1. To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02249)

Engagements to take forward the Government’s programme for Scotland.

Yesterday, the governor of the Bank of England said:

“Uncertainty about currency arrangements could raise financial stability issues.”

The First Minister is not getting his currency union—an option that Jim Sillars called “stupidity on stilts”—and is now implying that he will use sterling without agreement. John Swinney hints that a separate Scottish currency will be used, while Dennis Canavan specifically backs one. The First Minister’s former adviser Professor John Kay says that it would be stupid for him not to have a plan B.

Mark Carney talks about confusion with the currency. Can the First Minister tell us where that confusion could be coming from?

I welcome yesterday’s statement by Mark Carney, which I think was a very effective statement to calm the financial markets and speculation. We should all appreciate the fact that, in fulfilling his responsibilities, the governor of the Bank of England made it clear that the duties of the Bank of England would be fulfilled. That was excellent.

I also welcome the fact that Mark Carney reiterated that the suggestion by some in the no campaign that he was against a currency union was not true and that he had not said that. He has now reiterated that a number of times. The Bank of England, quite properly, is neutral on the matter and will implement the proposals that are agreed.

Johann Lamont asked where the uncertainty comes from. Might it be because the United Kingdom Westminster parties seem to have a vested interest in causing as much uncertainty as they can? If that is not the case, why—of all the subjects on which they said that they would not pre-negotiate—have they combined to rule out the proposal for a currency union? Was that not about trying to create uncertainty? I welcome the fact that, thankfully, the Bank of England governor has moved to put an end to the unionist campaign’s plans.

The First Minister may, as usual, impugn the motives of the Westminster parties, but it is not the leaders of the Westminster parties whom the women of Scotland are describing as dishonest. They also describe the First Minister as arrogant, and they describe Nicola Sturgeon as ambitious—but we knew that last week.

The First Minister needs a reality check, because he welcomed Mark Carney’s statement, but he did not listen to what it said. Let us look at what was actually said yesterday. The governor of the Bank of England made it clear that a crucial element of sharing a currency is sharing fiscal risk. He said that there would need to be

“some form of fiscal arrangements.”

In response, the First Minister told Jackie Bird last night:

“What we will control is 100 per cent of our fiscal policy.”

That is simply not true. No, we would not. Mark Carney says that we would not. Is the First Minister not deliberately misleading the people of Scotland on the fundamental issue of the currency?

In relation to the suggestion that I made that the unionist parties were trying to create instability, I will cite what the principal of the University of Glasgow, Professor Anton Muscatelli, said in an article in the Financial Times. He said:

“The most damaging prospect to the rest of the UK from rejecting a sterling currency union is what it will do to its own trade and business activity. Whatever the political tactics involved, it would be tantamount to economic vandalism.”

Therefore, it is not just the yes campaign that detects from the behaviour of the no campaign a deliberate attempt to create uncertainty and fear; the academic observers, the impartiality of whose commentary on these matters cannot be impugned, detect exactly the same thing.

As far as the Survation poll is concerned, I suppose that we have an opportunity each month to look at the Survation poll to find out what did not seem, for some apparent reason, to get into the Daily Record poll. I think that the answer might be on page 10 of the poll document. The 1,000 women who were polled were asked their voting behaviour. The poll found that the Scottish National Party could expect support from 43 per cent of the women, whereas the Labour Party could expect support from 27 per cent.

Many people consider it unlikely that the SNP could ever repeat the landslide of 2011 but, according to the Survation poll that Johann Lamont seems to be so pleased about, SNP support among women has increased since then and Labour support has declined. If there was an election now, on the basis of the poll of women voters—it is only one poll, but they are a very important part of Scotland’s population—the SNP could expect to have even more MSPs and the Labour Party would have considerably less.

And they wonder why people call the First Minister arrogant. He did not answer the serious question that he was asked about the currency.

The First Minister quoted one person. I would be here all day if I quoted all the independent experts who say that his lack of a plan B is creating grave uncertainty for families across the country.

John McFall, a former chair of the Treasury Select Committee—[Interruption.]

Order.

Forgive me—we are supposed to quote only people who agree with the First Minister. Sadly for him, in a democracy the rest of us are entitled to an opinion.

John McFall, a former chair of the Treasury Select Committee, said:

“Governor Carney was asked specifically about the potential of capital flight in the event of independence and said that he has contingency measures.

It’s clear that the Bank of England is putting plans in place to prevent a run on Scotland’s banks that would be caused by Alex Salmond’s complete failure to set out a credible position on currency. This would put the livelihoods of millions of Scots at risk.”

Does the First Minister care that his plans for separation could lead to the devastation of the Scottish economy? Is Andrew Large, a former deputy governor of the Bank of England, right when he describes the First Minister’s currency plan as a “huge deception”?

Rather than quote John McFall—he is an estimable man, but he is a Labour politician—on what Mark Carney said, why do we not quote Mark Carney directly? I welcome what Mark Carney said yesterday, because he was impartially fulfilling his responsibilities as the governor of the Bank of England to calm financial markets.

Johann Lamont suggests that all this uncertainty has nothing to do with the better together campaign. She did not like the quote from Professor Anton Muscatelli, the principal of the University of Glasgow, so shall we quote the better together website? Of course, better together has no interest in creating instability or fearmongering and no interest whatsoever in project fear.

The better together website says:

“Financial market speculation could lead to capital flight and higher interest rates. Ultimately, if markets weren’t calmed, Scotland” would

“have to adopt its own separate currency in a time of crisis.”

Johann Lamont and the better together campaign are trying to create uncertainty. They tried to create uncertainty on inward investment but, unfortunately, that has moved to an all-time high since 1997. They tried to create uncertainty on jobs—they said that jobs would be lost because of the referendum—but Scotland now has a record employment figure and a record figure for women’s employment.

Just as the attempts on inward investment and jobs failed, so will the attempts to generate instability in the financial markets, thanks to the resolute intervention and action of the governor of the Bank of England—the person who is charged with a responsibility, which he has fulfilled. I welcome Mark Carney’s intervention.

The First Minister must understand that his prospectus for independence, without knowledge of what the currency would be, is what is creating uncertainty. Only the First Minister would blame those who point that out to him as being those who are causing the uncertainty. The rest of us want the best option for the people of Scotland: keeping the pound—[Interruption.]

The Presiding Officer:

Order.

Keeping the pound in a currency union with economic stability and political representation within the United Kingdom—that is the best option. That is why the majority of doctors, the majority of women and the majority of the people of Scotland are proudly voting no to protect families across the country and in the future.

The governor of the Bank of England was answering a question about savers taking their money out of Scottish banks and investing it in other countries because Alex Salmond cannot tell us what Scotland’s currency would be after a yes vote.

Mark Carney clearly thinks that the risk is real, because he has revealed that the Bank of England has contingency plans for it. Before the financial crisis hits—[Interruption.]

The Presiding Officer:

Order.

If it was only their own future that SNP members were putting at risk, we would expect that kind of answer. This is a risk for families and their futures across the rest of the United Kingdom and in Scotland, and it deserves better than cat-calling from SNP back benchers.

Let me ask the question again. Before the financial crisis hits, should the First Minister not end the currency uncertainty by simply telling us: what is his plan B?

The point about scaremongering has just been made for me by Johann Lamont’s question.

Of course, we should all bow to the Labour Party’s expertise on financial crises hitting. We should remember that the financial crisis was analysed by the former governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, who said that the failure of the Labour Government to act made the financial crisis much, much worse. Financial crises are not the strongest suit of the Labour Party or of Johann Lamont.

What is certain is that the governor fulfilled his responsibility yesterday in seeking to ensure that he was doing his job and fulfilling his responsibility by stopping the instability that I believe is caused as a deliberate campaign tactic by the unionist parties.

I pointed out that the unionist parties said that inward investment was going to be deterred—it has not been. They said that jobs were going to be lost, but we have record job numbers. Just as those tactics have failed, so will all the tactics.

Johann Lamont asks what currency we will use. We shall use the pound. That is why we have made it clear and why we are adamant. We are saying that because we do not want to get drawn into the game of the unionist parties, which are attempting to create instability.

I welcome the intervention by the governor of the Bank of England. Another of the unionist campaign’s foxes has just been shot.