Scottish Parliament, 18 September 2024

306 contributions from 56 members. The official report.

Portfolio Question Time

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio question time, and the first portfolio is constitution, external affairs and culture, and parliamentary business.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Channel 4 in relation to increasing its made outside England quota from 9 per cent to 16 per cent in line with population breakdown, as called for by Pact, the independent television representative body. (S6O-03717)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Scottish Government officials have met Channel 4 on several occasions, and I met the chief executive of Channel 4 on 23 May.

In our communications with Channel 4 and the regulator, Ofcom, including letters that were sent on 26 April, 25 June and 28 August, we have challenged the inadequate made outside England quotas that are proposed and have set out our expectation that they should be increased to at least 16 per cent, with individual nation quotas. The Scottish Government also responded to both of Ofcom’s consultations on 14 February and 28 August to set out those views.

Douglas Lumsden (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I am sure that the cabinet secretary shares my anger that Ofcom, instead of proceeding with a 16 per cent quota, chose to proceed with a 12 per cent quota, and even that will not apply until 2030. That will mean that 25 per cent fewer programmes will be made in Scotland and 25 per cent fewer people will be involved than would have been the case if the quota had been accepted.

Scottish freelancers in the independent TV industry are really hurting, and many are being forced out of the industry. What more can the Government do, in conjunction with Pact and Screen Scotland, to protect the industry as it goes through a difficult time?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I commend Douglas Lumsden for his question and the way in which he framed it. The difference between 12 per cent and 16 per cent might not seem much to people who do not understand how much that is worth but, as he pointed out, the proposed quota represents a 25 per cent underspend, which would have an impact on the television sector in Scotland that would not be welcomed.

Douglas Lumsden asked what more we can do. One thing that has become increasingly apparent is that, in addition to the fact that the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Government and our screen agencies are making the very same points that he has made, we are hearing voices from across Parliaments doing exactly the same thing. I commend him and colleagues in his party and in other parties who are making that point. The more people who make that point between now and final decisions, the better chance we have of getting fairness for spending in Scotland by Channel 4, which we worked so hard to secure in relation to spending in Scotland by the BBC.

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it has had any discussions with organisations in the arts and culture sector since the publication of “Programme for Government 2024-25”. (S6O-03718)

I note my entry in the register of members’ interests as a supporter of the arts.

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Scottish Government officials and ministers are in regular contact with key stakeholders across the arts and culture sector as part of the normal business of Government. Such engagement has continued since the publication of the programme for government on 4 September.

Alexander Burnett (Conservative, Aberdeenshire West)

In the past two years, the Scottish National Party Government has repeatedly cut Creative Scotland’s budget, only to restore it after a backlash, sometimes framing those reversals as new investment. The recent restoration of the open fund is the latest example of that, after a joint campaign by 150 arts organisations, including Deveron Projects and the Barn in my constituency. Does the cabinet secretary understand how that misleads the sector and undermines trust in the Government?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I gently point out to Alexander Burnett that it would be misleading to claim that there has been a reduction in culture spending in Scotland, because spending in culture and the arts in Scotland is up. I appreciate that everybody who cares about the arts and culture sector wishes to see that rise in spending. A commitment has been laid out to a growth of an annual amount of £100 million, which would be a tremendous boost to the sector.

It is really important to recognise that, notwithstanding the pressures and the difficulties, this Government is raising culture spending. I contrast that with the position of the previous and the present United Kingdom Government, which is cutting the spending of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in England, and the Welsh Labour Government, which is cutting funding in Wales. In Scotland, we are increasing funding in culture, and we are trying to do so as quickly as we can.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I have three requests for supplementary questions, and I intend to take all three.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

The cabinet secretary will be aware of the dispute between the Paisley Art Institute and OneRen, which has resulted in the looming possibility of highly valuable local artworks being auctioned off next week. A number of constituents—including the artist Eilidh Montague, who has started a petition—feel passionately that artworks that have been gifted to Paisley should not be lost to the town, through either their sale or their being moved to Glasgow, as has been suggested. Once they are gone, they are gone. Will the Scottish Government look urgently and closely at the issue and offer to convene talks between the two parties to try to find a positive resolution?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I thank Neil Bibby for his question and for contacting me a number of days ago to highlight the issue, which is a matter of concern to him and to constituents who have raised it with him. I gave him an undertaking that I would raise the issue with senior Scottish Government officials in the culture directorate, so that we can better understand the circumstances that he has outlined to the Parliament. That work is currently being undertaken. I gave him a commitment that I would let him know, during the course of this week, what view we are able to take on the challenge that he has outlined to the Parliament. I intend to get back to him on the details and, if it would be appropriate, I would be content to update the Parliament in due course on progress on the issue.

I intend to work with Neil Bibby, as I have committed to doing, in the spirit in which he raised the issue with me. I very much welcome the way in which he did so.

Gordon MacDonald (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Pentlands)

The Labour Government’s austerity budget that is due in October is expected to have a substantial impact on the Scottish Government’s finances in the year ahead. Can the cabinet secretary provide further assurances that, despite the cuts that are coming from Westminster, the Scottish Government will continue to invest in the arts and culture sector? Will he provide an update on his latest engagement with the UK Government regarding future finances and the impact that its decisions will have on the Scottish Government’s spending plans?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

As I said, it is a matter of fact that the Scottish Government has increased culture sector funding this financial year by more than £15 million, which is the first step towards achieving the First Minister’s commitment to invest at least £100 million more annually in culture and the arts by 2028-29. The commitment to additional funding comes despite the challenging budget situation, and it signals the Scottish Government’s continued confidence in the culture sector and the value that we place on it.

The Scottish budget continues to face significant challenges, and no additional funding was confirmed in the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s recent statement. As is normal practice, any consequentials will be confirmed, in early 2025, as part of the supplementary estimates process. The Scottish Government will, of course, continue to work with the new UK Government to seek clarity on any changes that might have an impact on funding in Scotland.

Rhoda Grant (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

The Screen Machine, which is parked outside in Holyrood park, brings cinema to communities that would otherwise have no access to it, but, sadly, its future is under threat. Screen Scotland has provided funding to extend the current machine’s lease for two years, which is welcome, but it will take 12 to 18 months to build a new state-of-the-art machine, so the clock is ticking. A fundraising campaign has been launched to raise £100,000 from the public out of the £1.7 million that is required in total for the new machine. The campaign has support from Dame Judi Dench, Alan Cumming and Tide Lines. Without urgent intervention, our rural communities will lose their access to cinema, so what steps is the Scottish Government taking to ensure that that does not happen?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I thank Rhoda Grant for her question. The Screen Machine—which matters so much, particularly to our rural and island communities—is funded by Screen Scotland, which is funded by the Scottish Government. We support the retention of that vital lifeline cultural service to rural and island Scotland.

I commend Rhoda Grant for raising the fact that a fundraising drive is under way, and I encourage all members who are able to support and publicise the campaign to do so. As she did, I visited the Screen Machine outside the Scottish Parliament yesterday. I recommend that colleagues who have not yet visited it do so, because it is absolutely tremendous. I am seized of the need to ensure that the service remains in operation and that there is a replacement mobile cinema. With the help and support of colleagues across the chamber, I am encouraged that we can work towards that, which is a shared objective.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to invest in supporting youth culture in the Cunninghame South constituency. (S6O-03719)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The Scottish Government places great importance on cultural activity in the local community. We believe that young people of all backgrounds should have the opportunity to access quality cultural services in their local area.

The Scottish Government supports a range of organisations through Creative Scotland. In the Cunninghame South constituency, those include the Irvine and Dreghorn brass band and the music education partnership We Make Music libraries group, which caters to young people specifically. We also provide upwards of £190,000 in support for North Ayrshire Council’s highly regarded youth music initiative programme, which is based in Cunninghame and whose work reaches all schools in the local authority area.

Ruth Maguire (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame South)

I welcome the fact that the Scottish Government is increasing funding for culture. Arts and culture are integral parts of a thriving community. This summer, I had the pleasure of visiting Impact Arts, where I saw at first hand the vital work that it does to provide artistic opportunities for young people, the positive impact that it has had on their wellbeing and the prospects that it opens up to them.

Does the cabinet secretary agree that money invested by the Scottish Government through Creative Scotland should be distributed across the country for the benefit of all, to ensure that the arts are developed for young people outside our main cities?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

We know that it is vital to nurture culture and creativity across all of Scotland’s communities. The funding that we provide via Creative Scotland reaches individuals, organisations and projects across the whole of Scotland. For example, our long-standing investment—of more than £150 million since 2007—in the youth music initiative continues to support and empower young people in all of Scotland’s 32 local authorities. It allows young people to access music-making and learning opportunities, with every pupil being offered a year of free music tuition by the end of primary school.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Katy Clark has a supplementary question.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

There is no doubt that there have been significant cuts to youth services in recent years. To what extent does the cabinet secretary believe that it is the impact of cuts to councils, in North Ayrshire and elsewhere, that have led to reductions in services, including in arts and culture, that are targeted at young people?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I have just outlined a series of ways in which cultural provision is being delivered and protected in local authorities, including in the region that Katy Clark represents. If she has particular examples of cultural services that have been cut that I may not be aware of, I would be perfectly happy to take a look at that.

I am absolutely committed to ensuring that Scotland’s culture and arts agencies, which deliver in different ways, do so right across Scotland, and that young people—no matter where they are or what their background—are given the option of participating in cultural activities. I look forward to the member reaching out to me with any information that she may have.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with the UK Government about improving relations with the European Union, including on rejoining the single market and customs union. (S6O-03720)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The Scottish Government’s long-standing position is that rejoining the single market and the customs union, at the earliest opportunity and as an independent country, represents the best future for Scotland.

Brexit has been and continues to be a disaster for Scotland. I have conveyed to the current UK Government that I welcome its intention to reset the relationship with the EU, and I have made it clear that we must do all that we can to reduce the harm of Brexit wherever possible. The Scottish Government will continue to advocate rejoining the European Union, given the huge benefits that that would bring, including access to the world’s largest single market and customs union—a customs union that is seven times larger than the United Kingdom.

Kevin Stewart (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Central)

A decade ago today, people went to the polls to vote in the independence referendum. They had been told that, to protect our membership of the European Union, they had to vote no. That was not the case, and we found that out to our cost not long after.

Is it not fair to say that, if the UK had not made the disastrous decision to leave the EU, at an estimated cost to the economy of £40 billion per annum, the proposed £22 billion of cuts from the Labour Government might have been avoided entirely?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Kevin Stewart makes very good points. It is a statement of fact that the Scottish electorate was mis-sold in 2014. It was told that it should vote no to protect Scotland’s place in the European Union. Since then, we have been taken out against the democratic will of the majority of people in this country.

Independent research organisations and the Office for Budget Responsibility have been tracking the economic impact of Brexit since the referendum in 2016, when Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union. According to analysis by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, the UK economy was 2.5 per cent smaller in 2023, and it expects that figure to rise to 5.7 per cent by 2035. That equates to around £69 billion in output and £28 billion in public revenues lost as a consequence of Brexit. That immense economic hole is a stark reminder of the price of Labour’s continued support for Brexit.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Government what work it is doing to enhance protection of the nation’s built heritage and listed buildings. (S6O-03721)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I start by acknowledging Paul Sweeney’s long-standing interest in this area. The Scottish Government delivers support for the historic environment through sponsorship of Historic Environment Scotland, the lead public body for the protection and preservation of the historic environment.

As reported in its 2023-24 grants funding report, Historic Environment Scotland delivers more than £13 million of grant funding each year for the protection and promotion of the historic environment in projects across Scotland.

Paul Sweeney (Labour, Glasgow)

The listed ABC venue on Sauchiehall Street was badly damaged in the second Glasgow School of Art fire in 2018 and it has lain derelict ever since. A planning application was recently submitted to build student accommodation on the site, but, within weeks, Glasgow City Council served a dangerous buildings notice on the property, slating it for full demolition. At no point was a conservation accredited engineer consulted to see whether at least the iconic entrance portico could be preserved and incorporated into the design of the new development. Similar situations have prevailed at the Ayr station hotel and, most recently, at the Hillhead Baptist church in the west end of Glasgow.

For the listing process to have the weight that it should have, at the very least, it should be a necessity to consult a registered conservation engineer before any green light is given to demolition. Will the Scottish Government consider the call of Save Britain’s Heritage to make it mandatory to seek the advice of a conservation accreditation register of engineers—CARE—accredited structural engineer before any planning authority authorises demolition works?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Paul Sweeney has raised a number of issues and sites that include planning matters. He will be aware that Scottish Government ministers need to be careful in relation to such issues, because of our quasi-judicial role.

He has raised the issue of the ABC, so it is on the public record and it is, no doubt, being looked at closely. He also raised the issue of Hillhead Baptist church. I am well aware of the detailed objection letter that he has publicised on his website and I know that there is still some time to run for objections to be handed in by constituents who might share his views.

On the issues that Paul Sweeney has raised that go beyond listing and so on, I will revert to officials and write to him with a substantive response, because we all agree that we want to make sure that our historic built environment is protected as much as possible.

Beatrice Wishart (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The nature of the materials that are used in historic and listed buildings means that they require traditional skills so that restoration and maintenance can be done sympathetically. What can the Scottish Government do on flexible learning opportunities for young people in island and rural areas, so that they can access and acquire those specialist skills, which would ensure that we have a pipeline of skilled craftspeople across Scotland to help to retain and protect heritage buildings?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

The point that Beatrice Wishart raises is very apposite. I have often heard from colleagues with specific issues focused on stonemasonry, but other traditional skills are essential for us to maintain our historic and built environment. A lot of effort is going on behind the scenes to ensure that our places of learning at a variety of levels allow young people to accrue the skills that are necessary for those undertakings.

I will write to Beatrice Wishart to update her on that. If she has any specific issues relating to her constituency or others in the wider region, I would be keen to hear from her on that.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government how it plans to support the retention of Scotland’s public libraries. (S6O-03722)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Scottish Government officials work closely with the Scottish Library and Information Council, which provides leadership and advice to Scottish ministers, local authorities and the wider libraries sector.

In 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25, we provided funding of £665,000 to the SLIC in recognition of the importance of our public libraries and as an expression of our support for the excellent services that libraries provide. That is on top of the Scottish Government’s general revenue funding to local authorities and includes the public library improvement fund, which supports creative, sustainable and innovative public library projects throughout the whole of Scotland.

Richard Leonard (Labour, Central Scotland)

I thank the cabinet secretary for his reply. Since the Government came to power, spending on our public libraries is down, book stocks are down, the number of library staff is down, and more than 120 public libraries have closed for good. Does the cabinet secretary accept that libraries matter, that they are a vital part of our children’s education, that they combat social isolation, that they can help to regenerate our towns and cities, that they represent a world beyond the market—a safe space, run not for profit but for enlightenment—and that, in a digital society, libraries are not needed less but are needed even more? If he does accept that, what does the Government intend to do about it?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I agree entirely with everything that we just heard about the importance of libraries for both individuals and communities. That is why—Richard Leonard heard my initial answer—the Scottish Government has committed the resources that it has committed to protect and support the provision of library services across Scotland. There is also an onus on local government to maintain provision—he knows that as well I do—and we need to work in partnership to ensure that we maintain libraries as a service the length and breadth of Scotland.

If Richard Leonard wishes to highlight any particular issues, I ask him to get in touch with me. Perhaps at the next vote on the Scottish Government’s budget he might wish to exercise his vote to support the resources that are being put into libraries.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I hope to take all three requests for supplementary questions, but I need co-operation in the form of brief questions and brief answers.

Clare Haughey (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen)

Local authorities have a statutory duty to provide adequate public library services, and the Labour administration of South Lanarkshire Council is overseeing the closure of three libraries in my constituency in Cambuslang, Halfway and Blantyre, which represents 75 per cent of the main libraries in my constituency. That is happening despite residents’ deep concern about the impact that the closures will have.

Does the minister agree that it is crucial that local authorities maintain the strategic overview of library services, even if they are commissioned by arm’s-length bodies, and that meaningful consultation with communities must precede any service changes?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Given the rhetoric that we heard a moment ago, it is very disappointing to hear that Labour local authorities, such as Clare Haughey’s own, are cutting library services and closing libraries. Public libraries in Scotland are devolved to local authorities, and they have a statutory duty to ensure that there is adequate provision of library services for residents. However, the Scottish Government recognises the significant financial pressures and community-level impacts that flow from 14 years of Westminster austerity. The Labour Government has confirmed that it is to continue that austerity, with £22 billion-worth of public spending cuts.

With all roads leading back to Westminster, as we hear and as the Labour Government acknowledges, the First Minister has been clear that we need an injection of investment in our public services, not more cuts.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

SNP Government cuts have led to a 14 per cent reduction in Scotland’s public libraries, with the public library improvement fund addressing only a fraction of the funding problems that they face. What specific action will the cabinet secretary take to address the on-going impact of those cuts, beyond the scope of that fund?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

I will tell you what, Presiding Officer, I am certainly not going to take any lessons on supporting public services from the party of austerity. It really does take a—[Interruption.] It really does take—[Interruption.] It really does take a brass neck—[Interruption.]

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Mr Stewart! Cabinet secretary—please resume.

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

It really does take a brass neck to do that, and no matter how much one shouts on the issue, it does not get us beyond the fact that it was the UK Conservative Party that implemented austerity. The impact on public spending has been felt the length and breadth of the UK, including Scotland, so I encourage Alexander Stewart to recant on the austerity that his party has been responsible for and to, at least, acknowledge that that might have some impact on the level of public funding in the UK—not least in England, where, under his party’s responsibility, cuts to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have been vast.

George Adam (Scottish National Party, Paisley)

Is it not the reality that since the Conservatives came to power in 2010, the number of UK libraries has fallen dramatically under the austerity agenda? What assessment has been made of the impact of Tory-led budget cuts on public libraries in Scotland, as well as of the future impact and consequences of the continued austerity measures that the Labour Party supports?

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

If people did not already understand, it is becoming ever clearer that the austerity politics—the reduction of and constraints on public funding in the United Kingdom—have an impact—[ Interruption .] I do not understand why Conservative members are shaking their heads. That is a matter of financial fact. UK Government austerity is having a significant impact on public spending in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is a fact.

It would be good if Conservative members and others at least recognised that austerity has an impact on public services, including libraries. I and my colleagues will not cease pointing that out to the Parliament and the public, given that that is why people voted to get rid of the Conservatives and believed that change was coming with Labour—which, sadly, it did not.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I can squeeze in question 7, but I need co-operation to have brief questions and answers.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

To ask the Scottish Government, regarding any impact on the development of its constitutional policy and strategy, what its position is on whether the promises made by the leaders of the three main United Kingdom unionist parties prior to the 2014 independence referendum, known as the vow, have been kept. (S6O-03723)

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Following the Smith commission, the Parliament received some additional powers—far less than what was promised 10 years ago in the lead up to the independence referendum.

We have used those powers to improve the lives of the people of Scotland. However, the last UK Government demonstrated that Westminster could block those powers at the drop of a hat. We know that the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, breaches of the Sewel convention and interventions in devolved policies and spending are evidence of that.

There is now an opportunity for the current UK Government to address the damage that its predecessor inflicted. We stand ready to work with it to reset the relationship, and to protect and enhance the powers of this Parliament.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Cunninghame North)

A decade on, in budget terms, the Scottish Parliament has no control whatsoever over VAT; national insurance; corporation tax; inheritance tax; fuel, tobacco and alcohol duty; and so on, yet Rishi Sunak, Alister Jack and Ian Murray, who is the new Secretary of State for Scotland, preposterously described the Parliament as

“the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world.”

Does the cabinet secretary agree that the Parliament’s powers pale in comparison to those of the states in the United States, German Länders, Swiss cantons, Canadian provinces and Australian states, all of which have constitutionally embedded rights and sweeping powers over taxation and spending? That is not to mention British Crown dependencies such as the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey.

Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh Central)

Kenneth Gibson is absolutely right: perhaps that will end the nonsensical claims to the contrary by some members of the Parliament.

With the limited powers that were handed to the Scottish Parliament under the Smith commission, the Scottish Government has made a real difference in areas where Westminster has not. Policies that Social Security Scotland administers, such as the Scottish child payment, are helping to keep an estimated 100,000 children out of poverty in Scotland.

There is a growing demand for further devolution of powers to Scotland in areas including employment rights, immigration and drugs law, based on the understanding that the Scottish Government can legislate only with the best interests of the people of Scotland at heart. The same cannot be said for Westminster.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Question 8 has not been lodged.

That concludes portfolio questions on constitution, external affairs and culture, and parliamentary business. There will be a short pause before we move to the next portfolio to allow front-bench teams to change positions.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of police service strength, in light of the decrease in Police Scotland’s officer numbers. (S6O-03725)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

It is important to recognise that the recruitment of police officers is a matter for the chief constable. Nonetheless, despite the deeply challenging financial circumstances, our budget settlement for 2024-25 for Police Scotland includes an additional £75.7 million to protect front-line policing.

As the chief constable confirmed to the Criminal Justice Committee, that budget settlement will enable Police Scotland to bring officer numbers up to around 16,500 to 16,600. It should be noted that Police Scotland has welcomed more than 690 new officers since March and more than 1,280 new recruits since the beginning of 2023, with further intakes planned throughout this year. Police Scotland is set to take on more recruits this year than at any time since 2013.

Tess White (Conservative, North East Scotland)

The number of female probationers in Police Scotland has nosedived by almost a third since 2021. A damning independent report into the force’s so-called equality, diversity and inclusion activities was quietly published by Police Scotland last month. It found

“pervasive attitudes of misogyny and sexism across all areas and divisions.”

It also describes

“a hostile environment for women who may choose to leave their careers early.”

The Scottish National Party Government cannot look the other way, and alarm bells are ringing. How will the Scottish Government hold Police Scotland to account, to ensure that it creates a safe space for female employees?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

First, it should be acknowledged that this Parliament decided on the basis of the separation of powers and, therefore, decided that it is for the Scottish Police Authority to hold Police Scotland and the chief constable directly to account.

On the substantive issue that Ms White raises about the decreasing number of female probationers, I share that concern. I was pleased when Police Scotland opened up its site in Jackton as another recruitment centre in addition to Tulliallan. The member may be aware that Tulliallan is a residential training facility for probationers. The purpose of Jackton is to allow people to train to be police officers on a non-residential basis. I hope that that will help to increase the diversity of the workforce.

I also point to the work that Lady Elish Angiolini undertook on the cultural aspects that the member raises and the progress that we have made in implementing the non-legislative recommendations with regard to that important work. We have embarked on and have just passed stage 1 of the Police (Ethics, Conduct and Scrutiny) (Scotland) Bill, which is all about culture.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Members have a number of supplementary questions.

Audrey Nicoll (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

The reality remains that the decisions that the United Kingdom Labour Government has made in the short time since it came to power will fundamentally damage our ability to deliver public services in Scotland. Public services need investment, as Scottish Labour frequently reminds us, and we cannot cut our way to more police officers. What assessment has been made of the threat that continued Westminster austerity poses to vital public services such as our police service?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

In the face of financial challenges, this Government has made it clear that we will provide support where it is needed most, including through our public services such as policing. We all know that Labour austerity is as damaging as Tory austerity when it comes to public service cuts. Ahead of its autumn budget, we have again called on the UK Government to ensure that it prioritises investment in public services and infrastructure, because we know from experience that yet more Westminster austerity is not the answer that public services such as policing require, and they must be protected.

Russell Findlay (Conservative, West Scotland)

Up to 500 police officers are called to court every single day, but many of them end up not giving evidence. Criminal trials conclude much more quickly when there is footage from body-worn cameras, but most of Scotland’s officers still do not have that basic kit. Does the cabinet secretary agree that its full and speedy roll-out is critical to improving policing strength in Scotland?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Yes, I do. That is why this Government—despite having our capital budget cut in real terms by nearly 9 per cent—ensured that the capital budget for Police Scotland for this financial year increased by 12.5 per cent.

I am pleased that Police Scotland has announced that the contract with Motorola is now signed. I am also pleased with the update that the chief constable gave to the Scottish Police Authority. It should be welcomed that, by spring next year, the first tranche of more than 10,000 body-worn video cameras will be rolled out, with the roll-out period continuing over the forthcoming 12 months. The chief constable will provide updates not only to the Scottish Police Authority and the Scottish Government but to the Criminal Justice Committee.

Katy (Labour, West Scotland)

From January 2022 to July this year, more than 1 million 101 calls were missed because the caller was disconnected or simply hung up. In June 2023, 41 per cent of all calls went unanswered. The longest a successful caller had to hang on was an hour and 23 minutes. What is the cabinet secretary doing to address that inadequate service?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

It is important for me to say that the Government has challenged the statistics that the member quoted. We try to do that in the lines that are issued to the newspaper concerned. I am happy to follow that up in more detail with Ms Clark.

It is also important to recognise that, in an emergency, people should, first and foremost, call 999, which has a good record of meeting its obligations within the 10-second window. However, in general, there is always more to do. People can contact Police Scotland in a number of ways, such as via email if that is appropriate. Obviously, 101 is not an emergency service. It is important to underline that 999 is the emergency service.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to reports of senior lawyers seeking the introduction of a domestic abuse register. (S6O-03726)

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

The Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs and I are happy to consider any innovative policy intervention that furthers our commitment to do more for victims of domestic abuse, including considering how it would interact with existing initiatives.

Pam Gosal will be aware that the disclosure scheme for domestic abuse Scotland provides individuals with the right to ask the police about a partner’s background if they suspect a history of domestic abuse. It also enables Police Scotland to tell people that they may be at risk even if that information has not been asked for.

Pam Gosal (Conservative, West Scotland)

My proposal for a domestic abuse register has received cross-party support and the backing of many charities and organisations. Now, Thomas Ross KC has spoken movingly about the difference that a register could make. He says that it could prevent attacks and keep people safe.

There were 62,000 domestic abuse incidents last year. That is horrific and it needs to change. What is the minister waiting for? Should the Government not act now and agree to introduce a register immediately?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

I know that Pam Gosal is passionate about the subject. Violence against women is a fundamental violation of human rights, and the Scottish Government recognises that.

The Scottish Government is aware that the Scottish Conservatives’ paper “United Against Violence: An all-Scotland approach to tackling domestic abuse” includes the member’s proposal for a domestic abuse prevention bill. I met the member prior to the consultation on the proposal going out. We await more operational detail and are not able to commit to something without seeing the full details, which I am sure Pam Gosal will appreciate. However, as I said in my first answer, we are happy to consider any proposals that make the lives of the victims of domestic abuse easier.

Rona Mackay (Scottish National Party, Strathkelvin and Bearsden)

It was welcome that the Scottish Government’s programme for government affirmed that steps would be taken to ensure that the equally safe delivery plan continues to be implemented. Will the minister speak to the funding that is being provided and how the plan will help to prevent and eradicate violence against women?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

Front-line services on violence against women are crucial to ensuring the safety of, and support to, survivors. We are investing record levels of funding to support people through a range of front-line specialist services.

Our equally safe strategy is aimed at preventing and eradicating violence against women and girls and is focused on early intervention, prevention and support. It is backed by £19 million of annual funding from our delivering equally safe fund, which has supported 121 projects from 112 organisations since October 2021.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

To ask the Scottish Government when it last met with the Scottish Prison Service to discuss the findings of His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland’s report on the full inspection of HMP and YOI Stirling. (S6O-03727)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I welcome the inspection report from HMIPS, and I am encouraged to hear that HM chief inspector of prisons believes that Scotland is leading the way when it comes to managing women in custody. During my visit to HMP and YOI Stirling last month, I saw first hand the profoundly positive impact that the establishment is having on women in custody.

Although the chief inspector highlights many areas of good practice, the SPS acknowledges that there is always room for learning and improvement. Through my regular discussions with the SPS chief executive, Teresa Medhurst, I am aware that the Prison Service is working to build on the positive tone of the chief inspector’s report.

Mark Ruskell (Green, Mid Scotland and Fife)

We know and acknowledge that community-based, trauma-informed facilities are key to breaking those cycles of pain and reoffending and that that remains at the heart of the new facility at HMP Stirling and the excellent work that goes on there.

That said, this recent report from the inspectorate confirmed what my constituents have been saying for over a year, which is that major design flaws at HMP Stirling have caused protracted issues with noise that have been distressing for people living both inside and outside the prison. Can the cabinet secretary update me on what lessons have been learned to ensure that future facilities do not have the same mistakes built into them? Can she assure me that the SPS will provide a clear timeline on the delivery of noise mitigation measures at HMP Stirling as soon as possible?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I am aware that Mr Ruskell most recently met the deputy chief executive of the SPS on 11 September, and I am also aware that the Prison Service, residents and local councillors met in the establishment to discuss the noise issue. I reassure Mr Ruskell and indeed other members that I continue to discuss the issue with the chief executive, because it is in everybody’s interest that it is resolved.

When the new prison was being built, the old one had to remain in operation. I know that the Prison Service is focused on timelines, in addition to the interpersonal interventions that it makes to support women to reduce the noise. The service is also liaising with engineering professionals and acousticians. It is awaiting a formal report from the acousticians, and it is also liaising with the local authority environmental health team, as well as residents, because we all want this to be resolved.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you. There are a number of supplementaries.

Jackie Dunbar (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Can the cabinet secretary provide details on how the Scottish Prison Service strategy for women in custody, supported by significant investment from the Scottish Government, has changed how we support the rehabilitation of women in prison?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The SPS strategy for women in custody represented a step change in the way that Scotland views and treats women in custody by considering their very likely experience of adversity and trauma. The opening of HMP Stirling was a key milestone for the strategy to care for women, representing a third new facility built specifically for women in custody and demonstrating an unprecedented period of investment to support women in custody.

The innovative and groundbreaking women’s facilities help to create a culture that is founded on positive relationships, trust and self-worth. By delivering a range of offending behaviour programmes, other therapeutic interventions and holistic wellbeing services, the SPS has created an environment that fosters change and supports women on their rehabilitative journey.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

On my last visit to HMP Stirling, I was made aware of some women offenders who have psychiatric conditions; the prison is not equipped to deal with them. That seems to be the key reason why the local people that Mark Ruskell mentioned are experiencing shouting from the prison.

I am also aware that the Government has responded to questions that I and others have raised about Carstairs hospital having no female places. In view of that, is the Scottish Government assessing the various needs of women offenders serving a sentence who require specialist psychiatric services?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I am pleased to advise the member that I work closely with health colleagues. As a former prison social worker, I am very clear about what prison care and custody provides and what it does not. I am also a former hospital social worker at the Carstairs State Hospital. We are planning for high-secure provision for women in the state hospital. The Minister for Social Care, Mental Wellbeing and Sport met relevant health board chief executives in April to discuss that proposition. Although the work is at a very early stage, we are absolutely committed to working with health boards to improve access for women to forensic mental health services. We will continue to do that as the longer-term proposition at the State Hospital is developed.

Alexander Stewart (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

HMP YOI Stirling’s inspection report found positive aspects of good practice at the prison, but a number of design flaws were indicated. We all already know about the issues that that has created for the neighbourhood, including noise. What action will be taken to mitigate as far as possible the difficulties that the residents are facing and the impact that the prison is having on their community?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I say to Mr Stewart and others who have advocated on behalf of the residents that every action will be taken. I will continue to liaise closely with the Prison Service on the matter.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to tackle antisocial behaviour in Lothian. (S6O-03728)

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

We support Police Scotland and local authorities to continue to invest in prevention, early intervention and diversionary activities to reduce antisocial behaviour. A wide range of powers are available to Police Scotland, and it is best placed to lead on addressing those issues locally, ensuring that there is an appropriate response to the issues and circumstances in which the behaviour is taking place.

I recognise that antisocial behaviour can be complex. An independent working group on antisocial behaviour is examining our strategic approach to it. The group is undertaking widespread engagement to deliver its report later this year. We have committed in the programme for government to act on the group’s recommendations.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Lothian)

I welcome the minister’s response. I alert her to the fact that recent reports have shown that antisocial behaviour has had a major impact on local communities, which includes Lothian Buses pulling services due to an increase in antisocial behaviour. In West Lothian, there has been an increase of 12 per cent in antisocial behaviour, including vandalism and breach of the peace.

I welcome the fact that the minister is putting together a working party, but does she accept that communities need support now to tackle antisocial behaviour? Does she accept that—because local authorities are underresourced, which has had an impact on youth groups and community spaces—many young people in Lothian simply do not have the options, opportunities and support that they need? Can the minister tell us exactly what is going to happen to tackle the underlying issues that create antisocial behaviour in the first place?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

Thank you. I think that the minister has got your drift.

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

First of all, such behaviour is absolutely unacceptable. Everyone has a right to feel safe in their communities. I completely condemn all such behaviour and urge anyone with information of such incidents that have taken place recently in Lothian to contact the police.

I am aware that East Lothian currently has two multi-agency groups that are focused on tackling antisocial behaviour, which are the antisocial behaviour overview group and the weekly tasking and co-ordinating group. I am also aware of a collaborative approach with Police Scotland and local authorities. I have visited one of those groups in East Lothian to see the work that those individuals do to tackle antisocial behaviour. A lot of work is currently happening in that area.

Foysol Choudhury (Labour, Lothian)

I have been contacted by businesses, residents and visitors in Leith, Edinburgh regarding escalating issues of antisocial behaviour outside Newkirkgate shopping centre. It is becoming a common occurrence for assaults to take place and for needles to be left lying on the ground. Although the joined-up approach as set out in the review on antisocial behaviour is necessary, short-term action must also be taken. Can the minister advise how the Scottish Government is empowering the police to stop antisocial behaviour as it happens?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

We recognise that there is no quick fix to tackle and prevent antisocial behaviour. That is why, having seen the projects that I just mentioned to Sarah Boyack, I am strongly supportive of partnership working and delivering positive outcomes. I have also asked for the Scottish Community Safety Network to look at promoting best practice in partnership, working for the benefits of all local authorities. Police Scotland is also involved in all those groups to tackle antisocial behaviour.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Government what discussions it has had with Police Scotland regarding possible criminal charges against the former NHS Tayside surgeon, Sam Eljamel. (S6O-03729)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Scottish Government officials met Police Scotland in June to discuss the establishment of the public inquiry and other developing work. As there is currently an on-going Police Scotland investigation into the practices of Mr Eljamel, it would not be appropriate for the Scottish Government to comment further.

Michael Marra (Labour, North East Scotland)

Last week, Pat Kelly and Jules Rose, two victims of Eljamel and tireless campaigners for justice for all victims, staged a protest outside the Dundee police headquarters. Their protest marked six years since complaints were lodged regarding former NHS Tayside surgeon Sam Eljamel. Police officers have spent a decade fighting for justice. The content of the case is not a matter for the cabinet secretary, but the performance of our police is. Surely the cabinet secretary cannot believe that a six-year delay is in any way acceptable.

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I know that Mr Marra and others, in particular Liz Smith, have diligently advocated on behalf of former patients of Mr Eljamel. I am also aware of the representations that those campaigners and those who were impacted have made to Police Scotland, and I acknowledge the timeframes that were referenced by Mr Marra. If I may, I will point to the public statement that Police Scotland made, which said:

“This is an extremely complex investigation which is being investigated by specialist officers from the Major Investigation Team. Enquiries remain ongoing and we continue to work alongside partner agencies.”

Elizabeth Smith (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

A year ago, at First Minister’s question time, I asked the then First Minister, Humza Yousaf, whether the Scottish Government would consider a victim support fund for the patients, not least because of the delays that Mr Marra has just cited. I need not repeat to the chamber the fact that those patients are undergoing terrible physical and mental problems. Will the Government please continue to support them?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

The very last thing that I would do to Liz Smith or, indeed, to victims is stand here and make promises that I might or might not be able to keep, so I say to her that I would be more than happy to discuss the matter with her in further detail.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I advise members that we have three more questions to get through and less than eight minutes in which to do so. Questions and answers must be succinct, and we will see what we can do.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide further details of what it is doing to ensure that Police Scotland has enough officers to deal with antisocial behaviour resulting from the illegal use of e-bikes and e-scooters. (S6O-03730)

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

The Scottish Government’s budget for 2024-25 includes record police total funding of £1.55 billion, which is an increase of £92.7 million on the previous year. That funding will allow the chief constable to develop her plans to deliver on her commitment to strengthen the force through the revised model of policing, including enabling the service to restart recruitment and increase office numbers.

Police Scotland has welcomed more than 690 new officers since March this year, and more than 1,280 new recruits since the beginning of 2023. Further intakes are planned throughout this year.

It is important to reiterate that deployment of those resources is an operational matter for Police Scotland. However, I remind the chamber that it is presently illegal to use an e-scooter on public roads, footpaths or cycle lanes in Scotland.

Sue Webber (Conservative, Lothian)

The latest official statistics show that Scotland has the lowest number of officers in at least 17 years. Meanwhile, recorded crime is rising and we are repeatedly told that Police Scotland is underresourced and overstretched. At the same time, I hear repeated reports of havoc being caused by the misuse and illegal use of e-bikes and e-scooters—I even saw an e-skateboard the other day. People in my region have reported being frightened by masked gangs using those vehicles and have detailed significant concerns for their safety, with little action being taken.

Other than the financial support that the minister has outlined, what more can the Scottish Government do to protect communities and to punish those who choose to cause trouble with those illegal vehicles?

Siobhian Brown (Scottish National Party, Ayr)

We share the member’s concerns and those of the public regarding the antisocial behaviour that can be associated with those vehicles, which might be used illegally and are a safety risk not just to the public and other motorists but to the riders, as well as to the police.

As Sue Webber is no doubt aware, the legislation that governs the registration of off-road vehicles is reserved to the United Kingdom Government. We fully support Police Scotland and its partners in dealing with illegal and irresponsible use.

Local policing teams are best placed to use intelligence and engage with communities to identify where misuse of such vehicles is causing concern, and that ensures that those hotspot areas can be prioritised to prevent future instances and deal with those who are engaged in the misuse of vehicles.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Government whether the new HMP Highland will be completed by 2026 without further exceeding the reported current cost overrun of £157 million, which is a 300 per cent increase compared with the original cost. (S6O-03731)

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

Following the award of the construction contract for HMP Highland in April this year, the construction is progressing to plan on site and is scheduled to be complete in 2026, within the reported budget.

Early estimates of cost were made more than a decade ago, before a design and a site had been identified. Since then, years of inflation and changing economic conditions have impacted on the price.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am pleased to hear that the prison might be completed on time, although I am still not sure whether to believe that.

What steps will be taken to ensure that, when it is completed, prison accommodation will be available for female prisoners?

Angela Constance (Scottish National Party, Almond Valley)

I am glad to hear that Mr Mountain is now advocating for the delivery of that much-needed new establishment for the Highlands. I was made aware recently that he opposed the original site at Milton of Leys, which would not have helped with timescales but, nonetheless, he has his democratic rights.

The point that he raises about female prisoners is important, given the geography of the Highlands. There will be provision to accommodate a small number of women at the site.

Edward Mountain (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

On a point of order, Deputy Presiding Officer. I think that the minister was disingenuous when she responded to my question. I opposed the site at Milton of Leys, which is not where the prison is being built. Will the minister correct the record to say that I did not oppose construction of a Highland prison? I have been supporting it since 2006.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Cowdenbeath)

I thank Mr Mountain for his contribution; the matter is noted.

Time is tight this afternoon, so we will have to conclude portfolio questions on justice and home affairs. I apologise to the member whose question was published in the Business Bulletin that I was not able to call her question, and to a member who sought to ask a supplementary question.

There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business to allow the front-bench teams to change positions.

Business Motion

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is consideration of business motion S6M-14534, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme.

Motion moved,

That the Parliament agrees—

(a) the following programme of business—

Tuesday 24 September 2024

2.00 pm Time for Reflection

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

followed by Topical Questions (if selected)

followed by Ministerial Statement: Health and Social Care Winter Preparedness Plan 2024-25

followed by Scottish Government Debate: The UK Budget – Scotland’s Priorities

followed by Committee Announcements

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time

followed by Members’ Business

Wednesday 25 September 2024

2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Deputy First Minister Responsibilities, Economy and Gaelic; Finance and Local Government

followed by Education, Children and Young People Committee Debate: Additional Support for Learning

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

followed by Approval of SSIs (if required)

5.00 pm Decision Time

followed by Members’ Business

Thursday 26 September 2024

11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions

11.40 am General Questions

12.00 pm First Minister's Questions

followed by Members’ Business

2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.30 pm Portfolio Questions: Net Zero and Energy, and Transport

followed by Scottish Government Debate: Scotland Stands with Ukraine

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time

Tuesday 1 October 2024

2.00 pm Time for Reflection

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

followed by Topical Questions (if selected)

followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Aggregates Tax and Devolved Taxes Administration (Scotland) Bill

followed by Committee Announcements

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time

followed by Members’ Business

followed by Members’ Business

Wednesday 2 October 2024

2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands; Health and Social Care

followed by Scottish Labour Party Business

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

followed by Approval of SSIs (if required)

5.10 pm Decision Time

followed by Members’ Business

Thursday 3 October 2024

11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions

11.40 am General Questions

12.00 pm First Minister's Questions

followed by Members’ Business

2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.30 pm Portfolio Questions: Social Justice

followed by Scottish Government Business

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time

(b) that, for the purposes of Portfolio Questions in the week beginning 23 September 2024, in rule 13.7.3, after the word “except” the words “to the extent to which the Presiding Officer considers that the questions are on the same or similar subject matter or” are inserted.—[Jamie Hepburn].

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call Douglas Ross to speak to and move amendment S6M-14534.1.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

It was exactly one week ago today that two Scottish Conservative motions brought before this Parliament were passed by a majority of members. They dealt with two serious, important and topical issues—peak rail fares and the delivery of free school meals for all primary school pupils across Scotland in the course of this parliamentary session. The votes on those motions were successful, but a week has passed and we have heard nothing from the Scottish Government about how it intends to obey the will of Parliament.

At this point, may I invite the First Minister to address Parliament and indicate, as I am sure he will, that he intends to obey the will of Parliament?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

If Mr Ross wishes me to talk about the will of Parliament, what about Mr Ross obeying the will of a Parliament that has voted for there to be an independence referendum so that people can decide? What does he think about that?

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Is it not telling but also sad that the First Minister speaks about independence and separating Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom when the discussion is about free school meals for all primary school pupils across Scotland?

In the question that I asked the First Minister—

“may I invite the First Minister to address Parliament and indicate, as I am sure he will, that he intends to obey the will of Parliament?”—

I did not use my words. Those are John Swinney’s words. That is what John Swinney said when he was sitting on the Opposition benches in 2001 and the then Labour-Liberal Democrat Executive had been defeated, resulting in a motion being passed against its will. John Swinney was the first one up on his feet asking for a statement from the then First Minister about how he would obey the will of Parliament. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Ross.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

If the First Minister wants to hear more of his words, I can say that he went on to say this:

“Ministers seem desperate to make statements when it suits them, but not when they have problems in Parliament. Will the First Minister give a commitment ... to make a statement to Parliament ... to clarify the Government’s stance on the amended motion to which Parliament agreed?”—[Official Report, 8 March 2001; c 427.]

I could not agree more with what John Swinney said when he was in opposition. Why is John Swinney now not so keen to respect the will of Parliament and come forward to make a statement on these issues?

I know that this is not an important issue for some MSPs—George Adam described the debate about free school meals as extremely tedious.

Joe FitzPatrick (Scottish National Party, Dundee City West)

You are tedious.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Members, can I ask that we conduct ourselves in a courteous and orderly manner?

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I do not think that it is extremely tedious. I think that it is extremely important that we have an opportunity to hear from the First Minister or his cabinet secretaries about the two proposals, which they previously supported and no longer do. John Swinney was the Deputy First Minister and education secretary who put the commitment for free school meals for every primary school pupil into the Scottish National Party manifesto. He asked for support to elect his MSPs on that basis. Now, Parliament has asked his Government to come forward with its plans to obey the will of Parliament, which he was previously keen on. I think that it is right that we now look at that.

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

I recognise the member’s enthusiasm for these policies. Will he, therefore, bring forward amendments to the Scottish Government’s budget to ensure that they progress? [Applause.]

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am very keen on these policies, and I note that people are applauding the idea that the SNP might actually do what it said that it would do.

My colleagues have already engaged in conversation about this—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear one another.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

—but we would be able to hear more about it and be able to have a discussion if the Government simply made time to enable us to do so.

I have been very clear in my amendment to the business motion. I am not asking for anything to be removed; I am asking for 30 minutes to be added next week—just half an hour—to hear more about John Swinney’s previous commitment to free school meals and to hear more about the SNP’s previous promise to cap peak rail fares.

I hope that the Minister for Parliamentary Business will listen to the will of Parliament, given that parties across the chamber have come together to vote for these two policies to be enacted, and will give us an opportunity to hear from ministers how they will either obey the will of Parliament or tell us why they cannot and will not. Parents of schoolchildren and travellers across Scotland want to know what the Scottish Government will do after the Opposition parties united to tell it that these two issues are of crucial importance.

We need to hear from a minister and, by approving the amendment that I have lodged today, that can happen next week.

I move amendment S6M-14534.1, to leave out

“2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.30 pm Portfolio Questions: Net Zero and Energy, and Transport”

and insert

“2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Net Zero and Energy, and Transport

followed by Ministerial Statement: Delivering on the Votes of the Parliament on 11 September 2024 to Provide Free School Meals to All Primary School Children in the Current Parliamentary Session and to End Peak Rail Fares”.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call Jamie Hepburn to respond on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

With regard to the amendment that is before us, I must make it clear that, following last week’s debates on these matters, there is nothing new for ministers to set out to Parliament.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Surely something new is that the will of Parliament has been very clearly articulated in a vote that had support from members of the Scottish Conservative Party, the Scottish Labour Party, the Scottish Liberal Democrats, the Scottish Greens and Alba. The difference is that Parliament has now said that the policies should be enacted, so we should at least hear a response from ministers.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Members can bring these matters up across a range of opportunities.

I will return, momentarily, to the subject matter. As was made clear to Parliament last week, although the Scottish Government remains committed to our free school meals programme, we are unable to roll out universal provision to primary 6 and 7 at the current time, due to the financial position. The Scottish Government continues to advocate for an end to Westminster austerity, which the new UK Government has continued. As was also made clear last week, should the financial situation allow, we will look to take universal provision forward in this parliamentary session.

The next stage of the free school meals programme, which has always been an iterative process, is to deliver meals for those who are in receipt of Scottish child payment in primary 6 and 7. I reaffirm that that stage is fully funded and will be delivered in this parliamentary session.

The ScotRail peak fares removal pilot was a temporary arrangement, which was announced as part of the 2023-24 budget. The pilot was initially intended to run for six months, and the Government extended it for a further six months—for a total duration of 12 months. It was not, as has been suggested by some, a Scottish Government manifesto commitment. In light of the financial challenges that we face and the level of additional and continuing subsidy that is required to continue the pilot—against its contribution to tackling climate change, with modal shift from car, and tackling child poverty, which are key Scottish Government policies—we have been unable to continue the pilot beyond 27 September.

However, as the Cabinet Secretary for Transport made clear last week, a 12-month discount on all ScotRail season tickets has been introduced, and the flexipass terms have been amended in order to create the equivalent of a 20 per cent discount. The Cabinet Secretary for Transport is already undertaking action to send members relevant information about those changes in order to encourage take-up.

The Scottish Government has confirmed that, should UK budget allocations to the Scottish Government improve in future years, we would be open to considering future subsidy to remove peak fares.

With regard to the amendment, as I have already made clear, there is always the opportunity for members to question ministers on these matters in the normal way, such as question times, including First Minister’s questions. We will shortly have a Scottish budget to agree, at which point all parties will be able to suggest their priorities and, crucially, set out how they should be paid for.

In response to requests from the Greens and the Finance and Public Administration Committee, I confirm my intention to bring forward a proposal to the Parliamentary Bureau for us to debate issues on the long-term sustainability of Scotland’s public finances. Because there are only three weeks until the October recess, and stage 1 and 3 debates, committee debates and Opposition debates are already scheduled in that time, the earliest that I can bring the proposal forward is immediately after recess. On our return from recess, I am happy to schedule that business as quickly as possible and provide Parliament with the opportunity to debate that important issue.

Given that we have just had parliamentary debates on both of the policy topics that we are talking about, and that our position on those matters has not changed since then, there is nothing for the Scottish Government to add via a ministerial statement at this time.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The first question is, that amendment S6M-14534.1, in the name of Douglas Ross, which seeks to amend motion S6M-14534, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme, be agreed to. Are we agreed?

Members:

No.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There will be a division. There will be a short suspension to allow members to access the digital voting system.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We come to the vote on amendment S6M-14534.1, in the name of Douglas Ross, which seeks to amend motion S6M-14534, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme. Members should cast their votes now.

The vote is closed.

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would have voted yes.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Mr Bibby. We will ensure that that is recorded.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The result of the division on amendment S6M-14534.1, in the name of Douglas Ross, is: For 57, Against 69, Abstentions 0.

Amendment disagreed to.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next question is, that motion S6M-14534, in the name of Jamie Hepburn, on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau, setting out a business programme, be agreed to.

Motion agreed to,

That the Parliament agrees—

(a) the following programme of business—

Tuesday 24 September 2024

2.00 pm Time for Reflection

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

followed by Topical Questions (if selected)

followed by Ministerial Statement: Health and Social Care Winter Preparedness Plan 2024-25

followed by Scottish Government Debate: The UK Budget – Scotland’s Priorities

followed by Committee Announcements

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time

followed by Members’ Business

Wednesday 25 September 2024

2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Deputy First Minister Responsibilities, Economy and Gaelic; Finance and Local Government

followed by Education, Children and Young People Committee Debate: Additional Support for Learning

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

followed by Approval of SSIs (if required)

5.00 pm Decision Time

followed by Members’ Business

Thursday 26 September 2024

11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions

11.40 am General Questions

12.00 pm First Minister's Questions

followed by Members’ Business

2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.30 pm Portfolio Questions: Net Zero and Energy, and Transport

followed by Scottish Government Debate: Scotland Stands with Ukraine

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time

Tuesday 1 October 2024

2.00 pm Time for Reflection

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

followed by Topical Questions (if selected)

followed by Stage 3 Proceedings: Aggregates Tax and Devolved Taxes Administration (Scotland) Bill

followed by Committee Announcements

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time

followed by Members’ Business

followed by Members’ Business

Wednesday 2 October 2024

2.00 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.00 pm Portfolio Questions: Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands; Health and Social Care

followed by Scottish Labour Party Business

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

followed by Approval of SSIs (if required)

5.10 pm Decision Time

followed by Members’ Business

Thursday 3 October 2024

11.40 am Parliamentary Bureau Motions

11.40 am General Questions

12.00 pm First Minister's Questions

followed by Members’ Business

2.30 pm Parliamentary Bureau Motions

2.30 pm Portfolio Questions: Social Justice

followed by Scottish Government Business

followed by Business Motions

followed by Parliamentary Bureau Motions

5.00 pm Decision Time

(b) that, for the purposes of Portfolio Questions in the week beginning 23 September 2024, in rule 13.7.3, after the word “except” the words “to the extent to which the Presiding Officer considers that the questions are on the same or similar subject matter or” are inserted.

Creating a Modern, Diverse and Dynamic Scotland

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-14524, in the name of John Swinney, on creating a modern, diverse and dynamic Scotland. I invite members who wish to speak in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons, and I call John Swinney to speak to and move the motion.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

From my experience of taking part in every year of this Parliament since it was reconvened 25 years ago, one thing is clear—no matter where any of us sit in this chamber, we each stood for election because we care deeply about Scotland’s future. We stood for election because we know that decisions about Scotland’s future are best determined by people who live in Scotland. No matter where we sit in this chamber, we agree that it is our aspiration that Scotland maintains her place in the world as a modern, diverse and dynamic nation.

Scotland is the home of poets, painters, engineers, doctors and thinkers throughout the ages. We are a nation on the cutting edge of solving many of the 21st century’s most complex challenges. We are an outward-looking country that values our relationship with our neighbours and friends across the world, and it is in that spirit that I open the debate this afternoon.

There exists in Scotland a range of opinions and emotions that we must embrace and discuss openly and respectfully. As I am about to set out, to do so is to maintain the very health of our democracy itself—a democracy that each of us has stood for election to represent. It is a story of the pursuit of self-determination, which found new momentum when, in 1997, the people of Scotland voted overwhelmingly to reconvene the Scottish Parliament. It was clear then, and it is clear now, that Scotland is a nation with all the talent, creativity and ingenuity to chart her own course and to steer her own democratic institutions.

The positive impact of devolution is indisputable. For 25 years, devolution has improved the lives of people in Scotland, making this a better and fairer place to live, through policies such as equal marriage; free personal care for older people; minimum unit pricing for alcohol; free bus travel for more than 2 million people; a ban on smoking in public places; land reform; and—something that is very close to my heart—action on child poverty through measures such as the Scottish child payment.

Among many other achievements since 2007, this Government has used the powers of devolution to introduce the baby box, which supports every baby born and resident in Scotland to have the best start in life by providing families with essential items that are needed in the first six months of a child’s life. We have also ensured that Scotland-domiciled students continue to receive free university tuition, unlike elsewhere in the United Kingdom, given that we abolished the graduate endowment fee in 2008. We have introduced free prescriptions, which are now £9.90 per item south of the border, which is a huge cost for low-income families.

Our council tax reduction scheme reduces the tax bills of more than 450,000 people in Scotland, and free personal and nursing care has been extended to everyone who needs it, regardless of age. There is the affordable housing programme, which has delivered 128,000 affordable homes, the majority of which are for social rent. Of course, there is also the provision of 1,140 hours of funded early learning and childcare. If families were to purchase the funded childcare that is provided by the Scottish Government, it would cost more than £5,500 per eligible child per year.

None of that has been achieved by the Scottish Government in isolation, but through the strength of this Parliament and our common commitment to Scotland’s self-determination. Therefore, regardless of where members sit in this chamber, and regardless of whether members view everything that I have listed as successes, I trust that members will agree that people living in Scotland are substantially better off with a Parliament that fights their corner, leads for progress and champions the value of our unique and diverse communities, from every single corner of our country.

Each of us in the chamber is extremely fortunate, for the Parliament gives us each a voice, and whenever we enter this building, as unique as Scotland itself, it reminds us of our duty to ensure that the people of Scotland are heard, too. Our modern, diverse and dynamic democracy is our greatest asset. In many ways, 2014 was a year that proved that. The bill on equal marriage passed, which was one of the most progressive equal marriage bills in the world, and it sent out a clear message about who we are as a nation. Turnout for the independence referendum was the highest recorded at any Scotland-wide poll since the advent of universal suffrage.

That referendum was preceded by a genuine and serious national debate on the future of our nation. I wish to acknowledge that the national debate was not easy for every voter. There were certainly lively discussions, but maintaining a healthy democracy is hard, because it requires us to navigate our differences respectfully. If that were easy, we would not observe the sharp rises in populism that can emerge in times of economic hardship and uncertainty. However, when I think back to 10 years ago, I can think of no better example of modern democracy in action. Both the Scottish and the United Kingdom Governments published detailed papers of their arguments. There were vigorous campaigns and grass-roots involvement of people across the country, and the historic importance of the decision was reflected in the length of time allowed for both sides to make their cases.

The people of Scotland were able to take their decision. My firm view is that the people of Scotland should have the opportunity to take that decision again. This Parliament has confirmed its belief that it should be open to any nation of the United Kingdom to choose to withdraw from the union by democratic means. That is my view, and I believe that that view of this Parliament should be respected.

It is clear that, since the 2014 independence referendum and, sadly, since Brexit, which Scotland did not vote for, the powers and autonomy of the Scottish Parliament have been eroded. They have been eroded, on the excuse of Brexit, to enable Westminster to overrule this Parliament. The people of this country who voted for this Parliament to have the powers that it does were not asked whether they wanted the powers to be eroded.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

As the First Minister is speaking about powers, will he outline how many powers he has been offered by the UK Government but has returned to it because the Scottish National Party Government was not ready to take them on?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

It is clear from what I have set out so far, and from my comments earlier today, that, since the independence referendum in 2014, there has been a strengthening of some of the powers of this Parliament on tax, which we have used. Mr Ross complains about the fact that we have used our tax powers. We have used the powers on welfare, for example, with the Scottish child payment, which is helping to keep 100,000 children out of poverty. Mr Ross voted against the budget that provided for that, so he does not exactly have a strong argument to stand on.

The point that I am concerned about—

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

It is the powers that—

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The powers that I am concerned about are the powers of this Parliament that the people of Scotland voted for in a democratic referendum in 1997. Those powers have been eroded by legislation that Mr Ross voted for in the House of Commons.

The weakening of our powers—this is the point that I make to Mr Ross—should concern every one of us here, for it is our duty to ensure that this Parliament’s powers to represent Scotland’s will and Scotland’s aspirations should be protected.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I will try a different question, then. Will the First Minister tell this Parliament one power that the UK Government has taken away from the Scottish Government?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

The use of the internal market—

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

One power that has been taken away.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Mr Ross.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

I will explain to Mr Ross exactly what has happened, if he is not familiar with what he has voted for. This Parliament had exclusive power over a range of competences devolved by the United Kingdom Parliament. That was what was put to people in the 1997 referendum, and it was supported by three to one, if my memory serves me correctly. However, the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 gives the UK Government the ability to legislate on and act in those areas. That is called the erosion of the powers of the Scottish Parliament.

That is before I get to the point that, between 1997 and 2019, when there were Labour, Conservative and Conservative-Liberal coalitions in Westminster, the Sewel convention was never ignored on any occasion. However, following that period, the Conservative Government ignored, superseded and countermanded that on countless occasions, legislating over the heads of this democratically elected institution. That should be a matter of the greatest concern to the Conservatives, as it is to me today.

Scotland has prospered with the use of the devolved powers that we have at our disposal. In the aftermath of the 1997 referendum, Scotland demonstrated that we had the capability to assume those powers. Since then, Scotland’s economy has outperformed the UK in growth, in gross domestic product per person, in growth in productivity, in earnings growth and in foreign direct investment. We have an impressive record on GDP per capita, which has grown faster than the UK’s since 2007. Since 2007, productivity in Scotland has grown at an average rate faster than that in the rest of the United Kingdom.

When we look at the evidence from comparable independent European states—many of which are the same size as Scotland—we can see that they perform better than the United Kingdom. For me, that poses the question, “What is the opportunity for Scotland to move forward?” The opportunity for Scotland is to ensure that we deploy the strength and capability of our country to the maximum effect for the future of our country, ensuring that decisions made in Scotland by the Scottish Parliament are respected and able to be effective across all the areas of policy that any Government would take for granted.

I believe that an independent Scotland should be able to rejoin the European Union and pursue the prospects of growth and opportunity that so many of our people and our businesses want to enjoy. I believe that an independent Scotland could deliver a fairer and more welcoming system of migration, helping the economy to grow while addressing depopulation challenges and supporting vital public services. I believe that an independent Scotland would remove, sensibly and safely, nuclear weapons from Scotland’s shores for good, and that an independent Scotland would be able to benefit from the terms of a written constitution and from investment in our public services, using our wealth to secure the future of our country.

All of that is possible, based on the experience of devolution and Scottish self-determination, and on the principle that decisions taken about this country are best taken by the people who choose to live here and those who are elected to act on their behalf. That is the foundation of the argument for Scottish independence. It is the foundation of what people have experienced with devolution. It is urgent and essential that Scotland becomes independent, and the motion in my name sets out that case.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Scottish Government should use all its powers to build a modern, diverse, dynamic nation, and further agrees that it is only with all the powers of a normal independent nation that Scotland would truly be enabled to take its own decisions to fully meet the needs of the people of Scotland and create their best future.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call Douglas Ross to speak to and to move amendment S6M-14524.4.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I want to start by imagining a different decade to the one that we have had—not a different outcome on 18 September 2014, because the people of Scotland voted by a clear margin to remain part of the United Kingdom.

No—I want to imagine what would have happened if John Swinney and his fellow nationalists had been true to their word and respected the result, and if they had used the past 10 years and the powers of this Parliament to focus on improving the lives of every man, woman and child in this country. Sadly, they did not.

Even a decade on, we are not discussing what this Parliament or this Government could do to benefit our constituents. No—we are, yet again, debating independence.

Unlike the nationalists, I refuse to talk Scotland down. [ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Ross.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I believe that Scotland is a modern, dynamic and diverse country—that is set out in my amendment. However, the SNP does not believe that; that is clear from John Swinney’s motion. What a brutal self-assessment of its 17 years in office and of how it has failed this country.

Where there are failures and challenges facing all of us in Scotland, they have been caused not by the decision of millions of Scots to remain in the United Kingdom, but by the SNP—by the nationalists in Government over the past 17 years. They have been caused by a distracted nationalist Government that has spent its time in office obsessing about the constitution rather than focusing on the real priorities for Scots.

Kate Forbes (Scottish National Party, Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch)

I am a big fan of being true to your word. What would have happened if the Conservatives had been true to their word, when they said, “Vote no to stay in the EU, vote no to be an equal partner in the UK, vote no to be more prosperous”? What happened to those promises?

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am sorry, but the Deputy First Minister cannot pick and choose. “One choice” is what the nationalists told us in 2014. They said that it was a “once-in-a-generation” opportunity and a “gold-plated referendum”, which they would respect—but they have spent the past decade refusing to do so. I was speaking about the impact that that has had.

Let us look at Scotland after almost two decades of the SNP in charge. We are a country where alcohol and drugs kill thousands of people every year, and where educational standards continue to fall and violence in our classrooms continues to rise.

And, yes, Neil Gray—our NHS is in crisis. He is shaking his head—

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Always speak through the chair, please.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I cannot believe that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care does not believe that our health service is in crisis. I am happy to give way if he can tell us why it is not, when one in six of our fellow Scots is on an NHS waiting list.

Neil Gray (Scottish National Party, Airdrie and Shotts)

I refuse to talk down the work of the incredible staff and committed workforce in our health service. The First Minister provided a list of the Government’s interventions over our time in government, but I will pick just one—free prescriptions. The Trussell Trust has assessed that 68 per cent of people on universal credit in the rest of the UK cannot afford to pick up their prescriptions. Can Douglas Ross not understand the value—from not just a social perspective but a health perspective—of our investment in free prescriptions?

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Can the health secretary not understand that we have the highest number of drug deaths not just in the United Kingdom but across Europe and that one in six people are on an NHS waiting list? That is a crisis. The fact that he refuses or is unwilling to accept that will be a bitter blow to people watching this debate who are on an NHS waiting list, waiting for treatment or an appointment, and who just do not get it, because of the Government’s obsession with independence.

Far from accepting the result of the referendum, the SNP has, in every year since the vote did not go the way that it wanted, called for a rerun. It is as though the first vote did not count and was a proxy one, so the SNP could come back to the issue later. It is as though Scottish voters somehow did not understand or realise the choice that they faced. Democracy is not about asking the same question time and again until people get the result that they want. It is about putting forward arguments, trusting the people with the decision and then accepting their verdict.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Will Mr Ross give way?

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Is there extra time for an intervention?

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

There is no extra time.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am sorry, but I have given way twice to members on the SNP front bench.

In his motion, John Swinney claims that independence is “normal”, but a democracy in which the Government ignores the democratic vote of the people is not normal. Scotland continues to be shackled by a separatist political ideology that we did not vote for.

The Scottish people want us to move on. If that was not crystal clear to the SNP Government before the general election, it should be now. It said that it wanted to use the election as a de facto referendum. Well, the people of Scotland, once again, said no. Now is the time for us all to really move on and use the powers of the Parliament to create a better Scotland instead of blaming others and promising unicorns in an imaginary future.

Right across our country, people want change. They can see that the services that they use every day are getting worse. Hospitals are overcrowded, schools are underperforming and our police are stretched to breaking point. They are being asked to pay more for that while getting less. People look to the Parliament for answers, but they see a chamber trapped in a time warp discussing an issue that will address none of the challenges that they face. If any members of the public are actually watching, they would be forgiven for thinking that this was a repeat and that the year was 2014, not 2024.

The SNP Government has utterly failed to move on, to commit to the new challenges and missions that need to be dealt with and to prove that it has a purpose and a reason for staying in government. Nicola Sturgeon promised that education would be her “number one priority” and that closing the attainment gap would be her Government’s “defining mission”, but Scottish school performance is at record lows and the attainment gap is as wide as it has ever been. Humza Yousaf promised to eradicate child poverty, but the rate has increased since 2010. John Swinney is making the same hollow promise now, with no credible proposition to deliver it.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Will Mr Ross give way?

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am sorry, but I am very tight for time. If there was an opportunity for me to get more time, I would give way.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Taking interventions, within members’ allocated time, is a matter for members.

Douglas Ross (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I am sorry, but I have already taken two interventions from members on the Government front bench.

As historians look back over the past 10 years, they will see them as Scotland’s lost decade—years in which we divided our country and fought bitter arguments against ourselves on an issue that we had already voted on. Generations of Scots will come to see that as a national act of self-harm. They will wonder why some chose to continue to make the same arguments again and again, why the Government of the day chose to indulge in fantasy politics instead of dealing with the real issues that our country faced, and why the national interest was ignored for the SNP’s nationalist interest. They will see through the empty promises and understand that, for the past 10 years, the independence debate has been a distraction and a deflection from other issues. The SNP has wheeled out its pledge election after election to avoid having to stand on its record. It is a way of blaming Westminster for all the ills that Scotland faces and, ultimately, of avoiding taking responsibility for the grave errors that the SNP has made.

Today, on the 10th anniversary of the 2014 independence referendum, my message to John Swinney and the SNP Government is this: you lost. Get over it, and let us all move on.

I move amendment S6M-14524.4, to leave out from “the Scottish Government” to end and insert:

“Scotland is a modern, diverse, dynamic nation as part of the UK, and believes that the Scottish Government should use all its powers to improve the lives of people who live in Scotland by prioritising health, education and the other devolved functions, and accept the result of the independence referendum of 18 September 2014, when Scotland voted to remain part of the UK.”

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call Anas Sarwar to speak to and move amendment S6M-14524.5.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

I start by saying that the contribution that we have just heard from the First Minister, right from the start, was focused on the past. I want to focus on Scotland today and the Scotland of the future.

I have come directly from a conference on housing in Scotland—a conference that the First Minister pulled out of in order to hold this debate. On his watch, Scotland is in the midst of a housing emergency. Rough sleeping is persistent, a record number of children are in temporary accommodation, homelessness is at unacceptable levels and the dream of home ownership is unattainable for millions of Scots. Those are clear examples not of successes but of the failures of almost two decades of SNP rule. The question has to be asked: with housing fully devolved in Scotland, what exactly has the SNP Government been doing for the past 10 years, since the independence referendum?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

Will the member take an intervention?

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

I will just say this and then I will take the First Minister’s intervention. The First Minister said this morning that we need to move to a focus on what we can do rather than what we cannot do, so what has the SNP Government been doing for the past 10 years, since 2014?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

What the Scottish Government has been doing since 2007 is building more affordable houses per head of population in Scotland than have been built in any other part of the United Kingdom. It is delivering 128,000 affordable homes. Perhaps Mr Sarwar would check his details and his facts before he poses the question to the Government of what issues we have attended to when—

Neil Bibby (Labour, West Scotland)

What emergency?

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

A Labour member has shouted out to me, “What emergency?” We are focused on ensuring that we take the actions—

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Briefly, First Minister.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, Perthshire North)

—to improve the supply of housing. That is what this Government has done, and we are proud of the record of what we have put in place.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

I ask the First Minister what we declared a housing emergency for. Why, in a conference of 250 housing industry leaders, did 247 of them put their hands up to say that the housing system is broken on this Government’s watch? What has it been doing for the past 10 years, since 2014?

Let us look at somewhere else where the Government has full powers—our NHS. On its watch, one in six Scots is on an NHS waiting list, accident and emergency departments are in turmoil and thousands of Scots are being forced to go private for healthcare. What has it been doing for the past 10 years, since 2014?

The SNP has full powers over education, and standards are falling in our schools. Let us not forget that it was the First Minister who tried to downgrade working-class kids during the pandemic, while he pretends that child poverty is his great number 1 mission. What has the SNP Government been doing for the past 10 years, since 2014?

It has full powers over justice, and our Scottish Prison Service is at breaking point. We have soaring court backlogs and our prisons are over capacity. What has the SNP Government been doing in the past 10 years?

When it comes to the national scandal that is drug and alcohol deaths—we have record levels of drug deaths, and alcohol deaths have gone up in the past year—what has the SNP Government been doing for the past 10 years, since the referendum?

The list of SNP failure after SNP failure goes on and on, and working Scots are paying the price for its incompetence. The truth is that the reason why we have made so little progress over the past 10 years is that the SNP Government has been leading a campaign and not a Government. It has been trying to hide its failures behind the smokescreen of the constitution.

On its watch, regardless of whether people voted yes or no, their bills are going up. Regardless of whether they voted yes or no—[ Interruption ]—they are stuck on an NHS waiting list. Regardless of whether they voted yes or no—[ Interruption ]—

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Sarwar.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

—education standards are falling. Regardless of whether they voted yes or no, businesses are shutting down. [ Interruption .] Regardless of whether they voted yes or no—

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Sarwar!

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

—opportunities for young people are being squandered. Regardless of whether they voted yes or no, they have a First Minister who would rather laugh at the people of Scotland than do the important work in Government. [ Interruption .] It is no wonder that he wants to spend all his time focusing on the past, because he wants to ignore the here and now. [ Interruption .]

Let us talk about the future of Scotland and what it means for the people of Scotland. [ Interruption .] Nearly a decade—

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Mr Sarwar, just a moment. Come on, colleagues. We can all agree that that is not appropriate. Let us hear Mr Sarwar.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

I know that they have had lots of doom and gloom in the past two months, but there is a constitutional debate to cheer up the SNP back benchers today. Maybe that is why John Swinney is focusing on it.

Let us look at what it means for people across Scotland. There have been nearly two decades of SNP and Tory failure. Unlike those parties, I am optimistic about Scotland’s future, but hard work is required to clean up the mess that has been left behind. Because of the 17 years of this SNP Government, every single institution in Scotland is now weaker rather than stronger, and that has happened on its watch.

Scots do not want to hear hypothetical debates about powers that the Government does not have. They want to know what the Government will do with the powers that it has. The SNP used to focus on the future, but it is now firmly the party of the past—of failure, of decline, of incompetence and of being bad with our money.

It is now left to the Scottish Labour Party to lay out the positive vision for Scotland. I truly believe that there is nothing that Scotland cannot achieve if it has two Governments that are willing to work in the public interest and put people before party and campaigning. [Interruption.]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Sarwar.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

That is why that important work has started, be it through GB Energy, the new deal for working people, a genuine living wage or the Scotland Office selling brand Scotland to the world. People across Scotland cannot wait for 2026, when we will have an opportunity to bring together the talents of our people, our workers and our businesses to deliver for the people of Scotland.

Ten years ago, our opponents said that we were the ones who were negative about Scotland. Today, it is they who are negative for Scotland and Labour who are positive for Scotland. While they want to talk Scotland down and point somewhere else to blame somebody else, we are getting on with building a programme that delivers change for people right across our country.

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

You must conclude, Mr Sarwar.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

I am closing, Presiding Officer.

Our country cannot wait for change. The people on the waiting lists cannot wait for change. The young person struggling to get a job cannot wait for change—

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Thank you, Mr Sarwar. You must conclude.

Anas Sarwar (Labour, Glasgow)

—so bring on 2026.

I move amendment S6M-14524.5, to leave our from “with all the powers” to end and insert:

“through change in 2026, and governments focused on delivering through cooperation rather than conflict, that the needs of the people of Scotland will be fully met and their best future created.”

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call Ross Greer to speak to and move amendment S6M-14524.3. You have up to six minutes, please.

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

Ten years ago today, I thought that we would win. I worked for Yes Scotland and, at this point in the day, I was co-ordinating our get-out-the-vote operation. Around about now, we were making the decision to start knocking on the doors of undecided voters, because it was clear that yes voters were going to the polls without the prompting of our activists. Clearly, it was not to be, but the referendum was a life-changing experience for me, and I am grateful in particular to Shirley-Anne Somerville for giving me that opportunity.

The referendum was a life-changing experience for thousands of people across Scotland. For so many ordinary people, it was the first time that they felt genuinely politically powerful in their life. Politics was something that we were doing together as a nation, not something that was being done to the people by politicians.

On the final Saturday of the campaign, I was at the top of Buchanan Street in Glasgow—Glasgow, of course, was on track to vote yes—but it was not an organised yes campaign rally. People had simply come together in that shared sense of excitement and hope that something transformational was possible. It felt genuinely revolutionary.

I respect and understand that being on the defensive is not pleasant. For many no campaigners, it was a very different experience. However, so much of the political and media scorn of the yes movement was elitist. It was the self-appointed middle-class and upper-middle-class gatekeepers of public opinion who did not like the fact that so many people across this country had found their voice and demanded that it should be heard and valued.

There is a lot that I could reflect on about the referendum, such as the catastrophic failure of Yes Scotland leadership compared with the outstanding success of building a yes movement in every corner of the country, and the effect of the no campaign’s project fear on vulnerable people, some of whom were so terrified that they stocked up on tinned food, and others who were so offended that they turned up at their nearest yes campaign hub to volunteer.

One reflection that I want to focus on before looking to the future is the fact that, for the first time in 2014, 16 and 17-year-olds had the opportunity to vote. Before I worked for the yes campaign, I was proud to be the member of the Scottish Youth Parliament who led on that campaign. All the best debates that I took part in during the referendum were in high schools. I remember one in particular in which my opponent, the chair of the local Conservative Party, was railing about the fact that his children’s cousins were English and that they would become foreigners if Scotland voted yes. One girl in the audience put her hand up and said, “Hold on a minute. What is wrong with foreigners?”

The best contributions that were made in that campaign were made by Scotland’s young people. It is one of the greatest legacies of the referendum that votes at 16 was made permanent by the unanimous decision of the Parliament. All parties on both sides of the debate decided that we wanted to value the voice of young people on a permanent basis.

The past decade has only deepened my and the Scottish Greens’ support for independence and our commitment to achieving it. It has been 10 years of Tory Government, Brexit, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, and, now, there is a Labour Government but no change from those Tory policies.

Greens believe in independence for a simple reason—namely, that we think that the best decision makers for Scotland are the people who live here. Independence is a means to an end—that end being a fairer, greener country—but it is worth it as end in and of itself, because it brings power closer to the people.

The Green amendment to today’s motion speaks to our wider vision. In the UK, Westminster Governments of both parties are prepared to spend north of £200 billion on renewing their nuclear weapons arsenal. An independent Scotland can rid itself of nuclear weapons and be a force for peace and global disarmament. Both Westminster parties are committed to Brexit, despite the immense economic harm it has caused and the lost rights and opportunities.

An independent Scotland can rejoin the EU and regain those rights and opportunities. After 14 years of viciously racist Tory Government, we now have a Labour Government that is reopening detention centres for asylum seekers and boasting of mass deportations.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow)

I thank Ross Greer for giving way, and I very much respect his contribution. I have always respected people who have a different perspective from my own. However, is it not fair to say that even pro-yes commentators said that the failure to present an economic plan and to be clear about the currency of an independent Scotland were the reasons why independence failed in 2014? Does the member accept that, and has that question been resolved?

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

Even 10 years on, the yes campaign needs to reflect on the fact that the case that we need to make to persuade people in the future needs to improve, including on the economic answers. However, the no campaign should not avoid the fact that its argument was to stick with a status quo in which one in four children in Scotland lived in poverty, largely as a result of the policies of successive UK Governments—both Labour and Conservative.

On my point about asylum seekers, independence would give us the opportunity to treat asylum seekers with dignity and to recognise the huge privilege of being a country that can offer people safety and sanctuary.

In the UK, the richest 50 families own more wealth than half of the population—34 million people. An independent Scotland can fairly tax the unbelievable wealth that is hoarded by a tiny number of people, fund climate action, end child poverty and deliver good-quality public services. Independence offers us the opportunity to ask fundamental questions about our constitution. Do we want to continue with the unelected privilege of monarchy or become a modern democratic republic in which the people choose their national leaders?

The Scottish Greens believe that this is not as good as it gets for Scotland. We can be a fairer, greener nation, with the powers of a normal independent country. The challenge for our movement—the independence movement—is to sell the why of independence, not the how and the process.

The challenge for our opponents is a simpler one, which is to be honest about the fact that they are denying the people of Scotland their democratic wishes through successive elections—or to be clear about how they believe that we can collectively exercise our right to self-determination.

It is useful to look back, but, today, it is more important to look forward, and I look forward to the day that this country puts its future in its own hands, which the Scottish Parliament will vote for this afternoon.

I move amendment S6M-14524.3, to insert at end

“, for example, by establishing a constitutional convention to allow the people of Scotland to decide matters such as whether they wish to retain the monarchy or adopt an elected head of state, by becoming a voice for peace and rejecting nuclear weapons, by re-joining the EU, by treating asylum seekers with humanity, and by committing to fairly tax wealth and rejecting ‘trickle-down’ economics to invest in a rapid and just transition to net zero.”

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

I call Alex Cole-Hamilton to speak to and move amendment S6M-14524.2. You have up to six minutes.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

I remember my early days as an MSP in this chamber when speeches, debates and events such as this would, in effect, be big marquee events. The chamber would be full, the Government benches would certainly be full, the public gallery would be full and, yes, the columnists, scribblers and broadcast journalists would be packing out the press gallery. Not even the hard-bitten columnists from The National are here today, such is the level of deep freeze to which this issue has been plunged. That is evidence of the end to our rhetorical wars of independence, and I am glad of it, because there are better things that we can be doing with our time in this chamber.

Winston Churchill once said that the definition of a fanatic is someone who cannot change their mind and is unwilling to change the subject. In the tenor of the debate from members on the Government and Green benches today, we see the measure of the fanaticism in those parties. I wish that they would change the subject, because there are so many topics that are crying out for this Parliament’s attention and for parliamentary time, which is a rare thing.

I wish that the Government would make time available for things such as the crisis in accessing primary care and general practitioner appointments at the first time of asking; the lack of dentists who provide NHS care in our constituencies; the sewage flowing into our rivers from the Government-owned water company; the mental health crisis, which sees young people with suspected attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder on a waiting list for seven years; the missed climate targets; the drug death emergencies; and the 170,000 Scots currently battling long Covid. Presiding Officer, you will remember that the Government made twice as much money available for a referendum on the topic that we are debating today, which did not happen, than for all the sufferers of long Covid in this country—it is a national outrage.

That is how Liberal Democrats would choose to influence Government time. There is every sign and indication that, if we are going to be part of what is next, we will have more influence. I am glad of that.

The SNP has spent the past 10 years picking at the scab of its defeat. It colours everything that we do in this place. Warning lights are blinking across the dashboard of public policy, crying out for ministerial attention, which is going wanting.

It explains why there are now eight times as many Liberals on the green benches of the House of Commons in Westminster as there are nationalists, and why we, in this party, came within touching distance of the number of Scottish Nationalist Party MPs returned to Westminster. I came back from Brighton yesterday, where a buoyant conference took place with 72 new Lib Dem MPs, who were focused on the people’s priorities. That is what we should be discussing in this place.

I go back to the general election, because that was an important line in the sand. For the first time in a while, the SNP was humbled; it could no longer defy the laws of political gravity. The general election was far from being the de facto referendum that the SNP had initially set out to make it. The people rendered their judgment: they were not interested in having that discussion.

The polls—any given poll that you look at, Presiding Officer, from this week, last week or any week in the past 10 years—show that the public that we represent is, largely, evenly divided, or as divided as it was on the topic of independence as it was in 2014. However, the salience has fallen away to almost nothing. If we ask people what motivates their vote, they will tell us that it is about health, the cost of living, heating their home or the standard of their children’s education, which has fallen under this Government. Those matters take far greater priority. It is a bit like saying, “Do you believe in God?” Everyone has a view about that, but it does not motivate how one votes, nor does the constitution.

Thank goodness that this 10-year anniversary will bookend a topic that has stifled our democracy and under which every election up until the most recent general election has been wrapped in a flag based on a reductive calculation of whether it is the best way to have a referendum or the only means of stopping one. I am glad of that.

We will hear a lot about Brexit. We have already heard a lot about it, but the SNP was a late convert to the cause of European unity. In fact, the SNP spent more on losing the Shetland by-election to the Liberal Democrats in 2019 than it did on the entirety of the remain campaign.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

rose—

Ross Greer (Green, West Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

I will make some progress, and I will come back to you later—[ Interruption .]

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

Let us hear Mr Cole-Hamilton.

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

Remain voters will find it out.

From the recent history of that divisive referendum, we know what happens when people are offered a proposition in the blind. We were told the sum total of the Brexit campaign on the back end of a bus, and the white paper did not have a great deal more to it. When that meets the reality and connects with real life—

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

Will the member give way?

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

I will take an intervention from Alasdair Allan.

Alasdair Allan (Scottish National Party, Na h-Eileanan an Iar)

Can the member clarify whether, any time soon when in Government, the Lib Dems are planning to rejoin the European Union?

Alex Cole-Hamilton (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh Western)

We are not in Government right now, but we certainly have a clearer road map back towards European integration than the SNP does. Remain voters know that, and the SNP knows that trying to join the European Union as an independent country would take years—and “austerity on stilts”. Those are not my words—it was the SNP’s economic growth commission that pointed that out. When we have that reality, as we did with Brexit, there are sacrifices and barriers. Remainers understand that, too.

For too long, we have talked about independence while matters of great importance to the people in this country idle. Lib Dems believe in togetherness, internationalism and Scotland’s place in a reformed and federal United Kingdom. I am glad that, 10 years ago, we voted to remain in this family of nations.

Let this afternoon be the very last time that we, in this chamber, indulge the failing Government in its obsession and fanaticism.

I move amendment S6M-14524.2, to leave out from “, and further agrees” to end and insert:

“by focusing on what really matters to the people of Scotland, including fixing the NHS to ensure fast access to treatment, GPs, dentists and world-class mental health services, lifting up Scottish education, delivering a fair deal for carers, stopping sewage being dumped in rivers and growing Scotland’s economy.”

Ash Denham (Alba, Edinburgh Eastern)

It is 10 years since the momentous day when real power shifted to the people of Scotland. On 18 September 2014, for 15 hours, Scotland’s future was truly in Scotland’s hands. That event energised Scotland, but, since the polls closed and the results fell short, what has happened to the energy that brought 84 per cent of Scotland out to vote?

Since then, we have had four UK general elections, one of which even sent 56 SNP MPs to settle up. We have had two Scottish Parliament and two Scottish council elections, a European election, an EU referendum and countless by-elections. We have endured six UK Prime Ministers, four Scottish First Ministers and 11 leaders of the Scottish Labour Party.

Time really has passed, because one of the two ferries that was ordered in 2014 is now actually floating. We have had more SNP manifesto promises with matching mandates than you can shake a stick at, yet here we still are, wringing our hands in despair at the inevitable mismanaged decline of a UK that is trying to convince itself that it still functions. My point is that a generation has unquestionably passed.

The people of Scotland who are watching at home must be wondering what work has been done to enable us to answer some of those big questions—not just those from 2014, but those about Scotland’s future from 2024 and beyond, such as on currency, pensions, borders, immigration, the economy and so on. However, once the people gifted this Government the power, it largely forgot about independence. Aside from a brief paper exercise, independence was irrelevant to it, and running a devolved ship took its attention and became its priority. It was too focused on playing whack-a-mole with what it would describe as the big issues of the day, and for 10 years it was nearly impossible for this Government to answer the most basic questions, such as “What is a woman?” We have now answered that question for the Government in this chamber; self-identification is not the law, and a woman is, and always will be, an adult human female.

Why has the Scottish Government been missing in action? It has declared everything to be “world leading” and has chased down magical progression points as though it is on an “I’m a Celebrity ... Get Me Out of Here!” bush-tucker trial rather than delivering, demanding and demonstrating that the best Scotland for the people is here—it is the one where we remove the walls of devolution and chart a new course of self-determination.

In the absence of the Government making the weather and answering the big questions of 2014, the grass-roots movement stepped up. It is time to harness that talent across Scotland and again unite to bring groups such as the Common Weal, the Scottish currency group and Believe in Scotland into the light. Only our collective effort can make a real difference.

Jamie Greene (Conservative, West Scotland)

At the last general election, the member’s party achieved fewer than 12,000 votes across the whole of Scotland, so how much influence does she think her party really has in this debate?

Ash Denham (Alba, Edinburgh Eastern)

Surely, any speaker who has a seat in this Parliament is entitled to put forward their suggestion for how we should go forward, and that is what I intend to set out.

Nothing says self-determination like putting the question of independence into the hands of the British Supreme Court. That predictably British answer to the ill-fated attempt to do something without thought to the next steps disabused many trusting independence supporters of the illusion of a secret plan. I am not too sure what we expected when we had to board our British Airways flight to go down to the British non-ministerial Government department—the British Supreme Court—which sat in London and gave a judgment under a British flag, swearing an oath to a British Queen. We have heard what the British think; now it is time to listen to the people of Scotland.

I want to maintain the spirit of the referendum. It was a time when everyone came together and put our differences aside for independence. As members know, I rarely agree with the Green Party on anything, and I do not fully agree with the amendment that it has lodged, but I will support it as an addition to the toolkit for independence. The promised constitutional convention is well overdue, but the next best time for it is now. I will also support the Government motion from the First Minister. Likewise, in the face of recurrent defeat, I have offered to support the upcoming budget on the basis of mutual support for a policy that was endorsed by the Scottish National Party conference and included in the Scottish Government’s strategic approach to prostitution. My unbuyable bill is definitely supportable.

There are three pro-independence parties in the chamber. If we start working on it today, we still have the time and the arithmetic to turn the ship around and achieve independence, because the Scottish Parliament is the voice of the Scottish people and it can play a crucial role in our journey towards independence.

I move amendment S6M-14524.1, to insert at end:

“and considers that, 10 years on from the Scottish independence referendum, the next democratic opportunity must be set, with a commitment to use the Scottish Parliament election list vote as a plebiscite for the people of Scotland to demonstrate their constitutional choice for independence.”

Alison Johnstone (Presiding Officer, Lothian)

We now move to the open debate.