UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Grant Shapps – 2022 Statement Confirming Closure of Help to Grow Digital Scheme

    Grant Shapps – 2022 Statement Confirming Closure of Help to Grow Digital Scheme

    The statement made by Grant Shapps, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, in the House of Commons on 15 December 2022.

    This statement concerns the Government’s decision to close the Help to Grow: Digital programme. Help to Grow: Digital will close to new business applications for discounts on 2 February 2023. Discounts issued for eligible software must be redeemed within 30 days from issue date.

    The scheme has supported businesses to grow, but with take-up lower than expected, the Government cannot justify the continued cost of the schemes to the taxpayer. The decision has been taken to refocus efforts towards other support mechanisms for small businesses, ensuring businesses get the backing they need in the most efficient and productive way possible. The Help to Grow: Management scheme remains in place.

    The Government continue to support small businesses, such as through the Government-backed British Business Bank’s start-up loans, which are available to help aspiring entrepreneurs start and grow their businesses. The Government have taken action to protect all eligible UK businesses, including small businesses, from rising energy costs through the energy bill relief scheme.

  • Paul Scully – 2022 Speech on the Cyber-Attack on South Staffs Water

    Paul Scully – 2022 Speech on the Cyber-Attack on South Staffs Water

    The speech made by Paul Scully, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, in the House of Commons on 14 December 2022.

    I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) for securing the debate and bringing attention to an important, serious issue that has been worrying a number of his constituents as well as constituents of those hon. Members who made contributions: my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Kate Kniveton) and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). Although my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) cannot speak as he is a Government Whip, I know that he has also been active in contacting his affected constituents.

    While cyber-resilience in the water sector is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I am responding as the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has responsibility for data protection and cyber-resilience for the wider economy—I know that you were wondering, Mr Deputy Speaker, why I was here once again. The threat to the UK from cyber-attacks is on the increase as evidenced by the sharp rise in ransomware attacks that British companies have suffered in the last few years. Cyber-criminals are increasingly seeing ransomware as a profitable business. The Government are committed to addressing that issue, as evidenced by the national cyber strategy that was published in December 2021.

    As my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North highlighted, in August, South Staffordshire plc—the parent company of South Staffs Water and Cambridge Water—was hit by a cyber-attack that resulted in data extortion and ransom. The criminals also exfiltrated information from the company and attempted to extort it for their own financial gains. The National Cyber Security Centre, which is a part of GCHQ, alongside UK law enforcement and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, offered support to South Staffs Water and its incident response provider. In particular, the NCSC’s technical experts offered tactical and strategic guidance on how to effectively respond to and recover from the incident. DEFRA, which is responsible for the security and resilience of the water sector, also responded quickly and worked with South Staffs Water to understand the potential impact, provide business continuity advice and help it with notification requirements.

    It is important to note that at no time was the water supply to residents affected. This was an attack on the organisation’s corporate IT system, which resulted in the theft of some customers’ personal data. I extend my sympathies to the customers who were affected and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North again for taking up this issue with the company on their behalf. As we heard, the company has contacted the affected customers and offered them advice and support, including a free 12-month credit monitoring and fraud alert service.

    South Staffs Water made the Information Commissioner’s Office aware of the incident, and the ICO is making the necessary inquiries. Under the UK’s data protection legislation, organisations must take appropriate security measures to ensure the protection of the personal data they hold. That includes the personal and financial details of customers. If there is a breach of personal data that presents a risk to the affected individuals, organisations must notify the ICO within 72 hours of becoming aware of the breach. Breaches of the legislation are liable to enforcement action by the ICO, including fines of up to £17 million or 4% of the organisation’s global turnover for the most serious breaches.

    Firms that deliver essential services like the supply of drinking water, transport or electricity are subject to regulations to ensure that their protections are appropriate to the risk. The Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018, or NIS regulations, which the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport brought into effect, are the relevant regulations in this case. The regulations require companies, including South Staffs Water, to take steps to ensure the security, resilience and continuity of their services.

    The NIS competent authorities are responsible for ensuring that organisations adhere to the regulations. The competent authority for the water supply sector is the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and implementation is overseen by the Drinking Water Inspectorate. They responded to this incident, alongside the National Cyber Security Centre, to ensure that water remained safe and that the company was supported in its response. The NCSC worked with South Staffs Water by providing guidance on messaging, helping it to understand the potential impact and advising it on business continuity.

    Only two weeks ago, the Government announced that following a public consultation, DCMS would strengthen the NIS regulations to boost security standards and increase the reporting of serious cyber-incidents. We will ensure that more services and organisations, including outsourced IT services, come within the scope of the NIS legislation. Those changes will reduce the risk of cyber-attacks causing damage and disruption. The changes to the law will be made as soon as parliamentary time allows.

    However, legislation is not a silver bullet to address all cyber-threats. While it is important, it is only one of a broad range of activities, initiatives, programmes, and policies that are in place as part of the UK’s broader national cyber strategy, which was published in December 2021. If we are to limit the likelihood of such attacks being successful in the future, we have to raise the collective security and resilience of the whole country, and make everyone better equipped to resist and respond to those who would do us harm. The security and safety of our country is a top priority of the Government. Our national cyber strategy, backed with investment of £2.6 billion, sets out how the Government are taking action to ensure our people, businesses and essential services are secure and resilient to cyber-attacks. The National Cyber Security Centre is the Government’s technical authority on cyber-security. The NCSC is providing the expertise, advice, tools and support to ensure that government, industry and the public are secure online.

    Those in law enforcement, including the National Crime Agency and our specialist cyber-trained officers in police forces across the country, are apprehending cyber-criminals and providing advice on how businesses can protect themselves. My Department is also working to improve levels of cyber-resilience right across the wider economy. That includes ensuring we have the skilled professionals we need, supported by a growing and innovative cyber-security sector that provides the products and services to keep organisations secure. We are also working to ensure organisations are operated and governed in a way that tackles the cyber threat appropriately, for example, by training board members and including digital risks in company annual reports. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is also taking action to improve the security of the technology being used by businesses, organisations and consumers.

    Given what we have heard today, I again commend my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North for the way he engaged with the company about the correspondence, which, as I said, has to balance being simple to understand and including the complexities of the case. He was right to address that and I am glad that the company responded to his intervention. He talked about CIFAS. The fact is that that £25 subscription is an additional option. Again, I am glad that, thanks to his encouragement, the company clarified that for people who would, understandably, already be worried about loss and risk. Worrying about having to pay £25 to get support would have been an extra concern, but it is important to emphasise that that is not the case; they get all the support from the water company, but the £25 is an additional option, should they wish to take it up.

    Despite your encouragement, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will not go on long today. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to reassure Members that the Government continue to take significant action to ensure the security and resilience of our country’s essential services and the wider digital economy. However, the cyber threat continues to evolve and remains very real, despite the good progress we have made in recent years. In the past 12 months, 39% of businesses and 30% of charities suffered a cyber-breach or attack. Many of them lost money and data, as well as suffering from disruption and having to invest staff time to fix the problems. Cyber-security threats posed by criminals and nation states continue to be acute, particularly from low-sophistication cyber-crime. Ransomware attacks are also on the rise, and their use as a service is becoming more and more prevalent. For that reason, organisations across the economy must ensure they continue to manage their risks appropriately and put in place the measures needed to protect their money, data and operations.

  • Marco Longhi – 2022 Speech on the Cyber-Attack on South Staffs Water

    Marco Longhi – 2022 Speech on the Cyber-Attack on South Staffs Water

    The speech made by Marco Longhi, the Conservative MP for Dudley North, in the House of Commons on 14 December 2022.

    Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing this Adjournment debate.

    In July this year, South Staffordshire PLC, the parent company of both South Staffs Water and Cambridge Water, experienced a criminal cyber-attack. The incident involved the theft of data from its IT systems. Following the incident, it found evidence that some of its staff and customer data had been accessed. With investigations still ongoing, it has now been confirmed that at least 249,000 customers who pay by direct debit—pretty much all of my Dudley North constituents and myself included—have now seen their personal contact and banking details available on the dark web.

    The incident took place in July this year, and customers have only in recent weeks been made aware of the real scale of the damage. I did meet virtually with the South Staffs team yesterday, ahead of this evening’s debate. To their credit, they are seemingly taking the issue much more seriously than initially perceived. It is clear that no business wants to harm its customers or be the victim of a cyber-attack.

    Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)

    I, too, have constituents who have been affected by this issue. I am a South Staffs Water customer myself, although my bank account details have not been breached. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must be concerned about the amount of time that it has taken between this issue being apparently found out by South Staffordshire PLC and customers being informed? I sincerely hope that South Staffordshire is able to reassure its customers that, when it comes to data, it will continue to take this matter incredibly seriously and do all it can to rectify the matter and continue to protect both my hon. Friend’s constituents and mine.

    Marco Longhi

    My right hon. Friend is correct. In fact, one aspect of the conversation that I had with the chief executive of South Staffordshire PLC was to challenge that very point. The response was that, at the time of the cyber-attack, it was not aware of the damage that had been caused and how extensive it might have been. It has taken time for it to understand the extent of what had happened. Then it had to respond within a certain timeframe under a duty to its customers. I have to say that it does feel like a long time, and, of course, during that time we have seen what has happened to customers’ data.

    As I was saying a few moments ago, it is clear that no business wants to harm its customers or be victims of a cyber-attack, particularly those with a proven long and positive relationship with their customers, as in fact South Staffs Water does have. Not only were cyber-defences not strong enough, but I have been clear, and the company recognises, that the communications and response from the company were not as appropriate or as user-friendly as many of us would and should have expected.

    Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)

    I, too, was a victim of this situation as a Cambridge Water customer. On the communications point, it was lengthy and detailed, but for many customers I suspect it was intimidating. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be better if the company had just said, “There is a problem. You can find out more here, but don’t worry, whatever happens, we will sort it out for you”?

    Marco Longhi

    The hon. Member is right, although I would not want to oversimplify the extent of the problem. The company has acknowledged that the response was not appropriate. It has accepted the critique and a number of the suggestions I made, and on the back of that, it has committed to making some improvements. I have yet to hear what those improvements will look like, but he is correct in what he says. Given the spectrum of customers that the company serves, we also need to think about tailored responses to different people, given the predicaments some of them may be in.

    Several constituents have reached out to me with real anxieties and concerns, as have other Members. Picture this, if you will, Mr Deputy Speaker. You are an elderly resident with little or no access to IT or no IT literacy, and you have just received a six-page letter with instructions you are unable to deal with. It is a long and complicated letter—with very small font, I might add; something that even I would struggle with—with important information hidden several pages deep. You establish in the first page that your banking details and other personal details have been sold on a wholly unlawful area on the internet known as the dark web. You are told that criminals might take large sums of money from your accounts. Furthermore, upon reading the reams of prose, you find out you can only seek to protect yourself on the internet—something you might not even have access to. You may also be a vulnerable customer who perhaps receives care support in independent settings, but be wholly unprepared and unable to deal with something this complicated and even alien to the life you experience daily.

    Kate Kniveton (Burton) (Con)

    My hon. Friend has mentioned those who do not have access to internet or emails. I contacted South Staffs Water—I, too, have constituents affected by this cyber-attack—and it advised that these constituents would need to apply for paper copies of their records from three different credit reference agencies, and they would also need to verify their identity first. Does he agree that this will cause a considerable amount of work for those in these situations, particularly as they will presumably have to do this regularly to ensure they have up-to-date records?

    Marco Longhi

    My hon. Friend is right. All I can say is that the situation is clearly unacceptable, and the senior management team at the company now agree that their initial response was not adequate or appropriate. They physically have not had the time to address these concerns yet, but we should all be looking on behalf of our constituents to ensure that their response takes on board all these considerations.

    Picturing yourself again as this vulnerable customer, Mr Deputy Speaker, you are then advised that to secure your data, you should register with another organisation called CIFAS—this was one of the things mentioned in the letter—at an additional personal cost, it was suggested by the company, of £25 a year. You are asked to then release yet more personal data on to the internet. That angered me somewhat, and it was one of the first things I mentioned to the chief executive. Their immediate response was, “We have withdrawn that. We are writing again to customers, and we have removed that, as it has created confusion. We should not have done it”, and that is part of the package that the company will be coming back with in support of its customers.

    When a data breach such as this has happened, one cannot simply let it go, because it can affect credit ratings, which can in turn affect an individual’s ability to apply for credit, whether a loan, credit card, mortgage or even a mobile phone contract. It could lead to a household finding itself unable to pay for household bills, groceries, electricity or heating. Should the worst happen, a data breach could lead to an individual or family finding themselves severely impoverished through no fault of their own—that point must be emphasised.

    I know that I would panic and be extremely anxious, and I am sure that you would be as well, Mr Deputy Speaker, should you have found yourself in such a situation. As many of us in the House will know, good, easy to read and user-friendly communications are vital for keeping our constituents informed and with peace of mind. That is why, after I met South Staffs Water, it acknowledged shortcomings in its initial communications with its customers, and I am assured at this point that it is taking serious steps to mitigate the anxiety caused and ensuring that its customers are supported. I have also asked it to make special arrangements—I do not know yet what they will look like—to reach out to some of those more vulnerable customer groups that I mentioned.

    Those of us with constituents who are customers of South Staffs Water and Cambridge Water know that what is needed is better access to over-the-phone support and in-person community support—events and surgeries —to give the best support to the hardest-to-reach members of our communities and to proactively reach those who may not know how to respond to a data breach letter. We must ensure that those who may be less comfortable accessing support online, and indeed those who cannot do so, are not left out in the cold.

    I am pleased that, having met South Staffs Water, it has committed to upping its game and is taking better action to support our constituents. What are businesses doing to support our constituents by future-proofing themselves against cyber-attacks? What are the Government doing to assist businesses in that endeavour, and indeed to protect public services that could be victims of such attacks, ultimately to protect all of our constituents?

  • Kirsty Blackman – 2022 Speech on Scotland’s Future

    Kirsty Blackman – 2022 Speech on Scotland’s Future

    The speech made by Kirsty Blackman, the SNP MP for Aberdeen North, in the House of Commons on 14 December 2022.

    I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker; I was slightly distracted. I was clearly listening to everything that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), but unfortunately I missed the last few sentences.

    We are here talking about Scotland’s future, because we are stuck in a constitutional conundrum. We are in a situation that we cannot get out of, because there is no way out of it. That was proven by the Supreme Court judgment, which effectively said, “There is no current democratic way for the people of Scotland to get out of this Union, even if they want to.” Even if the people of Scotland vote for parties that support an independence referendum, as they continually do, there is no way out of the situation without the UK Government’s granting a section 30 order. There is no way out of this voluntary union of nations. We are stuck in this voluntary union whether we like it or not.

    The opposition—that is, both Labour and the Conservatives—seem to think that it is some sort of oddity—an unusual situation—when people in this place are keen to talk about constitutional reform. In some odd way, apparently, SNP Members are the only ones in this House who have any interest in constitutional reform. We have a party in this place that passed the recent Elections Act 2022, which changed the way in which people vote, and is changing the parliamentary constituencies, reducing their number. We have a party that is desperate to abolish the House of Lords—we have heard that before—and a party that previously said that it would abolish the House of Lords. These parties have spent decades tinkering with the constitution, making changes to it, and they are still doing so; they are still talking about the Bill to repeal EU law, and about Brexit and what a wonderful bonus it has been. Those are all constitutional changes.

    The only difference between our party talking about constitutional change and their parties talking about constitutional change is that we are doing so consistently, pointing in the same direction, with all of us standing up and fighting for independence for the people of Scotland. That is the constitutional change we are speaking for with one voice. The fact that we can consistently do so is very different from the warfare that is happening within Better Together about the best way forward for the constitutional future. That is why it riles them so much that we are able to come here and speak with one voice, because we on the SNP Benches act together in supporting Scotland’s right to choose.

    The reality is that, under the UK constitution, Parliament is sovereign—that is the way that it works. That has never worked for us, as colleagues have said; that has never been Scotland’s constitutional set-up. Our set-up is that the people of Scotland are sovereign. The people of Scotland are the ones who have the right to choose our form of government; the people of Scotland are the ones who should be making this decision, and we should not continue to be stymied by Westminster.

    I want to talk about ducks. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) for mentioning the duck test. He has said that there is a duck test in relation to the referendum, which is apparently the position of the Conservative Front-Bench team: if it looks like it is time for a referendum and it sounds like it is time for a referendum, it is time for a referendum. I hope Mr Deputy Speaker will not mind my saying that the Conservative party does not have a very good track record on determining whether or not something is a duck, because if it looks like a party and it sounds like a party, it is in fact a work event. If it looks like a drive to Barnard castle and it sounds like a drive breaking covid rules, it is in fact completely legitimate and perfectly normal for people to do that—[Interruption.] An eyesight test, indeed, and definitely not against covid rules.

    I have some questions for the Minister about his plan for how Scotland could choose to determine its constitutional future, and exactly what he has said about this issue. To move away slightly from the duck test, he has said that we need all of the parties and civic society in Scotland to come forward in order to have a referendum. Thinking back to the Brexit referendum, is it possible that not all of the parties supported having such a referendum? Is it possible that that dramatic constitutional change was not supported by every single party in this House? I think it is possible that that was the case—that every party in this House did not come together and support constitutional change. I assume that prior to the Scottish Parliament election in 2011, the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party did not put in its manifesto that it would support an independence referendum. It is incredibly odd for the Minister to suggest that there should be support from every party. Does he mean the Labour party, the Conservatives and the SNP? Does he mean the Labour party, the Conservatives, the SNP and the Lib Dems? Does he include Plaid, the SDLP and the DUP? Would every party across the UK need to have a referendum on Scottish independence in their manifesto in order for that referendum to happen? What does he mean by “every party”? Does he really mean it? It would be great if he could provide some answers. Does he mean every party that gets over a certain percentage of the vote? If so, what is the threshold? Would they have to have it in their manifestos or simply have to make the agreement afterwards?

    Douglas Ross

    Will the hon. Lady give way?

    Kirsty Blackman

    I am not going to give way.

    On the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Government and the decisions made by them, I was confused to hear Front-Bench Government Members talking about devolved matters, given that they have chosen to be elected to Westminster. They put themselves forward as Westminster parliamentarians when they knew that such issues were devolved. It got even more bizarre when the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) stood up. Does he realise that he is in the wrong Parliament? Does he realise that he could ask those questions in his other job?

    Douglas Ross

    Will the hon. Lady give way?

    Kirsty Blackman

    Absolutely.

    Douglas Ross

    I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way; I have been trying to intervene for some time. I want to take her back to her point about what things look like and what they are in reality. Can she tell us what it looks like when the chief executive of her party gives a personal donation of £107,000? What is that in reality?

    Kirsty Blackman

    The Conservative party talking about donations! We have seen £29 million go to somebody who took the VIP covid lane—people in that lane have private jets. The Conservative party agrees that the taxpayer can pay the bills for the former Prime Minister’s defence against allegations of having a party during covid, so I do not think it has any ground to stand on.

    There has been talk about the powers of the Scottish Parliament and how it is managing. The reality is that we do not have all the flexibility over our finances that we should have. Even the Labour party is not suggesting devolving workers’ rights, which seems most bizarre given the continued attack on workers’ rights and trade unions by the Conservatives. If we devolve those rights to Scotland, we will not be doing that to trade unions.

    The Scottish Parliament has to subsist on the fixed budget given to us, over which we have no flexibility. As my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) said earlier, it is like trying to set a table when all we have is spoons. We cannot make all the decisions we would like to make if we continually have to mitigate Tory policies and exist on whatever budget the UK Parliament decides is relevant for Scotland when it is unwilling to give fair pay deals to public sector workers.

    We are stepping up and making the change—mitigating the bedroom tax and the rape clause and doing all we can in Scotland with our second anti child poverty strategy, which is making a massive difference. We have increased the Scottish child payment and widened the eligibility massively. All those things are making a difference to the lives of people in Scotland, but we do not have full control over them. The issue is about the democratic right of the people of Scotland to choose their own future. Westminster is doing everything it can to sink this ship and go harder and harder in support of policies that make Scottish independence all the more likely. We need that route out of this Union. This is a democratic trap that we are shackled in and we cannot get out of it. The UK Government have failed to give us that route. That is why we are here today arguing for the future for our constituents.

  • Gavin Newlands – 2022 Speech on Scotland’s Future

    Gavin Newlands – 2022 Speech on Scotland’s Future

    The speech made by Gavin Newlands, the SNP MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, in the House of Commons on 14 December 2022.

    I start by saying that I envy my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman)—in fact, I am right jealous—because she gets to sum up today’s debate following the speeches from the Government and Labour Front Benches. Holy moly, talk about fantasy stuff. It is quite incredible. They would have been hilarious, were the matter not so serious, getting to the heart of democracy in this precious Union of ours.

    I have recently been rereading Ian Hamilton’s books on his mission to liberate the Stone of Destiny, and on his incredible life before and after the event that was to make him a household name across Scotland and, for a time, the Met police’s most wanted person. Ian was many things—an incredible intellect, a top-tier advocate and a political one-off—but what comes through again and again in his writing and character is his unshakeable belief in the people of Scotland. It was not about whether they should choose self-government, although he continually argued that they should, but about his absolute conviction, rooted in his very soul, that no one had the right to stand in the way of their choice if it was arrived at fairly and democratically.

    That should be a completely apolitical and unremarked upon state of affairs, and it reflects appallingly on the two major UK parties that they have turned a matter of basic democracy and decency into a constitutional bunfight. Indeed, prior to the 2014 independence referendum, the SNP and the main Unionist parties all agreed the following joint statement:

    “Power lies with the Scottish people and we believe it is for the Scottish people to decide how we are governed.”

    That is not a new concept. Many, or at least some, Conservative Members may have grown up with a poster of Maggie Thatcher on their bedroom walls. She said, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) recalled, of the Scots:

    “As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination… Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way.”

    Brendan O’Hara

    My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and I thank him for bringing up my late constituent Ian Hamilton, a wonderful man. He is talking about the change of heart from 2011 to now. Would he care to speculate as to why that change of heart has taken place? What possibly could have occurred in those intervening 10 years to make that change of heart so dramatic?

    Gavin Newlands

    I appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention, but I have to say he has got me stumped. I have no clue—no clue whatsoever. I could hazard a guess. It might be because they are feart: the Conservatives are now feart that they would lose the referendum. It is now five polls in a row that show support for Scottish independence.

    Mrs Thatcher’ successor, John Major, said of Scotland that

    “no nation could be held irrevocably in a Union against its will”.

    David Cameron said:

    “I felt, as the prime minister of the UK, I had a choice. I could either say to them”—

    “them” being Scotland—

    “‘well you can’t have your referendum, it is for us to decide whether you should have one.’”

    He went on to say:

    “So I did what I thought was the right thing, which was to say ‘you voted for a party that wants independence, you should have a referendum that is legal, that is decisive and that is fair.’”

    The former Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale said:

    “If the people of Scotland ultimately determine they want to have another independence referendum, then there will be one…Could there be another referendum? The answer to that question is yes.”

    The UK has had literally hundreds of referendums over decades. Many like to pretend that they still live in the age of Bagehot and Dicey, when this place could legislate to turn the sky pink and theoretically change the laws of physics, but the simple fact is that popular democracy is not a novelty; nor has it unleashed anarchy in the land. We have had referendums in the UK to solve internal disputes in the Labour party—in the days when Harold Wilson knew some things about heading a broad church that should be studied by the current Leader of the Opposition.

    We are still picking up the pieces of the last referendum, which many say was designed as a manifesto commitment by a Prime Minister to silence his Back-Bench awkward squad of arch-Brexiteers and hopefully to trade off in a coalition negotiation with the Lib Dems. That entirely self-created time bomb went off, as did that Prime Minister, in the entirely accurate words of Danny Dyer, “with his trotters up” while the rest of us count the cost. We even had a referendum to keep the Lib Dems happy, which—surprisingly for the Lib Dems—did not.

    Back in 2017, the current Prime Minister said:

    “It seems hard to block a”—

    second—

    “referendum but we should push the timing until after Brexit so the choice is clearer for people.”

    He also described the Union as being “there by consent” and said that it exists democratically and voluntarily. When asked many times in recent weeks, however, he has been signally unable to tell us how that is the case. How can it be democratic or voluntary when Scots continually give the SNP and our partners an electoral mandate to seek an independence referendum, only to have that denied time after time?

    Peter Grant

    We have heard a lot about mandates recently. Clearly, as my hon. Friend mentioned, in 2021, the pro-independence parties got more than 50% of the vote on the list vote, which is when people vote for a party rather than candidates. Does he recall that the party that told us that voting for it in the list vote was the only way to stop an independence referendum managed to get 23.5% of the vote on that occasion? Does he think that there is a lesson there about respecting mandates that the Conservative party perhaps should be listening to?

    Gavin Newlands

    I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. He will probably recall, as I do, that not just in that election, but in every election, whether it was for the Scottish Parliament, councils or Westminster, every single leaflet that the Scottish Conservatives put out was about saying “no” to indyref2. That was essentially their only policy in every election, whether it was relevant to that election or not, and they have been soundly defeated every time. Given that the Prime Minister could not tell us, perhaps the Minister or indeed the shadow Secretary of State can explain to us how Scotland or Wales can leave this voluntary Union. What is the route map to democracy? How can we get it?

    John Lamont

    I do not know where the hon. Member has been, but if he had cared to listen to my opening speech, he would have heard that I made clear the mechanism by which there could be a second referendum. We experienced it in 2011 when there was consensus between both Parliaments, civic Scotland and all the political parties. That consensus is not currently here.

    Gavin Newlands

    To be clear then—the Minister can intervene again if I am wrong—everything else is in place, essentially. If we look at the situation in Scotland, the votes in the last 2021 Parliament are in place, as is the role of civic Scotland. The only bit that is missing is the consensus of this Government and this Parliament. Is that correct? Perhaps he will confirm that that is the case when he sums up. You are vetoing Scotland’s right to democracy.

    Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)

    Order. I am not vetoing anything and this is not a chat, so can the hon. Gentleman please continue with his speech?

    Gavin Newlands

    To be clear, Mr Deputy Speaker, you are not vetoing anything, but this Government certainly are.

    Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)

    My hon. Friend has exposed what we already knew, which is that the Government will not tell us what the route is because there is no route. In effect, they are vetoing it because we have had our democracy. Before he became the Prime Minister, the current Prime Minister said of the First Minister of Scotland that,

    “I want to take her on and win the argument on the union because I passionately believe in it”.

    Does my hon. Friend share my view that the Prime Minister has changed his mind on that, because he knows that it is an argument that he cannot win?

    Gavin Newlands

    Well, if he started the argument, he is doing a pretty good job, given that the independence polls have been so good for Yes. However, it would appear that he has now walked away from that, because he is feart: he is feart of the voice of the people of Scotland. The Minister shakes his head. Perhaps he will now allow an independence referendum, and allow that debate. If he is so sure and the Prime Minister is so sure, let us have that debate—but I see that he is unmoved.

    We expect nothing else from Conservative Members, but those in the Labour party—a party that owes its lineage to R.B. Cunninghame Graham and the home-rulers who founded it alongside Keir Hardie—who are still, at least publicly, keen to get the Better Together band back together are setting themselves up for a very graceless fall.

    The UK has seen referendums on congestion charging, licensed premises, water authorities, council tax rises, creating directly elected mayors, abolishing directly elected mayors, English regional devolution and neighbourhood plans, as well as a referendum on whether to hold another referendum. Yet we are told that the future of Scotland—the potential self-government of a country that dates back 1,000 years, and the restoration of our relationships with our international friends and allies—is a no-go area. The smallest parish council in England can hold a vote any time it pleases, but a national Government and Parliament elected yet again on a mandate to ask the people what they think are told that now is not the time.

    This has not been true of previous referendums and the parties who have called them, but there is no internal dispute in the SNP about independence. It is what we have stood for throughout our 88 years of existence. It is what we have stood for through good times and bad, from the days when saving our deposit in a single constituency was considered a triumph to more recent times. I was there, Mr Deputy Speaker. I may have been young, but I was there. It is the parties who have used referendums to solve their own self-created intramural conflicts who now stand in the way of the democratically expressed will of the Scottish electorate and the will of our democratically elected Parliament.

    Alan Brown

    Is it not strange that the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who is vehemently opposed to Scotland having a referendum, was advocating referendums to allow fracking?

    Gavin Newlands

    I could not agree more. The double standards on the Conservative Benches are unbelievable.

    As has been already mentioned a few times by my hon. Friends and me, we have seen the polls shift quite strongly over recent weeks following the Supreme Court ruling, and, more pertinently in my view, the UK Government’s stubborn and shameful refusal to accept the democratic mandate of the Scottish Government. There have been five polls—I wrote “four” in my speech, but now it is five—with a significant lead for Yes, with utterly disastrous polling for the Conservatives in Scotland thrown in for good measure. I say this to the UK Government: change course now, so that when the inevitable happens and Scotland has its say, they have a sporting chance of making it a contest rather than being faced with the prospect of being the side that has nothing other than no to say to a country that wants to say yes.

  • Ronnie Cowan – 2022 Speech on Scotland’s Future

    Ronnie Cowan – 2022 Speech on Scotland’s Future

    The speech made by Ronnie Cowan, the SNP MP for Inverclyde, in the House of Commons on 14 December 2022.

    Mr Deputy Speaker:

    “That this House believes it should be for the Scottish people to determine the future constitutional status of Scotland; and accordingly makes provision as set out in this Order”.

    It is hard to believe that we even have to make that request. It is galling to think that my nation is expected to ask permission from another country to have control over its own constitutional status. It is frustrating, too, to witness the damage being done to individuals, families and communities in Scotland by the austerity policies of the current Conservative and Unionist UK Government. The SNP Scottish Government have mitigated the damage to the tune of billions of pounds; all that could have been spent elsewhere if this place had truly, as it claims, been compassionate when legislating. But it has not, and time and again the Scottish Government take the strain.

    As has already been pointed out, there is of course a range of topics that we could have debated today: the damage forced on Scotland by Brexit; the austerity policies forced on Scotland by this Government; the dreadful immigration policies that they continue to ramp up; the fact that in the 21st century our constituents have to decide whether to heat or eat; and so on. We know that the outcomes of each and every one of those things is determined by the actions taken by the Conservative and Unionist UK Government here at Westminster. There is no point in us continually addressing the symptoms when the cause is staring us in the face.

    We would love to debate all those issues in a Holyrood with the powers to address them. Westminster will deny us this request—we know that—and that is indicative of their fear: “Why do the SNP keep asking? It knows we won’t allow it.” They just do not get it. That is partially because some MPs who represent Scottish seats will back up the UK Government when they pronounce their intention to rule over Scotland. That servile attitude only empowers Westminster.

    I noticed yesterday that the front page of the Scottish edition of The Times newspaper had a quarter-page story with the headline “Scots back independence for fourth poll in row”, but the edition that I saw in the Tea Room had a different story in that space: ironically, it was “Last-minute talks to halt nurse strike break down”—not a story The Times could have run in Scotland as the SNP Government have successfully come to an agreement on that issue in Scotland. The lack of the independence poll result on that front page reminded me how little engagement Members here have with Scotland and Scottish issues—as can be seen today by the empty spaces on their Benches. Unless we bring it to the table, it is not on the menu. So rather than retreating to a bunker and repeating the line, “You had your referendum, and it was once in a generation,” the UK Government would do well to engage with the devolved powers in an equal and respectful manner. Share the platform with us and respect our right to ask the people of Scotland.

    The pressure is building up behind the UK Government’s dam of denial, and when the dam bursts, they do not want to be standing under it. It will wash them away and they will be replaced with an independent Scottish Government working for all of the people in our free, sovereign nation. The UK Government’s choice is not, “What is the direction of travel?” but whether they want to be part of that democratic process, or whether they still live in fear of democracy?

  • Pete Wishart – 2022 Speech on Scotland’s Future

    Pete Wishart – 2022 Speech on Scotland’s Future

    The speech made by Pete Wishart, the SNP MP for Perth and North Perthshire, in the House of Commons on 14 December 2022.

    I rise from the unfamiliar terrain of the Back Benches for the first time in 21 years. I hope you will be gentle with me, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you always are, as I get used to this new environment.

    It is only three weeks since the Supreme Court made that important ruling on whether the Scottish Parliament had the necessary powers to bring in a Bill to have a referendum on an independent Scotland. We have seen what has happened since then. There have been several responses, but, most notably, what Unionists thought was going to happen did not happen. They thought that, when this judgment was made, somehow the call for Scottish independence would be diminished and support for the Union would go up. That did not happen. If they did have that view, I am pretty sure that they are quickly disabused of that notion now. It was four opinion polls, but I have just checked, and a fifth opinion poll has come through as we have started to debate this issue today. Narrowly though it may be, that is five opinion polls showing majority support for independence.

    I have an opinion about why that is the case, and I will share it with the House: it is because the Scottish people just will not be telt. There is something about the Scottish character that just takes badly to being told they cannot do something or to feeling they do not have the necessary ability to do something they feel they have a legitimate right to do. That comes down to the Scottish character and the Scottish personality. [Interruption.] It is thrawn, as an hon. Friend says from the Front Bench. We just do not take well to being telt.

    We have been telt by the Supreme Court, which says that with the powers that have come to reside in Scotland, there is no particular legal way to have an independence referendum, and we all accept that. I think everybody has said that their lordships had the opportunity to have a look at that, and they did so fairly and came to their own conclusion, decision and judgment, but the Scottish people are not prepared to accept this UK Government telling them that there is now no legitimate means to secure an independence referendum and that our road to it has now closed. That is something that the Scottish people refuse to accept or go along with.

    The Scottish people returned a Government with the biggest vote ever secured for a party in the Scottish Parliament. They secured more independence supporting MSPs than we have ever secured in any Parliament since 1999. That is why we now have increased support for independence. It reminds me of the day during the independence referendum—I am sure my colleagues will remember this—when the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, together with all the other Unionist shadow Chancellors, got together to tell the Scottish people that they could not use the pound, which they believed they had the right to and shared with the rest of the people of the United Kingdom. Those politicians thought that that would kill the calls for independence stone dead in the independence referendum campaign.

    In fact, the exact opposite happened, because support for independence rose from something in the mid-20s to something approaching 40% as a result. It was probably the most important point in the last independence referendum, and from that point onwards, it was always going to be close as to who would win the subsequent independence referendum. This is why we are going to see such a rise in the opinion polls as we go forward. It is five in a row, as we have just said, but we are where we are.

    We are trying to find a way forward with all these issues and trying to design a way to deal with the situation in which we find ourselves. My colleagues have repeatedly asked Government Ministers from the Prime Minister downwards, “How do we now get that independence referendum, when we supposedly and notionally are in a voluntary Union?” We have not had any real answer or response to that, save for one thing: a duck. That was the response I got when I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland in the Scottish Affairs Committee, “How do we do this now?” His response was the duck test. I think what he was trying to present was that we would just know when we had got to the position where a referendum on independence would be reasonable and legitimate. Of course, he now has that fabled duck test, where if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck—Members know how the rest of that goes.

    What the Secretary of State for Scotland was saying was that if it looks like it is time for an independence referendum, and it sounds like it is time for an independence referendum, it will be time for that independence referendum. The only thing is he did not tell us how that democratic test would be met. I presented a few options to him, which were all rejected. It is now incumbent on the Government to tell us how we get there. They have conceded that there is a way to an independence referendum, albeit under the guise of our aquatic feathered friends. What they now have to do is to sit down reasonably and constructively and tell us exactly what the test will be, but it has to be a democratic test that satisfies the democratic aspirations and ambitions of the Scottish people. It has to be based on actual results in ballot boxes as we go forward.

    There is this idea that somehow, in 2011, civic Scotland and all the political parties in Scotland got together and agreed a way forward for an independence referendum, and that is right. I was here, and I remember exactly how that deal was concocted, and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) put his finger on it. The Government agreed to all this because they profoundly believed that they would win it and kill any notion or idea of Scottish independence for a generation, as we keep on hearing about in the context of these debates. They are not prepared to do that now, because they know they will lose. They are looking at the opinion polls and seeing the trends in Scottish public opinion. The reason why they are failing to engage in a process towards a second independence reference just now is that they know they start from a position that assumes we would win, they would lose and Scotland would become an independent country. There is no doubt whatsoever that if an independence referendum was held tomorrow, Scotland would vote to become an independent nation. Every shred of evidence is telling us that. It is the trend we are moving towards just now. The Scottish people will not be telt about how they will engage in democratic affairs, particularly when they voted for a Scottish Government committed and obliged to deliver an independence referendum.

    I really do hope that the Government get round the table and discuss this issue positively and constructively with the Scottish Government. We have presented today a proposal and an option to devolve the powers to the Scottish Parliament to allow it to democratically decide how this issue is taken forward. If the UK Government are not happy with the idea, which I sense they are not—they are failing to engage with this as a constructive way forward—it is now up to them to tell us and design a way forward.

    We cannot go on like this. Year after year we come back to the issue of how we decide and settle Scotland’s constitutional future. We have been doing this for nearly 30 years. We have had one referendum already that has proven to be non-conclusive. Everybody knows that and I think we all agree that somehow this has to be settled. Let us settle it, for goodness’ sake. Let us put this issue to bed. Let the people of Scotland come together to hear the arguments for and against the Union. We are looking forward to making the passionate arguments for why Scotland should be an independent nation; the Government should be looking forward to putting the case for their Union. Let us put those two competing visions together and let the Scottish people decide. Let the Scottish people on their own determine their future.

    Now is the time to constructively debate and design a way forward. It is now up to this Government. I hope they get the message that this issue is having to come to a head. We have to deal with it constructively, so let us all agree today that we will go forward and let the Scottish people decide.

  • Brendan O’Hara – 2022 Speech on Scotland’s Future

    Brendan O’Hara – 2022 Speech on Scotland’s Future

    The speech made by Brendan O’Hara, the SNP MP for Argyll and Bute, in the House of Commons on 14 December 2022.

    Today’s motion, if agreed, would allow the people of Scotland, and they alone, to determine the future constitutional status of Scotland. If the people of Scotland decide that our future should be as an independent country, and as an equal member of the European Union, that is what it should be. It is not for this place or anyone else to say otherwise.

    As much as the Unionist parties have tried to make this a debate about the merits of independence, or even the record of the Scottish Government, this debate is not about that. Do not get me wrong, I am more than happy to argue the merits or otherwise of independence, but this is not the forum for that debate. Although the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), is not in his place, I congratulate him, because his speech was far more powerfully in favour of Scottish independence than anything I could say.

    After Brexit, the worst cost of living crisis in decades, spiralling energy prices and the threat of power cuts for the first time since the 1970s, and with millions of working people relying on food banks and the Government engulfed by yet another scandal after allowing their wealthy mates to become even wealthier by plundering the public purse to the tune of billions during the pandemic, believe me that making the case for Scottish independence has never been easier, but this debate is not about Scottish independence; it is about democracy. It is about self-determination and who has the right to decide what our constitutional future will be. Is it the people who live and work in Scotland, and who call Scotland home, or does that right belong to this Parliament and a governing party that has not won an election in Scotland since 1955 but has the power to hold a referendum because that power is constitutionally reserved to this place, thereby denying the democratic will of the Scottish people?

    We have heard this afternoon that the Supreme Court confirmed the position that only this place has the power to hold a referendum, which remains by far the SNP’s preferred option for settling this constitutional logjam. Given how both the Government and the official Opposition behaved in the aftermath of that Supreme Court ruling, however, it is fair to say that it would require a road to Damascus-like change of heart. I recognise that is unlikely to happen.

    Bizarrely, it appears that the Government and the official Opposition thought that the Supreme Court ruling would somehow settle the matter—that the demand for a referendum on independence would miraculously disappear—and that they could double down on their dogged refusal to accept the mandate given to the SNP at the Holyrood election to hold that referendum. That was never going to happen, and opinion poll after opinion poll since the ruling has shown that the demand for a referendum has intensified and that support for Scottish independence has hit an all-time high.

    The Government’s position, which is enthusiastically shared by the Labour party, is completely untenable and simply cannot hold. The more they deny Scotland’s right to choose its own constitutional future and the more they say, “No, you can’t,” the more Scotland will say, “Yes, we will and, yes, we can.” Both the Government and Opposition Front Benchers would do well to heed the words of Professor Sir John Curtice of Strathclyde University, who warned the Unionists just the other day that simply saying no to a referendum does not necessarily constitute an effective strategy for maintaining support for the Union.

    Of course, it does not have to be this way. All we are asking is for this place to recognise that Scotland has a democratic right to decide its own future. If this Parliament will not allow it, the least it should do is allow our Parliament to do so. This motion simply seeks to amend the Scotland Act 1998 to give the Scottish Parliament the power to hold the referendum that the people elected their Government to deliver.

    The people of Scotland have continually backed the SNP at the ballot box, the democratically elected Scottish Government have voted for a referendum and the opinion polls show that it is the will of the people. There is a clear mandate for an independence referendum and that case is getting stronger by the day.

    If this is a voluntary Union, as we have always been told that it is, then there must be a mechanism for one or more of its member nations to decide that it no longer wants to be part of it. We have always been led to believe that the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was a voluntary Union, and that should at any point a majority of one of those constituent parts seek to become independent, the least we could expect was that the UK Government would not seek to frustrate that desire. People having the ability to amend the constitutional position of their country is a fundamental of democracy. It really does ill behove the so-called, self-styled mother of Parliaments to now stand in the way of the democratic demands of one or more of its constituent parts should they decide to take a different path.

    I believe that the leader of the Labour party was genuine last week when he said that he opposed independence because he believed in our “Union of nations”. I have to ask him: what happens when one of those nations no longer believes in that Union? Whose wish trumps whose? Does he believe that his desire to lead a United Kingdom is more important than the wishes of the Scottish people should they decide no longer to remain in that United Kingdom? When I was listening to him last week, I was reminded of an interview that he gave to the BBC last month in which he spoke about Labour’s electoral failures in recent years and how he believed that the Labour party had lost elections because the party had listened to itself and had put its political priorities above the priorities of the voters. He said that, in his opinion, Labour lost because it did not listen to the people and what they wanted. Is that not exactly what he is doing to the voters of Scotland right now? He is putting his priority, and his party’s priority, ahead of those of the Scottish people as expressed in the ballot box just last year.

    At a time when the demand for a referendum is rising, when support for independence is reaching an all-time high, and when the latest polls show that support for the Union at an all-time low of just 42%, the truth is that, whether Unionists like it or not and whether they want it or not, the people of Scotland have decided that this is their priority and that now is the time for the people of Scotland to choose their own future.

    Finally, I believe that Scotland’s future will be as an independent nation and as a full and enthusiastic member of the European Union. That process has been accelerated by Brexit—an act so reckless and so ill-conceived that history will record it as being the day that the United Kingdom effectively signed its own death warrant. With that decision, as never before, those opposed to Scottish independence are now having to explain why we should stay in the Union—a Union in which our democratically expressed wishes are routinely ignored and our economic best interests thrown to the wind. I repeat: the position of both the Government and the official Opposition is simply untenable. Hiding behind the Scotland Act 1998, and relying on the provisions contained in it to deny the democratic wishes of the people, can be seen only as an act of sheer desperation, and one that betrays a fundamental lack of confidence in the ability to hold this Union together in any other way.

  • Patrick Grady – 2022 Speech on Scotland’s Future

    Patrick Grady – 2022 Speech on Scotland’s Future

    The speech made by Patrick Grady, the Independent MP for Glasgow North, in the House of Commons on 14 December 2022.

    I echo the welcomes given to the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) and the tributes paid to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford).

    It was, interestingly enough, on 4 July 2018 that this House endorsed, without a Division, the principles of the claim of right for Scotland, acknowledging the sovereign right of the people of Scotland to determine the form of government best suited to their own needs. The Supreme Court decision about the limits of the Scottish Parliament’s power with regard to legislating on reserved matters does not change the validity of the claim of right or the reality that it expresses.

    It is a simple matter of fact that when a majority of people in Scotland are prepared to vote for independence, Scotland will become an independent country. The best way to demonstrate that majority would be through a referendum on a simple question, along the lines of the referendum held in 2014. Incidentally, the way to prove the opposite would also be through a referendum; if the Unionists are so convinced of their cause, why are they not allowing a referendum to happen and so settle the question? The reality is that they are running scared.

    Today’s motion would allow the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a referendum at a time of its choosing—any time of its choosing. That arrangement is far more in keeping with the claim of right than Scotland’s Parliament having to go cap in hand to this place whenever a majority of MSPs are returned with a mandate for a referendum. If the UK Government, backed up by their Better Together allies, continue to veto or ignore the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government, it stands to reason that a different kind of electoral test will be needed.

    The 2019 general election, three years ago this week, was an effective—we might even say a de facto—referendum on Brexit. The Conservatives sought a mandate to implement the hardest possible Brexit short of a no deal. If memory serves, the Liberal Democrats, none of whom appear to be here today, sought a mandate in that general election to completely overturn the Brexit referendum result. The SNP manifesto supported a UK-wide second EU referendum with remain on the ballot paper, while making it clear that the best option for Scotland is and always has been independence in Europe.

    Political parties are absolutely entitled to put their proposition to the voters, and the voters make up their minds. Labour, apparently, intends to stand at the next election on a platform for sweeping constitutional reform: abolition of the House of Lords and a new devolution settlement, even though Labour established the current devolution settlement through a series of referendums. The position now seems to be that a Labour Government, elected on maybe 40% or 45% of a UK-wide vote, would have a mandate to completely reform both the United Kingdom constitution and the current devolution settlement. However, an overall majority of votes for pro-independence candidates in Scotland would not constitute a mandate for anything. I am not sure how they make that add up.

    During this debate, we have heard from the Better Together parties that it is a waste of parliamentary time and that constituents want us to talk about the cost of living crisis, supporting public services and the challenges facing the economy. But as the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) laid out right at the start, the responses needed to really tackle all those issues in Scotland require the full powers of independence. It is Westminster that still holds the purse strings, embarking on yet another round of austerity, continuing with the absolute folly of Brexit, and increasingly oblivious to the climate emergency and its own commitments to emissions reductions.

    It is independence that will truly liberate Scotland’s Parliament to invest in Scotland’s people and places and to have the chance to build the fairer, greener, healthier society that we all know is possible—a society that welcomes people, wherever they have come from around the world, and seeks to build peace and justice across the globe. Those are the opportunities that inspired me to join the campaign for independence 25 years ago, and those are the opportunities that an increasing—and eventually unstoppable—majority of people in Scotland are now starting to reach for.

  • Kenny MacAskill – 2022 Speech on Scotland’s Future

    Kenny MacAskill – 2022 Speech on Scotland’s Future

    The speech made by Kenny MacAskill, the Alba MP for East Lothian, in the House of Commons on 14 December 2022.

    I will happily support the motion. All efforts to ensure Scottish sovereignty and Scotland’s independence deserve to be backed, but I fear that the likelihood of seeking salvation through Westminster’s procedures is as likely to be as forlorn as the debacle in the United Kingdom Supreme Court. The reference there, especially without even the authority of a Bill having been supported by the Scottish Parliament, was supreme folly, compounded by the advocacy of a Lord Advocate who had all the passion and appetite for it of someone eating a bowl of cold sick.

    John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)

    Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that since the supreme folly—as he describes it—of going to the Supreme Court, the polls have rocketed in the direction of pro-independence support across Scotland? If that is failure, I do not know what success looks like.

    Kenny MacAskill

    I very much welcome the increase in the polls, as I will come to, but we have to find a route and a method to get there. So far, the courts have ruled that out, and indeed, it looks like the political options—certainly in this place—are limited.

    The overreach in the dictum in the Supreme Court judgment that Scotland was neither a colony nor had resorted to violence was both absurd and perverse, which is why a route for Scottish independence needs set out, but that route must neither be subject to a UK court nor be beholden to a UK Parliament. Legally, historically and politically, the people of Scotland are sovereign, not a UK court or a UK Parliament. That has been part of our constitutional history, as other Members have mentioned: it was set out to me as a law student by Lord Justice Cooper’s judgment, which was passed on. It was the accepted wisdom—politically, it was the accepted position of even Unionist opponents of independence—that the Scottish people could achieve independence if they voted for it, but that is being denied.

    So what is to be done when—not if—this procedural wheeze fails to deliver independence, as the procedural wheeze of referring the matter to the UK Supreme Court failed to deliver the referendum? It is about taking back sovereignty to the Scottish people. On Saturday, as well as attending a political meeting in the afternoon, I went to a concert of the Proclaimers in Edinburgh on the Saturday night. The crowd fair enjoyed the song “Cap in Hand”:

    “We fight, when they ask us

    We boast, then we cower

    We beg for a piece of what’s already ours”.

    As support for independence rises, as the thermometers and temperatures plummet, and as energy costs soar in energy-rich Scotland and people go hungry and go cold, that absurdity must end. Now is the time Mr Nicolson might wish to be aware of: no more cap in hand, so what is to be done?

    First of all, we can endorse our historical claim of right. As Canon Kenyon Wright said—I paraphrase —“Some may say no, but we are the people, and we say yes.” I hope SNP Members will sign my colleague Neale Hanvey’s St Andrew’s day declaration, early-day motion 633.

    Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)

    Order. I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that there should be no mention of Members’ Christian names or surnames. Please refer to them by their constituencies.

    Kenny MacAskill

    My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker.

    The independence convention requires to be supported. It is necessary to bring together the democratically elected representatives of Scotland, our MPs and MSPs, for two reasons: first, as a rebuttal—it is not the UK Supreme Court that is sovereign, but the democratically elected representatives of the people of Scotland—and secondly, to drive home the point when this motion fails and is defeated tonight that it is not this Parliament, but the elected representatives of the people of Scotland who are the democratically elected voice of the people of Scotland. I hope Members on the SNP Benches will support the call for an independence convention; after all, it was a call made and supported by the First Minister in February 2020. We are now approaching three years on, and it is time that convention was delivered.

    Thirdly, we should support the call for a plebiscite election, one that could be triggered next October and deliver us our referendum—the no ifs, no buts referendum that we were promised by Members on the SNP Benches. That can be achieved by collapsing the Scottish Parliament; a member of the SNP has already set out a way there. That could be done, and could deliver the referendum that the people of Scotland were promised would happen in October of next year by the First Minister and others. That must be done.

    Finally, support must be given to all demonstrations, all international legal actions, and all peaceful and democratic actions to drive forward the position that the people of Scotland are not prepared to accept diktats supinely, either from a UK Supreme Court or from a Tory Government unelected by the people of Scotland since 1955. The need is great; the time is now. I will support the motion, but this question needs to be answered by SNP Members when they are defeated: when will they actually stand up and take powers back for the people of Scotland, and ensure that it is Scottish sovereignty and Scottish democracy that rules, not the diktat of a Tory Government further impoverishing the people of Scotland?