The comments made by Kirsten Oswald, the SNP MP for East Renfrewshire, on Twitter on 15 February 2023.
Nicola Sturgeon has been an outstanding leader for our country. We’ve been so fortunate to have someone with her talents at the helm. I am so sorry she is standing down.
The comments made by Stewart McDonald, the SNP MP for Glasgow South, on Twitter on 15 February 2023.
Nicola Sturgeon is the finest public servant of the devolution age. Her public service, personal resilience and commitment to Scotland is unmatched, and she has served our party unlike anyone else. She will be an enormous loss as First Minister and SNP leader. Thank you!
The parliamentary question asked by Gavin Newlands, the SNP MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, in the House of Commons on 9 February 2023.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
What steps her Department is taking to help increase exports from the devolved nations to the EU.
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Nigel Huddleston)
We are supporting businesses in all parts of the United Kingdom through our export support service, including our innovative Export Academy, which helps build market export capability among small and medium-sized enterprises across the UK. We have also established trade and investment offices in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, increasing the visibility of the Department’s services in the nations, and channelling the benefits of our new export and investment strategies to the entire UK. I am sure the hon. Member is aware of those benefits in his own constituency, with businesses such as Lynkeos Technology winning a £100,000 contract last year in Germany with the assistance of the Department.
Gavin Newlands
I like the hon. Member, but that answer was nonsense, quite frankly. The Institute of Directors found in a recent survey that almost half—47%—of businesses are still finding trade after Brexit a challenge, with just a third envisaging any opportunities at all from Brexit. That report also found that 45% of SMEs are exporting less to the European Union post Brexit, with Scottish exports having already slumped by £2.2 billion because of Brexit. Does the Minister agree that Brexit is an act of state-sanctioned economic vandalism?
Nigel Huddleston
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is saying this is nonsense. I am sure that those businesses in his constituency and across Scotland who get support from the Department do not share that attitude. As well as focusing on the EU, which is and will continue to be an important trading partner of the UK, we are looking to the entire world, hence focusing on so many other countries. I hope he will be a little more “glass half full” in the future.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Is the Minister aware that the Scottish Government are planning to bring forward draconian restrictions on the advertising of whisky and other drinks in Scotland? Not only will that cost jobs in Scotland but it will make it much more difficult for the industry to export to the EU and elsewhere.
Nigel Huddleston
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Such measures could have a considerable negative impact on so many Scottish businesses. That is precisely why we are seeking opportunities to support them, for example with trade deals, and trying to ensure that we reduce tariffs and are able to export more overseas. While we are backing our businesses right across the UK, I hope that in future we can get support from the Opposition, who might at some point come and join us and support one of the trade deals we are negotiating.
Mr Speaker
I call the SNP spokesperson.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
Unfortunately for the Minister, and unfortunately for Scotland, the latest data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shows that between July and September last year, exports from Scotland to the European Union slumped by 5%. Will the Minister explain for an expectant nation exactly how that is in any way strengthening the case for the Union?
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Gentleman will be well aware that, as we recover from a global pandemic, certain sectors and certain industries are suffering more than others. That is precisely why we have an export strategy and why the Secretary of State has articulated a five-point strategy for growth. We will continue to work positively with all sectors to grow our export opportunities. UK exports to the EU for the 12-month period to September 2022 were up by 25% in current prices.
Richard Thomson
It is not just the SNP who are saying what a disaster Brexit has been. With the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies saying that Brexit is clearly an “economic own goal”, and even a former Brexit Secretary saying that there have been no economic benefits from Brexit, is it not surely time for voters in Scotland to be given the choice between continued British economic decline or a prosperous, independent European future?
Nigel Huddleston
I know the hon. Member and some people are tempted to continue to fight the battles of the past, but this Government will be laser-focused on the future and future opportunities. We have the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership and so many other opportunities around the world, and I think it would be good for all of us in this place to talk the British economy up, rather than talk it down.
The parliamentary question asked by Patrick Grady, the SNP MP for Glasgow North, in the House of Commons on 2 February 2023.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of the use of section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 on the constitution.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
Alas, I am a mere junior Minister and I rarely get to talk to my illustrious Cabinet colleagues, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government used section 35 very carefully and very reluctantly, in order to preserve the balance of powers between our countries.
Patrick Grady
If the Government were so determined to resolve their dispute with the Scottish Government, they would publish the amendments that they say would make the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill acceptable to them. Is not the reality that the Tories are prepared to veto and undermine the elected Scottish Parliament because they never really wanted devolution in the first place?
Alex Burghart
As the hon. Gentleman knows, section 35 of the Scotland Act is part of our constitution. He will also know that it is now for the Scottish Government to bring forward a Bill that addresses the adverse effects set out in the statement of reasons. Once again, the nationalists do not wish to take responsibility.
The speech made by Neale Hanvey, the SNP MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Scotland Act 1998 to transfer to the power to legislate for a Scottish independence referendum to the Scottish Parliament; to provide that that power may only be exercised where the Scottish public has demonstrated its support for the holding of such a referendum; to provide that no such referendum may be held sooner than seven years after the previous such referendum; and for connected purposes.
The question of whether the ancient nation of Scotland should be an independent country once more continues to be the subject of much debate, indicating that the matter is far from settled. Of course, it is entirely proper for any country to review such matters. Scotland will only become independent 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. The Bill seeks to standardise and codify such a requirement in line 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.
The Bill is explicit on the necessary conditions to bring that mechanism into play: first, 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. In addition, a majority of the votes cast on the d’Hondt regional list were won by parties that support independence—the SNP, the Scottish Green party and the Alba party. Secondly, the Bill states that no such referendum may be held sooner than seven years after any previous such referendum. In terms of established UK precedent, that would bring Scotland into line with the provisions for a border poll in Northern Ireland regarding the constitutional future of the island of Ireland. As Robert McCorquodale, professor of international law and human rights, sets out, that would be in keeping with the UK’s international legal obligations, applicable to all states, including to peoples within states worldwide, to seek to exercise their right to self-determination.
It is necessary to put the Bill into its political and historical context. In 1707, a majority of Scottish parliamentarians may have been persuaded, but the people were never consulted. The Acts of Union 1707 between England and Scotland created the kingdom of Great Britain, establishing a single political entity yet preserving the territorial, legal and institutional integrity of each partner country. The UK’s constitution is not codified in a single document, so the question of whether the Acts of Union can unilaterally be dissolved by one party is not clear. However, the accepted position hitherto is that the Union is a voluntary association of equal partners and Scotland has an unquestioned right of self-determination. That is a right underpinned by Scots common law which rests not on the Magna Carta, but on the claim of right which continues to assert that it is the people who are sovereign in Scotland.
The Scotland Act of 1998 established the Scottish Parliament, which has the power to legislate on agreed devolved matters within Scotland, while the UK Parliament retains legislative competency on matters reserved to Westminster. It is generally understood that for a country to gain independence a legal process, such as a vote in a referendum, is required. Such a process was established in 2012 through the Edinburgh agreement which was signed by First Minister Alex Salmond and Prime Minister David Cameron. The Edinburgh agreement established a clear process whereby a Scottish general election that returned a Government with a mandate for an independence referendum would enable that Government to petition for authority under section 30 of the Scotland Act to respect the democratic force of that vote in a referendum. While respect for that established process has since been affirmed by the UK Government, in absence of any legal constitutional consensus the matter of Scottish independence has reached a political impasse to the detriment of Scotland’s democratic process.
The Bill seeks to remedy that by setting out the process by which the democratic wishes of the people of Scotland can be respected and enacted. This would preserve their inalienable human rights as a distinct people of the ancient nation of Scotland in accordance with the constitutional tradition of Scotland, the UN charter and extant international law.
Scotland’s distinct constitutional tradition is best expressed 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.”
In the pleadings of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) in her prorogation case to the UK Supreme Court, it was noted that the 1707 parliamentary Union between England and Scotland may have created a new state, but it did not create one nation.
The UK Government enthusiastically claim that they seek to preserve democracy the world over, yet they have moved to block Scotland’s consistently expressed democratic aspirations at each and every turn. Surely it is now time to move to eliminate accusations and counter-accusations of brinkmanship and set out a clear pathway consistent with the precedent across these islands where constitutional friction exists.
Can Government Members imagine the circumstances where, having entered the common market and ratified every subsequent treaty leading to the European Union, the EU Parliament moved to block or interfere with their Brexit vote, or set a limit on when and if such a vote should be held? The notion is ludicrous, because democracy is not a single event, but an evolving and continuous process. That is how civilised people behave and how fundamental rights of freedom of thought and expression are peacefully demonstrated.
As a member of the EU, the UK Government possessed and exercised a veto, yet they claimed their sovereignty was impeded by membership. Scotland has no such equivalent mechanism available to our people and remains subject to the wiles of our larger neighbour, as exemplified by Brexit. How does that constitute access to meaningful political process, as claimed in the recent UK Supreme Court judgment?
Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s signing of the 1941 Atlantic charter brought into being the principle of self-determination of peoples, as now enshrined in the United Nations charter. Margaret Thatcher in her memoirs 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”.
None of these senior Conservative politicians sought to constrain the democratic right to self-determination.
In the aftermath of the 2014 referendum, the all-party Smith Commission agreement was signed by all of Scotland’s main political parties and it stated:
“It is agreed that nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose.”
The effect of this Bill should be uncontroversial for every Member. It merely establishes in law an equivalent mechanism to the principle, already conceded by the UK Government in relation to a border poll in Northern Ireland, that no such referendum may be held sooner than seven years after any previously mandated referendum.
In 1889 in this place, the equality of UK partner countries was asserted by one William Ewart Gladstone MP, saying
“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.]
That begs the question: why would the UK Government deny democracy to Scotland but not to Northern Ireland? Could the clue lie in the words of former Prime Minister John Major from 1993’s Downing Street declaration that the UK has
“no selfish strategic or economic interest in Northern Ireland”?
In the case of Scotland, the opposite is true. With unconstrained access to our vast resources, energy is transmitted south to millions at no cost.
The decision on Scotland’s future ultimately and rightly must rest in the hands of the people of Scotland. In the constitutional tradition of popular sovereignty in our great country, it is the people who remain sovereign. This Bill is neutral in its effect. It favours neither one side nor the other, but seeks to codify the Scottish people’s right to choose their own constitutional future. To return to 1889, Dr Gavin Clark, MP for Caithness, said on the matter:
“Everybody, even old Tories on the other side, must admit that some change is necessary. Then what is the remedy to be?”—[Official Report, 9 April 1889; Vol. 335, c. 71.]
If democracy matters at all, every Member in this House should support the remedy contained in this Bill regardless of their view on Scottish independence. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Neale Hanvey, Kenny MacAskill, Joanna Cherry, Angus Brendan MacNeil, Douglas Chapman and Margaret Ferrier present the Bill.
Neale Hanvey accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March, and to be printed (Bill 241).
UK Infrastructure Bank Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No.2)
Ordered,
That the Order of 1 November 2022 (UK Infrastructure Bank Bill: Programme) be varied as follows:
(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.
(2) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours before the moment of interruption on that day.—(Scott Mann.)
The parliamentary question on Stuart McDonald, the SNP MP for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential implications of an order under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 for the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
The Attorney General (Victoria Prentis)
As I said earlier, by convention, information on whether the Law Officers have been asked to provide advice and the content of such advice are not disclosed outside Government. That convention enables candid legal advice to be given.
Stuart C. McDonald
Why was the prospect of a section 35 order not raised at any time before the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill was overwhelmingly passed by the Scottish Parliament? What alternatives did the Attorney General look at? When will she set out the changes to the Bill that she wants to see before the Government would revoke the section 35 order? Those are simple questions. If she cannot answer them, all we can conclude is that the Government have lost their last shred of respect for the Scottish Parliament.
The Attorney General
That would be absolutely the wrong conclusion to draw. The Attorney General’s convention is clear: the UK Government respect the Scottish Parliament’s ability to legislate within its competence on devolved areas. The Government are committed to working with the devolved Administrations and strengthening the Union of the UK.
The speech made by Alex Chalk, the Minister for Defence Procurement, at Rosyth Dockyard in Scotland on 24 January 2023.
It is an enormous pleasure to be here in Rosyth today for my first official visit to a shipyard as a Defence Minister.
And in doing so to meet some of the staff who will be working on this great vessel but also, as has already happened, to welcome our overseas visitors from Poland, Indonesia, Chile, Denmark, Ukraine, New Zealand, Sweden and the United States.
I’m especially honoured to be asked to cut the steel.
Although in case any future crews are watching this and are slightly concerned, I’m assured that all I have to do is press a button and the machine will do the real work.
Now this vessel is the second of five Type-31 – or Inspiration-class –frigates for the Royal Navy.
And ‘inspiration’ is the right word for three straightforward reasons.
First, there is the inspiration offered by a cutting edge, highly capable vessel.
Armed with SeaCeptor missiles and a 4D radar system, HMS Active has flexibility woven into its DNA.
Not only will it be able today to do everything from intercepting illegal activity, gathering intelligence, providing humanitarian relief, but, as a modular and scalable platform, it will have the ability to adapt tomorrow to the ever-evolving threats of the 21st century.
And that’s important because the great frigates constructed here in this yard will be part of a formidable fleet for years to come.
And they are deliberately designed to evolve and modernise to respond to a changing world and a changing mission.
And they will of course be operating alongside advanced destroyers and autonomous minehunters, supported by our new auxiliary ships and all led by the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers.
Second, today provides inspiration for our industry.
Not only does the construction of these ships directly support 16 different Scottish suppliers – including eight SMEs – with contracts totalling more than £65 million.
Not only does it sustain around 2,500 highly skilled roles.
But this represents lasting investment in Scotland and Britain’s manufacturing future.
Take those 150 or so technical and digital apprenticeships that Babcock is supporting to ensure we have the niche skills required for decades to come.
Or the fact that, come the Spring, this yard will be hosting its second Festival of Engineering – which sees graduates deliver fun, interactive activities for local school children in a bid to get them excited about STEM careers which can be so fulfilling for them.
Or consider the pivotal role this project is playing in the revival of our nation’s great shipbuilding traditions.
We all know, don’t we, that Scottish dockyards have a proud history of producing some of the world’s finest ships.
And that in recent years, we’ve seen a renaissance in Scottish shipbuilding industry with the construction of everything from offshore patrol vessels to our flagship aircraft carriers.
Now, thanks to a £60 million investment programme here in Rosyth, we’ve got world-class facilities to match, including the Venturer Building which I’m looking forward so much to seeing shortly.
And with the T-31 frigates, we’re going to ensure the made-in-Scotland stamp is a worldwide mark of quality for years to come.
Such a powerful tribute to so many of the men and women here today.
And that brings me onto my third point – these frigates will act as an inspiration for our exports.
I don’t want to steal too much of Minister Bowie’s thunder, but it’s fair to say these ships are garnering global interest before they’ve even taken to the water.
And that’s because I know our allies appreciate and understand how the unique Arrowhead-140 flexible design can support so many different configurations.
And it offers the potential for greater collaboration at an operational and industrial level.
And that’s why Babcock has already signed an export contract with Indonesia and I’m not giving anything away I hope when I say there are other suitors too.
And I do want to take this opportunity finally to pay tribute to this vessel’s predecessor and namesake.
A Type-21 frigate which played a vital role in the Falklands War 40 years ago, from escorting supply convoys to San Carlos Water, to providing naval gun support to British forces in the Battle of Mount Tumbledown.
And I’m particularly delighted that some of those who served with such distinction on board the last HMS Active are here today as the torch is passed to a new vessel.
But historians among you will know these aren’t the only ships to have borne the name.
During the Second World War, Active joined the hunt for the Bismarck.
During the First World War, Active was with the Grand Fleet in the Battle of Jutland.
And in 1762, Active captured a prize of £100 million worth of Spanish treasure. Happy to confirm that is no longer British foreign policy.
Indeed, 11 different HMS Actives have written their own chapter in our nation’s great maritime history.
But today’s warship will be more advanced than any of its predecessors.
More adaptable, more flexible, more agile and more powerful.
So, thank you to everyone involved in this important enterprise.
Congratulations on what you have achieved so far and what you will achieve and deliver in the future.
With a thriving Scottish shipbuilding sector behind it, the 12th HMS Active reflects the finest traditions of the Royal Navy and will write a new and exciting chapter in our nation’s maritime history.
Thank you.
The comments made by Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons on 18 January 2023.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
To promise is ae thing, to keep it is another. Well, the Scottish Government kept their manifesto promise to the people and, thanks to support from Members of all political parties in Holyrood, the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill was passed. Surely in that context, the Prime Minister must recognise that it is a dangerous moment for devolution when both he and, indeed, the Leader of the Opposition seek to overturn a promise made between Scotland’s politicians and Scotland’s people.
The Prime Minister
Let me be crystal clear: the decision in this case is centred on the legislation’s consequences for reserved matters. This is laid out in the Scotland Act 1998, which established the Scottish Parliament—the hon. Gentleman talks about that and, at the time, it was supported by the SNP. This Bill would have a significant adverse effect on UK-wide equalities matters, so the Scottish Secretary, with regret, has rightly acted.
Stephen Flynn
Let me be crystal clear—[Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] This is the Conservative party seeking to stoke a culture war against some of the most marginalised people in society, and Scotland’s democracy is simply collateral damage. On that issue of democracy, let us reflect, because on Monday the UK Government introduced legislation to ban the right to strike, against the express wishes of the Scottish Government; on Tuesday, they introduced legislation to overturn the GRR Bill, against the express wishes of the Scottish Government; and this evening they will seek to put in place legislation that rips up thousands of EU protections, against the express wishes of the Scottish Government. Are we not now on a slippery slope from devolution to direct rule?
The Prime Minister
No, of course we are not. This is simply about protecting UK-wide legislation and ensuring the safety of women and children; it is not about the devolution settlement. I urge the hon. Gentleman and his party to consider engaging with the UK Government on the Bill, as we did before the legislation passed, so that we can find a constructive way forward in the interests of the people of Scotland and the United Kingdom.
The statement made by Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, in the House of Commons on 16 January 2023.
On 13 January, the UK and Scottish Governments jointly announced that the Firth of Forth, and Inverness and Cromarty Firth have been successful in their bids to establish two new green freeports.
Green freeport status will support the creation of over 75,000 new, high-skilled jobs, drive growth and level up areas that have been previously overlooked. These areas will be backed by up to £52 million in UK Government funding, and potentially hundreds of millions in locally retained business rates, to upgrade local infrastructure and stimulate regeneration. This is alongside a generous package of trade and innovation support for businesses locating there.
Inverness and Cromarty Firth, and the Firth of Forth are excellent locations for these new green freeports, ensuring the benefits are felt right across Scotland. I wish to share my congratulations with the successful locations. Their strong bids demonstrated how they will regenerate their local communities, deliver decarbonisation, establish hubs for global trade and pioneer industries of the future.
Freeports are at the vanguard of levelling up: driving growth, creating jobs and, in turn, transforming the communities that surround them. Green freeports in Scotland will build on the UK Government’s successful freeport programme in England, where all eight freeports are open for business, with sites in Plymouth and South Devon, Solent, Teesside, Liverpool and the east of England recently being granted final Government approval. Green freeports are a tangible example of what can be achieved and delivered when Scotland’s two Governments work together.
This Government remain committed to ensuring that the whole of the UK can reap the benefits of our freeports programme. We will be making a freeports announcement relating to Wales shortly and we continue discussions with stakeholders in Northern Ireland about how best to deliver the benefits associated with freeports there.
The statement made by Alister Jack, the Secretary of State for Scotland, on 16 January 2023.
I have decided to make an order under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998, preventing the Scottish Parliament’s Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill from proceeding to Royal Assent.
After thorough and careful consideration of all the relevant advice and the policy implications, I am concerned that this legislation would have an adverse impact on the operation of Great Britain-wide equalities legislation.
Transgender people who are going through the process to change their legal sex deserve our respect, support and understanding. My decision today is about the legislation’s consequences for the operation of GB-wide equalities protections and other reserved matters.
I have not taken this decision lightly. The Bill would have a significant impact on, amongst other things, GB-wide equalities matters in Scotland, England and Wales. I have concluded, therefore, that this is the necessary and correct course of action.
If the Scottish Government chooses to bring an amended Bill back for reconsideration in the Scottish Parliament, I hope we can work together to find a constructive way forward that both respects devolution and the operation of UK Parliament legislation.
I have written today to the First Minister and the Scottish Parliament’s Presiding Officer informing them of my decision.