Secretary of State for Scotland (Meetings)

First Minister's Question Time – in the Scottish Parliament at 12:00 pm on 25 November 2010.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Tavish Scott Tavish Scott Liberal Democrat 12:00, 25 November 2010

To ask the First Minister when he will next meet the Secretary of State for Scotland. (S3F-2732)

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

I have no plans for a meeting in the near future but, as with the Prime Minister, I have asked for an urgent meeting with the Secretary of State for Scotland to discuss the Conservative-Liberal Democrat version of the Calman proposals.

Photo of Tavish Scott Tavish Scott Liberal Democrat

After all the smoke and mirrors this morning, will the First Minister, on behalf of his Government, now tell Parliament exactly what Mr Swinney apologised for—[ Interruption .]

Photo of Tavish Scott Tavish Scott Liberal Democrat

Will the First Minister, on behalf of his Government, tell the Parliament exactly what Mr Swinney apologised for, given the entire motion that the Parliament passed last night?

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

Mr Swinney apologised for not informing Parliament of key moments during the discussion on the Scottish variable rate and the fact that it would take many millions of pounds to make it available for early implementation.

Occasionally, ministers are in the position of not being able to inform Parliament of some things. For example, my officials and Mr Swinney's officials have been engaged in 14 meetings with the Treasury on the Calman proposals—or a version of them. I know what is in the proposals on Calman to be published next week, and I also know what is not in them, but I am not in a position to tell Parliament because I have been asked to keep a confidence on the detail of the proposals. Sometimes, ministers are in that position but, as John Swinney acknowledged yesterday and I have acknowledged today, the information on the SVR should have been brought to Parliament so that it could make a decision on whether John Swinney was right not to spend millions of pounds on a tax power that he did not intend to use.

Photo of Tavish Scott Tavish Scott Liberal Democrat

Parliament is asking Mr Salmond about things that he is responsible for, not other things. He has to decide how to repair the Government that he leads and for which he is responsible. Mr Salmond let his own independent budget review experts believe that

"There is no reason, in principle, why the Scottish variable rate of income tax ... could not be used".

Mr Salmond's Government implied in this chamber last week that it had considered whether to use the tax power from next April even though it knew that it could not. Mr Salmond's finance secretary told Mr Harvie in that debate:

"I do not think that there is a compelling argument in favour of using the tax-varying powers at this time."—[Official Report, 17 November 2010; c 30477.]

Why does Mr Salmond not understand that Parliament passed a motion last night condemning his Government for misleading Parliament? Will he now refer that matter to his independent advisers on the ministerial code—the former Presiding Officers?

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

I will consider any letters that come into me.

Let me point out to Tavish Scott that no finance minister who has announced to this Parliament that they are not using the tax-varying powers was ever in a position to implement them the following April. As we know from the documents produced yesterday, even if the 10-month trigger period had still been in operation, it would not have been possible. No minister could stand up in November and, even if the 10-month trigger period had been in operation, implement a tax change the next April. I know Tavish Scott did not appreciate that point when he was calling for a cut in the variable rate, but it has always been the case.

What we also know now—and what Mr Swinney and I should have brought to the Parliament—is that that 10-month period was not implementable. It was not implementable before 2007 and it was not implementable when Andy Kerr was Minister for Finance and Public Services and Tavish Scott was Deputy Minister for Finance and Public Services. It was not capable of being implemented except if we had been prepared to pay many millions of pounds to HMRC to bring in the system.

If Mr Swinney had considered it important to use the variable rate at any time over the past three and a half years, the way to do that would have been to pay many millions of pounds to HMRC. He was not going to use the rate; therefore, he decided that it was not a good idea to waste millions of pounds of Scottish taxpayers' money.

Photo of Iain Smith Iain Smith Liberal Democrat

The First Minister will be aware of press reports that the Ministry of Defence is considering closing RAF Leuchars in North East Fife instead of RAF Lossiemouth. Does the First Minister agree that it is totally unacceptable for the MOD to play one off against the other? Does he agree that RAF Leuchars and RAF Lossiemouth both play vital but distinct roles in the United Kingdom's defence, to say nothing of the respective economic and social importance of the bases to the communities where they are located?

Photo of Iain Smith Iain Smith Liberal Democrat

Will the First Minister give me an assurance that he will support the campaign to save RAF Leuchars with the same vigour and commitment that he has shown to the campaign to save RAF Lossiemouth? Will the First Minister

Photo of Alex Fergusson Alex Fergusson None

I am sorry, but I must ask the First Minister to reply. We do not have time, Mr Smith.

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

I agree with the substance of the question. I agree that this looks like a pretty shabby divide-and-rule tactic from the MOD. We should not allow ourselves to be divided and ruled.

As Iain Smith knows, the document that was signed and endorsed by all four of the party leaders in Scotland contained support not just for the north-east air bases, but for RAF Leuchars. Now that it seems that RAF Kinloss is destined for closure, one third of the air capacity in Scotland is to be removed. That seems, to me, more than enough of a sacrifice for Scotland to make in the defence review. Therefore, the Parliament should unite in making it clear to the MOD and to anyone else that it is not acceptable to close RAF Lossiemouth and that it is not acceptable to close RAF Leuchars. We should not allow ourselves to be divided and ruled.