The Presiding Officer (Ken Macintosh):
Good afternoon. Our first item of business
is a statement by Nicola Sturgeon on Brexit
and Scotland’s future. The First Minister
will take questions at the end of her statement.
I encourage all members who wish to ask a
question to press their request-to-speak button.
The First Minister (Nicola Sturgeon):
Presiding Officer, before I make my statement,
and with your permission, I extend my heartfelt
condolences to the family and friends of journalist
Lyra McKee, who was killed in Northern Ireland
last week and whose funeral is taking place
right now.
I did not know Lyra, but everything that I
have read by and about her makes me wish that
I had. Talented, passionate and courageous,
she was a symbol of hope for Northern Ireland’s
future. Her death is a harsh reminder of the
fragility of peace in Northern Ireland and
how important it is that that peace is nurtured
and protected.
I also express my shock and sadness at the
horrific attacks in Sri Lanka on Sunday. Senseless
loss of life on such a scale is difficult
for any of us to comprehend, and my heartfelt
condolences go to the bereaved and injured,
including, of course, the British citizens
who were so tragically affected. To launch
indiscriminate attacks on innocent people
as they attended Easter services or enjoyed
a holiday is barbaric beyond words. Christian
churches, like mosques, synagogues and all
places of worship, should be sanctuaries of
peace and safety.
As we condemn unreservedly those acts of terrorism,
we must again express our determination that
hatred and violence will be defeated by love,
compassion and our common humanity.
My statement will consider the implications
for Scotland of recent Brexit developments.
As members know, two weeks ago, the European
Council extended the United Kingdom’s membership
of the European Union until 31 October, with
a right for the UK to leave earlier if the
House of Commons agrees terms of withdrawal.
The extension granted by the EU rescued us
from the nightmare scenario of a no-deal Brexit
on 12 April. As a result, I can advise Parliament
that the Scottish Government has, for the
time being, scaled down our no-deal planning.
My thanks go to all those across Government
and the public sector who have worked so hard
to make sure Scotland is as ready as we can
be for what would be a catastrophic outcome.
However, I also want to express my regret
and anger at the money and effort that has
been spent preparing for an outcome that the
UK Government should have ruled out.
As things stand, if an agreed way forward
is not found quickly, the risk of no deal
will rise again as we approach the October
deadline, with the potential for yet more
money, time and effort to be wasted. The UK
Government could remove that risk now by making
it clear that, if the only alternative is
a no-deal exit, it will choose to revoke article
50 instead. I hope that members across the
chamber will join me today in calling on the
UK Government to do exactly that.
However, the extension afforded by the EU
presents the UK with an opportunity to find
a positive way forward and an opportunity
for me to update Parliament about the implications
for Scotland.
The Scottish Government’s view is that the
best way to break the deadlock for the UK
is to put the issue back to the people, with
an option to remain in the EU. The Euro elections
will also give voters a chance to back a party,
like the Scottish National Party, that wants
to keep Scotland in the EU.
Of course, almost three years on from the
referendum in 2016, it is impossible to predict
with certainty what will happen next. The
UK might still leave the EU before October,
it might leave in October, it might seek another
extension or it might not leave at all.
That chaos is not an inevitable consequence
of the vote to leave the EU—it is down to
a toxic combination of dishonesty and incompetence.
Those who campaigned to leave in 2016 failed
to set out what Brexit would mean in reality.
To the extent that they made any attempt at
all, they misled people. The UK Government
triggered article 50 before it had answered
that question. The Prime Minister then boxed
herself in with a series of self-defeating
and contradictory red lines. Instead of trying
to build consensus across Parliament or country,
she claimed the right to interpret the result
in the most hardline way possible.
As a consequence, those who voted to remain
question the legitimacy of the whole process;
those who voted to leave feel, with justification,
that promises that were made to them have
been broken; and faith in democracy has been
damaged. Throughout all this, the Scottish
Government and our party colleagues at Westminster
have worked tirelessly to help to find the
best way forward for all of the UK. Whatever
Scotland’s constitutional status in future,
it will always be in our interests for all
of us on these islands to have the closest
possible relationship with the EU. We therefore
proposed the compromise option of single market
and customs union membership; we back a public
vote to break the deadlock, even though it
offers no guarantee that Scotland will not
be outvoted all over again; and we are working
with others in an effort to remove the risk
of a no-deal Brexit. In fact, we have done
everything possible to help to avert the Brexit
crisis for the whole UK and we will continue
to do so.
However, we must also consider the best way
forward for Scotland in the event that the
UK does leave the European Union. To ensure
that all options remain open to us, the time
to do that is now. Of course, as we do so,
we must learn the lessons of the Brexit mess.
Whether we like it or not, the continued lack
of clarity around Brexit has implications
for Scotland’s decision making—a point
that I will return to later. However, one
point of clarity has surely emerged over the
past three years, even for the most ardent
opponent of Scottish independence: the Westminster
system of government simply does not serve
Scotland’s interests and the devolution
settlement in its current form is now seen
to be utterly inadequate to the task of protecting
those interests. In other words, the status
quo is broken.
Scotland’s 62 per cent vote to remain in
the EU counted for nothing. Far from being
an equal partner at Westminster, Scotland’s
voice is listened to only if it chimes with
that of the UK majority; if it does not, we
are outvoted and ignored. The Scottish Government’s
efforts to find a compromise that might mitigate
the damage to our economy fell on deaf ears.
Cross-party votes of this Parliament have
been disregarded time and again. The agreed
constitutional principles that have underpinned
devolution since its establishment 20 years
ago have been cast aside by the UK Government
and vital powers were in effect taken from
this Parliament without our consent. Even
our financial settlement, which already leaves
us vulnerable to austerity and with too few
levers of our own, was openly breached by
the UK Government’s bribe to the Democratic
Unionist Party. There is no denying that Brexit
has exposed a deep democratic deficit at the
heart of how Scotland is governed. Whatever
our different views on independence, that
should persuade all of us in this chamber
that we need a more solid foundation on which
to build our future as a country.
The consequences of inaction would be severe.
If we are unable to stop or even mitigate
Brexit, we will find it harder to export our
goods and services across the single market.
Scotland will become less attractive to inward
investors; a risk that will be compounded
if the Northern Ireland backstop takes effect.
The result will be fewer jobs and an economy
that is smaller than it should be.
The Tory and, I am sorry to say, UK Labour
obsession that drives the desire to leave
the EU—ending free movement—will restrict
the opportunities of our own young people
to live, work and study across Europe, and
it will send our working age population into
decline.
I know that the issue of migration is not
an easy one for politicians to address, but
I am proud that parties across the chamber
are willing to take on the many myths that
surround it. In Scotland, we know and understand
that the Westminster approach to migration,
as well as being deeply inhumane, poses an
almost existential threat to our future prosperity.
So, the Brexit outlook for Scotland is a smaller
economy, restricted job growth, fewer people,
narrowed horizons and greater pressure on
our ability to fund the public services and
social contract that we value so highly.
Let me put it in simpler language. Brexit
and all that flows from it will affect the
ability of Scottish Governments now and well
into the future to do the day job—to support
businesses, combat poverty, fund the national
health service and public services, and work
with other countries to tackle the defining
challenges of our time.
At a time when most people in Scotland would,
I think, want to see the Scottish Parliament
having more influence on the decisions that
shape our future, there is a risk of the reverse.
As the UK scrambles to do trade deals with
Donald Trump or whoever, the inclination to
impose uniformity—even in devolved areas—will
lead to more Westminster centralisation. It
is my judgment that, for the first time in
20 years, there is a risk of devolution going
backwards, not through the blatant, wholesale
removal of powers—although, on recent experience,
more of that cannot be ruled out—but by
an increasing use of Westminster’s powers
to override the decisions of the Scottish
Parliament and constrain devolved decision
making.
The question that confronts all of us now
is this: if the status quo is not fit for
purpose—I know that even some of the most
committed believers in the union find it hard
to argue that it is—how do we fix it? Can
we do so in a way that maximises consensus
rather than amplifies our differences?
Those are not easy challenges, but
all of us who sit in this chamber are elected
to represent the national interest. We have
a duty to rise to the challenge, stand in
each other’s shoes and find a way forward.
No one expects any of us to abandon deeply
held beliefs. Just as Labour and Tory MSPs
will continue to believe that remaining in
the union is the right option for Scotland,
I will argue that independence offers the
best future.
The case for independence is even stronger
now, given the profound changes that have
taken place in the UK since 2014. In that
time, we have seen the limits of Scotland’s
influence within the UK and, in sharp contrast,
the power that independent nations have as
members of the EU. While Scotland’s interests
have been ignored by Westminster, independent
Ireland’s interests have been protected
by the EU. Of the 27 independent countries
that decided the UK’s future at the European
Council two weeks ago, around a dozen are
smaller than or similar in size to Scotland.
Many of those countries are also more prosperous
than Scotland. With all our assets and talents,
Scotland should be a thriving and driving
force within Europe. Instead, we face being
forced to the margins and sidelined within
a UK that is itself being increasingly sidelined
on the international stage.
By contrast, independence would allow us to
protect our place in Europe. It would enable
us to nurture our most important relationships—those
with the other countries of the British isles—on
the basis of equality, and it would mean that
decisions against our will and contrary to
our interests could not be imposed on us by
Westminster. It would put our future into
our own hands, with the decisions that shape
our future and determine our relationships
with other countries taken here in our own
Parliament. That is the essence of independence.
Let me turn to the issue of when I think people
in Scotland should be offered a new choice
on independence. My party was elected with
a mandate to offer that choice within this
parliamentary session should Scotland be taken
out of the EU against our will. There is also
a majority in the chamber for that position,
and polling evidence suggests that a majority
in Scotland want a choice on independence,
although opinions vary on timing. There are
some who would like to see a very early referendum;
others want the choice to be much later. My
job as the First Minister is to reach a judgment,
not simply in my party’s interest but in
the national interest.
In doing so, a key priority is ensuring that
we learn the lessons of Brexit. To rush into
an immediate decision before a Brexit path
has been determined would not allow an informed
choice to be made. However, if we are to safeguard
Scotland’s interests, we cannot wait indefinitely.
That is why I consider that a choice between
Brexit and a future for Scotland as an independent
European nation should be offered later in
the lifetime of this Parliament. If Scotland
is taken out of the EU, the option of a referendum
on independence within that timescale must
be open to us. That would be our route to
avoiding the worst of the damage that Brexit
will do.
However, that intention does not mean that
we should cease trying to build as much agreement
as we can on the best way forward; nor should
we cease our efforts to avoid any Brexit at
all. In all our actions, we must also try
to avoid the mistakes that have caused so
much division over Brexit and bring people
together to focus on finding the common ground
between us. Our aim must be to act in a completely
different manner to the UK Government and
Parliament. The fact is that, based on the
evidence of the past three years, Westminster
has failed. It has failed to protect Scotland’s
interests, it has failed to reach a consensus
and it has degenerated into chaos. It is now
time for this Parliament and for all the parties
represented in this Parliament to take charge.
There are therefore three specific steps that
the Scottish Government intends to take now.
I confirm that the Scottish Government will
act to ensure that the option of giving people
a choice on independence later in this session
of Parliament is progressed. We will shortly
introduce legislation to set the rules for
any referendum that is, now or in the future,
within the competence of the Scottish Parliament.
We will aim for the legislation to be on the
statute book by the end of this year. Mike
Russell will set out the details next month.
We do not need a transfer of power such as
a section 30 order to pass such a framework
bill, though we would need it to put beyond
doubt or challenge our ability to apply the
bill to an independence referendum. As members
are aware, the UK Government’s current position
is that it will not agree to transfer power,
but I believe that that position will prove
to be unsustainable.
By making progress with primary legislation
first, we will not squander valuable time
now in a stand-off with a UK Government that
might soon be out of office. We will seek
agreement to a transfer of power at an appropriate
point during or shortly after the bill’s
passage, on the basis that it will be exercised
when this Parliament—and no other—considers
it right to offer the people of Scotland a
choice.
In 2014, the Scottish and UK Governments and
Parliaments—to our collective credit—set
the gold standard. Two Governments with very
different views on the outcome came together
to agree a process that allowed the people
to decide. That is what should happen in the
future. It is how we will secure unquestioned
legitimacy not just here at home but, crucially,
within the EU and the wider international
community. It respects the principle that
is enshrined in the claim of right that the
Scottish people are sovereign. Those who oppose
independence are, of course, entitled to argue
that case, but it must be for the people to
decide.
Finally, on this point, let me offer these
words:
“With public sentiment nothing can fail.
Without it, nothing can succeed.”
Those are the wise words of Abraham Lincoln,
who was an ardent defender of a union, albeit
in a great moral cause. For those of us who
support independence, his lesson is obvious.
If we are successful in further growing the
support and demand for independence—I will
say more, later this week, about how we will
build that case—no UK Government will be
able to deny the will of the people or stop
that will being expressed.
Let me now turn to two parallel processes
that I want to outline today. The first is
directed at the parties in the chamber that
do not support independence. I might not—as
people might have noticed—agree with that
view, but I do respect it.
However, what I hope that we might all agree
on after the past three years is that serious
change is needed. To those who believe that
independence is not the right change for Scotland,
I say that they should bring forward their
own proposals to equip our Parliament with
the powers that we need to better protect
and advance our interests.
For example, we could have more powers to
boost trade and strengthen our economy; more
powers to tackle poverty and inequality; powers
to protect the public finances that our NHS
and public services rely on; powers that will
allow us to grow our population; and powers
that will give us a stronger voice in the
UK, enable us to determine our own future
and better protect our interests here at home
and internationally. I welcome, for example,
the recent signals from the Scottish Labour
Party that it now supports the devolution
of employment law.
This Parliament was almost unanimous in opposing
the Brexit power grab, and I know that many
share our deep concerns about migration and
recognise that we do not currently have the
tools to solve that problem. Perhaps there
is already more common ground than we like
to admit there is and a starting point that
we can build and expand upon. The fact that
we do not agree on Scotland’s ultimate destination
should not stop us travelling together as
far as we can.
I have therefore asked Mike Russell to explore
with other parties, perhaps with the help
of a respected and independent individual
who can broker such discussions, areas of
agreement on constitutional and procedural
change, and to take the views of stakeholders
on such issues. I will write to party leaders
today, and Mike Russell will be in touch with
their nominated representatives thereafter
to consider how those discussions might be
progressed.
This exercise should not start with our taking
any fixed position—if parties can find it
in themselves not to do that—but should
openly consider the challenges that Scotland
faces and the solutions that might help us
address them. If serious and substantial proposals
emerge, this Parliament could present them
to the UK Government in a unified and united
way. If other parties are willing, I give
an assurance today that the Scottish Government
will engage fully and in good faith.
The last aspect of my statement is also about
how we confront the change that our country
needs but in a way that tries to build agreement.
None of us can fail to be concerned about
the polarisation of political debate caused
by the Brexit experience. The answer, though,
cannot be to ignore or suppress the differing
views about the best future for our country.
We should try to find ways of debating our
choices respectfully and in a way that seeks
maximum areas of agreement, and we should
lay a foundation that allows us to move forward
together, whatever decisions we ultimately
arrive at.
I have been struck recently by the Irish example
of a citizens assembly to help find consensus
on issues on which people have sharply divided
opinions. Of course, the circumstances here
are different, as are the issues under consideration,
but the principle is sound, and I believe
that we should make use of it.
I therefore confirm that the Scottish Government
will establish a citizens assembly that will
bring together a representative cross-section
of Scotland, with an independent chair, and
which will be tasked with considering, in
broad terms, the following issues. What kind
of country are we seeking to build? How can
we best overcome the challenges that we face,
including those arising from Brexit? What
further work should be carried out to give
people the detail that they need to make informed
choices about the future of the country? Again,
Mike Russell will set out more details shortly,
and he will seek views from other parties
on the assembly’s operation and remit.
Brexit was neither the choice of this Parliament,
nor the choice of our country. As I said at
the outset, the immediate opportunity that
we now have is to help stop Brexit for the
whole UK; we should seize that opportunity,
and my party will certainly seek to do so.
However, if that cannot be achieved, dealing
with the consequences of Brexit and facing
up to its challenges will be unavoidable.
I am aware that the debates that flow from
that will provoke differences of opinion.
I believe that the case for independence is
now stronger than ever and I will make that
case. As I have set out today, I will also
do all in my power to protect Scotland’s
right to choose. To do anything less would
risk consigning the next generation to the
damage of Westminster decisions that are not
in our interests.
However, I know that others take a different
view so, as the necessary legislative steps
are taken over the next few months, I will
also seek to open up space for us to come
together and find areas of agreement, as mature
politicians should do. In so doing, I will
try to set an example of constructive, outward-looking
and respectful debate. In recent times, we
have seen in Westminster what happens when
parties fail to work together, when leaders
take a “My way or the highway” approach
and when so many red lines and inflexible
preconditions are set that progress becomes
impossible. Tensions rise and tempers fray.
Twenty years on from the establishment of
this Parliament, I believe that we can do
better than that. Brexit makes change for
Scotland inevitable, but our fellow citizens
will judge us on how we lead debate on the
best way forward and the efforts that we make
to come to a common mind about it. This place
was established with the hope that it would
be a new type of Parliament. I think that
we are, but we can prove it anew by the way
in which we respond today to the challenges
that lie before us. We can show that we have
already begun to learn not just the lessons
from Westminster’s failure but those that
Scotland has taught us as devolution has grown
and strengthened. We can show that we are
able to put the interests of the people first.
If others across the chamber are willing to
move forward in that spirit, they will find
in me an equally willing partner but, if all
they have to offer the people of Scotland
is a failed and damaging status quo, the process
of change will pass them by and support for
independence will continue to grow. It is
time to look to Scotland’s future. Let us
do so together, with confidence in the potential
of our country and of all those who live here.
I commend this statement to Parliament.
The Presiding Officer:
The First Minister will now take questions.
Jackson Carlaw (Eastwood) (Con):
I begin by offering my condolences and those
of all Scottish Conservatives to the family
of Lyra McKee. Her death at the hands of the
IRA is a tragedy and a waste of a talented
young life. We all stand united to condemn
the cowards who took her life and to ensure
that peace prevails in Northern Ireland.
Following the shocks of Pittsburgh and Christchurch,
we also yet again join all those who are appalled
at the horrendous attack on Sri Lanka and
give our sympathies to all those who have
been horribly affected. It was an outrageous
attack on us all. Perhaps the First Minister
will confirm later whether we know of any
Scottish citizens who were caught up in the
events.
I turn to the substance of the statement.
Whatever the First Minister claims, and for
all the warm words about being inclusive,
her statement is inherently divisive. Astonishingly,
the First Minister thinks that the way in
which we come together is for the people of
Scotland to be plunged into another divisive
referendum within the next 18 months. That
is just absurd. It is a ridiculous and even
disgraceful skewering of her priorities with
the real priorities of the country. Frankly,
when told of its delivery, as Scotland was
enjoying the Easter celebration, my first
reaction was to ask why on earth the First
Minister felt it necessary to float a dark
cloud over Scotland’s sunny spring by updating
us on her plan for a second independence referendum.
Then of course I remembered: there is another
SNP conference coming this weekend.
The only thought of the SNP, which has been
amplified today, is how to justify its plans
to divide families, workplaces and communities
all over again and for the foreseeable future.
Well, that is not in the name of the majority
of Scotland. Whether we voted to remain or
leave in 2016, the past few weeks have fallen
far short of what we all wanted to see. In
a Westminster of minorities, competing interests
have prevailed. There is of course a way to
sort that: it is to respect the result of
the 2016 referendum and support an orderly
Brexit. I want that to happen, and I urge
everyone at Westminster to work in a spirit
of compromise and co-operation to achieve
that. That way, the country can move on. Instead
of that, however, today we see a First Minister
who, once again, is focusing on her own priorities,
rummaging around to create a shopping list
of continued constitutional initiatives, however
weak and divisive.
There is a big difference between now and
10 years ago. Then, the request for a section
30 order, which led to our once-in-a-lifetime
independence referendum in 2014, was supported
in this place with the votes of all the political
parties here represented. We all agreed then
that the question deserved to be answered.
That was the process then.
No such coalition exists for more constitutional
politics today. For the majority of Scotland,
the last decade of constitutional politics
and division has been more than enough. The
majority of the parties here believe that
by using the existing powers of this Parliament
and the potential of our people, we can succeed.
We believe in disavowing more constitutional
division and focusing all our energy on things
that we all agree are important: delivering
better education, health and economic growth
for Scotland now.
I am afraid that the depressing reality is
this: independence, and the means to try to
deliver it, is the SNP’s central purpose.
For the SNP, it is a prerequisite—the essential
step to Scotland being all that it can be.
The SNP simply does not believe that we can
succeed as we are. Nicola Sturgeon confirmed
that again today. She baldly stated that the
devolution settlement is, in her words, “utterly
inadequate”.
No, First Minister, it is not. But that makes
the choice clear. Scotland has had enough
of constitutional politics and division. With
the SNP, more of that is utterly and clearly
inevitable. We say: no more. Enough is enough.
The First Minister:
I fear that that was a lot of sound and fury,
signifying not very much at all.
Jackson Carlaw referred to “a dark cloud”.
May I point out to him that there is, right
now, a dark cloud over Scotland? It is not
in the name of the majority of the Scottish
people, and devolution is incapable of protecting
Scotland from it. That dark cloud is Brexit.
I can understand—I really can—why the
Tories want to bury their heads in the sand
and pretend that this Brexit mess is not happening,
because it shines a very, very harsh light
on both the ideology and the incompetence
of the Conservative Party, but it is not fair
or good enough to expect Scotland to pretend
that Brexit is not happening. Nor is it good
enough for Jackson Carlaw to say, in effect,
to Scotland, “Wheesht!” about it all,
“Don’t say anything.”
Given the damage that all of us—even the
Tories, in their hearts—know Brexit will
do to this country, we have a duty to protect
those of us who live in Scotland now and generations
to come in Scotland from it and to find a
way of building a future that is better and
more prosperous and that keeps us at the heart
of Europe. That is what my statement today
is focused on doing.
Jackson Carlaw seems to be saying that there
is nothing wrong with the status quo, although
it has not protected and cannot protect Scotland
from Brexit. Murdo Fraser seems to take a
different view. Only a couple of days ago,
he was saying that the current system has
to change and was putting forward proposals
for change—proposals that, as it happens,
I do not agree with but, credit to him, they
were proposals for change.
I will end my answer on a note of—again—attempted
consensus. The Scottish Conservatives take
the view—and I respect this—that independence
is not the right way of fixing what is broken
about our current system. If it is not, in
their view, let them bring forward the proposals
for change that they think are right. That
is the open offer that we make to the Conservatives
today. Over the days, weeks and months that
lie ahead, we will find out whether the Conservatives
really have any interest in protecting Scotland,
or whether all that the Scottish Conservatives
will ever do, when their Westminster bosses
tell them to jump, is ask, “How high?”
Richard Leonard (Central Scotland) (Lab):
I add the support of the Scottish Labour Party
to the First Minister’s comments on the
shooting of Lyra McKee and the Sri Lanka terror
attacks.
Timing is everything in politics, and the
timing of this statement is nothing to do
with where we are in the chaos of Brexit.
It has nothing to do with where the polls
are on the creation of a separate Scottish
state. In other words, it has nothing to do
with where Abraham Lincoln’s “public sentiment”
is on the falling demand for a rerun of the
2014 referendum. The timing of the statement
has everything to do with the First Minister’s
party conference taking place in just three
days’ time. The First Minister is using
this parliamentary platform as a party platform
and, in doing that, she is devaluing the office
that she holds.
Responsible political leadership means that
I will work with the First Minister on stopping
a no-deal Brexit. It means that in the event
of Brexit, we will act to ensure that powers
are repatriated to the right level of Government,
and I will continue to argue for more powers
for this Parliament. However, responsible
leadership also means getting out of Parliament
and listening to, and thereby better understanding,
the daily lived experiences of people across
Scotland.
The First Minister knows that this debate
is a distraction from the real and serious
problems that Scotland faces: a low-pay economy,
exhausted public services and one in four
children living in poverty. What is worse
is that the First Minister knows fine well
that there is no evidence whatsoever that
the people of Scotland want another independence
referendum, and that is no wonder when the
chaos of Brexit throws into sharp relief the
challenges of leaving a political and economic
union.
Despite her protestations, is the First Minister
today not plainly putting the interests of
her party before the interests of this country?
The First Minister:
On the issue of timing, I am prepared to bet
that given that the European Council agreed
an extension to the UK’s EU membership the
week after this Parliament went into recess,
if I had not offered to make a statement about
the implications of Brexit, the Opposition
would have been demanding that I did so. Equally,
had I chosen to go to my party conference
and say what I have just said here today,
the Opposition would have been queuing up
to accuse me of disrespecting Parliament.
That is the reality.
On the substantive issues, as I said a moment
ago, I understand why the Conservatives want
to pretend that this Brexit mess is not happening.
I do not understand why that is the case for
Labour, and as an aside, nor will I ever understand
why Labour seems to support independence for
countries all over the world, but opposes
it so strongly for its own country here in
Scotland.
Where I agree with Richard Leonard is on two
things. I absolutely agree about testing public
opinion. Of course, the last test of public
opinion in Scotland was a by-election in this
city, just a week or so ago. The SNP won it
with an increased vote, the Labour vote went
down and independence-supporting parties won
a majority of the vote. There are plenty of
tests of public opinion that I am happy to
trade with Richard Leonard.
The substantive issue of powers for this Parliament
comes back to the heart of my premise today.
Nobody with the interests of Scotland at heart—and
I believe that that is everybody in this chamber—can
look at the situation and conclude that it
is working for Scotland. We face being taken
out of the European Union against our will,
with all of the consequences that flow from
that. Surely, we must come together and decide
what to do in response.
My view, as Richard Leonard and everybody
knows, is that we should become a normal independent
country like the other independent countries
of the European Union, and come together to
work with them on the basis of equality. If
Richard Leonard believes that that is not
the best future, he should come forward, not
just with a vague call for more powers, but
to sit and talk to us about the specific powers
that we think that this Parliament should
have. That offer is open to Richard Leonard,
just as it is open to Jackson Carlaw and those
in other parties in this chamber.
The question for the parties that oppose independence,
as they have every right to do, is this: are
they going to rise to the challenge of bringing
forward real proposals about how we put things
right and ensure that this country, in the
future, cannot have decisions that damage
our interests imposed on us by Westminster?
That is the question, and we will see over
the coming weeks whether other parties in
this chamber can rise to that challenge.
Alison Johnstone (Lothian) (Green):
With fellow members, the Scottish Greens pay
our respects to Lyra McKee. Our thoughts are
with her family and friends, and with all
who have been affected by the shocking bombings
in Sri Lanka.
Greens believe that Scotland’s future should
be in the hands of Scotland, as an independent
nation at the heart of Europe. The Brexit
shambles confirms our belief that we would
be far better off governing ourselves. Therefore,
we welcome the First Minister’s statement
today.
Support for independence grew over the course
of the previous referendum campaign in part
due to the breadth of inspiring visions of
what our nation could be. The economic vision
that is currently being considered by the
Scottish National Party looks more like the
failed model of the United Kingdom than the
bold vision for independence that the Greens
believe in. Therefore, my question to the
First Minister is this: will the citizens
assembly, which we welcome, inform the prospectus
that is put forward by the Government in the
referendum, and will the offer that is put
to the people of Scotland be one that is shaped
by the people of Scotland?
The First Minister:
I welcome the support of the Greens for the
statement today, and I welcome their support
for Scotland becoming an independent country.
Actually, what has just been demonstrated
is the essence of independence. People can
have different views on policies and on the
direction of the country, but the key point
that unites us is that those decisions should
lie in the hands of the Scottish people and
should not be imposed on us by Westminster.
That is the reality that independent countries
all over the world take for granted.
On the citizens assembly, as I said in my
statement, we will discuss the remit and operation
of that with other parties, if other parties
are willing to have that discussion. That
is very much about opening the process up
to people who are not politicians—a representative
section of the Scottish population who can
start to consider these big questions about
the future of our country. I hope that the
Greens will take part in that in the spirit
in which it is intended. The issues that we
are discussing are not easy and there is no
inevitability about them, but all of us—notwithstanding
the differences of opinion that we have, which
are valid in any democracy—can try to come
together and see whether we can find areas
of agreement and consensus.
Particularly now, given all that has happened
in the past three years, there is a real responsibility
on politicians not to put aside those things
in which we believe passionately but to come
together to find a consensus, notwithstanding
those passionate disagreements. I am willing
to do that, I trust the Greens will be willing
to do that and I hope that, once they have
had some opportunity to think about the proposal
and reflect on it, the other parties will
be willing to do that as well.
Willie Rennie (North East Fife) (LD):
My thoughts are with the friends and family
of Lyra McKee, and also those who have been
affected by atrocities in recent days across
the world.
The First Minister pleads for consensus, but
how can we take seriously her proposals about
consensus on the issue of more powers when
John Swinney, who is sitting right next to
her and who was a member of the Smith commission,
trashed that commission within minutes of
its report being published? How can we take
seriously the SNP’s pleas for a consensus
when it treats a well-established process
like that?
In her statement today, the First Minister
has not done the one decent thing that people
in Scotland want her to do, which is to make
it stop and take her campaign for independence
off the table. With all the division and chaos
of Brexit, with all the wounds still open
from the previous independence campaign, with
all the problems with schools, hospitals and
social care, the last thing that this country
needs is to repeat the mistakes of Brexit.
The last thing that this country needs is
more division and chaos, which is what would
surely come with a new independence campaign.
Will the First Minister listen to Scotland?
Will she just make it stop?
The First Minister:
The first part of Willie Rennie’s question
was such an utter mischaracterisation of what
John Swinney said and did that I will not
engage seriously with it.
There is a contradiction—some would say
“hypocrisy”, but I will stick with “contradiction”—at
the heart of Willie Rennie’s position. I
know that he opposes independence, and that
is absolutely fine. The issue is not about
his or my views but about who decides. Willie
Rennie thinks that the people of the UK should
have the chance to change their minds on Brexit,
and I agree with that.
However, Willie Rennie is adamantly opposed—no
matter all that has changed in the past few
years—to the people of Scotland getting
the chance to change their minds on independence.
[Interruption.] Willie Rennie is saying that
that is because he opposes independence and
Brexit, but that is like a Brexiteer saying,
“I don’t want people having a second referendum
on Brexit, because they might take a decision
that I disagree with.” Willie Rennie, the
Brexiteer, strikes in this chamber. It is
not about the views of politicians but those
of the people. Until Willie Rennie can somehow
reconcile the contradiction at the heart of
his argument, I am not sure that many people
in Scotland will take his views on that seriously.
I will repeat to Willie Rennie the offer that
I have made to other parties. He does not
think that independence is the right way forward,
but—surely even more than Jackson Carlaw—he
cannot defend the situation in which Scotland
faces being ripped out of the European Union
against our will.
Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD):
Federalism!
The First Minister:
Mike Rumbles is shouting, “Federalism”.
Fine. He should come forward, sit down with
us and let us discuss that. But do you know
what? Federalism has been talked about in
the UK for 100 years or more, and we have
not yet found the UK Government that will
deliver it. That is the difference between
federalism and independence: federalism depends
on a UK Government delivering it; independence
depends on the people of Scotland taking that
decision for themselves.
The Presiding Officer:
All the party leaders have had a chance to
speak, so we now need to make speedy progress
through the remaining 25 or so members who
wish to ask a question. [Interruption.] Was
that a groan? I call Keith Brown, to be followed
by Adam Tomkins.
Keith Brown (Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)
(SNP):
A former Tory MP made the statement that if
a union of free members sought to punish one
of its members for wanting to leave it, the
union would lose its claim to moral legitimacy.
A Tory minister said that, “Once you’ve
hit the iceberg”—the iceberg being Brexit—“you’re
all in it together.”
In that context, does the First Minister agree
that Scotland has bigger things to deal with,
and that the parties in this Parliament need
to rise above the vicious and vacuous party
in-fighting that we see at Westminster and
the unfolding disaster of the UK Government’s
handling of Brexit? Not least among the things
to deal with are the stability and prosperity
of Scotland and its future as an independent
nation in the EU.
The First Minister:
The comment from an unnamed Tory—I am not
surprised that they were unnamed—that we
should all hit the iceberg together says a
lot about the mindset of the Conservatives
with regard to Scotland. Nobody in the UK
should want to hit an iceberg and, in Scotland,
we should do everything that we can to prevent
any part of the UK hitting one. However, if
the only option is to hit an iceberg, we in
Scotland should consider how to get off the
boat, rather than sailing into it.
There is a view, which surely extends across
all parties here, that we can do better than
this right now. We might have different views
on how to do it, but we should not accept
the situation in which Scotland’s fate is
decided by Westminster against the democratic
wishes of the people of Scotland.
If those on the Tory benches—and Labour
and Liberal Democrat members—believe that
the Scottish people do not want independence,
why are they so scared to ask them the question?
That is the question. Let the Scottish people
decide. If that were to be the case, I am
confident that the Scottish people would decide
for Scotland to be a normal, equal, independent
country that is able to play its full part
in the EU and stop the damage to this and
future generations that Brexit will undoubtedly
do.
Adam Tomkins (Glasgow) (Con):
The First Minister said that we will not squander
valuable time. She also said that her Government
will shortly introduce a framework bill to
this Parliament, paving the way for an unwanted
second independence referendum, and that her
Government will do that without first seeking
a section 30 order. As she said, a section
30 order would be necessary to put beyond
doubt the legality of any future independence
referendum, yet she proposes now to act without
one.
Therefore, my question to her is: how is plunging
Scotland into yet more constitutional wrangling
about legislative competence and constitutional
process a sensible use of parliamentary time?
We lost weeks over the failed UK Withdrawal
from the European Union (Legal Continuity)
(Scotland) Bill. Now we face losing months
over an indyref 2 framework bill. How is that
doing anything other than squandering valuable
time?
The First Minister:
Adam Tomkins argued that the continuity bill
was not within the legislative competence
of this Parliament when it was introduced.
The Supreme Court took a very different view.
It was only because Westminster subsequently
changed the law that parts of that bill were
then found to be incompetent. For all his
undoubted expertise on those matters, I am
not sure that we should be listening too closely
to Adam Tomkins on issues of legislative competence.
I have no doubt that the bill that we will
propose will be within legislative competence.
If there is to be an independence referendum,
we require to legislate for that, as we did
in 2014. In 2014, we got a section 30 and
then we legislated. This time, I propose that
we do it the other way around. Why are we
doing that? So that we protect the ability
of Scotland to avoid Brexit. If we cannot
do that through our efforts to stop the whole
of the UK leaving the EU, Scotland must have
the opportunity to protect itself from the
damage that Brexit will do—damage to our
economy, to our public services and to the
opportunities and horizons of this and future
generations. I do not call that squandering
time. I call that standing up for vital Scottish
interests.
Neil Findlay (Lothian) (Lab):
Not a single patient will be treated better
or quicker as a result of the statement. Not
a single family will be lifted out of poverty
and not a single child will receive a better
education—the issue that is supposed to
be the First Minister’s top priority. We
have powers over all those areas, so when
will we hear a half-hour statement and see
rushed legislation from Nicola Sturgeon on
those issues? What has been sidelined from
the planned legislative programme to deal
with Nicola Sturgeon’s real priority of
independence?
The First Minister:
I will be here again tomorrow at 12 noon for
45 minutes, answering questions on health,
education, justice, the economy or anything
that the Opposition wants to ask me about.
I disagree with Neil Findlay on his central
premise about the impact of the decisions
that we take now on patients who rely on our
NHS and on children who rely on our schools.
If we allow the damage of Brexit to happen
to this country, we will face a smaller economy,
reduced revenues, a shrinking population and
narrowed horizons for this and the next generation.
That will hamper the ability, not just of
this Scottish Government, but of Scottish
Governments to come, to protect our health
service, our economy and our public services.
That is why we must act.
It is not this Government that needs to be
reminded about the day job. We do that day
in and day out. Substantial policy work means
that more than a dozen substantial pieces
of legislation are before this Parliament.
By contrast, the Westminster Government has
produced not one piece of non-Brexit legislation,
the Queen’s speech is indefinitely postponed
and the only policy idea of recent times—the
one about no-fault evictions and housing—the
Scottish Government has already implemented.
We get on with the day job every single day
and we will continue to do so.
Jenny Gilruth (Mid Fife and Glenrothes) (SNP):
As the First Minister mentioned, the Westminster
system is so broken that even Murdo Fraser
admitted this week that big parts of it should
be abolished. Given that most of this chamber
will be in agreement that the current system
is not working for Scotland, does that not
demonstrate how important it is for all parties
to come forward with ideas on how to fix it?
The First Minister:
Yes, it does.
There will be a lot of sound and fury in this
chamber about these issues today, tomorrow
and no doubt on many occasions. In a democracy,
that is as it should be. However, I repeat
the point that I made in my statement. We
also have a duty to try to come together to
get over those disagreements and to see whether
there is common ground. It will be very telling
in the next days and weeks whether any of
the other parties are prepared to do that.
The offer is there; it is open and sincere.
The other parties should bring forward their
proposals. If they think that my prospectus
for Scotland is wrong, they should bring forward
their proposals and let us see how much common
ground can emerge from that.
However, if all they have to offer people
in Scotland is a broken status quo in which
Scotland can be ripped out of the EU against
our will with all the damage that that does,
they should expect the process of change to
pass them by completely, because support for
independence will continue to grow.
Murdo Fraser (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):
The First Minister mentioned in her statement
the 62 per cent of Scots who voted for the
UK to remain in the EU, a figure that she
describes as an “overwhelming majority”.
The latest poll on support for independence,
commissioned by her party colleague Angus
Robertson, shows that an even more overwhelming
majority of Scots support the union and reject
independence. Given that the First Minister
is previously on record as saying that she
would not pursue another referendum unless
there was demonstrable public support for
independence, why is she now proposing to
take us down the route of further division?
The First Minister:
The party manifesto in 2016, on which I was
elected as First Minister, said that if Scotland
was taken out of the European Union against
our will, the people of Scotland should have
the option to choose independence. We are
not yet out of the European Union and I hope
that we will not be taken out of the European
Union, but if we are, then, in my view, the
mandate in that manifesto should be honoured
and people in Scotland should have the right
to choose. If Murdo Fraser is so sure that
Scotland would choose not to be independent,
that again begs the question that I asked
earlier: why are the Tories so reluctant to
allow people in Scotland to have that choice?
I have mentioned Murdo Fraser a couple of
times today and I will praise him again, which
would be utter death to his career prospects
if they had not probably pretty much died
some time ago. However, I give credit to Murdo
Fraser because he accepts that things as they
are are not acceptable—they are not good
enough. As it happens, I do not think that
his proposal, which is to put more powers
in some new chamber in Westminster, is the
answer. I think that the answer is to bring
powers to this chamber in Scotland. That is
fine; we have different views.
However, given that Murdo Fraser accepts that
constitutional change is needed, I hope that
he will persuade his party to take part in
the process that I have set out today and
come forward with its own proposals—the
one that Murdo Fraser has already put forward
and others. In that way, perhaps we can build
some consensus on how this Parliament can
be equipped with powers that allow us to grow
our economy, better protect our public services
and, crucially, grow our population, because
the Tory approach to migration at Westminster
is the biggest threat to this country’s
prosperity that we face. I hope that Murdo
Fraser will prevail in his party for once
and get some common sense into them over the
next period.
Annabelle Ewing (Cowdenbeath) (SNP):
In 2014, Ruth Davidson said:
“It’s disingenuous to say No means out
and Yes means in, when actually the opposite
is true. No means we stay in. We are members
of the European Union.”
First Minister, that has been shown to be
completely untrue. Is it not the case that
we simply cannot stand by and watch the dysfunctional
Westminster system ruin Scotland’s future?
The First Minister:
The reality that those who were in the no
campaign in 2014 do not like to have pointed
out to them is that they told Scotland that
the way to protect our membership of the European
Union was to vote against independence, yet
here we are, finding that, because we are
not independent, we face being taken out of
the European Union and that our future is
being determined by a dozen countries that
are of the same size or smaller than us, with
the UK out of the room. That is the reality
that we face.
Adam Tomkins is not listening right now, but
it was he who said, in 2014, that there was
very little chance of the UK voting to leave
the European Union. That is the “material
change” in circumstances that has happened
since 2014, and that is why people in Scotland
should have the ability to choose whether
they want to be part of Brexit Britain, with
all the damage that comes with that, or whether
they prefer to have a future as an independent
country that is part of the European family,
building those relationships on the basis
of equality and building our prosperity on
that basis, as well. I think that, given the
choice, the people of Scotland will choose
the latter—to become a normal independent
country.
Rhoda Grant (Highlands and Islands) (Lab):
The First Minister cannot ask for genuine
dialogue when she is already setting out her
direction of travel. This is a “My way or
the highway” statement. She cannot expect
people to engage in honest dialogue in a citizens
assembly when she has already stated that
she will hold an independence referendum before
the end of the parliamentary session. She
is ignoring the settled will of the Scottish
people and creating further chaos and uncertainty.
Will she remove that threat in order to allow
all parties to engage openly and honestly
on what is best for our country?
The First Minister:
I will respond to Rhoda Grant in a very genuine
way. If she had listened to my statement,
she would have heard me say—I will say it
again—that, if we are to protect Scotland’s
option to choose, we have to put the plans
for that in place in this parliamentary term.
That is why I have set out the plans for legislation
today.
I have also openly invited other parties to
come forward with their proposals. If we could
agree on change that could be made more quickly
and in a different way, I would be open minded
on that. That offer is made in a genuine way,
and it is for the other parties to decide
whether they wish to engage with it. I hope
that the Labour Party will do so, but I am
less confident about the Tories. I am pretty
confident that the Greens will engage with
us, and I hope that the Liberal Democrats
will do so, as well.
In a democracy, we should not expect any of
us to put to one side or abandon the principles
that we hold dear. However, notwithstanding
those deeply held convictions and the differences
between us, the public should expect us, as
politicians, to try to come together to see
where the common ground is. I am willing to
do that, but we will make progress on that
only if the other parties are also willing,
so time will tell.
Bruce Crawford (Stirling) (SNP):
Will the First Minister confirm that the significant
point in her very welcome announcement is
that, while we await any remote sense of clarity
on Brexit from the Tory UK Government at Westminster,
in contrast, here at Holyrood, we can begin
preparations now for a referendum on Scotland’s
future, in order to keep our options open?
Would a sensible and reasonable Government
of any persuasion not do so in any such circumstances?
The First Minister:
It is incumbent on any Government to act in
a way that best protects the interests of
the country that it serves, and my Government
will continue to seek to do so. The Brexit
situation is not of the Government’s choosing—or
of the choosing of the Parliament or, indeed,
the country—but we have to respond to it
in a way that protects our interests as best
we can, and what I have set out today does
that. It keeps open the option of this country’s
having the right to choose, within this session
of Parliament, a different future to that
offered by Brexit, in line with the mandate
that we have. It also opens up space for others
to come forward with different suggestions.
I hope that all of us in the Parliament will
move forward on that basis.
Maurice Golden (West Scotland) (Con):
The First Minister wants to establish a citizens
assembly to help us to find consensus. Does
she really think that that is possible when
her nationalist agenda is driven by grievance
and division?
The First Minister:
I have to say that a sense of “grievance
and division” dripped from every syllable
that came out of Maurice Golden’s mouth
there.
Over the next period, we will find out whether
there is any willingness on the part of all
the parties in the chamber to try to find
agreement. I am willing to do that, and, as
I have said many times before, the offer to
other parties is there. All parties should
be enthusiastic about the prospect of a citizens
assembly and should be prepared to discuss
the details of it, because it will involve
people from across Scotland helping us to
shape the decisions that we take on behalf
of the country.
Notwithstanding the tone of that question,
I hope that, when the Conservatives have had
the time for calm reflection and have got
over having to talk again about Brexit—which
I know they hate so much, for obvious reasons—we
will find them, Labour and the Liberal Democrats
coming to the table to see whether we can
find common ground amid the disagreements
that we have.
Sandra White (Glasgow Kelvin) (SNP):
Unlike some others, I very much welcome the
proposal for a citizens assembly. I echo the
comment of an Irish citizen, who said that
having such an assembly
“got balanced and truthful information out
among the people of Ireland”.
Can the First Minister assure Parliament that
that will be the case with the citizens assembly
in Scotland and that lessons will be learned
on how not to conduct ourselves in the way
that has been demonstrated so disastrously
by Brexiteers in the collapsing Westminster
system?
The First Minister:
Yes, I give those assurances. We will seek
to discuss with others, and with the Parliament
as a whole, the remit and the operation of
the citizens assembly.
It will not surprise the Parliament to hear
that I think that the experience of the 2014
referendum was very different from the experience
of the 2016 referendum. We had a prospectus
that people agreed or disagreed with, but
people had a wealth of detail with which to
inform themselves before the decision was
taken in 2014. That detail was completely
absent from the Brexit referendum.
I think that we can go even further and use
a citizens assembly, among other things, to
really understand the detail and the information
that people want to have in order to make
truly informed choices about the future of
the country, as well as to lay a foundation
so that, whatever decisions we ultimately
take as a country, people feel a sense of
engagement and buy-in, so that we can move
forward in a unified manner.
It is about trying to do things in a markedly
different way from the whole Brexit process,
which has caused so much division and angst.
I think that we can rise to that challenge
in Scotland, and I hope that all parties will
help us to ensure that we do.
James Kelly (Glasgow) (Lab):
People in Scotland do not want a second independence
referendum. Why is the First Minister making
the pursuit of independence her number 1 priority
when there are record numbers of children
in poverty, when people are working in two
or three jobs because of low pay and when
patients are stranded on national health service
waiting lists, waiting for treatment?
The First Minister:
James Kelly asserts that people in Scotland
do not want the choice of independence instead
of Brexit. I just do not think that he has
the evidence for that claim.
He also asks me why I think that that choice
is important when children are living in poverty.
An increasing number of children are living
in poverty because of the welfare cuts that
are being imposed by a Tory Government that
Scotland did not vote for. That is one reason
for independence. He talks about people on
low pay. Of course, employment law remains
reserved to a Government in Westminster that
the people of Scotland did not vote for. Bringing
powers back to this Parliament is how, or
partly how, we will resolve and address the
challenges that James Kelly has outlined.
Although James Kelly and his colleagues do
not support independence, I hope that, in
the spirit of the question that he has just
asked me, we will see Labour come forward
with proposals. It has said—I have already
welcomed this today—that it now favours
the devolution of employment law. If it had
favoured that during the Smith commission,
we might already be some way forward on that.
Nevertheless, let us hear more proposals from
Labour, and we might find that there is actually
more agreement between the SNP and Labour
than any of us likes to admit.
For the Labour Party’s supporters, seeing
it side with the SNP on a few things would
make a welcome change from seeing it side
with the Tories on most things.
Rona Mackay (Strathkelvin and Bearsden) (SNP):
Even many Tories are alarmed at the prospect
of an extreme Brexiteer such as Boris Johnson
becoming Prime Minister. Is that not another
example of why it is essential that this Parliament
keep Scotland’s options open in the face
of a clearly broken Westminster system that
could inflict even more damage?
The First Minister:
When I set out the implications and consequences
of Brexit for Scotland, I did not factor in
the prospect of somebody like Boris Johnson
becoming Prime Minister. If that happens—there
is apparently now a distinct possibility of
its happening—the consequences that I outlined
today would get even worse for Scotland. Yes—I
do think that that makes the case for Scotland
being independent, taking charge of our own
decisions and being in control of our own
future all the stronger.
Interestingly, I have read voices from within
the Scottish Conservative Party saying that,
in the event of Boris Johnson becoming Prime
Minister, the Scottish Conservative Party
should become independent from the UK Conservative
Party. It seems that independence is good
enough for the Scottish Conservative Party.
Why on earth would it want to deny the people
of Scotland the same opportunity?
Donald Cameron (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
Given that the Brexit vote will lead to more
powers being transferred to this Parliament
and in light of the fact that the Scottish
Government is not using all the powers that
it already has—for example, it has handed
back welfare powers to the Department for
Work and Pensions—how can the First Minister
seriously contend that the status quo is broken
and one answer is further devolution?
The First Minister:
Powers have been taken away from the Parliament
as a result of the Brexit process. Frankly,
it ill behoves the Tories to deny that that
is the case; with the exception of the Tories,
the Parliament was unanimous in opposing that
Brexit power grab. I take the view that we
should have more powers in this Parliament
so that we can take our own decisions, which
is better than having those powers in the
hands of Conservatives who Scotland, by and
large, does not vote for. I hope that we will
hear proposals to that effect from the Scottish
Conservatives.
Ross Greer (West Scotland) (Green):
In its desperation to stay in power, the Westminster
Government has proved itself to be profoundly
unworthy of trust in negotiation. Considering
the recent direct attacks on devolution and
the deep inadequacies of the joint ministerial
council structure, what safeguards and conditions
has the Scottish Government considered to
ensure that talks with the UK Government are
conducted reasonably, respectfully and without
the risk of undermining Scotland’s interests?
The First Minister:
Right now, there are no assurances of that,
I am sorry to say. I do not want to speak
for the Welsh First Minister, but I am pretty
sure that he and his predecessor would say
the same thing: we can have talks with the
UK Government until we are blue in the face,
but it does not listen and it does not act
in a way that protects or advances Scotland’s
interests. That is an example of the democratic
deficit that I spoke about. The views on Brexit
of not just the Scottish people but the Scottish
Parliament and the views on the best way forward
of not just the Government but a cross-party
consensus in the Parliament have been cast
aside. In my view, that has underlined and
illustrated strongly the need for the Parliament
to have more powers, to have more control
over the decisions that shape our future and
ultimately, of course, to be an independent
country.
Kenneth Gibson (Cunninghame North) (SNP):
The First Minister has confirmed that, if
Scotland is taken out of the EU by a failed
Westminster system, we will progress to an
independence referendum before the end of
the parliamentary session in 2021. How will
she take forward the mandate that was given
to the Government in 2016 to ensure that Scotland
can vote to secure its re-emergence as an
independent sovereign state?
The First Minister:
As I have set out in my statement today, we
will introduce legislation to protect the
right for Scotland to have that choice within
this parliamentary session. At an appropriate
time, we will seek the transfer of power from
Westminster that would allow us to apply it
to a choice on independence. Whatever our
views on independence, the fundamental point
is this: if Scotland is faced, as it is, with
Brexit against its will, Scotland should have
the choice as to whether it wants that or
to choose the alternative of being a sovereign
independent country that is able to play full
part in the European Union. That is the fundamental
issue here. It should not be for any of us
in the Parliament to determine that issue;
it should be for the people of Scotland.
Miles Briggs (Lothian) (Con):
The First Minister has said that she is open
minded and looking to build consensus and
agreement. If she is genuine in her sentiments,
will she be open to dropping this bid for
a second independence referendum during this
parliamentary session?
The First Minister:
I have said that I am open minded to people
coming forward with proposals for change.
If we can have serious and substantial proposals
that deliver perhaps not all the change that
I want to see but change that will help to
protect the Parliament, I am open minded on
that. I say that without preconditions. The
onus is on the Conservatives; will they come
forward in good faith and have that discussion?
If they do, they will find me willing to have
that discussion in good faith.
Iain Gray (East Lothian) (Lab):
It is less than five years since I spent weeks
on the Smith commission engaging in good faith
with all the parties here to find agreement
on constitutional and procedural change. That
agreement included significant tax and welfare
powers, yet the First Minister has handed
some of those powers back and refused to use
others to tackle poverty and inequality. If
she can organise another independence referendum
by 2021, why will it take until 2022 to pay
low-income families the income supplement
that she promised them? Should she not rise
to the challenge of using the powers that
we all agreed in 2014 before we trust her
to sit down and discuss what new powers we
might need and want now?
The First Minister:
We will bring forward our proposals on the
low-income supplement in June, which is what
we said we would do. It does not do Iain Gray’s
case any good for him to stand up and say
that we have handed powers back when that
is not true. There are carers across Scotland
right now who have extra money in their pockets
because of our use of welfare powers. There
are low-income families who are getting the
best start grant when they have a child because
of our use of the welfare powers, and the
process of completing that will benefit low-income
individuals and families the length and breadth
of the country.
Labour has changed its mind since the Smith
commission met. In the Smith commission, Labour
firmly opposed the devolution of employment
law, but it has now changed its mind, which
I welcome. We are in changed circumstances.
One of the biggest risks that our country
now faces is Westminster policy on immigration,
which threatens to put—[Interruption.] Someone
is saying “Tory policy”, but Jeremy Corbyn
seems to agree with Theresa May on ending
free movement. That will send our population
into decline. We are in different circumstances,
and that is why we have to look afresh at
the powers that our Parliament has. I believe
Labour when it says that it has ideas on that,
so let us bring forward those ideas and see
what consensus we are able to build.
Angela Constance (Almond Valley) (SNP):
As the First Minister will be aware, the desire
for independence is born not out of Brexit
alone but out of anger at decisions that are
taken at Westminster by a Government that
we did not elect and which are increasing
poverty, food bank use and inequality in Scotland.
Does she agree that it is those issues, along
with Brexit, that underlie the need for Scotland
to have all the powers to end poverty and
for Scotland to be independent?
The First Minister:
Yes, I agree very strongly. Brexit has illustrated
many of those points sharply and it has illustrated
the democratic deficit whereby Scotland can
vote overwhelmingly to stay in the EU and
yet still face being removed, with all the
consequences that flow from that.
The essence of independence is not just about
Brexit but about putting decisions about the
future of our country into the hands of people
who live here in Scotland. That is what happens
in countries all over the world and that is
what should happen in Scotland, too, so that
we can work with other countries in the British
isles on the basis of equality but not have
decisions that damage children and the interests
of this country imposed on us by Westminster.
That is why I want Scotland to become an independent
country.
Liz Smith (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Con):
In her statement, the First Minister said
very clearly that the politics of Brexit have
been highly divisive. Does she accept that
one reason for that division is the fact that
the public feel that the result of their vote
has not been implemented, and does she accept
that the First Minister would be falling into
exactly the same trap by running a second
independence referendum to try to overrule
what was a very decisive vote in 2014?
The First Minister:
I am slightly confused by Liz Smith’s question
when she says that, because we have not yet
left the EU, the decision of the country has
not been implemented. The decision of Scotland,
which is the country that all of us in the
Parliament are here to represent, was to remain
in the EU. So far, that decision is being
implemented and I hope that it continues to
be so.
A legitimate point that I have heard the Conservatives,
including Liz Smith, make many times is that,
although the majority in Scotland voted to
remain in the EU, more than 30 per cent voted
to leave the EU and we should do more to understand
and respect that. I agree, and that is a responsibility
that is on all of us. However, I never hear
the Tories say that there is a need to understand
the 45 per cent who voted for Scottish independence,
and the growing number of people who, in the
light of Brexit, want Scotland to be independent.
Things have changed, and they have not changed
for the better for Scotland in the UK. That
is why it is right to look again at the powers
of the Parliament. It is right to become an
independent country, to give people in Scotland
that choice, and not simply to sit back passively
while Brexit—a policy that we did not vote
for—does untold damage to the interests
of the country now and for many decades to
come.
Mark McDonald (Aberdeen Donside) (Ind):
I welcome the First Minister’s proposal
for a citizens assembly. I believe that it
is a concept that could have a wider applicability
in the future. What steps will the Scottish
Government take to ensure that the assembly
captures the widest possible range of voices
from within Scotland—particularly from minority
communities and communities of disadvantage
and poverty, whose voices are all too often
not heard loud enough in the debates that
we have in the chamber and in the country
as a whole?
The First Minister:
That is an important point to raise. By its
very nature, the citizens assembly model works
when it is as representative of the country
as possible. It is important to stress that
that does not simply mean being representative
of the different sides of a constitutional
argument: it means being representative of
the glorious diversity of the country. That
will be an important part in constituting
the citizens assembly.
I do not want to say any more about the detail,
because it is important that we take time
to discuss with other parties and stakeholders
how it will best be taken forward, but I give
an assurance that that diversity will be very
much at the heart of what we seek to do.
Stuart McMillan (Greenock and Inverclyde)
(SNP):
Ever since it was announced that the First
Minister would be making this important statement,
the Tory and Labour parties have been squawking
about the Government getting on with the day
job. For the avoidance of doubt, will the
First Minister set out what actions the Government
is taking to deliver for the people of Scotland?
The First Minister:
We do the day job every single day. This month
alone, we have extended free personal care
to the under-65s, we have introduced the new
ground-breaking and world-leading Domestic
Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018, we have signed
contracts on the Laurencekirk junction and
the Maybole bypass, and we have invested millions
of pounds in schemes to tackle fuel poverty
and to fund low-carbon initiatives. In recent
days, we have invested money to make sure
that children do not go hungry during the
school holidays. Just this week, I think,
we extended free tuition to European students
who live in Scotland. The list goes on and
on. Getting on with the day job is our responsibility:
we will continue to discharge our responsibilities
day to day.
The debate today, however, is in fact about
the day job. When you listen to the Tories,
Labour and the Liberals, it is almost as though
they think that we should be oblivious to
the Brexit juggernaut that is coming towards
us. Our sitting passively and allowing it
to hit us will have implications for our economy,
our population and our revenues. All that,
and the ability of this and future Scottish
Governments to do the day job effectively,
will be affected. It is very important that
we do not let that happen, and that we allow
people in Scotland the choice to have a better
and more prosperous future.
Liam Kerr (North East Scotland) (Con):
On getting on with the day job, a few weeks
ago we learned that Scotland’s police officers
are chasing criminals in cars held that are
together with duct tape. [Interruption.] Why
is—[Interruption.]
The Presiding Officer:
Order, please.
Liam Kerr:
Why is endless constitutional wrangling—and
using resources to draft legislation that
might not even be competent and which hinges
on an event that might not even occur—more
important to the First Minister than resourcing
police constables on the front line?
The First Minister:
This Government is increasing the police budget.
We have just agreed a pay award for our police
officers, which is—according to the Scottish
Police Federation—the best police pay award
in Scotland in 20 years. The commissioner
of the Metropolitan Police in London described
the UK Government’s pay award to its police
officers as
“a punch on the nose”.
There is a bit of contrast for Liam Kerr.
It is not this Government that needs to be
reminded about the day job. At Westminster
right now—this is a point that the Tories
should reflect on—there is not a single
piece of non-Brexit legislation before the
House of Commons. There is no policy agenda
on any issue except Brexit, and they are making
a complete and utter hash of it. The Queen’s
speech will apparently not happen, because
the Tories do not think that they can get
it through the House of Commons. By contrast,
we have a policy reform programme under way,
and a dozen or more pieces of substantial
legislation before the Scottish Parliament.
We will get on with delivering on health,
education, the economy and justice. We will
also do everything that we can to protect
the interests of Scotland from the actions
of the incompetent Tory Westminster Government.
Claire Baker (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab):
There is a contradiction in the First Minister’s
statement. She talks about there being so
much division over Brexit. Does she recognise
that, for many, that was the experience and
the legacy of the 2014 referendum? When there
is little appetite in the country for another
referendum in this session of Parliament,
is she really prepared to cause greater division
in our public discourse by pursuing the bill?
The First Minister:
That was not my experience of the 2014 referendum.
[Interruption.] I accept that other people
feel differently. [Interruption.] Somebody
is saying that that is because others were
on the receiving end of abuse. One need only
to go to my social media accounts to see that
I am daily on the receiving end of a fair
amount of abuse.
What is more important is this: all of us
should try to do things better, differently
and in a way that accentuates agreement rather
than disagreement. The answer to worrying
about division or disagreement cannot be simply
to ignore the Brexit juggernaut or to suppress
the differences of opinion about the future
of the country. The answer has to be for all
of us to rise to the challenge—to confront
the challenges that our country faces in a
more unified way. That is why I have made
my offer today. I hope that people such as
Claire Baker in the Labour Party—who I know
wants to consider how we might do things more
consensually—will prevail on her party leadership
to enter those discussions in the spirit in
which they are offered.
Fulton MacGregor (Coatbridge and Chryston)
(SNP):
The First Minister may have seen comments
from the Prime Minister’s office today that
crumbling Westminster has
“bigger things to deal with”
than Scotland. Will the First Minister join
me in reaffirming that the interests of Scotland
are—and always will be—at the top of the
SNP’s agenda?
The First Minister:
I have to say that I have some sympathy with
the Prime Minister and the UK Government,
because there is no denying that the utter
mess that they have made of Brexit is a pretty
big thing for them to have to deal with. They
are certainly not dealing with anything else
in the UK—whether in health, education,
justice, the economy or anything else. It
is a big thing for them to deal with.
However, if I was in the Scottish Tories,
I would be despairing at that comment from
this morning, because it drips with contempt
for Scotland and for the idea that Scotland
might not be entirely happy with the direction
in which we are being taken by this Brexit-obsessed
UK Tory Government. That is a big problem
for the Tories, because it backs up the experience
that we have had over these past three years,
which is that the Tories want Scotland just
to wheesht, keep quiet and go along with whatever
they want. I do not think that that is right
for Scotland. That is the difference between
those of us in the SNP and the Conservatives.
We think that Scotland should stand up for
its own interests and that Scotland should
have the right to choose its own future.
Mike Rumbles (North East Scotland) (LD):
The First Minister asked the question: if
the status quo is not fit for purpose, how
do we fix it? Does the First Minister not
understand that the Liberal Democrats and
others in this chamber support a renewed federal
democracy for our United Kingdom, and that
her insistence on legislating with the aim
of breaking up and dividing our United Kingdom
totally undermines her siren calls for reaching
agreement with other parties across the chamber?
The First Minister:
I accept and respect the longstanding view
of the Liberals on federalism. I often wonder
why, when the Liberals were in Government
at Westminster in recent years, they did not
lift a finger to deliver the federal Britain
that they claim to back.
I am absolutely willing to sit down with any
party in this chamber to talk about our different
visions for how we fix what is wrong with
our current system. However, the question
for those who propose federalism is where
is the UK Government that will deliver it?
We cannot unilaterally turn the UK into a
federal country; it would require the UK Government
to act, and no UK Government in the history
of the UK has shown any interest in delivering
a federal Britain.
The difference with independence is that it
is within our control. If the people of Scotland
choose to be independent, we do not have to
rely on a Westminster Government; it is a
decision that we can take for ourselves. Therefore,
I will leave Mike Rumbles to continue to beaver
away, trying to—at some point—persuade
a UK Government to deliver federalism. If
he ever manages it, I will be the first to
congratulate him.
Bob Doris (Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn)
(SNP):
I welcome the orderly and inclusive path towards
a second independence referendum that has
been outlined this afternoon. Given that deprived
areas tend to have lower electoral turnouts,
will the First Minister consider the opportunities
that a citizens assembly may present to boost
democratic participation in some of our most
deprived communities?
The First Minister:
Yes. It is not the case that we have no experience
of the citizens assembly model in Scotland—the
work that we did in advance of establishing
Social Security Scotland used a not dissimilar
model, although we do not have the same experience
as Ireland, for example. I believe that the
model could be powerful in engaging people
in all our communities in the democratic process
and in how they can influence that democratic
process, which is one of the reasons why I
look forward to discussing with parties how
we take it forward.
Graham Simpson (Central Scotland) (Con):
The First Minister talked about a busy legislative
programme. If she wants the framework bill
to be on the statute books this year, as she
says she does, there is bound to be an effect
on that programme. Which bills or proposed
bills are likely to be delayed?
The First Minister:
I do not expect it to have an effect on any
of the other bills that are before the Scottish
Parliament. I am sure that all MSPs across
the Parliament are capable of working hard
enough to deliver the legislative programme
that is before us with another bill added
in.
