Official Report 1132KB pdf
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-14344, in the name of Lorna Slater, on its being 10 years since Scotland’s independence referendum. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes that 18 September 2024 marks 10 years since the referendum on Scottish independence; recognises what it considers to be the historic level of democratic engagement during the campaign, which, it understands, resulted in the highest voter turnout since universal suffrage; understands that support for Scottish independence has consistently polled at 45% to 50% of Scotland’s population in the decade since; considers that the Scottish Parliament has been undermined in recent years by the UK Government, including through Brexit, the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, and the use of an order under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998; welcomes the commitments made by both the Scottish Government and the recently elected UK Government to reset the relationship between the two governments, but considers that it remains unclear whether either government has set out what would constitute such a reset, and notes the belief that the Parliament and the people of Scotland, including those in the Lothian region, must have the opportunity to shape any improved relationship, including by establishing how the people of Scotland could progress a legal route to independence if that is their wish.
17:37
I woke up today feeling cheerful, even though it is not the anniversary of Scotland’s independence day. I have very fond memories of the run-up to indyref 2014. Everywhere that I went—to work, to the gym, walking down the street—people were talking about first-past-the-post voting systems; the unelected House of Lords; the powers, or lack thereof, under devolution; and whether Scotland should be home to nuclear weapons. People were energised and interested in politics—that was the moment when we had the power to shape our future.
I was not a campaigner for indy; I was not involved in politics in any way at the time. I was working in Orkney on a wave energy machine, and I travelled back to my home in Edinburgh to cast my vote for yes. The next morning, when the announcement was made that the no vote had won, I had a terrible sinking feeling in my stomach—the feeling of an opportunity lost, and a moment for a better future missed.
Over the next two weeks, that feeling galvanised me to the point at which I sat at my computer and googled “Green party”; I found the Scottish Greens and paid my £3 to join. The interesting thing was that I was not the only person who did so. The membership of the Scottish Greens quadrupled in that week: thousands of people joined up, inspired by the dream of a different future—the dream of an independent Scotland.
The unionist parties in the chamber keep hoping that the question of independence will just go away. Instead, support for independence is strong. I understand that, before the referendum was called, support was at about 27 per cent. The campaign for indy drove that support up to 45 per cent on voting day—a huge achievement, in which Green yes played a significant part. Support kept growing, and today, it sits at around 50 per cent. We know that young people overwhelmingly support an independent Scotland, so it looks like it will continue to grow.
The independence campaign inspired us because it gave us the chance to imagine something better, and to engage with the big questions of how we build a society that is based on fairness, equality and respect; how we redistribute wealth so that everyone has enough to live a dignified life; and how we play our role on the global stage to foster peace and good global citizenship. The Scottish Greens have long supported independence because of the opportunity that it gives us to build a fairer, greener and more equal Scotland.
There is a mystery here. Before 2014, when support for independence was much lower than it is today, the Westminster Government deigned to grant us a referendum. Now, with support so much higher, and with Scotland having returned a pro-independence majority to Holyrood and Westminster time after time, the Westminster Government forbids a referendum. Not only that, but it refuses to set out the conditions under which it would allow that democratic expression of the will of the Scottish people to take place. Why are those in Government at Westminster so adamant? It is a great mystery. Could it be because they know that they would lose?
We were promised the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world, but in reality, in the past 10 years, we have actually seen a rolling back of the powers of Holyrood, in particular following Brexit. We have had imposed on us the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, which restricts our ability to make simple decisions such as introducing a national recycling scheme or banning the sale of peat and compost. On top of that, we have seen the first indiscriminate use of section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998, in which Westminster has used a veto over democratically agreed legislation that has been passed by this Parliament. That is nothing short of an insult to devolution.
The past three years has thrown up, again and again, the limits that Scotland faces as part of the UK, aggravated by a UK Government that was so disrespectful of this Parliament and of the entire concept of devolution. However, we must not lose hope, and we should not lose sight of how we might shape our on-going vision of what independence is for, and how the powers of independence can make people’s lives better.
That can start now, with a reset of the devolved settlement in Scotland. Both the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments have said that they support such a reset and are committed to working constructively together, but we have yet to see what that would actually entail. Will there be a change in direction on the internal market act? Will the incoming Government support the Sewel convention instead of breaching it at every opportunity?
At the very least, a reset must mean an agreement between this Parliament and the UK Labour Government, ahead of the next Holyrood election, setting out how and when a decision on independence can be made. What is the route to independence? What is the route to asking the Scottish people that democratic question?
You seem to be focusing on the route to independence, but what about the route for the 65 per cent of people in Dumfries and Galloway who wanted this Parliament to concentrate on making sure that Scotland benefits as being part of the union?
Always speak through the chair.
An interesting point arose in the previous debate this afternoon. In that debate, Douglas Ross seemed to say that democracy is something that we do only once, but Ash Regan then listed a whole bunch of democratic events—every single democratic event that has happened since 2014. That is because democracy is not something that we do only once; it involves going back and getting the consent of the people for the decisions that are made. That is why, I say to Mr Carson, we hold elections every five years and not just once.
In Scotland, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament must max out our powers in order to build a compassionate social safety net to protect—[Interruption.]
I hear some members chuntering about a “neverendum”. There is an interesting question about whether those members would actually like to campaign for the union, because I suspect that they would not—[Interruption.]
Members, please.
Members can campaign for the union—[Interruption.]
Please sit down, Mr Bibby. Mr Carson. I will not have this shouting across the chamber from a sedentary position. It is disrespectful to the person who has the floor, who in this case is Lorna Slater.
Please continue, Ms Slater.
Members should enthusiastically campaign for the union, if that is what they believe in, but to not allow a referendum is a cowardly position. That is not a democratically justifiable position at all.
The Scottish Greens will do everything that we can to ensure that, by the time that the 20th anniversary of 2014 comes around, we are celebrating it in a fairer, greener and independent Scottish republic.
17:46
There is a famous play, “Look Back in Anger”, by John Osborne. I look back at the result of the 2014 referendum not in anger, but with sadness at the lost opportunities for this talented nation.
Until the declaration at Dalkeith, I had no idea whether we would win, and neither did the Tories and Labour at that count. When I saw that we had lost, I put a brave face on it, but I felt sick to the pit of my stomach.
The debate and the rallies leading up to that moment had been invigorating. Scotland was alive to the possibilities, or otherwise, of being an independent nation again. The 84 per cent turnout was ballot-proof evidence of that engagement. We can compare it to the 60 per cent turnout at the recent election. We should remember that Labour is in power with 34 per cent of the UK vote on a 60 per cent turnout. That is hardly an endorsement of either Labour or the voting system.
In 2014, much the same as now, the majority of the press were rooting for the union. Gordon Brown, like a dark sorcerer, produced, from his back pocket, the vow: greater powers if you vote no. Now, we know where that went—sorcerer that he was, it was smoke and mirrors. There were scare stories by project fear that pensioners would lose their pensions, the pound in people’s pockets would be worthless and so on. That, together with the threat of being turfed out of the European Union, did the trick.
Here we are now, 10 years on. In Scotland, we voted 62 per cent to remain in the EU—every single part of Scotland, every constituency and every council area did so—but we are out. Pensioners have one of the lowest pensions in Europe, and the removal of their winter fuel payment is the first—though probably not the last—body blow to the most vulnerable. Heating costs in Scotland are the highest in the UK, yet we are fuel-rich in green energy.
We were told that we needed the skills and economic talents of UK plc and that we could not hack it alone. We were told that having an independent economy would sink us, so instead we had Boris “oven-ready” Johnson—all bluster and no substance—and a Brexit that has cost the UK economy dear. He took us out of the EU in the middle of a pandemic. How many now regret that they voted to be out? Never a penny was seen of that £350 million per week that was promised on the side of a bus.
We were then gifted Liz Truss, who—with the stroke of a pen, or a tap at the keyboard—plunged the markets into chaos, panicked the banks and sent inflation into orbit. Pre-election, the First Minister and the Office for Budget Responsibility warned of an £18 billion black hole in the Treasury. Up stepped Labour, which finds that it is £22 billion—what a surprise! Pull the other one. In 2008, the banks collapsed. We in Scotland have known only austerity and Westminster economic incompetence. We were promised more of both by Sir Keir Starmer, and that has already begun.
What could we have had? At the top of the agenda is control of our own economy, the opportunity to invest in our natural assets, green energy, food and drink, research and development, tourism and so on. We could have been like other small European nations—members of the EU in partnership. We could have been in partnership with our nearest neighbour—my place of birth—England, in a similar way to the situation of the Scandic countries. We could have had a decent pension for our elderly. Of course, independence would not automatically have brought about a land of milk and honey, but it certainly would not be facing the grim landscape of a broken, bankrupt Britain.
I think that the Scottish people have seen the fraud that was the better together campaign. Successive UK Governments must have feared a referendum—why else would they block it? Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. The Scottish people will not be fooled again. Look back, not in anger but to learn from the past.
17:50
I would love to say that it was a pleasure to listen to a second debate on independence, but it is not, because I learned as a soldier a long time ago that fighting the battle in the same way as it has been fought before will get you the same result.
Lorna Slater said that she wakes up cheerfully every morning. I do, too. I wake up cheerfully because I am alive and part of the union. She wanted to know whether I would campaign for the union. I would campaign for it every day. For 12 years, I was happy to defend it when that was needed.
I remind members of what Barack Obama said:
“If you have to win a campaign by dividing people, you’re not going to be able to govern them”.
Remember that, because the independence campaign was all about dividing people, setting families against one another and setting people across Scotland against one another—[Interruption.] You can sit there and make as much noise as you like, but it was barely a year after the independence referendum—[Interruption.] Would you just—[Interruption.] I will give—[Interruption.] I will give way—[Interruption.]
I am sorry, but when two people are speaking at the same time, I cannot hear what each of them is saying. Please continue, Mr Mountain.
It was barely a year after the independence referendum when my son, having just returned from Afghanistan, was head-butted in Inverness by somebody who felt that he had no right to be there, because his father was a supporter of the union. That is not joyous; that is not civic. As far as going for an independence vote is concerned, if those people want to go forward with it, they have to prove their competence in government, and this Government does not have a record of competence over 17 years. We have higher taxes. We have a Scottish National Investment Bank that lost £14.6 million last year, and, when the committee questioned witnesses from the bank, they did not even know what the rate of return was on the £435 million that they had invested.
On the basis of Edward Mountain’s logic, given that the incompetent Conservative UK Government lost tens of billions of pounds, should the UK still be independent?
I am not sure that I follow that logic. The United Kingdom is a united front of people who stand together behind one flag and one Government, and that is what I am prepared to defend.
We have rising waiting lists in the national health service, and there has been a failure to meet cancer waiting times, including for chemotherapy and radiotherapy—I know about that. There has been a decline in our educational ability in maths and science; we have an increasing attainment gap; we have failed to reach our climate change targets; we have not had the A9 dualled, as was promised, or the A96; and we have ferries that are costing us at least £400 million, instead of £100 million, and which are seven years late.
Will the member recognise that he is describing the situation that we are currently in in the union?
Yes, but those are all things that—as, I am sure, Ms Slater understands—are the responsibility of the Scottish Government and that the Scottish Government can control. If she does not understand that, I am surprised that she was a minister.
Let us be quite clear that we also have an ageing ferry fleet.
As I made clear earlier, I am very happy to stand up and defend the union every day, and I will be very happy to raise a glass—albeit only with water—this evening to toast the Greens, because they have made defending the union easier through their incompetence in government, with their failed deposit return scheme, which will cost this country millions of pounds, and their failed action on rent control.
I say to members who are sitting in the chamber making lots of noise about why they think that Scotland should be independent that, instead of doing that, they should get on and prove their competence in government, which they have failed to do for 17 years. Frankly, I find that disgraceful.
17:55
I said in the previous debate that we should focus on the future, not the past, but that is somewhat challenging when the topic of this particular debate is specifically on what happened 10 years ago today. A decade ago today, the people of Scotland got to do something that few people in history have ever had the opportunity to do: exercise their democratic right to determine their national identity and their country’s borders. In a world that is shaped by geography, conflict, colonialism and imperialism, it was a rare act of self-determination. When we go on a trip down memory lane, we can remember the remarkable democratic engagement that the referendum sparked, but let us not forget that it was not a universally positive experience. It is wrong to suggest that it was, and it is also wrong to not acknowledge the division that it caused, not just in the country but in families and between friends.
Most important of all, let us remember that the people of Scotland spoke, and they did so decisively in affirming Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom. Of course, many things have changed in what has been an eventful decade since, with Brexit, the pandemic, Donald Trump, a land war in Europe and Prime Ministers and First Ministers coming and going, some more quietly than others. Furthermore, some of the leading figures in the debate are, sadly, no longer with us—I speak not least of Alistair Darling.
Other things remain the same: Scotland is still to qualify for a knockout round of a major tournament, and summer remains an all-too-fleeting event rather than an actual season.
The past 10 years should teach us all a lesson in humility—that none of us has a crystal ball and that we cannot predict with any certainty what will happen in the years ahead. In the same way that many on the no side could not have foreseen the Brexit debacle, the yes side could not have predicted the repeated collapse in the oil price.
The member says that we do not have a crystal ball and cannot predict the future, but does he accept that, 10 years ago, the people of Scotland were told that, if they voted yes, they would not be in Europe and the economy would tank? All those things have happened under the union, so surely we can get some honesty from unionists.
Ten years ago, the Scottish National Party was willing to forsake its place in the European Union and was warned that the European Union was going to—[Interruption.] It was willing to forsake that. The SNP called José Manuel Barroso, the President of the European Commission at the time, “preposterous” for suggesting that an independent Scotland would have to rejoin the EU. Let us not be revisionist about this: it was the SNP that was willing to put at risk our place in the European Union. I have just said that many of us on the no side could not foresee Brexit, but, equally, I presume that nobody in the yes campaign could have predicted the collapse in the oil price during the past 10 years, which would have brought economic turmoil to a newly independent country.
We should have learned another lesson in the decades since the referendum, which is that, beyond the binary question of yes or no, there is a far richer debate about the devolution of powers, which is rooted in the realities of the modern world. For all the heat and light of 2014, both sides accepted that this was a dynamic debate that accepted two unavoidable truths, which were that the Scottish Parliament needed more powers, and that people wanted more decisions to be taken closer to home but felt that it would be better if Scotland retained elements of the union, including the currency, the central bank and the monarchy—propositions relating to all of which were contained in the Scottish Government’s white paper in 2014.
As I said, the constitutional argument exists on a spectrum; it is not just a binary question. That spectrum is not just about Holyrood and Westminster; it is about councils, too. Power close to home does not mean that power should sit exclusively in Edinburgh; it means power being handed down to our towns, cities and communities. However, under the SNP, Scotland has become more and more centralised in recent years. Councils have been relegated to the role of delivery agents for the centre, rather than being a genuinely empowered level of government. The same is true of NHS services and police services being centralised. I believe that those issues form the real debate about Scotland’s constitutional future.
It is right for people to consider the best place for power to lie, whether that be at Westminster, Holyrood, local authority or community level, as long as they do so in good faith, not blind faith. There is and always will be a place for that discussion. However, as that discussion goes on, we cannot continue to look backward. We cannot allow every discussion about Scotland’s future to be reduced to a look back at the past. The people of Scotland deserve better than that. They deserve action, ambition and a Government that is focused on improving their lives right now, not in some hypothetical independent future.
Let us not squander our time on debates that seek to divide us. It is time to move forward. Let us focus on the issues that matter to the people of Scotland. The path to a better future does not require breaking away from the UK. It requires vision, ambition and political will. Most importantly, it requires unity, not division.
18:00
I raise my glass back to Edward Mountain and thank him very much for reminding us all of the vandalism of Alister Jack when he decided to put a wrecking ball through the deposit return scheme, wasting all that investment and the jobs that had been created. That is just one example of his and the previous Government’s contempt for this Parliament, whether on environmental policy, economic policy, equalities policy or anything else.
I know that Mr Mountain might wish that, as he described it, we were all united behind one flag. He is perfectly entitled to wish for that, even though it is not true that we are, but he is simply wrong in saying that we are all united behind one Government. He has miscounted the number of Governments in the UK. That is simply a matter of fact.
I am genuinely sad that, due to a personal appointment, I have not been able to be in the Parliament today. It feels like I have missed a very special atmosphere all afternoon, to be honest, and I wish that I had been there. I know that some people have been discussing the atmosphere during the referendum campaign in 2014. I have no doubt that there was some bad behaviour on both sides—I saw bad behaviour on both sides—but it was nothing compared to the political violence that we have seen in relation to British nationalism obsessions such as Brexit and, as we have seen this year, immigration.
We should all condemn political violence, but it is simply absurd to suggest that the 2014 independence referendum was some low point in our politics. In fact, I remember that on referendum day, like so many politicians and campaigners, I spent some time outside a polling station speaking to voters coming in. I spent that time sharing on social media examples of yes and no supporters showing empathy, interest, compassion and concern for one another.
My favourite example involved one of our campaigners in Edinburgh, who was standing outside a polling station with other yes and no campaigners who were all having a chat and exchanging a biscuit or two. A guy—probably in his 70s but maybe even older—came up to them and said, “How do you do this, son? How do you vote?” He had never voted before, but he was motivated in that moment to cast his vote and exercise his democratic right to be heard. The campaigners on both sides were far more excited about the fact that he turned up to vote than they were about how he was going to vote. I think that that characterises a great deal of the democratic spirit of 2014, and that is certainly something that we should celebrate.
It is important, though, to acknowledge the pain that some of us still feel. As I commented on social media earlier today, one of the most painful aspects is remembering having been dismissed—even laughed at and ridiculed—for saying that, if we voted no to independence, we would be endangering our place in Europe, because the UK was threatening to take us out of the European Union against our will. It is painful to reflect on standing in a national televised debate, expressing that concern and being dismissed, with the argument being treated with contempt, when, in fact, what we predicted is exactly what came to pass: Scotland voted to remain in the European Union but we were dragged out against our will, losing our freedom of movement—a freedom that is exercised by many Brexiteers but which they have taken away from young people.
However, I take heart from the fact that young people in Scotland do not seem to be resigned to that being their fate. They feel optimism and passion for a better Scotland, and I believe that, in my lifetime, they will make it happen.
If either Government wants to finally define what they mean by a reset in the relationship in the short term, I am open to that—I am all ears to hear what ideas they have for improving it. However, fundamentally, that must include an answer to the question that unionists have left unanswered for years now: if, at some point, the people of Scotland decide that independence is their preference, how may they express that decision? Those arguing for the union are entitled to do so, but they are not entitled to say that the people of Scotland cannot make that choice, and I believe that they will.
18:05
Ten years ago today, I missed a day of school to do some final work for the yes campaign. I began my day standing at the Yankee pier, holding a yes sign and looking towards the horizon with an oil rig in the distance and a no voter behind me. I spent much of the rest of the day in Inverness, getting out the vote, before heading back over the Kessock bridge to spend the evening at the count in Dingwall as a member of “Generation Yes”. I had gone from genuine horror at the news that I was getting to vote early—after all, being able to vote before one was 18 was early back then—to devoting every waking hour to the cause that I had come to believe in.
Christine Grahame talked about what could and should have been and I feel everything that she said, because I am sure that we took the wrong road 10 years ago. However, that was not the final opportunity: we can still build a fairer, better and more exciting Scotland. When I look at the United Kingdom, I still cannot imagine that any campaign to join the UK would gain much traction if Scotland were already an independent country.
My party, and others who believe in independence, have a job to do to convince others. Ten years on, the biggest movement of the dial has been in response to Brexit. What people saw happen at that time, and what outraged them—voters in other countries taking Scotland out of the EU against our will when people in every single local authority here voted to remain—was a very public thing.
That got a lot of media attention then, but it is happening every day, both in tiny and in huge ways. From UK ministers taking years to sign a simple order on something that they had already agreed to devolve, to the bringing in of an internal market act that has been used to limit this Parliament’s ambitions, what the Tories did to Scotland in 2016 is a regular occurrence now.
I know that resenting injustice is not good enough on its own to win hearts and minds—we must also inspire. I remember so much that was inspiring in that 2014 campaign. I stood on street stalls, talking to people whose mouths fell open at the idea that Scotland’s MPs very rarely have an impact on the makeup of the UK Government. I took part in debates and remember the feeling of being brand new to politics but still being asked to speak at a Scottish National Party branch meeting at a school hall when more than 100 people turned up to take part. I felt that my voice mattered.
Last night, I read a piece in The Guardian by other young people who were prominent in the yes campaign and who were also given platforms and listened to, but who do not feel that today. I hope that those people, or people like them, end up here. I hope that their voices will be lifted up by my party and by this Parliament, because they have a lot to say and to contribute.
I believe that the SNP will be the party that delivers independence, but we will not convince others to back us if we argue for independence just for the sake of it. The party must, like more than a million people in 2014, be motivated by hope and a belief that making our own decisions—and our own mistakes—will make a positive difference to ordinary lives. We must give those who were six at the time of that referendum—the next generation—a reason to jump on a bus wearing a political badge, a reason to dare to imagine a better country and a reason to show up and vote every time. After all, their vote, and who represents them, matters.
That sort of thing does not always matter right now, but I believe that I will see a Scotland where it does, if we as a party, and indeed as a Parliament, prove that Scotland can do better with independence.
18:09
While sitting in the chamber earlier today and listening to the nationalists going over the same old arguments about independence, I decided to look at the agreement between both our Governments that set up the 2014 referendum. It said:
“The governments are agreed that the referendum should ... have a clear legal base”,
that it
“should be legislated for by the Scottish Parliament”
and that it should be
“conducted so as to command the confidence of parliaments, governments and people”
and
“deliver a fair test and a decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland and a result that everyone will respect.”
That is the problem—the nationalists have never respected the result of the referendum and have embarked on a journey of grievance politics to make their case for another one.
We should not really be surprised. After all, all the SNP exists for is to try to rip our country apart. It exists not to improve the lives of Scots, to run our country well or to bring economic growth, but to sow division and use every tool in its nationalist toolbox to cause that division, even by using the doomed deposit return scheme as a weapon.
Its Scottish Green chums are no better. It must be the only Green party in the world to care more about division and gender ideology than about climate issues. [Interruption.] I am not going to take an intervention at the moment.
I do like the part of the motion that talks about understanding
“that support for Scottish independence has consistently polled at 45% to 50% of Scotland’s population in the decade since”.
That tells me that support to remain part of the United Kingdom has consistently polled at 50 per cent to 55 per cent, which shows that, despite a pandemic, a war in Ukraine, three new First Ministers, six Prime Ministers, Brexit, four general elections—one of which was meant to be a de facto referendum—Jamie Hepburn as independence minister and the constant stream of independence papers that even Humza Yousaf admitted nobody reads, the desire for independence has not increased one little bit.
It is time for this Parliament to focus on what it was created to do—to improve the lives of Scots with the power that it has and to put aside the constitutional grievance that is holding Scotland back.
George Adam rose—
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
Mr Adam, please sit down.
I call Mark Ruskell.
18:11
I thank Lorna Slater for giving us the opportunity to have some fun with the buttons in the chamber and to reflect on those momentous times 10 years ago.
I was a yes activist in Stirling and a local Green councillor at the time. I will never forget seeing 16-year-olds in their school uniform turning up, class by class, to vote in that referendum. It was an incredible time of political empowerment. Emma Roddick reflected that it was perhaps one of the first times when she felt that her voice mattered politically. Oh, their voices did matter so much. It is a delight to see so many of those yes activists now taking seats in our local government and in this Parliament, and I hope that many more will take their own seats in the years to come.
I remember some great days, knocking on doors in the Raploch in Stirling. It was barbecue weather and folks—friends, family and neighbours—were out in their front yards and having a really good debate and natter about all the issues that were relevant to the referendum, from pensions to Trident. That was in a community that, historically, had had an incredibly low turnout at every single election, so to see that empowerment and to be part of that conversation was fantastic. I learned when to shut up sometimes, too, but it was wonderful.
That stands in contrast to what we saw a couple of years after that with the referendum to decide our future in the European Union, which was tarnished by the lies of the leave campaign and was built on ignorance. If I have one personal regret in politics, it is that I probably did not spend anything like as much time as I would have liked knocking on doors and talking to people about the benefits of the European Union and our role in that European family of nations. Due to the timing—it was so close after the Holyrood elections—I did not spend that time. I really regret that, because I wanted to bring the spirit of the independence referendum into the question whether we should remain in the European Union.
What is absolutely clear is that Brexit has been an utter disaster. We live in a world that is more interdependent than ever. We live in a world in which states need to show solidarity with each other, whether on tackling the climate crisis, delivering global security or delivering shared prosperity. However, that is not incompatible with independence. In fact, membership of the European Union requires independence. It requires sovereign states to join, work together and flourish. If members have any doubt about that, they should go to Ireland and see a flourishing and independent nation that is doing just that within the European Union.
When I see the sort of poll results that came out this week showing that 56 per cent of Scots want an independent Scotland within the European Union, my heart fills with hope for the future. Back in 2014, when I went to vote yes for an independent Scotland, I took my eight-year-old son with me. I took a huge amount of pride in voting yes and had a huge amount of hope for his future. Now, my hope is that, now that he has grown up and is a man, he will have the opportunity to make his own choice for the future of this country. I hope that, along with the majority of Scots, he will vote for an independent Scotland in the European Union.
18:15
I thank Lorna Slater for securing the debate and I pay tribute to Christine Grahame, Edward Mountain, Neil Bibby, Patrick Harvie, Emma Roddick, Douglas Lumsden and Mark Ruskell for their speeches.
There is one reflection from this debate and the one earlier today that has not been teased out and reflected on much but which it is important to air in the Parliament. It is something on which I hope that there is agreement between parliamentarians and parties: that democracy is not a moment in time. It is not a single vote or a single question but how we govern our society. We trust the public to be able to use it, regardless of the party that they vote for or how they determine a question, which might be a constitutional question, of course.
That is why we regularly get to choose who represents us at what level—at local government, at Scotland’s national level, at UK level and, previously, at European level. It also means that, more than once, we have been able to discuss, debate and decide on the constitution of the UK in relation to Scottish self-government. A devolution referendum was held not once but twice.
Will the cabinet secretary give way?
If I can finish this thought, I will, of course, defer to the member.
A devolution referendum was held in 1979 and then in 1997. We were also able to determine the UK’s constitution in relation to Europe in 1975. I was not there—I was still at primary school. That is a germane point about generations changing and new voters coming into society and also being able to have a say on big questions. As we know to our great cost in Scotland, there was a second European referendum in 2016.
I genuinely wish to impress on colleagues who have not embraced the point that I hope that all democrats in the Parliament agree that we should be able to decide and reconsider matters whenever we as a society see fit. Supporters of the union—I will give way to one of them in a second on this point—do not want independence. They wish to remain part of the United Kingdom. That is important to them. I recognise and respect that. However, in a multinational United Kingdom, there has to be a democratic route to a democratic vote. It should not be a one-off.
If—however we do so—we determine that we should have another vote, we should be able to do that. I encourage everybody to consider how we can allow democracy to flourish when, in fact, a democratic vote is being denied. Especially if there is a change of circumstances, we should be able to take a view on that. Brexit was most certainly a change of circumstances.
Like Mark Ruskell, I spent many days and hours knocking on doors with civic pride. At door after door in Dumfries and Galloway, people said that they wanted to remain part of the United Kingdom. The unionist campaign drove people to vote as well. It was not just the yes campaign that did that.
On the question of when we have another independence referendum, the problem is that we had a vote—we will not argue about whether it was a generational or once-in-a-lifetime vote—and there was a clear message that the people of Scotland wanted to remain part of the union but, the morning after the vote, the Scottish Government started its campaign for another independence referendum. That is what does not sit comfortably with people across the country.
I have already acknowledged that, if I were a supporter of the union, I would rather not have to debate all this again and I would rather not have another vote. However, my question about what mechanism people who oppose independence agree, as democrats, should be able to trigger an important vote has still not been answered. We already have such a mechanism in a part of the UK, incidentally—such a mechanism exists in Northern Ireland. As part of the Good Friday agreement, there is the ability to hold a border poll, and that should be able to happen every seven years. There is a mechanism for Northern Ireland, but there is no mechanism for Scotland or Wales. There is, of course, a mechanism for England, because only a majority of parliamentarians in England need to vote in favour of a referendum and then it would happen if people wished it to. [Interruption.] I am sure that I am going to run into difficulty with time, so I will try to make some progress. I will be happy to speak to colleagues after the debate, of course.
As is noted in the motion, the referendum was an important democratic event. Wherever we sit in the chamber, we can all agree that we witnessed democracy in action. It was overwhelmingly positive. I am looking at Edward Mountain, because I know about his family case, and it grieves me. I am sure that it will make some people on the other side of this argument uncomfortable to reread quotes from a former member of the Westminster Parliament who talked about bayoneting the supporters of independence. I am sure that the former MP in question was speaking metaphorically, but that kind of language did not contribute to a universally positive experience in relation to the referendum.
Having said that, I agree—and I have no doubt that the history books will bear me out on this—that the referendum was an amazingly inclusive event. It energised generations of people who had a belief that a different future was possible. I hope, too, that it energised some supporters of the union to make sure that the union might improve, although I observe that I have read not a single column by a single commentator who opposed Scottish independence drawing attention to the amazing progress that we have been able to see since 2014 on the basis of all the promises that were made by the no side.
The debate was, of course, lively. For many—indeed, for most—it was about hope and optimism. For months and years preceding the vote, it encouraged discussion and debate as vibrant and diverse as Scotland itself.
This year, we also marked the 25th anniversary of devolution—of self-government—in this Parliament. Scotland voted overwhelmingly—74 per cent of Scots did so—to reconvene the Scottish Parliament to address a democratic deficit. That followed decades of Westminster Governments imposing unwelcome and damaging policies on Scotland. The positive impact of devolution is indisputable. Decisions that were made in the chamber have made Scotland a better and fairer place. For example, there is free university tuition, minimum unit pricing for alcohol, a ban on smoking in public places, equal marriage, land reform, personal care for older people, 1,140 hours of funded early learning and childcare, and the child payment.
Of course, people will always be able to say, “Why not more of this?”, or “Why not less of that?” That is the stuff of politics—that is why we are here. We have to raise the votes—of course we do—to do it as well as we can. None of that is an argument against being able to make decisions closer to home. The benefits of 25 years of devolution have been delivered due to the strength of this Parliament and members across it in different parties, even those who opposed devolution in the first place.
We can agree, surely, that decisions about Scotland’s future are best determined by the people who live here. Devolution has evolved since 1999, with substantial changes being made to the powers of the Parliament in the Scotland Act 2012 and the Scotland Act 2016. Since 2014, the Parliament has used those powers to set taxes on income, to reform the tax on house sales and to create the Scottish National Investment Bank. Members across the chamber have worked hard to respond to the best interests of Scotland and to major challenges, including the Covid-19 pandemic and Brexit.
Devolution can function only if UK Governments respect the decisions that have been reached by the devolved legislature and the safeguards that have been created to protect it, such as the Sewel convention. I very much hope that the UK Government is seized of that and that we are able to ensure that devolution works as it was supposed to, without it being undermined.
The turnout in 2014 was the highest recorded of any Scotland-wide poll since the advent of universal suffrage. Grass-roots campaigns for both sides emerged to discuss the challenges and opportunities. From 2007, this Government encouraged a national conversation and provided people with the information needed to make an informed decision on behalf of themselves, their families and their communities. That work has continued through a “Building a new Scotland” prospectus series that has updated the case for independence in the light of Brexit.
My concern is that the people have given the Government a clear mandate for a referendum on independence—there is a majority in the chamber for there to be one—and if that is not the best mechanism, I do not know what is—[Interruption.]
The cabinet secretary is bringing his remarks to a close.
I am still waiting for others to tell me what mechanism there should be—a clear and legal route—to be able to hold a referendum. The people should have the opportunity to determine their constitutional future again.
The Government has always sought a principled and pragmatic approach to engagement with the UK Government. There is a substantial opportunity to achieve better outcomes for the people of Scotland when we work together. We want to build relationships based on trust and understanding, which must include respect by the UK Government for the Scottish Parliament devolution settlement.
Since 2014, there has been much change and Scotland has faced its challenges, but there is much to be proud of, as I have highlighted. When it comes to Scotland’s future, much more work needs to be done if we are to create the modern, diverse and dynamic Scotland that we all want to see. As the First Minister made clear in this afternoon’s debate, we could make a greater impact with all the levers of powers of an independent nation. As we have seen since 2014, decisions about Scotland’s future are best determined by the people who live here in Scotland.
That concludes the debate.
Meeting closed at 18:26.Previous
Decision Time