(Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath)
(Alba)
I am going to begin where I left off on 1 February this year when
I moved my Scotland (Self-Determination) Bill. It is important to
establish how far this Government and the party of opposition
have moved from the principle of equity of all peoples of this
alleged Union of equals, and ultimately against the democratic
will of the people of Scotland. In this place in 1889, the
equality of UK partner countries was asserted by none other than
William Ewart Gladstone MP, when he said that
“if I am to suppose a case in which Scotland unanimously, or by a
clearly preponderating voice, were to make the demand on the
United Parliament to be treated, not only on the same principle,
but in the same manner as Ireland, I could not deny the title of
Scotland to urge such a claim.”[—[Official Report, 9 April 1889;
Vol. 335, c.
101-102.]](/search/column?VolumeNumber=335&ColumnNumber=101&House=1)
That principle of equity was at the heart of my private Member’s
Bill, and was again articulated in amendment (j) to the recent
King’s Speech, tabled in my name. Each was consistent with the
motion passed by this House that endorsed the principles of the
1989 claim of right, which acknowledged
“the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form
of Government best suited to their needs”.
However inured this House has since become to the aspirations of
the people of Scotland to live in a normal independent country,
support for independence is holding steady at around 50% without
a single leaflet being dropped through a letterbox. That number
is rising steadily, and will continue to climb. The independence
genie is not for going back into the bottle.
Of course, that growing support requires a mechanism through
which to express its effect and place beyond doubt the will of
the people. My Scotland (Self-Determination) Bill is explicit
about the conditions necessary to bring that mechanism into play,
and is clear that the power to legislate for a referendum
requires a democratic mandate from the Scottish public. Since
2014, that criterion has been met in successive general elections
to the Scottish Parliament, most recently in 2021, when a
majority of MSPs were elected on a manifesto commitment to
deliver an independence referendum. This evening, I intend to set
out how that must now happen, and how it can be put beyond the
wiles of intransigent London-led parties for good.
One of the most invigorating aspects of the 2014 independence
referendum campaign was the explosion of interest and engagement
in all aspects of policy, and the healthy workplace, coffee house
and pub debates across Scotland. Back then, as a movement, we
were unafraid to have differences of opinion and to propose
various solutions to decades-old problems. Most importantly, we
spoke truth to the distortions of the Unionist Better Together
“no” campaign. That appetite for truth and facts is something we
must rediscover. Our movement must demand that if we are to make
progress towards independence.
The first issue we must come to terms with is that another
section 30 independence referendum is not going to happen for the
foreseeable future. As a consequence of the Scottish Lord
Advocate’s folly in arguing a poorly crafted question, the UK
Supreme Court made it clear that in the absence of an equitable
mechanism for self-determination across these islands—such as the
one I have proposed—any referendum on Scottish independence is a
matter reserved to London.
(Na h-Eileanan an
Iar) (Ind)
In some ways, the Supreme Court’s judgment was perhaps helpful.
It said in paragraph 81—this is the reason the Court stopped the
referendum—that even if the referendum did not have any legal
powers, because the UK Government had not signed up to it, the
ballot box would carry authority, which would force the UK
Government to recognise that authority and therefore cause a
change to the Union. By stopping the referendum, the Supreme
Court has now opened another avenue for Scotland, which we will
maybe touch on later. That, of course, is using elections.
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and that is a key
element of my contribution to this debate.
Put plainly, a section 30 order to temporarily transfer those
powers to the Scottish Parliament is entirely in the gift of
Westminster. That underscores the unavoidable truth that our
Parliament is in reality part of the fabric of the British state
and is increasingly being squeezed under the heel of Whitehall.
Securing mandates to ask for a referendum on independence only to
be rebuffed is now the equivalent of Monty Python’s parrot that
has ceased to be. It is as stone dead as a mandate can be. The
Tories have become increasingly bolder in this regard, and while
they persist with their assertion that this is a voluntary Union,
they refuse to set out the means of withdrawing consent. This
Government have also made it clear that they will plunder
Scotland as a cash cow until the wind stops blowing. Westminster
plans to rob our resources at its leisure. There is no way, even
if the First Minister were to ask, that the Prime Minster would
agree to an independence referendum in his final months in
office.
In a Westminster Hall debate on this subject, the Minister
responding this evening claimed that
“the benefits of being part of the United Kingdom have never been
more apparent.”
Where is the benefit for the one in three households in Scotland
living in fuel poverty? Where are the benefits for the north-east
of Scotland when the Acorn carbon capture and storage project
still waits for a go-ahead from the UK Government? The Minister
proclaimed that Scotland has
“one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the
world.”[—[Official Report, 30 November 2022; Vol. 723, c.
384WH.]](/search/column?VolumeNumber=723&ColumnNumber=384WH&House=1)
But Scotland remains powerless to stop the plunder.
(Moray) (Con)
When the hon. Member speaks about opportunities to improve the
lives of people in Scotland, we could of course do that through
our NHS, through our education system, through our justice system
and through local government. All of those issues are devolved
fully to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, but
they are of course ignored by the SNP and Green Government—the
nationalist Government—because they are always focused on
independence, rather than on the real priorities of the people of
Scotland.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I would be
the last person to speak for the SNP Government in Scotland. I
refer back to my party leader’s excellent tenure as First
Minister, and the meaningful difference he made to the lives of
the people of Scotland.
This comparison with a devolved Scotland in the United Kingdom is
as silly as comparing the performance of Northern Ireland and
Stormont in the United Kingdom with Dublin and an independent
Ireland. Ireland has a €10 billion surplus this year, rising to
€20 billion next year. The UK, with a deficit of around £170
billion, is unable to build small hospitals on small Hebridean
islands, whereas Ireland is funding nurses over the border.
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. I am not sure who the hon. Gentleman was intervening on
there.
I was extending the debate.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am equally—[Interruption.] Yes, my hon.
Friend has put the hon. Member for Moray () in his place.
Anyway, the Treasury is happy to siphon off £11 billion in tax
receipts from oil and gas this year alone, and we are sending
south 124 billion kWh of energy, which is enough to power
Scotland’s needs fifteen times over. As my hon. Friend the Member
for East Lothian () set out in a Westminster
Hall debate this morning, with this Union it is all pooling and
absolutely no sharing. I ask the Minister: where is the evidence
of a share of Scotland’s energy bounty?
As for an incoming UK Labour Government, now bedecked in Union
Jackery—the Tories will like this bit—the Leader of the
Opposition has made it clear that his priority is continuity with
Tory economic and social policy, and he intends to continue
London’s plunder of Scottish assets. Do not be confused: it was
British Labour that first hid the truth of the McCrone report
from the people of Scotland—a truth kept secret by successive
Labour and Tory Administrations for 30 years. Neither party has
protected our economy or our communities, so why should we trust
any of them now?
They each may persist with the claim they have
“no selfish strategic or economic interest”
in the north of Ireland, but we know the opposite is true of
Scotland, where the strategy is wholly economic and top-to-tail
selfish.
(Strangford) (DUP)
I am sitting here as a determined, strong-willed, proud Unionist
who believes that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland is always better together. Northern Ireland is
part of that, and I very much wish to see Scotland be part of
that, so the hon. Gentleman and I will disagree. Does he accept
that when it comes to the British Government, the amount of money
that comes from here to keep Scotland going can never be ignored?
He talks about the trade downwards, but the trade is also upwards
and that cannot be ignored when it comes to the financial
implications. Better off together, always.
The hon. Gentleman hit the nail on the head when he said that we
will absolutely not agree on anything he said.
In answer to that point, the Republic of Ireland is costing the
UK nothing after leaving, therefore if Scotland goes it will save
you a fortune—
Mr Deputy Speaker ( )
Order. Stop intervening on Mr Hanvey to intervene on the person
who intervened on Mr Hanvey.
You can’t knock his enthusiasm, Mr Deputy Speaker. Neither the
Labour nor the Conservative parties have protected our economy,
and any fantasy that pleas for more devolution will be
accommodated by Labour are pie in the sky. North of Tyne Mayor
Jamie Driscoll recently accused the Labour Opposition of
censoring, diluting, and striking down key recommendations
contained in a report by former Prime Minister and MP for
Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, , on the constitution and
further devolution across the UK. Those forlorn attempts to
prevent the “Break-up of Britain” by refusing to devolve power
away from London will serve only to boost the case for Scottish
independence. Mr Brown’s attempt to reframe the debate to one
of
“change within Britain versus change by leaving Britain”
has been utterly dismantled by his party leader and increased the
urgency for independence. All that leads us to the position where
Scotland urgently needs a robust strategy that not only deals
with the facts of the day, but overcomes that central Westminster
hurdle of the denial of a democratic process.
The Alba party, and our Scotland United colleague, the hon.
Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (), believe that every
single Scottish and UK general election must now be used to
secure majority support for independence negotiations to
commence. That could, and should, include the triggering of an
early Holyrood election.
The hon. Member has hit the nail on the head. The referendum door
is slammed shut, and there are three ways that the SNP Government
at Holyrood could trigger a plebiscite on Scottish independence.
Of course, the resignation of the First Minister was very awkward
and difficult, but a majority of two thirds of MSPs can vote, or
by using section 31A of the Scotland Act 1998 the two-thirds
majority can be altered to a simple majority. That was not
communicated properly in light of the Supreme Court, and those
who did not communicate it properly should have set the record
straight or at least apologised. I think they should set the
record straight so that MPs, MSPs and the wider public clearly
understand that point.
I thank my hon. Friend for that important piece of information.
It underscores that there is need for much more robust and firm
action from the Scottish independence movement, to push forward
the case for independence. As I said recently, independence will
not fall into our laps. It is something that we have to pursue
with vigour and absolute determination.
That approach reinstates the position of the national movement
prior to devolution. As with all democratic expressions, the
threshold would be a simple majority of votes cast for all
independence parties—a threshold that was achieved on the last
list vote for the Scottish Parliament. That approach is supported
by the expert legal opinion I obtained from highly distinguished
academic and legal practitioner in international law, Professor
Robert McCorquodale. He said that
“the people of Scotland are distinct within the UK and have a
right to self-determination.”,
and subsequently that
“the right to self-determination applies to the people of
Scotland.”
He went on to state:
As the people of Scotland are a people for the purposes of the
right to self-determination, they can exercise it. The choice of
the means to exercise it is for the people to decide and not for
the state.”
Furthermore, he explained that the UK, as a signatory to
multilateral international human rights treaties, has
“expressly accepted that the right to self-determination is a
human right”
and
“not just as an international legal principle—which is binding
under international law on all states.”
These are not obscure or arcane points of law; they are precise
and purposeful.
I understand why the UK Government do not want to hear the facts
that Professor McCorquodale set out, but I cannot comprehend why
others are steadfast in their refusal even to acknowledge that
landmark legal opinion charting the correct lawful and democratic
course to self-determination and independence.
The Alba party’s amendment to the recent King’s Speech repeated
the democratic principles contained in my Scotland
(Self-Determination) Bill for the recognition of the right of the
people of Scotland to self-determination by amending the Scotland
Act 1998. That would transfer the power to legislate for a
Scottish independence referendum to the Scottish Parliament.
Let me deal with the supposed gold standard of a section 30
order. Such an order on its own is not a gold standard; it was
the process of negotiation and agreement that led to the signing
of the Edinburgh agreement that was the gold standard. Let me be
clear that any democratic vote in favour of self-determination is
the only standard required, providing that that is the clear and
unclouded purpose of any such vote—unless of course the UK
Government do not want to recognise democratic elections as
legitimate expressions of the will of the people.
The hon. Member is making an excellent point. An unscheduled
Holyrood election would precisely be in that category. It would
make the world stop for a moment and see whether Scotland was to
choose independence. That power rests with MSPs at Holyrood if
they want to do that.
The hon. Gentleman is making really important and valid
observations. Those are the key tactics that we need to
adopt.
Whichever UK Prime Minister comes next, while they may have every
technical right to stifle, subdue or ignore the Scottish
Parliament, the British state has no locus to limit the
inalienable human rights of the people of Scotland or the march
of our nation. Yet in this Union, that is precisely where
Scotland finds its democracy —denied. That flies in the face of
commitments given. In Margaret Thatcher’s memoirs, she said of
Scotland:
“As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national
self-determination”.
John Major, when Prime Minister, said of Scotland that
“no nation could be held irrevocably in a Union against its
will”.
The commitments contained in the Smith commission’s agreement,
which was signed by all Scotland’s main political parties, said
that
“nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent
country in the future should the people of Scotland so
choose.”
Scotland will only ever become an independent country as and when
the majority of the people of Scotland choose that path, yet that
requires a democratic mechanism that is constitutional and
satisfies international legal precedent. From Gladstone to
Thatcher, no one until now has had the gall to seek to constrain
the Scottish people’s democratic right to self-determination. I
have made this point many times, but it bears repeating.
Democracy is not a single event; it is a continually evolving
process that demands opinions be tested and retested
regularly.
I anticipate that the Minister will reel off the usual rebuttals
and crow about how we have had a referendum, but he should know
this. As an option, a referendum has been put beyond reach by
Westminster and Whitehall, but Scotland will adapt. Each and
every election from hereon in can and will provide a platform on
which the people of Scotland can have their say on their consent
to this Union. Consistent with Professor McCorquodale’s opinion,
that would pave the way to where
“a clear majority of people representing Scotland… indicate their
approval”
for independence,
“but it should not be done by the Scottish Parliament, as the
latter is within UK domestic law. This could be done, for
example, through a convention of elected and diverse
representatives from across Scotland with a clear majority in
favour.”
Scotland’s separate constitutional tradition is best summed up by
Lord Cooper, in the case of MacCormick v. Lord Advocate:
“The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a
distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in
Scottish constitutional law.”
The UK Government face a choice: give serious consideration to
bringing forward legislation for an equitable mechanism for
self-determination, as exists on the island of Ireland, or face
that test at every election in future. In international law
according to human rights declarations, the decision on Scotland
is the purview of the people of Scotland, not of any London
party. In the constitutional tradition of popular sovereignty in
our great country, it is the people who remain sovereign, and it
will be the people of Scotland who decide.
6.41pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland ()
Yet again, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath () has decided to use valuable
debating time in this place to focus on the constitution. Yet
again, this time could have been used to raise issues of
immediate importance to Scotland’s future. Yet again, his
constituents, and my constituents in the Scottish borders, will
be disappointed.
The Government’s position on a further independence referendum is
well known.
rose—
I want to make some progress, and I will give way another time.
[Interruption.] The hon. Member has only just sat down, and I
will deal with his points in due course.
People across Scotland rightly expect to see both their
Governments working together. Our relentless focus should be on
the issues that matter to them, their families, and their
communities. Scotland’s bright future as part of the United
Kingdom is better served by focusing on tackling the cost of
living, and on growing our economy so that everyone has access to
the opportunities, skills, and jobs that they need.
[Interruption.] Hon. Members on the Opposition Benches shake
their heads, but I know that those are the priorities of my own
constituents in the borders. It is disappointing how disconnected
those Members are from the priorities of the constituents they
represent.
When it first came to power, the SNP set out to emulate the
Labour party of old, and it certainly has succeeded. The
nationalist movement is now even more divided than the far left.
The SNP and Alba compete to see who can be the most reckless in
their demands. They are constantly trying to get one up on each
other on independence. But it does not matter who is pushing
separation—Humza Yousaf or . Scotland does not want
it.
Unlike the divisive nationalists, we Unionists on the Government
Benches are all about bringing people together. As hard as it
might be, let me try to find a point of unity with the hon.
Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. Perhaps we can agree that
Scotland wants to be free—free of the SNP. As a member of the
Alba party, surely he can agree that we are fed up with , Michael Matheson’s
ever-changing stories and their endless incompetence and
deceit.
While Scottish Conservative MPs are securing millions of
pounds-worth of investment in our constituencies through UK
levelling-up funding, elected members of the hon. Member’s party
want a giant independence thermometer to be constructed somewhere
in Scotland. I wish I was joking. The independence thermometer is
the brainwave of the Alba party’s most recent recruit from the
SNP, . Personally, I would rather
see taxpayers’ money spent on schools and hospitals, but if the
hon. Member insists, will he tell us where he wants the
independence thermometer to be located? Has he lobbied the
Chancellor for funding for this ridiculous proposal? Will the
thermometer be made of mercury, or is that where he got the idea
from—another planet?
I thank the Minister for giving way. However, I need to go back
to my first request for an intervention. He was complaining about
using valuable time in the Chamber for a debate on the
constitution, but it is his Government who are finishing early!
It is his Government who have just launched a new King’s Speech
and cannot fill the parliamentary programme with enough business
to keep the Chamber going. I hope he will correct the record that
it is not me who is impeding Parliament doing its business; it is
a lack of action from his own Government.
What a load of baloney! This Government have an action-packed
programme set out in the King’s Speech. We have an ambitious
programme for Scotland and all parts of the United Kingdom. We
are focused on the issues that matter to the communities we
represent, not on endlessly debating another independence
referendum.
The UK Government remain as determined, focused and committed as
ever to getting on with the job for the people of Scotland. That
is best demonstrated by what we are doing on the ground. The UK
Government are delivering £2.7 billion of levelling-up investment
across all parts of Scotland. As hon. Members on the nationalist
Benches know, that investment includes: £1.5 billion for 12
Scottish city and regional growth deals; £160 million for two
investment zones in the Glasgow city region and north-east
Scotland; £52 million for two freeports, focused at the Inverness
and Cromarty Firth and Firth of Forth regions; and £817 million
for locally-driven plans and priorities, regenerating town
centres, improving vital infrastructure, supporting businesses,
and spreading skills and opportunities to communities
everywhere.
I thank the Minister for giving way. He mentioned the Unionists
on the Conservative Benches. I am a Unionist on the Opposition
Benches, as are my party. It is clear that the polls in Scotland
are indicating less of an interest in independence than there
was. Is that because the realisation of those in Scotland is that
they see their future within this great United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland—better together? Is it because the
financial benefits of Westminster and the Government here to
Scotland, and indeed to Wales and Northern Ireland, are so good
they would never really want to leave?
The hon. Member makes very valid points, but the key point is
that support for independence and another independence referendum
in Scotland is falling. The voters in Scotland, certainly in my
constituency in the Scottish Borders, are getting wise to the
failures of the Scottish SNP Government in Edinburgh, and they
recognise the benefits of remaining part of a strong United
Kingdom. That is because the UK Government and the Scottish
Government are working together on so many areas to make our
communities better—driving economic growth, supporting the
Scottish economy and delivering for Scotland.
I can give some further examples. We can see it through the
Scottish Seafood Industry Action Group, where the UK Government
regularly engage with the Scottish Government and the Scottish
seafood industry to consider a range of important issues,
including access to labour, energy costs and export
opportunities. We see it through the fiscal framework review,
where the UK and Scottish Governments reached a fair and
responsible agreement. Both Governments reached a compromise for
the benefit of the Scottish economy, while keeping us on track
with our fiscal objectives. And we are investing more than £100
million in Scotland’s innovation economy through the strength in
places fund and Glasgow innovation accelerator. Our close
collaboration with the Scottish Government in this area was
further underlined by the agreement signed between UK Research
and Innovation and Scottish Enterprise earlier this month, which
aims to streamline innovation support for Scottish
businesses.
Levelling up is already making a real difference to all regions
of Scotland. It is bringing advanced manufacturing jobs to the
Glasgow city region, data driven innovation jobs to south-east
Scotland, and life sciences jobs to the highlands and north-east
Scotland. It is saving the community on Fair Isle with a new
ferry, bringing Clydesdale horses back to Pollok Country Park,
and revitalising town and city centres from Greenock to Aberdeen,
and Cumbernauld to Elgin. It is helping communities to protect
and restore their treasured buildings and facilities, whether it
is the last pub in Lochranza on Arran, or a permanent home for St
David’s brass band in Gorebridge. [Interruption.] The Members on
the nationalist Benches shout those initiatives down. This is
funding from the United Kingdom Government going into communities
the length and breadth of Scotland—something that they seem to
strongly oppose. I am disappointed by that and I know the
communities they represent will be disappointed by it too.
Before the Minister gets down to the mugs and glasses that we
provide for the cub scouts, along with any other crumbs from the
table, let me make this point. He mentioned “two Governments” in
Scotland. What inefficiency! Norway, Ireland, Iceland and Denmark
have one Government each, and they are outperforming Scotland in
the United Kingdom. If Scotland is doing so well in the United
Kingdom, why do Norway, Ireland, Iceland and Denmark not want to
join the UK? It is because they know that it is not a good place
to be. They look at Scotland and Wales and they see places that
are doing better, just as they are doing better. If the campaign
for Scottish independence is doing as badly as the Minister says,
why not hold your referendum now? You’d win, surely, wouldn’t
you? But you know full well that when the Scottish people engage,
independence will happen!
The hon. Member speaks of “crumbs from the table”, but this is
significant investment going into communities across Scotland.
Scotland is receiving hundreds of millions of pounds through our
levelling-up agenda and a record block grant amounting to more
than £40 billion, but SNP Members oppose and fight every bit of
the investment that this United Kingdom Government are making
there. I am saddened by that, and I know that the residents and
communities that the hon. Member and his colleagues represent
will also be disappointed by the hostile and negative response to
investment that has been used to improve the communities that we
represent.
Together, the UK Government’s interventions will drive innovation
and long-term economic growth, restore pride in place, and help
cities, towns and villages in every part of Scotland to flourish.
The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath referred to
“the sovereign right of the Scottish people”
to determine their future, and I suppose that that reference to
self-determination gets to the nub of the debate that he has
initiated. In 2014, the year of the referendum on Scottish
independence, there was consensus between the UK Government and
the Scottish Government—both Scotland’s Governments—and there was
consensus in civic society in Scotland and consensus across the
population of Scotland, which is why both Governments agreed to
the referendum. The ultimate act of self-determination, of
course, came in September 2014, when, in record numbers, the
people of Scotland turned out to vote to remain part of the
United Kingdom.
My hon. Friend has given a strong defence of the Union, as he
always does in his ministerial role and on behalf of his
constituents. Would he agree that the nationalists have had more
plans for Scottish independence than has had excuses for his
£11,000 iPad bill? And just like that £11,000 iPad bill and their
different plans, none of them are honest, none of them are
convincing and none of them have the support of the Scottish
people.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We hear about plans for
referendums endlessly from SNP Members. I just wish they had a
clear plan for ferries in Scotland or a clear plan for Scotland’s
NHS and Scotland’s schools, but no—referendums, referendums,
referendums are all we hear about and all they talk about.
I would like to finish by reminding those on the nationalist
Benches yet again that our different views on the constitution
should not distract both of Scotland’s Governments from working
together to tackle the sheer challenge of delivering growth,
easing pressures on the cost of living and supporting the NHS.
The Scottish Parliament is one of the most powerful devolved
Parliaments in the world, and we believe that the devolution
settlement strikes the right balance. This United Kingdom
Government are committed to devolution, and we are working
collaboratively and constructively with the devolved
Administrations, including the Scottish Government, to deliver
better outcomes for the citizens of Scotland and the entirety of
the United Kingdom.
Question put and agreed to.
