matters; what matters—the real debate and the real challenge— is taking devolution forward. Independence is a minority aspiration, and the Scottish Conservatives represent the majority aspiration. Precisely because of that, we acknowledge that, after eight years of devolution, it is appropriate to examine where the process has got to and to support debate about where it goes. That was our manifesto commitment in May. The Liberal Democrats also considered such a review timely, and I commend the Labour Party for now recognising the merit in, and need for, such a review.

This tripartite agreement is significant. Strengthening devolution while continuing to secure the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom is not just an honourable but a highly important commitment. It is bigger than any one political party, because it dwarfs party politics. We are talking about shaping the constitutional direction of travel of our nation for the future, not just because it is sensible and pragmatic to do that eight years on, but because it overwhelmingly reflects what Scotland wants to happen.

Today's debate gives Scottish parliamentary breath to that overwhelming public aspiration. I thank Jack McConnell for his initial support of the process and I thank my counterparts, Wendy Alexander and Nicol Stephen, for the constructive discussions that have brought us to the stage of agreeing the need for an independently chaired commission to review devolution in Scotland. I also thank them for agreeing that the remit of the commission should be to review the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 in the light of experience and to recommend any changes to the present constitutional arrangements that would enable the Scottish Parliament to serve the people of Scotland better, that would improve the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament or that would continue to secure the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom. This debate and tonight's vote represent significant political progress for Scotland.

It is not for us to prejudge the outcome of the commission or any of its recommendations. When the day comes, the Conservatives will give serious and careful consideration to those outcomes before judging what will best serve the interests of Scotland and what will continue to secure our position within the United Kingdom.

I said earlier that this is the start of devolution phase 2. The next stage will involve our colleagues at Westminster. However, today is about a new watershed in Scottish politics as we embrace the political reality of 2007 and the desire of the overwhelming majority of people in Scotland to take devolution forward. Tonight, we will cast an historic vote; tomorrow, we will take forward a secure future for our country. I reject the SNP amendment and support the motion in the name of Wendy Alexander.

Photo of Nicol Stephen Nicol Stephen Liberal Democrat 9:47, 6 December 2007

It is right to call this an historic day. Liberal Democrats favour the conferral of more powers and a better, more effective Parliament. We think that that would lead to a stronger Scotland in a stronger United Kingdom.

Over the past few years, we have been the only party campaigning for more powers for the Parliament but rejecting independence. It is 10 years since the passage of the Scotland Act 1998, and now is the right time to consider gaining those new powers. There may be some members—perhaps on the SNP benches, as we have heard already this morning—who would like to think that this cross-border, cross-party campaign to gain more powers will drift away because of the trauma and uncertainty that are hanging over the Labour Party. My response is this. The powers that we seek, the reforms that we propose and the commission that we support are intended to be substantial, far-reaching and permanent. The benefits for Scotland and for the rest of UK will resonate well beyond this Parliament and this generation of political leaders. However far public confidence in Labour has fallen because of its spinning over the date of the general election and the party funding scandal, the process that is proposed for Scotland must and will outrun that. It is simply that significant. Labour's time in office at Westminster will end, but the changes that we are initiating today should be profound. They will outlast and thrive under any future UK or Scottish Government. The powers that we seek on new legislative matters and wide-ranging financial control will provide a real opportunity for Scotland to succeed in the 21st century.

Photo of Brian Adam Brian Adam Scottish National Party

Given the fact that, prior to the initial attempt at devolution, there was agreement among some of the parties to have the Constitutional Convention, the financial affairs of which were dealt with by the political parties, why does Nicol Stephen now think that the public purse should pay for his policy development? Opposition parties already receive money from the public purse for policy development.

Photo of Nicol Stephen Nicol Stephen Liberal Democrat

I should, perhaps, remind Brian Adam of who is paying for the national conversation, which has no democratic or parliamentary support. Our new initiative will have wide-ranging support—the majority support of the Parliament—and that is what marks it out as significant. We created the Parliament through cross-party support—cross-party support that the SNP walked away from.

I want the 21st century to be internationalist, a century of co-operation between parties, nations and people working together. That is something that the SNP knows too little of. Too often, the 20th century was a century of narrow nationalism, and people paid a terrible price for that. Our challenge is to create the foundations for Scotland's success in an internationalist 21st century.

The Conservatives' support for the motion and the wider process is welcome—we have not seen that since Edward Heath proposed legislation for Scottish devolution in the late 1960s. One or two noble voices have spoken out, including Malcolm Rifkind in the 1970s and the late, and still missed, Alick Buchanan-Smith. However, this wholesale agreement brings the Conservatives into the debate in a way that we have not seen for two generations. Annabel Goldie is to be congratulated on a very positive move.

For Labour, the devolution principles of John Smith and Donald Dewar are being built upon. Many in the Labour Party do not share those hopes, and that will remain a challenge. However, today should be recognised as a big move forward for the Labour Party. As recently as August, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that the devolution settlement should remain as it is. In September, when I suggested greater fiscal powers for the Scottish Parliament, I was rounded on by UK Labour ministers. I am pleased that Donald Dewar's doctrine that devolution is a process, not an event has held sway on the Scottish Labour benches. As Annabel Goldie said, Jack McConnell and Wendy Alexander should be given credit for that.

By voting for the motion, the Parliament will permanently unlock the door to progress on home rule. The process begun by the motion should deliver long-term benefits to Scotland that will run well beyond the present generation. The Liberal Democrats were proud to be part of the Constitutional Convention. We had wanted home rule for Scotland for 100 years and, under the leadership of Malcolm Bruce and Jim Wallace, we helped to make it happen. Our Steel commission report is widely regarded as a significant and substantial piece of work. It provides a framework for progress and a blueprint for action.

It is vital that the initiative that we are proposing has the widest possible support. I welcome support from all around the chamber, some of it fresh and new, some of it unexpected. I also welcome wider support from all parts of Scotland. Scottish business, civic Scotland, the churches and the voluntary sector should have significant, direct involvement in the process.

To deliver the Scotland that we want, we need a stronger, more effective and more responsible Parliament. That means granting more powers to our Parliament, including tax-raising powers. As an enthusiastic European, I am keen to learn from the experience of our neighbours. Last month, I met the Spanish ambassador, who told me that Spain now has 17 autonomous regions, each of which has a degree of devolved power to suit its needs. The process of devolving power is constantly evolving, with more and more decisions being made close to the people on whom they impact. We talked about how Navarre enjoys maximum autonomy from central Government, with very wide tax-raising powers over both business and personal taxes. Far from inviting independence, that has secured and strengthened the Spanish state. Navarre is on course to generate 100 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2010. Such gutsy initiatives can be achieved only when governments are equipped with the necessary powers.

Two Spanish regions, of which Navarre is one, have almost complete fiscal control. In fact, Navarre keeps everything that it raises in tax and makes a payment to Madrid for the costs of defence, foreign relations and other issues that are the province of the Madrid Government. That is not what was proposed by the Steel commission, but it proves that we can deliver far bolder, more ambitious devolution in Scotland that strengthens our position in the UK and in the world.

I do not believe that a self-respecting parliament can exist permanently on a single grant from another parliament. The United Kingdom is currently the developed country that takes the greatest proportion of taxation centrally. I am determined to bring government as close to local communities as possible, which leads me to campaign to end the centralisation of the UK state.

Static devolution, by its very inflexibility, encourages nationalism. That is why proposals to build on the current settlement with new responsibilities must offer powers for a purpose. The proposals must be significant and substantial. Standing still is not an option for Scotland.

I propose that personal taxation be determined by the Parliament. That would mean that the introduction of a local income tax to replace the discredited council tax would be straightforward. Such a tax would be fair and would benefit the low paid and pensioners. It would also avoid the regressive side-effects of the SNP's council tax freeze, which will benefit the poorest least.

On corporate and business taxation, there is no reason why the power, the accountability, and the innovation should not come from the Parliament. How much more attractive to business that will be than the SNP proposals that will erect barriers between Scotland and our biggest market, creating separation, division and disruption.

Scotland can seize the opportunities presented by the 21st century in fields such as renewable energy and life sciences. We need to be gutsy and bold.

The motion sets out proposals to achieve forward-looking, modern home rule for Scotland. It rejects backward-looking nationalism that wants the past more than it wants the future.

Most people in Scotland support more powers for the Scottish Parliament. They want a stronger, better Parliament with new tax-raising powers. That is what we can deliver: a stronger Scotland in a stronger UK.

Photo of Cathy Jamieson Cathy Jamieson Labour 9:57, 6 December 2007

I confess that, unlike Wendy Alexander, in the run up to the 1979 referendum I was not stuffing envelopes. My interests were perhaps more like those of my favourite Englishman, Billy Bragg—wondering when The Clash's next concert was going to be. In 1979, I moved to live and study in London. That shaped my view of politics. I worked in a centre for homeless people and then in a large hospital, and lived in a multicultural area, and it became clear to me that the problems of poverty, unemployment, poor health and educational disadvantage did not stop at the border.

In many years in the Labour Party, I have heard several keynote speeches about devolution, and I have participated in the debates and discussions. We must not miss the significance of Wendy Alexander's speech last Friday in which she outlined the challenges ahead for all of us who believe in devolution. Neither must we miss the significance of today's debate, in which Opposition parties are putting aside their differences—and there are many—to try to reach common ground on a way forward that will be in the broader interests of the people of Scotland.

We have heard people arguing about whether devolution is a process or an event, but we must now recognise where the Scottish people are at. Like others in Scotland, I am proud to be Scottish. We are all proud of our heritage and history and of the contribution that we have made in the world, but that pride does not translate into a desire to walk away from the United Kingdom, or to throw out all that has been achieved. It means that people want to review and improve the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK.

Photo of Nicola Sturgeon Nicola Sturgeon Scottish National Party

We can probably all agree that we do not agree on Scotland's constitutional future, and that is perfectly legitimate in a democracy. A moment ago, Cathy Jamieson said that we should take stock of where the Scottish people are at. Would it therefore not be right to have a referendum to allow the Scottish people to decide on the issues that divide us?

Photo of Cathy Jamieson Cathy Jamieson Labour

If Nicola Sturgeon genuinely believes that, why has she not brought it forward?

I talked about the need to review and improve the relationship between Scotland and the UK. To return to my favourite Englishman, in Billy Bragg's book "The Progressive Patriot: A Search For Belonging", he argues that devolution has had an impact on national identity in other parts of the United Kingdom and that people want to have that debate as well.

Labour has led constitutional change and it will and should lead it again by building on consensus rather than by creating conflict and division. It cannot be done through a one-sided, one-way conversation where, whatever the question, the Government believes that it already has the answer, and that that answer is independence. The debate is not just about what goes on here in Scotland, but about Scotland's wider relationship with the UK. We must have that discussion. It is complex, it needs detailed consideration, and it needs to engage directly with everyone in Scotland.

Today's debate seeks a mandate on a way forward. The remit of the proposed commission should be to consider how to improve devolution. However, the difference between the SNP and the three parties that are joining together today to support the motion is that for us, as Wendy Alexander outlined in her speech on Friday, the fundamental principle is that the common interests of the various parts of the UK require that we work together to share risk and resources, including in the crucial areas of security and counter-terrorism. Of course, as Nicol Stephen said and as others will no doubt say, we must learn from the experiences of those elsewhere, but in the context that the Scottish people's priorities are similar to those of other countries throughout the world—health, education, law and order, housing, and the environment.

Photo of Bruce Crawford Bruce Crawford Scottish National Party

We have now heard from two Labour members, but we have yet to hear one utterance on what powers they think should be devolved. They should tell us about some of the substantial powers that they think should be devolved. At least Nicol Stephen gave us some ideas.

Photo of Cathy Jamieson Cathy Jamieson Labour

That is exactly why we need a commission: to consider the issue in detail, to debate with people and not to give a knee-jerk reaction and a list.

I will return to my favourite Englishman, Billy Bragg, whom I have spoken about a couple of times. He said:

"Defending our rights, campaigning for greater accountability, fighting for social justice, standing up for the traditional values of fairness—these are the things that mark me out as a patriot."

That is what we ought to be considering in this Parliament. The challenge for us is to build on Donald Dewar's legacy, not by becoming more insular, closing borders or slamming the door on our neighbours, but by continuing to make the best use of devolution to create a fairer society. That is why I support the motion.

I call on the SNP to recognise that the Labour motion better reflects the will of the Scottish people than its pursuit of independence at all costs.

Photo of Roseanna Cunningham Roseanna Cunningham Scottish National Party 10:03, 6 December 2007

We have just heard nothing from the Labour Party—no ideas, no policy and no future.

I agree with Cathy Jamieson on one thing: all of us can agree that poverty and hardship do not recognise borders. I know that because I lived in Australia for 16 years. That does not mean that I think that we should be electing members to the Canberra Parliament. That is the difference between us and the Labour Party.

What have we here this morning? We have an uncosted commitment, not for the Government but for Parliament. That uncosted commitment did not appear in any manifesto of which I am aware, and it shows no understanding of the implications for the rest of the parliamentary budget. Does Wendy Alexander care? No, she does not. Today is not about moving anything forward except herself, preferably as far away from the rest of the news agenda as possible.

The sad thing is that it could all have been so different. Wendy Alexander is turning consensus into its opposite while claiming to move the debate forward. Her so-called vision starts and ends in her own kailyard. Her motion shows that, rather than have something around which the whole Parliament could unite and that would resound across Scotland, she is much happier with her own silly games. I am sorry that both the Lib Dems and the Tories are colluding in this nonsense.

As Nicola Sturgeon mentioned, Des Browne threatened Scotland only recently that Westminster could take back powers from Holyrood. We now appear to be in a situation in which all parties in the Parliament want to move on by giving the Parliament more powers—true, some of us might want more powers than others—after an election result in which the SNP was left only one seat ahead in minority Government. Just think what will be achieved when we come back in 2011 with a much-increased majority. Make no mistake that that is what will happen. Members need only look at today's opinion poll if they do not believe me.

Photo of Robert Brown Robert Brown Liberal Democrat

Amid all this furore, does Roseanna Cunningham recognise a place for consensus and a national agreement on the way forward? That is part of the issue. That is why today's debate is taking place.

Photo of Roseanna Cunningham Roseanna Cunningham Scottish National Party

Those whose idea of consensus would ensure that the preferred option of the majority party is not included should look to themselves. In the meantime, we have this proposal in front of us—

Photo of Annabel Goldie Annabel Goldie Conservative

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. This point needs to be clarified. If I heard correctly, Ms Cunningham referred to her party as being the majority party—

Photo of Roseanna Cunningham Roseanna Cunningham Scottish National Party

I said that our party is a minority Government.

Photo of Annabel Goldie Annabel Goldie Conservative

I withdraw the point of order.

Photo of Roseanna Cunningham Roseanna Cunningham Scottish National Party

As I was about to say, the SNP might have been happy to sign up to the proposal and its sentiments, but that is not what any of the other three parties wanted. That would have spoiled the fun.

To be honest, I doubt that the motion is much more than a bit of fun. If we were meant to take it seriously, strenuous attempts would have been made to reach agreement on a form of words to which everyone could sign up. Clearly, the possibility of that was discussed and disregarded in an attempt to be clever—too clever by half. Not for the first time, Wendy Alexander has outsmarted herself.

Here is the truth: the SNP is ferociously ambitious for Scotland. We have always made that clear and, yes, we have also talked about increasing the powers of the Parliament short of independence. After all, was it not Jim Mather who proposed the idea of fiscal autonomy? Surely my memory is correct. The motion contains nothing new that has not already been canvassed by the SNP. There is no dithering or prevarication about what we want, and no hiding it.

And—guess what—we are out there talking to the people of Scotland and asking them to join the debate. Frankly, the national conversation encompasses everything in the motion and sets no boundaries on the debate. As ever, Labour wants to allow discussion only on its own terms. When will it learn? Has Wendy Alexander even bothered to submit her views to the national conversation? I am curious. Has anyone on the Labour benches engaged with the discussion? Indeed, has anyone on any of the Opposition benches engaged with it? Tens of thousands of ordinary Scots have done exactly that. There have been 43,734 hits on the home page, a staggering 245,000 hits on all national conversation-themed web pages, 20,935 call-ups of the white paper for reading online, and a further 6,999 downloads of the white paper. Has there ever been a Government consultation in Scotland as extensive as that?

I wonder whether Wendy Alexander, Annabel Goldie and Nicol Stephen are part of that enthusiastic response. If so, they would have joined a variety of organisations across civic Scotland that have enthusiastically participated. All those people have taken the opportunity that has been offered and they have grabbed it. Perhaps they sense that, this time, the idea of a two-way conversation with Government is real. Wendy Alexander wants just another round of meetings with the usual suspects reading out their press releases and ultimately boring everyone into the ground. The last thing that she wants is for the debate to catch alight. She wants to exclude the preferred option of the largest party in Parliament and she leaves all the detailed questions unanswered.

The SNP can certainly agree on moving things forward. We can agree on the need for more powers, on the need for a debate and on the need to ask the voters of Scotland. Annabel Goldie may assert that rejecting independence is not undemocratic, but excluding it from the debate is undemocratic and prejudges the outcome. She knows that. The SNP will not agree to a stunted debate on the basis of Wendy Alexander's "thus far, but no further" so-called vision. Vision? I suggest that she goes out and invests in a pair of specs. On the evidence of this morning, her vision is woefully short-sighted.

Photo of Sarah Boyack Sarah Boyack Labour 10:10, 6 December 2007

What a contrast in tone between the SNP speeches and those of the rest of us in the chamber.

Home rule has given us the best of both worlds: issues such as health, education, the legal system, developing our environmental policies, economic development and transport are controlled by the Scottish Parliament; foreign affairs, pensions and social security are dealt with at the UK level. We have delivered on the principles that underpinned decades of campaigning for home rule by providing better Government that is closer to home, more responsive and more in tune with the majority of Scottish opinion. We have also made time to listen to the minorities in Scottish opinion and to ensure that they are part of the picture. We have provided time to focus on Scottish issues while remaining part of the UK. Our Scottish Parliament has delivered on people's aspirations.

The Scottish Constitutional Convention drew up our Parliament's operating principles, which were built on by the consultative steering group. Who would argue that we have not dramatically transformed the access that individuals and organisations have to our committee discussions, to shaping our laws and to influencing our policy discussions? We have a family-friendly Parliament in which equal opportunities are part of our ethos. Look at the debates that we have had on domestic violence as part of the focus on the 16 days of activism against gender violence campaign. Equal opportunities are not a side issue but are central to the politics and work of the Parliament. Scotland has a voting system on which the Labour Party compromised because we agreed that people throughout Scotland—whether from urban or rural constituencies—must be part of the Parliament's decision making. People's views now direct how we operate. People in Scotland voted on devolution and have given it legitimacy.

Contrast that with the idea of leaving the debate on our future to one party. Even in their first two speeches this morning, SNP members have demonstrated that the issue cannot be left just to them. We cannot leave our constitutional future to be directed by a party that has only one answer waiting, whatever submissions are made to its review. The tone and substance of Nicola Sturgeon's speech demonstrated eloquently that we cannot leave this important issue to a party with a narrow agenda. That is why I welcome today's debate and Wendy Alexander's initiative.

Eight years into our new Scottish Parliament, surely this is a good time for us to reflect on the success of devolution and to have a constructive, cross-party, across-the-country discussion on how we improve our constitutional settlement. That discussion needs to involve a range of views and must not predetermine the answer. It must be directed by our Parliament, with the legitimacy of our Parliament.

Twenty years ago, it was not possible to have that range of cross-party discussion in Scotland and it was certainly not possible to have such a debate with the UK Government. I welcome Annabel Goldie's speech today. It is testament to the success of devolution that our principal opponents then are now in favour of being whole-heartedly involved in building on and improving our devolution settlement.

A UK Labour Government gives us the chance to broaden that dialogue so that we can have a discussion across the UK that is led by our debate in Scotland. Eight years on, we can feel and see that our Parliament is maturing. It is worth feeding into that debate. Over the past decade, we have had other significant constitutional changes across the UK that should also be plugged into our discussions. We have the new Greater London Assembly, the National Assembly for Wales—which has also gained powers and grown in stature—and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Photo of Bruce Crawford Bruce Crawford Scottish National Party

Will Sarah Boyack reflect on the fact that the document "Choosing Scotland's Future: A National Conversation" includes a chapter entitled "Extending Scottish devolution", which goes on for eight pages and is longer than the chapter on independence? We have been inclusive in our conversation. Why do the Opposition parties want to lock independence out of their agenda?

Photo of Sarah Boyack Sarah Boyack Labour

I put the question straight back to Bruce Crawford. Why cannot the SNP accept a debate that builds on the views of Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives? Why cannot the SNP, which is a minority in the Parliament, join us? A degree of humility from SNP members would be welcome.

Over the past few years, we have seen different policy approaches across the UK. Our Parliament was put in place to ensure that we decide on Scottish solutions for Scottish priorities. We can see that the debate on sustainable development has developed a different tone and flavour in each legislature in the UK. On higher education, transport and renewables, others are catching up with us, and we must not lose our advantage. On health, we have the ability to set different policies, which is matched by the ability to set our own funding priorities.

Much has been achieved in the past eight years and we need to move the debate forward. SNP members complain about the debate. They have the choice to join in the discussion with the majority of public opinion. If they wanted to be a part of that debate, that would be a step forward, but they should not stand aside and attempt to hold the debate on their own.

We need to review our success in Scotland and to look to the future. It cannot be right to leave the discussion to be driven by a nationalist, separatist Government. We can see our Parliament maturing. The challenge is to support the motion and to develop the debate on our constitutional future—to vote to strengthen home rule, to work with the grain of Scottish opinion, to build on the legacy of the work that was done by our first First Minister, Donald Dewar, and to ensure that that progress involves people from across political divides and UK colleagues. I hope that the whole Parliament will vote for the motion in Wendy Alexander's name.

Photo of Kenneth Gibson Kenneth Gibson Scottish National Party 10:16, 6 December 2007

Fasten your seat belts—it is going to be a bumpy ride. This morning, the Labour Party has dipped its toe in the water of what it considers might be delivered constitutionally for Scotland. That is not, of course, because it thinks that Scots should have more control over their lives—no, not one bit of it. If Labour members had thought that, they would have waxed lyrical on the subject during this year's election campaign, instead of trying to scare Scottish voters by making our country out to be a nation of subsidy junkies and parasites who depend on handouts from south of the border—a myth that The Herald exposed on 2 November.

Labour members have continued their scaremongering tactics by talking today about borders being closed—as if that happened between Sweden and Denmark or between Holland and Belgium. We want to be friends with England and every other country in Europe and beyond, on a basis of equality.

The Labour Party made it clear during the election that its policy was that we could go not one step further. The motion is about establishing nothing more than a vague talking shop to discuss matters that Labour can safely concede in order to regain power.

Who would have credited it? A few short years after devolution was introduced with the express intention of killing the SNP stone dead, this corpse of a party has set the political agenda in Scotland. Now, Labour members must bend to it reluctantly—if not kicking and screaming, then certainly mumping and moaning, grumping and groaning. How could their birthright have been so impudently usurped last May?

No longer the ostrich of Scottish politics, new, old, borrowed and blue Labour is willing to think the unthinkable and to throw the Jocks some crumbs after a few years of bumping gums with fellow unionists over nothing more than Scotland's future devolution settlement. I can hardly restrain my excitement at Labour's conversion to what it previously considered to be constitutional navel gazing.

We welcome cautiously Labour's intention to let 100 flowers bloom, but it should not thrill us too much. After all, despite 300 years without asking Scots their opinion in an independence referendum, Labour and its unionist allies still have no faith in the Scottish people's ability to vote in what they consider to be the right way in a referendum, let alone—I am sorry, Presiding Officer. I have lost my train of thought temporarily. [Laughter.]

Labour does not want to do what 50 other European nations take for granted: to dare to run our own affairs as independent members of the family of nations. It is shameful that some politicians in the Parliament do not even consider Scotland to be a nation at all—the Lib Dems, for example.

On St Andrew's day at the University of Edinburgh, in a speech that The Herald last Monday castigated—perhaps unfairly—as being cast into "outer darkness", acting Labour leader Wendy Alexander said:

"the trends in Scottish politics are all going in the direction of the SNP, and the cause of equality".

That is the nub. We in the SNP want only equality for Scotland. Why anyone should have such a catastrophic lack of faith in the Scots by opposing that I cannot comprehend.

Of course, the independence train has left the station. The First Minister set the route via the national conversation and the north British parties are playing catch-up—and what we have heard from the Lib Dems is that that is not as far as Navarre has gone.

Labour—Scotland's political King Canute—can no longer hold back the Scots' ambitions or aspirations. So what powers would be up for grabs should the vague, independently chaired commission ever see the light of day? Does the Labour Party still believe that it is beyond the ken of Scots to have control over—from the host of reserved powers—dealing with the misuse of drugs; the classification of films; scientific procedures on live animals; the designation of assisted areas; the regulation of architects; public lending rights; and equal opportunities?

If we can be trusted with those matters, how about the Post Office, research councils, the Ordnance Survey, road transport, consumer protection, judicial remuneration and broadcasting? I am pushing the boat out, but will financial services, immigration, international relations, social security, nuclear energy, air transport and abortion law be on the table for discussion? Who will take the final decision? The Scots or Labour bosses—our London masters? Can we expect a quantum leap in Labour thinking or will just some feeble tinkering take place around the edges?

As a way of moving forward, what about considering as a first step acquiring the powers of Jersey, Guernsey and the other Channel Islands or the Isle of Man? Let us be a little bold in our thinking. Despite having fewer than 200,000 souls between them, those islands enjoy full fiscal autonomy, full social security powers, full employment law powers, full health and safety powers and full control over postal services and communications. Those islands are entirely self-supporting and receive no subsidies from the UK, to which they make an annual contribution for defence and overseas services. Public revenues on the islands are raised by income tax, duties on imports and other taxes, all of which are determined by each island's legislature. Surprise, surprise—each island has a strong and vibrant economy that is based on finance, tourism, retail, construction and agriculture. All provide high standards of social benefits and of living. How sad it is that the unionist parties are too timid and lacking in ambition even to attempt to emulate our smaller neighbours here in the British isles.

Perhaps Ms Alexander should listen more to her spouse. What did he say? I quote:

"full fiscal autonomy was 'an absurdity' found nowhere else in the world. 'Against that option, full-blown independence might be better, because ... you can do ... more things,' he added. 'If you're being forced to balance your books, then I think the logic is "be independent", don't do it within the Union. So you heard it here first—the argument for independence.'" If Ms Alexander cannot convince her own husband of the merits of her case, she will not convince us.

The cobbled-together, anything-but-independence motion talks of better serving the people of Scotland and improving the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament. Labour and other unionist members will, no doubt, therefore be keen to secure the 26 billion barrels of oil that are left in the North Sea and their revenues for the Scottish people, but then again, pigs might fly.

Photo of Lord George Foulkes Lord George Foulkes Labour 10:22, 6 December 2007

Presiding Officer, as you know, I am an eternal optimist. I had hoped that we might have a debate today instead of a series of party-political polemics, such as we have just heard. Frank McAveety tells me that Kenneth Gibson gave exactly the same speech in the City of Glasgow District Council in the early 1990s—he has not progressed.

As you also know well, Presiding Officer, in participating in the debate, I return to one of my long-standing passionate interests. As the chair of the Labour campaign for a Scottish assembly, I campaigned through the 1960s and 1970s for a Scottish parliament. We got legislation—albeit flawed—for the 1979 referendum. Like other supporters, I was deeply disappointed when, despite winning a majority in the referendum, we failed to reach the artificial threshold of gaining the support of 40 per cent of the electorate. However, in the words of the song, we picked ourselves up, dusted ourselves off and started all over again.

Jim Boyack, Donald Dewar, many people here and I reformed that Labour campaign—renamed as the campaign for a Scottish Parliament—and trod the boards in every corner of Scotland. That resulted in the establishment of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, but the SNP was nowhere to be seen.

Photo of Lord George Foulkes Lord George Foulkes Labour

No.

The greatest triumph was putting the convention's conclusions in the Labour Party manifesto, particularly—as Wendy Alexander reminded us—as not all the provisions, such as those on proportional representation, were in the Labour Party's interests.

After our success in the 1997 election, Labour delivered legislation in double-quick time. To his credit, Donald Dewar achieved the maximalist position, as promised by the manifesto, outlined by the Constitutional Convention and endorsed by the people of Scotland in the referendum.

Photo of Lord George Foulkes Lord George Foulkes Labour

No.

Sometimes I wonder whether SNP members understand the Parliament's huge potential—which has not yet been realised—to deliver for the people of Scotland in the areas of education, health, crime and housing and in other important devolved areas. The Parliament has huge potential to deliver on matters of real concern to our constituents, who sometimes despair at the constitutional wrangling that goes on.

Photo of Lord George Foulkes Lord George Foulkes Labour

Wait a minute.

I am astonished when I hear Sandra White and others call for fiscal autonomy and moan about tight settlements. Has she forgotten about the second question in the referendum?

Photo of Lord George Foulkes Lord George Foulkes Labour

Wait a minute.

The second vote in the referendum resulted in the Parliament getting fiscal powers, but the SNP is afraid to use those powers. Which taxation powers would it dare to use? We considered all the fiscal powers—a local sales tax, for example—before the Scotland Act 1998 was passed. The devolution settlement has been almost unbelievably flexible when the Scottish Parliament has decided that it would be better to legislate at Westminster on devolved areas and Sewel motions have been used. Above all, there has been flexibility in administrative devolution through the use of orders in council in not dozens or scores, but hundreds of areas. Most spectacularly, there was the ceding of all control of Scottish railways to the Scottish Parliament. The Labour Government gave that flexibility, and it can be developed further.

The referendum took place only 10 years ago. Its result was rightly described as

"the settled will of the Scottish people".

Members:

No.

Photo of Lord George Foulkes Lord George Foulkes Labour

Wait a minute. Notwithstanding what I have said, I agree with the motion. It is right to reconsider arrangements and find out how they now operate. However, as Annabel Goldie said, we should not prejudge the outcome of that reconsideration or what changes are necessary—or, indeed, whether any changes are necessary. The proposed commission could advise on further flexibility or, indeed, on whether it would be better to return any powers to Westminster. Some people in the universities are already talking about that.

We should not be unduly distracted by the so-called West Lothian question, which is better described as "the English dimension". For around 300 years, Scottish legislation was determined by an English majority at Westminster. That majority gave us the poll tax a year ahead of England and against the will of Scottish MPs and the Scottish people. Incidentally, the poll tax gave the greatest boost to the devolution cause.

Photo of Mike Rumbles Mike Rumbles Liberal Democrat

I am enjoying George Foulkes's speech very much, but I wonder whether he has read the part of Labour's motion that states that the proposed commission's aim would be to

"improve the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament".

Photo of Lord George Foulkes Lord George Foulkes Labour

Absolutely. I agree with that, but does Mike Rumbles understand what the result of the second vote in the referendum meant? I am talking about financial accountability. He had power as an MSP for eight years—he was a member of a majority Government that declined to use the power that it had. Perhaps it was right not to use it, but the SNP considers itself to be bolder. If it is, why is it not willing to use that power?

As I said, Scottish legislation was dealt with at Westminster for around 300 years. Therefore, we should not be bothered if it takes us a few more years to deal with the English dimension.

We should consider changes that may be necessary, but let us not damage the union in doing so. The United Kingdom has been the most successful political and economic union in the world. I say to Cathy Jamieson that I am not a Clash fan—I am a Strawbs fan. They said:

"you don't get me I'm part of the union".

I say to my comrades that it does not matter what union it is: unity is strength.

Photo of Tricia Marwick Tricia Marwick Scottish National Party 10:29, 6 December 2007

We are an hour and 15 minutes into the debate and we have already heard George Foulkes and Mike Rumbles arguing about what the motion means.

I am not speaking in this debate for the Scottish Parliamentary corporate body—I am speaking as a member of it. If the Opposition's motion is agreed to, that body will be instructed

"to allocate appropriate resources and funding for this review."

I am astonished that a motion that seeks to set up a commission to recommend changes that would

"improve the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament" also contains an instruction for the SPCB to find the resources and funding for that commission without specifying how much money is required, how long the commission would last or what its membership should be.

Photo of Tricia Marwick Tricia Marwick Scottish National Party

I will not give way. Let me make progress.

How can the Opposition parties expect to be taken seriously when they support a financially irresponsible motion? In their winding-up speeches, Opposition members must tell us how much the proposed commission would cost and where that money would come from. We are not surprised at the financial delinquency of the Opposition parties, which, after all, voted to spend £500 million on the Edinburgh tram project. That money could have been spent on the police, universities or housing. Doing so would have been of more benefit to the people of Scotland than the vanity projects of Tavish Scott and Sarah Boyack.

The Labour Party and the Liberals have always been profligate with other people's money. However, I am surprised that the Conservatives, who boast that all their manifesto commitments were fully costed, are now prepared to cast that aside for a motion that I would not dignify with the suggestion that it was drawn up on the back of a fag packet.

The SPCB's budget for this year is already in place. Staff must be paid and the outreach and education projects are well advanced. The Opposition should tell us what costs are involved in its proposals and what cuts it wants to be made to pay for the commission.

Photo of Tricia Marwick Tricia Marwick Scottish National Party

Let me continue. I will take an intervention if I have enough time at the end of my speech. I am sorry. [ Interruption. ]

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

Order. The member is not taking an intervention.

Photo of Tricia Marwick Tricia Marwick Scottish National Party

The Opposition is going to hear what I have to say about financial accountability. The SPCB's budget is top-sliced from the consolidated fund. In simple language, that means that the Parliament gets its money before the Government gets its own money. Do the Opposition parties want the additional amount—the unspecified costs—that will be needed for the proposed commission to come off the Government's budget?

Members:

Yes!

Photo of Tricia Marwick Tricia Marwick Scottish National Party

Now we are getting there. What cuts do the Opposition parties want to be made to pay for the proposed commission? [ Interruption. ]

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

Order. Members should not intervene from a sedentary position, Ms Baillie.

Photo of Tricia Marwick Tricia Marwick Scottish National Party

The Government's national conversation has already been fully costed, but the Opposition is asking for funding from the SPCB. The SPCB's budget for 2008-09 has already been considered by the Finance Committee. Ms Alexander and her friends should not solicit money from the Parliament for their projects—whether for trams or commissions—without saying where that money will come from. Will funding come from the money for the Parliament's work with schools, its information technology function or its building maintenance? Perhaps, in this family-friendly Parliament, money for the crèche might be cut. However, I have a better idea.

Photo of Tricia Marwick Tricia Marwick Scottish National Party

Members are well aware that there is an on-going allowances review. I hope that it will conclude that members need more money for our staff and offices and that it will report in time for changes to be made in April. Any increase in allowances will have to be met from the SPCB's budget. Members will be aware that a submission has been made to that review on behalf of Ms Alexander. It seems that she cannot do the job of leader of the Opposition without having a massive increase in her leader's allowance, which, it has been said, should rise from around £22,000 a year to up to £63,000 in order to match David Cameron's allowance at Westminster. That is despite the fact that SNP Opposition leaders had to make do with minimum staff and resources for eight years.

I have a challenge for Ms Alexander. If the allowances review concludes that the office of the Labour Opposition leader—whoever that may be at the time—should have more Parliament money, is she prepared to say today that she will forgo that amount, to allow the constitutional commission to be funded by the SPCB? By the time that we vote tonight, Ms Alexander needs to have told the Parliament and the people of Scotland what she considers more important. Is it money for the Labour leader's office or, in the words of her motion, does she recognise "mainstream public opinion" and support

"the establishment of an independently chaired commission to review devolution in Scotland"?

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

You should finish now, Ms Marwick.

Photo of Richard Simpson Richard Simpson Labour

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. If a member resolutely refuses to take interventions, should she be allowed to progress beyond the six minutes that are allocated to her?

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

It is for the member to decide whether she takes interventions. I have already warned her that she should sit down, and I am about to do so again. You should finish, Ms Marwick.

Photo of Tricia Marwick Tricia Marwick Scottish National Party

Politics is about priorities. What will Ms Alexander choose—the commission or more money for the Labour leader's office?

Photo of Trish Godman Trish Godman Labour

I remind members again that, if they run over their time, one of their colleagues will not be called. That is their responsibility, not mine.

Photo of David McLetchie David McLetchie Conservative 10:36, 6 December 2007

This important debate is firmly focused on improving the government of Scotland, in the context of our partnership within the United Kingdom. That is what distinguishes Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat members from the separatists of the SNP, whose nationalist conversation—otherwise known as wee Eck's big blether—is firmly focused on the goal of independence. I put on record, for the benefit of Tricia Marwick, that if we need money to fund our commission, which the Parliament will have sanctioned and approved, we can fund it from her nationalist conversation, which the Parliament has not sanctioned or approved.

Independence is a perfectly honourable position, for which some people have argued with passion and conviction in the past. However, the same cannot be said of the timorous faint hearts in the modern SNP, for whom demonstrating competence in devolved Government is apparently a precondition of independence. For them, the long march to independence and freedom depends on how many potholes they can fill in on the road along the way. That is a strategy known as William Wallace meets Clarence.

One of the big problems with the constitutional debate is the language in which it is often conducted, which plays into a nationalist agenda. A prime example is the notion of "unfinished business", which encourages the view that, incrementally and inexorably, we are on a road to independence. However, from all tests of public opinion, not least this year's election to the Parliament, we know that that view is not shared by the overwhelming majority of our fellow Scots, who instinctively believe in and appreciate the value of the union and of being both Scottish and British. It is time that we spoke up for them, by defining the limits of devolution, the essence of the United Kingdom as a nation state and how that impacts on the division of competences and responsibilities between the Westminster Parliament and this Parliament.

I have no hesitation in saying that among the fundamental characteristics of the union are a constitutional monarchy; a united, democratically elected Government and Parliament; common defence and security arrangements; a common citizenship; a common currency; a UK central bank; a UK single market; common taxes to fund the responsibilities of national Government; and social security and welfare programmes that promote cohesion and unity and ensure equitable treatment across the nation as a whole. I do not pretend that that is a definitive list, but the principle behind my comments is that we need to demarcate the red, white and blue lines, because they define the essence of the united nation. If we do that, we achieve two highly desirable objectives. First, we define the essential difference between unionism and nationalism, and what that means in modern Scotland. Secondly, we are able to have a sensible debate about the distribution of competencies and responsibilities up to that line.

Another area that has been bedevilled by sloppy thinking is the assertion in the claim of right that Scotland has the unilateral right to determine its form of government. On that, I beg to differ. All peoples have the right of self-determination, and Scotland has the right, if it so decides, to choose independence. However, anything short of independence implies the continuance of a partnership with the other countries in the United Kingdom, as part of a unitary British state. It is an elementary principle that no one partner can dictate the terms of a partnership, which require the common consent of all parties. Let us recognise that the future government of Scotland is not a matter for simple assertion by Scots, but a matter for determination by all of us in the United Kingdom. That is why the commission to which the motion refers should be established by Her Majesty's Government, as part of a wider constitutional review that properly considers our neighbours' interests, as well as our own.

Another sloppy notion that should be banished forthwith is the concept of fiscal autonomy. As some have noted, that is an excellent name for an Irish folk singer but a wholly inappropriate description of the financial arrangements that should apply to a devolved or semi-federal system of government such as that which we have in the United Kingdom today. In principle, I think that we should have responsibility for raising a higher proportion of the revenues that we spend on devolved services, but let us recognise that the tartan tax is a dead letter. Only one party in one election since 1999 has been daft enough to propose increasing the rate of income tax in Scotland. That party was the Scottish National Party, with its ill-fated penny for Scotland policy, which was dreamed up in the happy days when Michael Russell ran SNP election campaigns.

The tartan tax should be finally and decently interred, and we should look to other taxes that might more appropriately be assigned to the Parliament—for example, taxes that are more likely to be decreased than increased. One such tax is stamp duty, a reduction in which would support our desire to help people on to the rungs of the home ownership ladder. Another is excise duties, as there is little prospect of a Scottish Government of any complexion increasing the taxes on whisky and petrol—it is far more likely to reduce them.

All the issues that I have raised are matters for consultation and careful consideration. Let us work with the mainstream of public opinion, not at its margins, and consider all these matters in partnership with our friends, neighbours and fellow citizens in the United Kingdom. That is the sensible way in which to proceed.

Photo of Iain Smith Iain Smith Liberal Democrat 10:42, 6 December 2007

Being able to speak in this historic debate, which will help to determine the future direction not only of the Parliament but of our country, is a great opportunity for me.

There is a stark choice before us today, between a new constitutional commission to review and renew the devolution settlement and to create a stronger Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom, and the cul-de-sac or siding of the neverendum and isolation of separation. We can have a genuine debate with civic Scotland and the Scottish people about the powers and responsibilities of the Parliament, or we can talk to ourselves on an internet chat site—the so-called national conversation. At 5 o'clock tonight, the Parliament can take control of the constitutional debate away from the minority Government and take control of our future, killing the national conversation stone dead.

The Government's amendment is wrong in what it aims to do, but it is also factually wrong. I cannot speak for the other parties, but we Liberal Democrats have not changed our position. Like the majority of Scots, we favour a strengthened Scottish Parliament and reject independence. It has been our consistent view that, during the third session of the Scottish Parliament, the devolution settlement should be reviewed in the light of experience. The Liberal Democrats have led the debate on the powers and responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament. For the benefit of Roseanna Cunningham, I say that in our manifesto we called for the establishment of a new Scottish constitutional convention.

In 2006, we published the report of the Steel commission, which sets out the arguments in favour of establishing such a convention. The report identifies areas in which the case for additional powers for the Scottish Parliament is already established and areas in which there is a need for further debate. It makes a clear case for the Parliament to have responsibility for raising most of the money that it spends, shows why it remains in Scotland's interest to be part of the United Kingdom and rejects the case for fiscal autonomy.

Photo of Alasdair Allan Alasdair Allan Scottish National Party

I thank the member for giving way and apologise for interrupting his Ciceronian flow of rhetoric. Does he really take the view that the Government's national conversation is in some way exclusive and unhelpful, when it includes all the options, from giving the Parliament more powers to independence? The option that the member favours is that we should have a conversation purely about the constitutional options with which he happens to agree.

Photo of Iain Smith Iain Smith Liberal Democrat

As the SNP's national conversation wants only one answer, it is not a conversation—I will come on to discuss that later in my speech.

The work that the Liberal Democrats have already done through the Steel commission will form the basis of the work of the new constitutional commission, just as it was our work in the Scottish Constitutional Convention that paved the way for the Parliament. While the SNP sat on the sidelines sniping, it was the Liberal Democrats who helped to deliver Scotland's Parliament. Now we will work with the constitutional commission that is proposed in the motion to improve and strengthen the Parliament.

Scottish Liberal Democrats will propose a range of new powers for the Parliament. For example, it is self-evident that the Scottish Parliament should determine the rules on how we operate. We should not need an act of the UK Parliament to decide how many Deputy Presiding Officers we need. Those powers must include the ability to determine the electoral system for elections to the Scottish Parliament—subject to the proviso that it must continue to be a proportional system—and how those elections are run. After the fiasco of May, why should we trust the Scotland Office to run our elections again?

We should have full control over energy policy to enable us fully to develop our renewable energy potential and to resist nuclear power. Although we control our health service, we do not control the contracts of the doctors, nurses, dentists and other health professionals who work in it. We are now surely mature enough to take responsibility for Scotland's civil service.

The Liberal Democrats will ask the commission to look into whether there should also be devolution of powers in areas such as betting and gaming, marine policy and broadcasting. Powers could be shared with the UK Parliament to a greater or lesser extent in a range of other areas, particularly those in which UK-wide powers have a direct impact on devolved services.

The most fundamental area that needs to be addressed is that of the taxation powers of the Scottish Parliament, because the present arrangement is unsatisfactory and unacceptable. No democratically elected body should be wholly reliant on another for its revenue. To have our budget decided elsewhere—in effect, that is what happens—and to be responsible only for decisions on how to spend the money and not for decisions on how to raise it is not acceptable. Incidentally, that is as true of local government as it is of the Scottish Parliament. The SNP Government's decision to remove, in effect, local taxation from local government is wrong in principle and it will be resisted by our party.

To be properly accountable to the people who elect us, we must have responsibility for raising the money that we spend. That is why the Steel commission proposes a radical new fiscal settlement for Scotland that is based on the principles of transparency and accountability; of raising as much of our spending as practical ourselves; of having substantial authority over the levers of power that most affect the Scottish economy and protection of the environment; of having borrowing powers and fiscal responsibility within an agreed UK set-up; and of equalisation on the basis of need across the UK. The Steel commission rejects so-called fiscal autonomy.

I am sure that, in the course of its work, the commission will discuss the role of Scottish MPs at Westminster. I reject the suggestion that MPs who are elected to Westminster from Scotland should be restricted in what they can vote on. It is ultimately for England to determine what type of devolution, if any, it wishes to have. The UK Parliament must be just that—it must not be a hybrid, whereby it is a UK Parliament one minute and a Parliament for England or England and Wales the next.

I turn to the SNP's amendment. Today's debate is the first opportunity that the Parliament has had to pass judgment on the national conversation, which, according to what the minister in charge, Nicola Sturgeon, said in her letter to the European and External Relations Committee, is not a conventional consultation exercise and does not have "a specific end date." Indeed, she went on to say:

"The Government has not set a closing date for the consultation on the form of the conversation".

I ask Tricia Marwick how the Government can have a budget for the national conversation when it does not even know what it is or how long it will last. We are told that it is a two-way conversation with Government, but the truth is exposed on the national conversation blogsite, which states:

"The overall aim of the Government is to gather support for a referendum in the course of this Parliament."

It is not a conversation; it is simply a ruse to prevent debate on a referendum from being held in the Parliament.

Photo of Iain Smith Iain Smith Liberal Democrat

The motion's proposal for a constitutional commission is the most significant proposal since the Scotland Act 1998. The national conversation, on the other hand, is a farce that should be kicked into touch.

Photo of Patrick Harvie Patrick Harvie Green 10:49, 6 December 2007

I welcome the Labour motion, even though it is drafted in such a way that I cannot vote for it. After the waves of negativity that we have had in previous Labour Party debates, it is genuinely good to see a motion that is positive in tone and which makes a genuine proposal.

Wendy Alexander's speech struck a similar note. In talking about having constructive dialogue and mature debate, she echoed Alex Salmond's words on the day that he formed a minority Government. It is funny that we can all strike that note when the circumstances require it but that we then descend back into skirmishes along the usual battle lines.

However, Labour's position contains contradictions. Wendy Alexander says that the SNP should not push its own agenda, but the remit of the proposed commission deliberately restricts its work and binds its hands, while calling it independent. If it were to be an independent commission, it would be given a free hand to consider all the options. If it were genuinely to seek to generate the broadest debate, it would be inherently inclusive. If it were genuinely to attempt to find common ground, it would welcome into its discussions every strand of political opinion.

There is another problem with the motion—the lack of any mention of a referendum. There is a well-established principle that major constitutional change should be put to the people for a vote. Beyond that, we should take care when we consider some of Wendy Alexander's comments. She said that the Parliament was a fitting tribute to the efforts of those who campaigned for it and that many people in Scotland take pride in it, but we should be careful not to overestimate the esteem in which the Parliament or, indeed, our entire political culture is held by the public. It would be wrong for Scotland's constitutional future to be determined by politicians alone or by commissions that we appoint. It should be determined by the people in a vote, which should include all the options. Those options should be clearly worked out in detail, which I am sure a commission such as the one that has been proposed could do.

I would have been happy to support the motion if it had incorporated slight changes along those lines but, sadly, it deliberately avoids being inclusive of all strands of political opinion. If such a commission is established following today's vote, I hope that it will work in a way that is more in keeping with the inclusive spirit of the Constitutional Convention.

There is nothing in the text of the SNP amendment that makes it impossible for me to support it, but I regret the fact that the SNP has not taken the opportunity to lodge an amendment that at least sought to elicit the support of all, even if that could not be achieved, rather than one that simply sets out its own stall. In such a debate, the right tone for the Government to have struck would have been for it to agree to the idea of a commission, albeit one that was genuinely independent and which had a free hand, even if such a proposal would have been rejected by other parties.

The initiative that we are discussing is the product of three political parties—the Labour Party, the Tory party and the Liberal Democrats, which are the three main parties at Westminster. Those parties will need to make genuine efforts to make the initiative more inclusive and truly free from political control. If they do not, the perception will grow that it is not a Holyrood initiative at all but a Westminster initiative, which is taking place at the behest of—or at least with the consent of—leaders in London.

I note with regret that all three of the leaders of those parties who spoke in the debate have decided that they have more important things to do for the rest of the debate. Nicol Stephen said that he wanted the commission to have the widest possible support. That is the right tone to adopt. For example, there is no democratic mandate for federalism, but it would be quite wrong for any such commission to rule out that option before the debate has begun. The same should apply to other options.

Cathy Jamieson began her speech by talking about some of the problems that have beset Scotland. She mentioned poverty, disadvantage and ill health; to those I would be bound to add still-growing inequality, prejudice, environmental degradation and the harm that our lifestyles will inflict on the generations to come, whose representatives may sit in this chamber and curse our names for our inaction. All those issues and more are the responsibility of a Parliament and a Government but, sadly, the future of our constitutional powers seems to be debated only in the context of one objective of Government—economic growth. Leaving aside whether that should be an objective—my party is sceptical about that, although other parties believe that it should be—surely we agree that it is only one objective of Government.

My hope is that the debate about Scotland's future is broad, not only in participation but in vision. What kind of Scotland do we want? Do we want a Scotland that continues to permit growing inequality or one that places the health and cohesion of our communities on as high a pedestal as the one on which material wealth sits? Do we want a Scotland that continues to live unsustainably, storing up death for future generations, or a Scotland that challenges the culture of me, me, me; greed, greed, greed; and more, more, more—the culture of overconsumption?

Regardless of the text of the motion that is agreed today and whether we pursue the debate through a conversation, a commission, a referendum or an election, may the debate not be bound and blinkered by the narrow interests or prejudgments of today's generation of politicians of any party. Our public stock is not so high.

Photo of Pauline McNeill Pauline McNeill Labour 10:55, 6 December 2007

I have supported home rule for Scotland for most of my adult life. I believe in and campaigned for devolution for Scotland. I never wavered from the idea that Scotland should be responsible for some of its affairs and that the best deal for Scots involves sharing some powers with the UK.

To listen to SNP members' speeches in the debate, we might think that that party is the only one that has a conviction about Scotland's future. Members of the Labour Party—indeed, members of all other parties—disagree. The parties that support devolution firmly believe in the devolved settlement. We have made it work and we want to make it better. That is why we are debating the motion.

Like other Labour Party members, I joined the Labour Party to bring about social change, not to fight for the constitution. However, when I was a student I volunteered to sit on the campaign for a Scottish assembly, which George Foulkes mentioned. The Parliament should honour the many people who contributed to that campaign and to the devolution settlement who are not often talked about—people such as Bob MacLean, Jim Boyack and Brian Duncan. I firmly believed then, as I do now, that devolution would improve the lives of Scots.

The campaign for a Scottish assembly did the groundwork for the establishment of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, which brought together political parties and organisations that had an interest in developing a blueprint for a framework that could be incorporated into an act of Parliament. It is to the credit of the political parties, churches, trade unions and people involved in civic life who participated in the convention that full agreement was reached. Those people ensured that there was a big difference between the 1979 proposal and the 1997 proposal, which became the Scotland Act 1998. It is incredible that the 1998 act adopted most of the convention's framework and that the Labour Government moved to a referendum within five months of coming into power. Of course, the Labour Government had the support of the people in holding a referendum—that is the difference. As members said, all that work took place without the involvement of the SNP, which stood on the sidelines. However, SNP members are patronising us about our conversion to the cause. What a cheek.

The debate is about the view of the vast majority of Scots, who support the devolution settlement but think that perhaps we should refine it. The real debate is how we can do that. The issue is too important to be reduced to a slagging match. The three main Opposition parties need to take on the real debate, which is how we respond to the people of Scotland and the improvements that they want in their lives. The motion sets out a position that I think the vast majority of Scots will support.

We cannot take new powers just for the sake of it; we must find out what changes would benefit Scotland, and we need a mechanism that can do that. The proposed commission would be such a mechanism and there is no reason why there could not be a mature discussion among participants, in partnership with the UK Government. If the Parliament agrees to set up a commission, we will enter a new phase of the devolution settlement, because there will be a review of the Constitutional Convention's blueprint, 20 years on. That seems to be the right direction of travel, but we should not get carried away with the idea that we should review the settlement every 10 or 20 years; we need to ensure that we get it permanently right.

The work of the leaders of Scottish political parties who have a mature relationship with their UK counterparts led to the lodging of the motion. We do not support the establishment of a commission for the sake of it; the approach is the right way forward. Devolution has changed along the way and we have transferred powers from the UK to Scotland without the need to use a mechanism such as a commission. At times we have thought it appropriate for the UK to legislate for Scotland.

I agree with Annabel Goldie that it is about time that we reclaimed the notion that the SNP has a monopoly on securing Scotland's future. The SNP is not good at sharing and does not want to do so in this debate. The introduction to the national conversation document gives the impression that there was no constitutional debate before the advent of the SNP Government. Scots are invited to support independence, although the SNP knows that they do not do so and that support for independence is falling dramatically.

We must start from the premise that devolution works and can work better and we should not collect powers from the UK for the sake of it. We must ascertain the best way forward.

We have been charged with proposing an uncosted commitment in the motion. Is that the best that the SNP can do? Cannot SNP members debate the politics—[Interruption.] Tricia Marwick is interrupting. She thinks that the Parliament's IT budget is more important than the constitution—such was the level of her contribution to the debate—

Photo of Pauline McNeill Pauline McNeill Labour

We should continue to improve the lives of the people of Scotland, tackling poverty and addressing the issues that people care about. The best way of doing that is by supporting the motion.

Photo of Rob Gibson Rob Gibson Scottish National Party 11:01, 6 December 2007

If the idea behind the debate is to regain the trust of the Scottish people, we will not do so by rewriting history or by saying that everything that happened after an arbitrary starting point in history was the result of action that was taken at that point. Wendy Alexander and her friends in the unionist parties have past form in ensuring that Scotland does not get the powers that the people want.

The Parliament is an example of that past form. Its chamber has 131 seats: 129 for members and two for the law officers. There would have been 147 seats if the Scottish Constitutional Convention had had its way. However, the Labour Party did not want the Parliament to be so democratic, so it was agreed to reduce the number of members to 129. There was a proposal to reduce the number further, to 110. Of course, the Tories did not want a Parliament at all. Such attitudes belittle Scotland and its potential.

The start of the devolution era was triggered by Scottish resources, when oil was found in Scottish and Norwegian waters in the 1970s.

Photo of Rob Gibson Rob Gibson Scottish National Party

Not at the moment.

Labour members talked about the Constitutional Convention, but we should consider the convention's origins. When Labour responded to Scotland's demands to control its resources, we got the Scottish Development Agency and a proposal for an assembly that would have no law-making powers. That was what was on offer from London Labour in the 1970s.

Then we got the Thatcher and Blair years, during which we were led into the Falklands war, the first Iraq war, the Afghanistan war and the second Iraq war. We got Trident, and now we are to get the son of Trident—that is the form of the party that lodged the motion.

Photo of Rob Gibson Rob Gibson Scottish National Party

The Labour Party's platform is summed up by Gordon Brown and Douglas Alexander's call for social justice not separatism.

Where is the social justice in a Britain in which the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the whole UK edifice is built on peerages for cash? Why are we not debating that?

Wendy Alexander has one big idea: to protect and promote Great Britain. There is a lack of clarity in the motion. Labour and all the UK parties must make clear which powers they want to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The SNP is clear about that, but the Labour Party is clear about only one thing.

Gordon Brown said earlier this year:

"I continue to reach out to all those who work hard and play by the rules, who believe in strong families and a patriotic Britain who may have supported other parties but who like me want to defend and advance British values and our way of life."

I am sure that Labour members agree with practically every word of that. However, that is the primary reason why they are holding back the Scottish people—

Photo of Rob Gibson Rob Gibson Scottish National Party

No.

That is why Labour members want to hold the Scottish people back from having the full range of discussions that are taking place in the national conversation.

As long as the options on offer relieve us of any potential for a say about the Scottish nation's fundamental requirements and as long as we stick with proposals that are based around the devolution settlement, we can never say no to a British-proposed war. That is the kind of power that the Scots require.

How can we take seriously the arguments that have been advanced this morning? How can we trust the people who have broken so many promises in the past? We need only look at their record. If we could not believe them before, how can we believe them now? What we need to do is to go for the maximum break—147 seats.

Photo of Alasdair Morgan Alasdair Morgan Scottish National Party

I call Elaine Murray, to be followed by Brian Adam. I will need to restrict each of them to five minutes.

Photo of Elaine Murray Elaine Murray Labour

Apparently it was.

In his opening speech, Nicol Stephen referred to the situation in Spain. A dozen years or so ago, I had an interesting discussion about national identity with a friend from Madrid, who said that he was perfectly comfortable with his triple identity as a madrileño, a Spaniard and—most important for him—a supporter of Real Madrid.

In the eight years since the advent of the Scottish Parliament, I and—I believe—the majority of the Scottish people are becoming easier with our identity within the UK. Like Annabel Goldie, I have no problem with supporting Scotland at the Commonwealth games and Britain at the Olympic games. I do not believe that patriotism is exclusive.

The relationship between Scotland and the rest of the UK is developing and maturing and we need to move away from acting like a jealous younger sibling, perpetually whingeing and complaining that big brother is bullying him. I am sorry to say that Kenny Gibson exemplified that very attitude in his speech. Scotland is better than that; we can have an adult partnership of equals in respect if not in size. In the same way, the relationship between this Parliament and the UK Parliament must also develop and mature, despite the Scottish Government's propensity for picking fights with Westminster.

If devolution is growing up, it is appropriate for both partners to review progress. As Pauline McNeill pointed out, since 1999, powers have transferred from Westminster to Holyrood without the need for a referendum or a national conversation. However, today's motion, which is supported by three parties in the chamber, proposes the establishment of a commission to reflect on the experience of devolution. The reason why we have not come forward with a series of proposals is that we expect the commission to consider all the possibilities.

However, we must also recognise that any subsequent action must necessarily be a matter for discussion, negotiation and agreement between the partners in the UK. The national conversation, on the other hand, is nothing more than a Trojan horse designed to bring in independence.

As England is Scotland's largest trading partner, our relationship with England is integral to the Scottish economy's performance. However, that relationship is not just about the economy but about people. Two million people of Scottish origin reside south of the border, and half a million English people live in Scotland. As I represent a border constituency, it is not surprising that a significant number of my constituents are English—including, indeed, my own favourite Englishman. I believe that, in the SNP's proposed independence referendum, the treatment of those half a million English people living in Scotland and the 2 million Scots living in England would be seriously asymmetrical. For example, much as I would have liked to, I was unable to vote in the 1979 referendum simply because I was living in Cambridge. However, in a referendum on Scottish independence, my English husband would be able to vote on whether he became a foreigner in his nation of residence, while my Scottish sister, my Scottish aunt and my Scottish second cousin, who all live in England, would be deprived of a vote on their national status.

Changes in the relationship between Scotland and England affect both nations and should be discussed and negotiated between them. [Interruption.]

Photo of Alasdair Morgan Alasdair Morgan Scottish National Party

Order. There is too much noise in the chamber.

Photo of Elaine Murray Elaine Murray Labour

If there is ever to be a referendum on ending that partnership—

Photo of Ian McKee Ian McKee Scottish National Party

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am an Englishman; I am present in this chamber. As a result, what the member has said is incorrect.

Photo of Alasdair Morgan Alasdair Morgan Scottish National Party

That is not a point of order—and I do not appreciate points of order that are clearly not.

Photo of Elaine Murray Elaine Murray Labour

The member's point of order was not the point that I was making. As an Englishman in Scotland, he will get to vote in a referendum on independence, whereas a Scot who lives in England will not.

The history of the nations that make up the UK before and since 1707 is long and complex. It is a history of evolution and devolution. If agreed to, the proposals in this motion will begin the next chapter of the history of both Scotland and the UK.

Photo of Brian Adam Brian Adam Scottish National Party 11:11, 6 December 2007

It should by now be clear to everyone—apart, perhaps, from Elaine Murray—that the SNP is a civic nationalist party that welcomes people from different countries who want to contribute to Scotland. We want Scotland to work. However, unlike Wendy Alexander, we do not want it to work within the UK, because we are not beholden to London-led politicians making decisions about how we live our lives in Scotland. We do not have to go cap in hand to London leaders for permission to have a different view about how we want our country to progress.

We are undoubtedly going in a certain direction of travel.

Photo of Brian Adam Brian Adam Scottish National Party

If the member allows me to develop my point, I might let him in.

We are clearly travelling in the direction that is indicated in our national conversation. We are giving people the opportunity to express views that are different from our own, which will be taken into account prior to the publication of any draft bill on a referendum. We are willing to let the people choose in a referendum; nothing that I have heard from any of the parties that are in favour of the motion suggests that they are willing to do the same. We are not afraid of the people's choice.

Photo of Brian Adam Brian Adam Scottish National Party

I ask the member to let me develop my point.

We are not afraid to allow the people to choose and are quite happy to ask them questions that we might not like the answer to. Unfortunately, the whole history of devolution is that other parties have not been prepared to allow the choice of independence to be put to the people. Indeed, the SNP did not take part in the Constitutional Convention because the reason for the party's existence was excluded even from discussion.

In fact, the thrust of the motion is to prevent the choice of independence from being put before the people. What are these parties afraid of? We have heard some witty speeches this morning, but the debate should be about the fundamental point of democracy: letting the people choose. It is not about dragging the Scottish Labour Party, the Tory party and the Liberal Democrat party along behind the people. The fact is that we are leading; the other parties are only following. I am delighted that they are moving along that path and that some people have changed their minds about the direction of travel—although, after hearing George Foulkes's speech, I find it hard to see that he has moved anywhere on this issue. He continued with the line that was taken by the Labour Party in the run-up to the election, although he conceded that he might be able to accept the very modest proposals in the motion.

However, there has been little or no detail about the proposals in the motion. I am concerned that the way in which they might be implemented would have serious implications for the Parliament's budget. None of the speakers from the Opposition parties has explained how that will be done.

Photo of Brian Adam Brian Adam Scottish National Party

I will give way to Mr McLetchie if he will explain that to us.

Photo of David McLetchie David McLetchie Conservative

I thought that I had explained it. With the approval of Parliament, we can assign to the commission all the money that the SNP is spending on its nationalist conversation, which has no approval from the Parliament. There is more than enough money to do the job.

Photo of Brian Adam Brian Adam Scottish National Party

I must disagree with you. Parliament approved the appointment of the Government and the Government is acting. You may not like it—

Photo of Brian Adam Brian Adam Scottish National Party

You may not like it either, Presiding Officer—I apologise for that.

Photo of Alasdair Morgan Alasdair Morgan Scottish National Party

The member is in his last minute, Mr Gibson. Will you sit down, please?

Photo of Kenneth Gibson Kenneth Gibson Scottish National Party

If Brian Adam is willing to take an intervention, why will you not let me make one?

Photo of Alasdair Morgan Alasdair Morgan Scottish National Party

The member is winding up. Sit down, Mr Gibson.

Photo of Brian Adam Brian Adam Scottish National Party

Presiding Officer, I understood that what I do with my time is at my discretion.

Photo of Alasdair Morgan Alasdair Morgan Scottish National Party

You are in your last quarter of a minute, Mr Adam.

Photo of Brian Adam Brian Adam Scottish National Party

In that case, I urge the members of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat groups to think long and hard before they vote for the motion. They will be rescuing the Labour Party from the misery that it is in and giving it a credibility that it does not deserve. I do not believe for a minute that the Conservative and Liberal Democrat members believe in the proposals.

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat 11:16, 6 December 2007

The debate is important and the subject is of extreme importance to everybody in the Parliament, although some of the speeches have been a little difficult to understand. Most difficult of all to understand was the speech by Kenneth Gibson—he not only deafened everybody in the chamber, but deafened himself to the extent that he lost his train of thought. However, there have been some serious speeches and some that have misunderstood what the debate is about. The debate is serious and we ought to recognise the different views in the Parliament.

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

The debate about nation, nationalism and the nation state is a serious constitutional debate. With all due respect, I say to Roseanna Cunningham that to suggest that those who are part of the debate and who support the motion because we believe in it are "colluding in ... nonsense" is not a helpful contribution.

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

We should understand that, as Annabel Goldie rightly put it, even those who believe in nationalism but not necessarily the nation state do not have a monopoly on Scottish patriotism. That is an extremely important point. The points of division between us are about where we see ourselves sitting in the debate.

Photo of Roseanna Cunningham Roseanna Cunningham Scottish National Party

It depends on how democratic the member wants to be.

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

The constant sedentary interventions are interesting.

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

No. Roseanna Cunningham has made several interventions from a sedentary position, so I will not take the member's intervention.

The debate is not nonsense. If SNP members think that a debate on nationalism, the nation state and the nation is nonsense, that explains why they cannot take part sensibly.

Photo of Kenneth Gibson Kenneth Gibson Scottish National Party

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. The member says that we are not participating in the debate, but I do not recall seeing Mr Finnie here for the debate while we were listening to other members' points of view—he came in at the last minute to sum up.

Photo of Ross Finnie Ross Finnie Liberal Democrat

It is also profoundly untrue. I have been sitting in my seat for the whole debate—not only can Kenneth Gibson deafen himself, but he is blind.

If I may, I will return to the serious issue that is before the Parliament. The Liberal Democrats have always believed in and campaigned for home rule and we were delighted to be part of the Constitutional Convention. Way back in 2003, our then leader, Jim Wallace, realised that it would be right and proper, after a period of the existence of the Parliament, for it to reconsider its precise situation; that is why he established the Steel commission. Further, as Iain Smith pointed out, our 2007 manifesto called for a new convention. The suggestion that the Liberal Democrats have suddenly and at the last minute caught up is absolute nonsense and does not bear close examination.

The issue is where we go now and where we see ourselves. As a Liberal Democrat, I do not define my nationalism simply by reference to arbitrary borders, but more by reference to my culture, history, education system and system of law. Like Liberal Democrats generally, I also see myself as sitting in an increasingly globalised world in which the notion of the nation state is not the single most important issue. However, it is important that we review and consider the powers of this evolving Parliament, which has made substantial progress in its first eight years as a new institution. It is right and proper that we learn lessons from other constitutional arrangements throughout the world. On the evidence of the Steel commission, the question of greater fiscal federalism is important. Mr McLetchie will be relieved that I am not talking about fiscal autonomy, because I know that that issue vexes him very much. I hope that he has read the Steel commission report—if he has, I am sure that he found it a good read.

As Iain Smith pointed out, other powers ought properly to be examined, because the situation is evolving. There is a division between the Government party and the Opposition parties, but we should not trivialise the issue by making silly points between the parties. The debate is serious, so I hope that the Government spokesman, in winding up, will treat it a little more seriously throughout and acknowledge that there are two legitimate points of view. I am absolutely clear that establishing a new constitutional convention, with the authority of Parliament, which is democratically elected, is the correct way in which to proceed.

Photo of Murdo Fraser Murdo Fraser Conservative 11:22, 6 December 2007

As has been said, today is an historic day on which three parties in the Parliament have combined to agree a way forward for devolution. That is an unprecedented move in the history of the Parliament and of devolution and we should not underestimate its importance. It is 10 years since the referendum on devolution in 1997—10 years on, now is the right time to look again at the Parliament's powers.

Photo of Murdo Fraser Murdo Fraser Conservative

Not at the moment—I want to make progress.

It is important that consideration of the Parliament's powers is done not only in Scotland, but throughout the United Kingdom. David McLetchie made the important point that devolution is a bilateral arrangement between Scotland and the UK. One party in a bilateral relationship cannot unilaterally decide to change its terms. That is why it is important that we engage with colleagues at Westminster and involve the UK Government in the discussion.

As Ross Finnie said, it is important that we have parliamentary endorsement for the process, which represents the mainstream view of Scottish politics. I hope that, tonight, 78 of the 129 members of the Parliament will endorse the proposal. I believe that it has the majority support of the Scottish population. Does not our positive and forward-looking initiative contrast with the narrow and backward-looking stance that we have seen today from the SNP members who have spoken?

Photo of Murdo Fraser Murdo Fraser Conservative

No.

Where is Alex Salmond? Where is the First Minister, the man who wants a national conversation, but who cannot even be bothered to turn up to engage in a debate? That just confirms what we always knew about Alex Salmond: the only conversation that he wants is one in which he does all the talking. I say to Mr Salmond that it is not a conversation when it is all one way. Of course, the SNP does not really want a conversation on the issue, because its mind is closed—the only answer that it wants is independence. It has not come to the Parliament to seek endorsement for its so-called national conversation, but it has committed funds from the Government.

Photo of Nicola Sturgeon Nicola Sturgeon Scottish National Party

I think that I follow the logic of Murdo Fraser's argument, but how can his commission be any less closed than he alleges our national conversation is when it specifically excludes independence as an option?

Photo of Murdo Fraser Murdo Fraser Conservative

There will be a parliamentary majority for our conversation—that is the difference between what we are doing and what the SNP is doing. If the SNP wants to lodge its referendum bill and seek support for it, bring it on. Where is the bill? We were promised it in the first 100 days of the session, but it has not appeared.

Today, the SNP has been outfoxed and outgunned. Its nationalist conversation has been left irrelevant and in tatters. It has been left behind by the new ambition of three Opposition parties. There has been a fundamental divide in outlook between us and the SNP, as has been evidenced in the tone of many speeches. We have had fine, well-constructed speeches from Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat members. They have been positive, forward looking and optimistic. What a contrast with the SNP speeches this morning, which have been negative, carping, narrow minded, backward looking and full of party-political point scoring. Whether it is Nicola Sturgeon, Roseanna Cunningham or Kenny Gibson, SNP members would rather attack than engage, and they would rather grandstand than debate—they refused interventions. The SNP troops are left bewildered and confused. The SNP is on the run. Its leader is hiding in his bunker. If I was the Salmond family dog today, I would be very worried. However, it is not too late for the SNP to change. Even now, it can leave behind its ideological baggage and come and join our conversation.

In the last minute available to me, I will say a little bit about the Conservative position. As Annabel Goldie explained, we have come a long way as a party since 1997. Now, we are not just signed up to devolution but willing to discuss further powers for the Parliament. We have moved faster than we have been given credit for in the SNP amendment, which refers to our "changed position". If ministers had bothered to do their research and look at our manifestos for 2003 and 2007, they would have read that we talked then about considering additional powers for the Parliament. We spoke previously about a royal commission on tax powers. Members know that I personally have long believed in improved financial accountability for the Parliament. Sometimes, in saying that, I was a rebellious voice; sometimes I got myself into trouble. On a personal level, I am delighted to have this issue, which is of great significance, debated. This is an historic day, with three parties working together to take the Parliament forward. I am delighted to support the motion in Wendy Alexander's name.

Photo of Michael Russell Michael Russell Scottish National Party 11:27, 6 December 2007

The debate has clearly been more about heat than light. I was entertained, however, by the vying for who was one's favourite Englishman. I am sure that Elaine Murray's husband, whom I know, is an effective councillor. He would be on my shortlist. Members of my family would be on my shortlist. However, I will be voting for Cathy Jamieson's nomination. As you know, Presiding Officer, when I hum along to my favourite songs, I often hum along to this particular verse from Billy Bragg:

"Britain isn't cool you know, it's really not that great.

It's not a proper country, it doesn't even have a patron saint.

It's just an economic union that's passed its sell-by date."

Those are the words of my favourite Englishman.

Time is short, and I want to mention two speeches in particular. George Foulkes made the best speech that I have heard him make in this chamber.

Photo of Michael Russell Michael Russell Scottish National Party

That is indeed not much, as the Deputy First Minister says, but it was a good speech. If I may use this term kindly, it was the bellowing of a devolutionist mammoth. George Foulkes has a long history in the movement to move Scotland forward. He has given distinguished service. Obviously, however, he represents part of the Labour Party that is deeply uncomfortable with continued change.

I enjoyed the contribution from Kenny Gibson. If I am to call George Foulkes a mammoth, I should probably call Kenny Gibson a tyrannosaurus rex. He made an important point about scaremongering, which dragged the debate down from time to time. Members should remember the reality of modern Europe, as Kenny Gibson said. This March, I travelled from Copenhagen to Malmö by train in 45 minutes. There were no border guards; there was no need for us to show our passports. People commute from one country to another. That is modern Europe, and modern Europe needs a modern Scotland as an independent country.

Like the Deputy First Minister, I am delighted that other parties are converted to the Parliament having more powers. I acknowledge that there are members, not just in the SNP, who have always fought for more powers in the Parliament. Some of us were converted to supporting more powers for the Parliament even before it existed. I was converted in February 1974, when I joined the SNP. Others are even longer in the tooth in their support for more powers for this Parliament.

If members are genuinely in favour of more powers for the Parliament, they must be converted to another concept as well: the primacy of the Scottish people to decide their future. Those two things go hand in hand. The real problem with the motion is that it has no place for the Scottish people. It has a place for the great and the good, and a place for the independent expert, but it has no place for the voters of Scotland. If members believe in the primacy of the Scottish people, they cannot vote for the motion.

Photo of Michael Russell Michael Russell Scottish National Party

I am sorry, but I want to make progress.

There is a substantial difference between the content of the motion and the national conversation. The motion would set up a commission with no public involvement. Let me tell members about the public involvement to date in the national conversation: 43,734 hits, 245,567 hits on the theme pages, 20,993 call-ups for the white paper and 6,999 downloads. There have even been 2,639 comments on the ministers' blogs. This morning I noticed six on mine.

Photo of Michael Russell Michael Russell Scottish National Party

Only one comment was from Mr Fraser.

Failure to recognise the fact of democracy holes the motion below the waterline. Its programme, when it is examined in the cold democratic light of day, fails. It fails in another light, too. Presiding Officer, I know that you are familiar with the concept of Occam's razor: all things being equal, the simplest solution is often the best. If we pare down the motion, we find that what it offers is far from being the best solution.

First, the motion's content fails. It proposes a commission. For how long? The motion does not say. How many members should it have? How will we choose them? It does not say. How much will it cost? It does not say. Where will the money come from? It does not say. What will the role of Westminster be? It does not say. At the end of the process, to whom will the commission report? The motion does not say. What mechanism exists to translate any conclusions into law? It does not say. The only thing that the motion tells us is that the Scottish people will have no role in the process.

Photo of Iain Smith Iain Smith Liberal Democrat

Despite the fact that the member is talking absolute nonsense about the Scottish people not having a role in the proposed commission—they will have—could he tell us—[ Interruption. ] This is about the remit of the commission, not how it will work. How can the member possibly say all that when, even after all these months, the Government has still not set a closing date for the consultation on the form of national conversation, let alone said what the national conversation will do and how much it will cost?

Photo of Michael Russell Michael Russell Scottish National Party

I suggest that Mr Smith adds that to our blog, and we will give him an answer.

The motion fails the test of Occam's razor in another, very significant way. If I may introduce another medieval philosopher to the discussion, the motion is the equivalent of angels dancing on the head of a pin. There is no logic or sense in what it proposes. The simplest and best solution to the problems that Scotland faces is not another commission, nor is it a debate on devolution. The simplest and best solution is independence, and that is the choice that the Scottish people should be asked to make. That is the time-honoured, tried and tested way in which nations throughout the world go about their business. The mental contortions that we have heard from other parties prove that independence is the best way forward. Independence is about freeing Scotland, but it is also about freeing the minds of the people of Scotland and freeing the democratic potential of the people of Scotland.

I invite the parties behind the motion to think again. If they can come up with a genuine way of discussing Scotland's future, this party will take part in that. We invite them to take part in and contribute to the national conversation. We invite them to move out of the cloudy valleys of constitutional guddling that they are locked into and to come up on to the heights, where they can see a real vision for Scotland.

What we have heard today has been deeply disappointing. The motion contains another trap for the Scottish people. The only way that the Scottish people move forward is to vote. They voted on 3 May and chose a new Government. They will vote to choose a new nation.

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour 11:35, 6 December 2007

The Scottish Labour Party, in partnership with others, supported and worked with the Constitutional Convention, campaigned to win the referendum, and brought forward the Scotland Act 1998, which created the Scottish Parliament. As many have said, Donald Dewar regarded devolution as a process, not an event. Let us not forget that the SNP was absent for much of that process. The SNP claims to stand up for Scotland, but there were empty chairs with its name on them during the years of hard work of the Constitutional Convention. Let us not forget that context. We should remember the Scottish Parliament elections. "Don't worry," they said, "a vote for the SNP is not a vote for independence. It's simply a vote for a referendum." They said, "Don't worry. The referendum won't be now. It'll be at some time in the future," so that they could keep the fundamentalists on their back benches in line for as long as possible.

I welcome the speeches from Annabel Goldie and the Conservatives. They are right to remind us that the overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland want not to rip Scotland out of Britain, but to build on a partnership within the constitutional framework of the United Kingdom. Nicol Stephen rightly wants Scotland to be forward and outward looking rather than, as the SNP would have it, constantly looking over our shoulder at history. The SNP's only vision is about division and separation.

We have heard lots of musical references this morning. I hesitate to get involved, but we heard references to The Clash, to Billy Bragg—I pay tribute to Mike Russell's researcher, because I am sure that Mr Russell has never seen Billy Bragg—and the Strawbs. Let me offer two more. My hero, Ronan Keating, has advice for the SNP's Kenny Gibson, Tricia Marwick and Roseanna Cunningham. He said:

"You say it best when you say nothing at all."

Also, I say to Mike Russell that we need, to quote the king himself,

"a little less conversation, a little more action".

That is fitting advice for the SNP.

I will stick with Mike Russell for a moment. We are not afraid of the people's choice, but he is. The SNP should hold its referendum now. It should not do so at the fag end of the session of Parliament because it expects to lose. Brian Adam, wonderfully, let the cat out of the bag. The reason for the SNP's existence is independence and nothing else—[Interruption.]

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour

The reason is not social justice, tackling poverty, economic justice or environmental justice. It is one thing only, and that is independence.

Rob Gibson's history is appalling. He said that the discovery of oil is somehow linked to devolution. I remind him that the discovery of oil, I think, was in the early 1970s. Is he not aware that Keir Hardie called for home rule all round some 70 years earlier than that? Of course, the SNP was not here then.

What have we had from the SNP? A so-called national conversation that appears to be more like a nationalist conversation. It is populated in large part by the SNP's green-ink brigade, who, as we know, are regular contributors to blogs. It is a one-sided conversation and a so-called dialogue with the SNP Government, which is deaf to any view other than its own. David McLetchie got it right—it is "wee Eck's big blether." [Interruption.]

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour

I turn to the white paper on independence and the SNP's proposed bill on a referendum. That will not be competent, because it will be outwith the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998. I remind the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing of the ministerial code of conduct. If she is being accurate when she says that the referendum bill will be competent, she should publish the legal advice in full. Does she have something to hide?

Wendy Alexander, Annabel Goldie and Nicol Stephen are right. This is an historic moment for the Parliament. The motion is an unprecedented cross-party and cross-border initiative. It places Scotland and the interests of the Scottish people at the heart of working within a partnership with the United Kingdom. It calls for an independent commission that is focused on what matters to the people of Scotland—not simply the constitution, but what devolution delivers and how it makes people's lives better in their communities day to day.

Left to the SNP, we will get the politics of grudge and grievance. Murdo Fraser rightly said that the SNP is backward looking. It is more interested in symbols than in improving people's lives, and more interested in flags and fights with the UK Government than in making progress.

Photo of Jackie Baillie Jackie Baillie Labour

The majority of MSPs are interested in making devolution work for the people of Scotland. The SNP, on the other hand, is interested only in itself. I ask members to support the motion.