UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Greg Hands – 2022 Speech at the Chatham House Global Trade Conference

    Greg Hands – 2022 Speech at the Chatham House Global Trade Conference

    The speech made by Greg Hands, the Secretary of State for International Trade, on 3 November 2022.

    Thank you Alan, many thanks for that kind introduction.

    I’d like to thank Chatham House for inviting me here to discuss the future of global trade and the pivotal role the United Kingdom can play in helping to shape it.

    Great to see our former Permanent Secretary John Alty in the audience.

    I was here at the inception of the Department in the summer of 2016, and returned again in the lead up to the Trade Cooperation Agreement and leaving the end of the transition period 2020-21, and returned again as I see you today.

    Actually the last time I was here, I did so in my former role as energy minister. And one has certainly needed energy to keep up with events in Westminster over recent weeks, as you may have noticed!

    Last time I was here, there was actually a demo about energy – just sometimes thinking that the world of trade is sometimes more erudite than you might get in the world of energy.

    But what has remained unwavering throughout is this government’s fierce commitment to free trade and open markets as the key to unlocking the UK’s economic potential and kickstarting growth.

    And this is a cause I have championed during my three stints as Minister of State for Trade, during which I have witnessed the transformative power of global commerce at first hand.

    This is a commitment to trade that our new Prime Minister shares. I’ve had quite a few discussions with him over the summer recently about trade and so it’s a cause that I know is close to Rishi Sunak’s heart, as it is to mine.

    Because trade is the most powerful force for human progress we have at our disposal.

    A force that has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty since the turn of the century.

    And that will drive the engine of global growth over the next decade too.

    Delivering enormous benefits for the United Kingdom and the global community alike, creating new jobs, fostering innovation and delivering prosperity worldwide.

    But trade as we know, is a truly global endeavour.

    And to deliver the greatest benefits it must be free and fair for all.

    That is why we are working with our global partners in Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas to put in place the building blocks of this freer, fairer future.

    Calling out nations that don’t play by the rules and helping to build a global free trading coalition with Britain at its heart.

    I mentioned my recent return to the department, so if I had to outline my three immediate priorities I’ve identified in my work in trade policy (it’s not the whole of the department, we also have ministers for exports, investment and so on).

    But my three main priorities:

    The first is making sure the UK joins the CPTPP trading area as soon as possible. The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. 11 countries around the Pacific Rim, four continents, 5 million people, a GDP of around 9tn pound sterling.

    It’s a perfect deal, a great match for the UK. With really modern rules of origin, digital trade. I was interested to see a really good session earlier on digital trade. And it will help to set new rules and standards for trade across the world, encompassing many of the world’s great progressive nations, Japan, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore. These are the countries that in my view are leading the debate on trade policy, and it’s a free trade area without a political union. It is in many ways everything that the UK has always wanted to join in my opinion.

    The second area is India, just the size and the prospect of India alone as a market is too impossible to ignore. And I think the UK’s traditional links and connections there are incredible, it’s not just the trade relationship but the investment we have with India, means that it’s an immediate priority for us to potentially be the first G7 country to do a trade deal with India.

    And the third area is to focus on the nitty gritty of trade work, the trade barriers, making sure we are focusing on removing trade barriers around the world, I’m talking anything from lot codes on Scotch whisky bottles to Taiwan through to German labour market rules, discriminatory Spanish customs practices – a whole host of different issues out there that prevent UK goods and services being sold and prevent them coming the other way.

    So those are my three priorities. And I’m going to return to each of those three throughout the course of this speech.

    So, first and foremost, we must work with our international partners to navigate a path through the economic storm unleashed by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine…

    … which has of course sent shockwaves through the world’s financial system, unleashing rising prices for energy and commodities…

    …Bringing about let’s be frank about it scenes of destruction – and I studied history as an undergraduate at university, and my main focus was 20th century Central and Eastern European history, and that is a period of an enormous amount of human and material destruction. And I think the sort of scenes that we’ve seen throughout the course of this year have been all too reminiscent of the first half of the 20th century. Something which is happening here in the first half of 21st century.

    But Britain is helping lead the West’s response to this crisis by supplying military assistance to Ukraine.

    And we are using the power of trade to support Ukraine in its struggle for freedom economically too.

    By removing tariffs on all goods from that nation under the UK-Ukraine Free Trade agreement.

    And providing other economic support – including £1bn in loan guarantees.

    While working with our allies around the world to impose unprecedented trade sanctions on Russia.

    But we know that our work is far from done.

    The invasion has revealed the fragility of global peace and security. And there was a fascinating session you’ve just had on supply chains which after pandemic has revealed lots of global vulnerabilities which many of us thought or suspected were there but have been brought into sharp focus this year.

    A line has been drawn in the sand between liberty and tyranny.

    And as we look to the future we must ask ourselves what kind of country we wish to be.

    A nation that looks outwards to the world? An open, interconnected, truly global Britain that builds new bridges of trade and investment?

    Or a country that battens down the hatches and hides behind protectionist trade barriers?

    And we must decide what kind of world we wish to build.

    A world in which liberty, democracy and security are the norm – and in which free, fair, rules-based trade can come to the fore.

    I’m very much in that camp and this government is as well.

    Or a world in which authoritarianism, protectionism and corruption hold sway?

    It is clear to this government which path the United Kingdom must take.

    We must work with our democratic allies to help shape the international order of the future. With free trade forged at its heart.

    Britain and our allies must push hard for reform of the World Trade Organisation for example so that the rules underpinning global trade are fit for purpose.

    Strengthening the dispute resolution mechanism and holding states that break the rules to account.

    Standing with our partners to confront shared challenges.

    As we did earlier this year at the 12th Ministerial WTO Conference in Geneva – our first as a renewed independent member of the WTO…

    …Where we signed a joint declaration on trade’s key role in underpinning global food security.

    Strengthening our multilateral partnerships will be more important now than ever before as the global economic axis shifts eastwards.

    China’s increasing international assertiveness and the growing importance of the Indo-Pacific will be among the most significant geopolitical and geo-economic shifts this decade.

    And our response will help define our relationship with the world that emerges in the decades ahead.

    The UK’s future prosperity is dependent on deepening our economic relationships with countries in the Indo-pacific region in particular.

    Which is why we are concentrating on building new bonds of trade and investment with nations across this region.

    Opening up fresh opportunities for British business in the cutting-edge industries that are shaping the world of tomorrow.

    Crucial to that is the UK’s accession to CPTPP – and another of my highest priorities is agreeing a deal with India which promises to be a game-changer for Britain’s economic ties with the world’s largest democracy and fifth largest economy.

    India is set to become the world’s third largest economy by 2030, and we are committed to building upon the living bridge of people, businesses and culture that bind our nations together.

    A shared commitment with India that Prime Minister Modi underlined when he welcomed the appointment of Rishi Sunak as our new Prime Minister.

    And our governments are making good progress in negotiating an ambitious FTA which could boost trade between us by as much as £28 billion.

    Setting British and Indian businesses free to trade and invest in each other’s markets.

    An FTA with India is a key plank of our work to position the United Kingdom at the centre of a network of free trade agreements across the globe.

    We have signed deals with 71 countries plus the EU so far, accounting for over £800bn-worth of trade last year.

    Including far reaching and innovative agreements with countries such as Japan, Australia and New Zealand that go further in cutting edge sectors such as digital and data.

    And we are working alongside our biggest single bilateral trade partner and closest ally the United States at both federal and state level to remove barriers to business… again with a very strong focus on services and digital trade.

    …Strengthening a trade and investment relationship worth more than £230bn.

    Beyond these deals we are making it easier for British firms to sell their goods and services overseas in other ways… my third priority

    …by tackling often complex trade rules and practical obstacles that block their path to growth

    Over the past two years, my department has removed over 400 such barriers to business – we have a database of trade barriers that we are seeking to remove… opening the door to global markets for British exports of all kinds.

    Successes so far include:

    Opening the way for first shipment of Welsh lamb exported to the US in more than 20 years…

    second…Tackling banking restrictions for British firms in Colombia, worth an estimated £55 million over 5 years…

    …And lifting restrictions that enable British apples, pears, quince to be exported to India for the first time.

    A broad cross section of goods and services.

    And we are going further and faster by using intelligence gathered from industry to target a “most wanted” list of obstacles standing in the way of British exporters.

    Unlocking a potential £20 billion-worth of new opportunities for our economy.

    And as we look ahead at the opportunities emerging worldwide, we are determined to strengthen our ties in our own neighbourhood too.

    Building on our trade and investment relationships with our allies across Europe – which still accounts for around half [around – 45%] of our total global trade.

    These are relationships that I am leading the way in strengthening in my role at DIT – as I travel across the continent to meet with politicians and businesses to help smooth the path for British trade and investment.

    Inevitably Britain leaving the European Union has changed that relationship, we are outside the single market, outside the customs union. But we have the most comprehensive Free Tree Agreement between the UK and EU, so we need to continue to make sure it works well for British businesses and British exporters.

    Whether by addressing French customs procedures, Spanish labour laws or German business regulations. Flavour of the work we’re doing there.

    And this government is committed to using the power of trade to support global development too.

    Helping open the door to trade-led growth for nations across the developing world.

    This isn’t just right morally, it makes sense economically too.

    Because trade not aid is the path to long-term prosperity.

    And, if demography is destiny, then the future of the global economy surely lies in the developing world.

    Where the youngest, most dynamic and most rapidly diversifying economies are emerging.

    With developing nations offering the greatest trade potential on the planet.

    By the middle of this century alone, Africa is set to account for one in four of the world’s consumers.

    Which is why the UK has made tearing down barriers to business with developing nations central to our global trade policy.

    We’ve agreed Economic Partnerships with 33 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries so far, covering more than £20 billion-worth of trade.

    And we have removed almost all tariffs on goods from 65 nations through our Developing Countries Trading Scheme. Building on the situation we inherited from the EU but making sure we greened our tariff, lowered our tariff, simplified our tariffs to really benefit developing world.

    While using our position as a global finance hub to provide the investment developing nations need to build their critical infrastructure.

    We are making progress towards our goal of building a freer, fairer future for global trade with UK right at the centre of it as one of the most progressive trade policy countries in the world.

    A future that will develop for the UK but also for our friends and allies around the world.

    But we know there are many hard miles yet to travel on this journey – the department is six and a half years into its existence – and we’ve achieved an enormous amount in that time but there’s still a huge amount for us to do.

    The big decisions on trade we take today will help define the world of tomorrow.

    And we must have the courage to stand by our conviction that free trade and open markets hold the key to prosperity.

    So that millions more people worldwide can be set free to realise their economic potential.

    And embrace the bright future that lies ahead. That is the UK ambition, both for our own trade policy and for that globally.

  • Amanda Spielman – 2022 Speech at the National Children and Adult Services Conference

    Amanda Spielman – 2022 Speech at the National Children and Adult Services Conference

    The speech made by Amanda Spielman, the Chief Inspector of Ofsted, in Manchester on 3 November 2022.

    Good morning, it’s great to be with you here in Manchester and to be talking to people from across the sector on my visits to children’s homes, local authorities and schools.

    What is clear from those conversations, and from everything we have seen through the year, is that this is still a challenging time for education and social care.

    So, I also want to take the time to say thank you and your teams for the hard work you do, whether in education, social care or wider children’s and adults’ services.

    There are more than a few pinch points in our sectors including workforce shortages, capacity pressures, and places for children with the most complex needs. There are also the big external factors such as an increase in asylum seeking unaccompanied children and your work supporting Ukrainian and other refugee families.

    But despite this, we do know that you are un-deterred in your ambitions for children.

    And I want to reassure you that we are too.

    Our strategy

    So, what are we at Ofsted doing?

    Like you, we have continued with our work while adjusting to big changes in context. But we have also been looking to the future. We recently published a new five-year strategy taking us to 2027. This is a strategy that reflects on the last 5 years, especially the pressures the pandemic put on our sectors, but it does also look forward to recovery and beyond.

    The strategy has been designed to understand and meet the challenges I mentioned. It will also support your sectors while maintaining our distinct role and perspective.

    We have set ourselves 8 strategic priorities and I want to talk about 5 of them:

    • ‘inspections that raise standards’
    • delivering ‘right touch regulation’
    • ‘keeping children safe’
    • ‘keeping pace with sector changes’
    • and making sure children get ‘the best start in life’

    The best start in life

    I am sure that these will resonate with you, and I will talk through each of them, but I want to begin with ‘the best start in life.’

    Children only get one childhood. Each of us has a role in making sure we are getting it right from the start. We make no apology for prioritising the early years.

    Over the last year we have published reports highlighting the serious impact the pandemic has had on some of the youngest children. We, like you, have been very concerned about the harm to them.

    There are clear concerns about the impact on children’s social and wider development. Many have gaps in communication and language skills and are behind where they should be in personal, social, emotional, and physical development.

    There is also a challenging backdrop as the early years sector adapts to the post-pandemic landscape. Parents are struggling to find childcare that is flexible to their needs and at a price they can afford. Alongside this, many workers are leaving the sector and those who stay are often struggling on low wages, exacerbated by significant rises in the cost of living. Making childcare affordable, while attracting well trained and motivated staff is incredibly difficult. We are very aware of this.

    In the past, there has been a well-intentioned policy aim to treat childminders and nurseries alike. But part of what we are trying to do is to respect their different natures while maintaining high standards, wherever care is happening.

    A young child’s development and learning, wherever they are, is crucial. It is why Ofsted is emphasising the importance of early years curriculum; what children are learning.

    We are also going to extend specialist training for our early years inspectors; and we are continuing our early years research programme allowing us to share our insights quickly.

    Inspections that raise standards

    Which brings me on to our next strategic priority – ‘inspections that raise standards.’

    Coming out of the pandemic, schools and nurseries told us they wanted stability and continuity, including in the inspection model. That is why we are allowing the Education Inspection Framework (EIF) to embed properly rather than change it to focus on pandemic recovery.

    However, we have clarified how the EIF works for childminders. We updated the early years inspection handbook in September to include specific guidance for childminder inspections. It includes information on the practical process, how our inspectors gather and evaluate evidence, and how they come to a judgement.

    Inspection judgements are important because they inform parents, commissioners, and government about the standards being achieved. Our reports highlight good practice and areas for improvement.

    The inspection process itself is designed around professional dialogue. Good leaders are the main drivers of improvement in their services. Professional dialogue helps them to improve and us to recognise and report good practice.

    Joint Targeted Area Inspections (JTAIs)

    We also want our inspections to encourage cross-sector working.

    We have recently published our new guidance for Joint Targeted Area Inspections (JTAIs). We will look at how children’s social care, education, health, and the police, work together to reduce risks and harm to children and to give early help.

    We know that getting the right help at the right time can prevent longer-term intervention. All these agencies must contribute to this.

    Our JTAIs will also look at how early help works and how children move between the categories of early help and children in need.

    We hope that this work will make sure everyone in local areas thinks about their role in early support for families. We also expect that it will help the government as it considers children’s social care reform.

    Right touch regulation

    We know that our ‘right touch regulation’ strategic priority is so important to the sector right now.

    Proportionate and risk-based regulation is critical to ensuring good outcomes for children.

    The principles of good regulation are straightforward: * proportionality * accountability * consistency * transparency * and targeting

    There have been several recent reviews and reports with recommendations for Ofsted and for the sectors we work with. We welcome these contributions and the ongoing discussions that they bring. We’ll continue to support improvement based on the recommendations we and you have been making for a number of years to deliver the best possible outcomes for children.

    Where there are lessons for Ofsted to learn, we will take that on board. We constantly strive to improve and change where we can see it will help.

    We will continue to use our regulatory powers with careful thought and only where we have serious concerns. But, when we find care that is simply not good enough, it is right that we continue to act.

    We know this can contribute to pressures on supply, but we cannot and will not accept sub-standard care for children. We know that there is increased demand, but the solution to that is not lower standards. It is increased supply.

    But we are making changes that we believe will help you.

    I want to give you 3 examples of where we are doing this.

    Multi-building registration

    The first is multi-building registration.

    We recognised a need for more flexible and responsive provision for children, and an increasing demand for solo and specialised placements. Late last year we introduced the multi-building registration of children’s homes.

    It means that a provider can now apply to register a single home where the care and accommodation is provided in more than one building. This reflects the changing ways in which services for children are being delivered and should help increase system capacity. We know some providers are already benefitting from this.

    But I am worried about the growth in single child homes. They can isolate children, be very expensive, and create additional safeguarding risks. They can be right for some children but is not a trend we should uncritically welcome.

    Streamlining the application process

    The second example is our streamlining the application process for childcare to make it simpler and quicker.

    We are simplifying our GP health checks and making sure we have all the evidence we need to make informed decisions. We are also working on changes to the registration process to do more parts in parallel and get to registration visits sooner.

    All of this will help childminders and nurseries get registered more quickly.

    Inspecting local authority children’s services (ILACS)

    The third example I want to give is the work we’re doing to recognise the experiences of care leavers. We want to capture a child’s entire journey through the care system, and especially their experiences when they leave it. From January, our ILACS inspections will include a new judgement on the experiences and progress of care leavers.

    We’ve consulted you and the wider sector and received very strong support for this new judgement. We will be publishing the updated framework in December. The criteria will reflect the areas that you and young people who have lived in care think make the most difference to young people’s lives.

    We will look at young people’s relationships and participation; their health, both physical and mental; their learning and employment; and the local offer and support for care leavers as they transition to adulthood.

    Area SEND framework

    As part of our better regulation priority, I would also like to talk to you about the work we are doing on the new area SEND framework. Thanks to everyone who responded to the consultation on the framework.

    This work is a priority for me. I have long had concerns about the significant weaknesses in the system, backed up by the evidence from our inspections and research on the pandemic’s impact.

    I welcomed the government’s vision to reform the system set out in the green paper. But I have always been clear that it would not be right to wait until reforms are made to introduce a new inspection framework. Our aim is to promote improvement in the existing system, while helping areas prepare for further reforms.

    Our proposed changes include strengthening the accountability of local area partnerships by having more clarity about who recommendations are aimed at. Critically, we want to put the experiences and outcomes for children with SEND at the centre of our inspections.

    Keeping pace with sector changes

    As well as making changes at Ofsted, we want to continue to recognise changes and innovations in the sector.

    I do understand that you can sometimes feel blamed when things don’t work out, and that can hinder innovation.

    We understand that you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs. It’s important to try new things to improve outcomes for children. But you should also make sure that when things don’t work, you learn from them and improve.

    So, we know the sector is changing and it is important not to overburden the system. As changes and reforms become clear, we will continue to be an intelligent regulator.

    In my conversations with Ministers, they have always been clear about the importance of changing things carefully and managing change well, while maintaining high ambitions. I couldn’t agree more, and I hope that this spirit will continue.

    Ofsted will do what it can to bring systems together, recognising a world where not everything is achievable.

    We are making sure that we are working with other inspectorates and regulators to hold the right organisations to account. It’s a complicated regulatory landscape and we are not the only people who inspect you.

    That’s why we have been working closely with CQC and HMI Probation so that we don’t all inspect at once. We want to give you the space to do what you do well and avoid simultaneous inspections that stretch your resources. This is good for everyone, including your staff, and lets us get to a better reflection of quality.

    Keeping children safe

    This brings me to the last strategic priority I want to talk about today – ‘keeping children safe.’

    It is vital through their whole journey – from childhood to adulthood. And there are aspects of safeguarding that have often gone under the radar but are getting more attention.

    Supported accommodation

    Supported accommodation is currently in the spotlight. We start registering these providers in April. Some of you are already planning and working to be ready for that, and we encourage all of you to do so.

    We recognise that supported accommodation is hugely varied – quite rightly, as it should reflect the diverse and changing needs of individual young people.

    So, we won’t have a one-size-fits-all, overly prescriptive approach.

    Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children

    We’re also seeing more asylum seekers, and particularly unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Children who arrive at our shores have often travelled for months and may have endured hardships and harm along the way.

    These children need care and compassion, but we also have to be practical and plan for the increased pressures and extra demands.

    Unfortunately, many children are getting stuck in unsuitable accommodation such as hotels.

    Once in England, children should transfer to the care of a local authority and become a ‘child in care.’ This should happen swiftly. But we know that growing numbers, pressures on foster care, and the failings of some authorities to take ‘their share’ has led to unacceptable delays.

    We take this very seriously. We have already helped the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration on their inspections of hotels housing these children. Their recent report highlighted safeguarding concerns, very limited education, and unclear or poor oversight.

    The Home Office’s reply committed them to eliminating the use of such accommodation as quickly as possible. You all have a part to play in achieving that.

    It is also vital that asylum seekers are in places which are appropriate for their age. Adults being in spaces for children raise obvious safeguarding concerns. We are also very concerned about increasing numbers of children being found in hotels, mistakenly identified as adults. We have raised this with the DfE (Department for Education) and have seen swift action from local authorities. But we are concerned that vulnerable children could be lost from sight and at risk of future exploitation.

    We know that many of you are working hard to develop local provision for these very vulnerable children and accommodating the increased quotas. When we inspect, we will recognise those making good efforts as well as where progress is too slow.

    Conclusion

    I know we all face an extremely challenging landscape. I want to finish by saying that the solutions to the challenges we face do not lie in the gift of any one of us. We must all continue to work on the areas where we can make a difference to improve the outcomes for all children.

    Thank you for all the work you are doing in this area and will continue to do.

  • Deidre Brock – 2022 Speech on Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy

    Deidre Brock – 2022 Speech on Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy

    The speech made by Deidre Brock, the SNP MP for Edinburgh North and Leith, in the House of Commons on 2 November 2022.

    We spend a lot of time in this place talking about the many faults of Westminster Governments and the constitutional arrangements that we and so many of our constituents object to. Indeed, I will be touching on some of those later, but I want to start by talking about the possibilities, the opportunities, that we can explore in an independent Scotland. It is the possibilities suggested by a fully independent Scotland that I find so exciting. It is not something to be viewed with dread but something to be welcomed as a new start, away from the crumbling ultra-conservative ways of this place. Imagine our small nation not being strapped to the disintegrating dreams of an imperial past, but as a country making its own way in the world, deciding what best suits the needs of its people and being able to act on that, looking outwards to the international community and playing its part in world affairs.

    Today, for example, the Scottish Government published their findings from interviews on establishing a feminist approach to foreign policy. This approach to international affairs not only seeks to improve women’s material positions around the world but embraces a reorientation of foreign policy based on cosmopolitan ideals of justice, peace and pragmatic security. With reserved matters returned to us and the powers of a normal, independent country at our disposal, we would be able to fully pursue innovative ideas and build on our reputation as a trusted and valued global citizen. We would no longer be held back by the dead hand of this place clamping down on change, or held back by successive Governments we have not voted for. We would be free from being at the mercy of Westminster Government decisions so often made against our best interests by a Government full of Ministers who just do not get Scotland, its needs or its people. We would be freed from investments made without our say-so on obscenities such as Trident, successive disastrous Ministry of Defence decisions on weapons that waste billions of pounds, and nuclear power with its toxic legacy. We could shift to life-affirming investments in our people, our renewables potential, our health and education systems, our social security, our infrastructure, our research and development, and so much more.

    The country I grew up in has flourished since it threw off, for the most part, the influences of mother Britain, although there is still unfinished business, and it has not looked back. If we asked Australians whether they want to creep back to the comfort of the UK’s arms, they would laugh at us, because nothing beats being free to make their own decisions for themselves, to suit their own needs. That is as true for countries as it is for individuals, and it goes for the many countries that have extracted themselves from Westminster’s grip. I do not recall any of them being incapable of deciding what currency to use, to the point that it stopped them wanting independence.

    Hannah Bardell

    My hon. Friend might have answered this question, but is she aware of any nation that has become independent from the UK and then gone back?

    Deidre Brock

    No, and many of the arguments around this are completely fatuous.

    The Tories seem to have forgotten the promises made during the last independence referendum to greatly strengthen devolution and Scotland’s powers, but many of us in Scotland have not forgotten. Those promises were as hollow as the promises made to the fishing communities before the EU referendum. We, like them, have been badly let down.

    I understand some of the fears we have heard expressed today by hon. Members from other parties about Scotland leaving the Union and regaining its independence. Surely they would welcome the example of a good neighbour to raise all our standards. We could set an example to the world in how we do such things. Should we not all be aiming to move away from the bad example of failed states and their disempowered Parliaments? There must be no more centralising of power in the hands of a very few Government Ministers without parliamentary say-so, and without the say-so of the people of Scotland.

    I have spoken before of the bizarre hankering for uniformity across these islands, which is seemingly at odds with traditional Tory thinking. I thought that lot were all for rugged individualism, but I guess this centralising instinct is the kind of thinking we might expect from a team who crushed dissent, removed or sidelined what was left of their talent and somehow still gaslighted the public into thinking the ship of Government sails on serenely.

    The United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, for example, was pushed through this place with indecent haste and has sunk its claws into devolved responsibilities, despite objections from the devolved Parliaments. The Act made it clear that this Government seek to bring down Scotland’s standards rather than improving England’s standards. That poverty of ambition should haunt England for decades, but it must not be allowed to hold back the rest of us.

    Under the myth of removing barriers to trade, the UKIM Act ignored those objections and sought to force Scotland and, of course, Wales into a lockstep Union of diminishing standards and lessening protections, with a Government determined to rip away what they call red tape and the rest of us call sensible precautions. That is not respectful co-decision making. [Interruption.] It is interesting to hear the Minister getting a bit irate about these points.

    Despite all the many ministerial assurances otherwise, the UKIM Act was not introduced with the intention of aiming for higher standards. I have been told time and again in this place that legislation that appears completely disadvantageous to Scotland’s interests is not, in fact, disadvantageous and that we should simply trust in Ministers’ good intentions, and I was right not to believe it.

    After Brexit removed us from the protections offered by the EU, this Government began chipping away at even the limited powers of devolution. The UKIM Act, among many others, changed our constitutional arrangements without asking the people for their approval in a referendum, although they withheld their approval in the most recent Scottish parliamentary elections when, once again, the Tories lost.

    Surely higher standards, not lower standards, should be the goal. An independent Scotland could take back control of that, in consultation with our sister countries upon our return to the EU. We could go back to respecting higher standards, and protecting consumers, the environment, brand reputations, our farming and fishing communities, the business and investment sectors, our exporters and jobs.

    Following on from my question in Prime Minister’s questions today, another area that we would be able to look at once independent is the influence of organisations with opaque funding sources that have wormed their way into our politics. We have seen the recent spectacular crash of libertarian, ultra-right-wing ideas espoused by some of those organisations to gullible politicians just a few weeks ago. For a long time, UK politics has been dominated by a variety of so-called think-tanks, which are set up as a front, opaquely funded and which refuse to declare their financial sources. It is suspected that much of their funding could come from individuals and organisations based overseas, but it is very difficult to prove. Some may have been involved in the Cambridge Analytica scandal which may have contributed to the success of the Vote Leave campaign in the EU referendum. These are the kind of shadowy organisations we would have the powers to take action against in an independent Scotland—not to stop their voices, as the principle of free speech is something I would like to think we can all agree on in this place, but to make clear to the public the funding sources and possible vested interests at play, so that the Scottish public are fully informed and not played for fools.

    To ensure that, of course, we would need a genuinely independent body to regulate elections. In February, the Electoral Commission took the highly unusual step of writing a public letter to the Tory Government to say that the provisions in the Elections Bill were

    “inconsistent with the role that an independent electoral commission plays in a healthy democracy.”

    The Elections Bill, we might recall, sailed through this place regardless. That is extremely worrying and it is contrary to international norms, and I think we would do much better.

    We could take a much larger role in addressing the climate crisis and in fully exploiting our renewables potential. Clearly the existential threat of the climate emergency lies low on the new Prime Minister’s list of priorities. Even now, in the year the UK hands over the COP presidency, he demotes both the Climate Minister and the COP26 President from the Cabinet. In the meantime, new oil and gas licences are being issued, even as the Government must now come up with a new net zero strategy by March, after the High Court ruled that their previous plan was unlawful. The equivalent of almost 100% of Scotland’s gross electricity consumption is now generated from renewable sources, yet we remain locked in an energy market in which the price of electricity is tied to the price of gas.

    Our contribution to the international fight against climate change gives a further glimpse of what might be possible with independence. That is true in terms of not just our action to cut emissions at home, but our proactive role in convening efforts on the world stage. Many of the worst consequences of the climate crisis are being felt in some of the poorest regions of the world, by people least responsible for its causes. So it is very pleasing that young people and women from countries in the global south are being given the opportunity to attend COP27 in Egypt as part of Scottish Government-funded programmes. Scotland was among the first nations to put fairness and justice at the heart of our international climate action. The Scottish Government have trebled the climate justice fund, to £36 million, which includes a financial commitment of £2 million to address loss and damage—we are the first country in the world to do so. That will help to meet the costs that would otherwise be borne by island nations and low-lying developing states. The SNP Scottish Government have also led an international coalition resulting in the Edinburgh declaration, urging increased action to tackle biodiversity loss. It now has 244 signatories from Governments, cities and local authorities representing every continent.

    That ambition, innovation and pursuit of justice, which have characterised Scotland’s climate policy and international engagement, show us the potential and hope offered by independence. Hope—that is what this place finds so hard to crush in all of us who have that dream of a better Scotland. All we lack now is the final crucial faith in ourselves and our abilities to get there. I so look forward to shaking the dust of this place off our shoes and embarking on that fresh new path, with that wealth of talented people, resources, rich history and culture behind us, granting us fair winds and grasping the opportunities that await us very soon.

  • Eleanor Laing – 2022 Statement on the Result of the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee Election

    Eleanor Laing – 2022 Statement on the Result of the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee Election

    The statement made by Eleanor Laing, the Madam Deputy Speaker, in the House of Commons on 2 November 2022.

    Members will have noticed that there is something else going on today, and that various Members have suddenly appeared in the Chamber. The reason is that I am now about to announce the result of the ballot held today for the election of a new Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee. I can announce that 436 votes were cast, four of which were invalid. The counting went to four rounds. There were 401 active votes in the final round, excluding those ballot papers whose preferences had been exhausted. The quota to be reached was therefore 201 votes. Steve Brine was elected Chair with 253 votes. He will take up his post immediately and I congratulate him on his election. I know that he is unavoidably detained elsewhere and cannot be in the Chamber at this moment. The results of the count under the alternative vote system will be made available as soon as possible in the Vote Office and published on the internet. We will now proceed.

  • Toby Perkins – 2022 Speech on Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy

    Toby Perkins – 2022 Speech on Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy

    The speech made by Toby Perkins, the Labour MP for Chesterfield, in the House of Commons on 2 November 2022.

    I am pleased that the Scottish National party has decided to bring this debate to the Chamber. It is important that the case for an independent Scotland is re-examined. The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) will have been heard loudly both in Scotland and across the United Kingdom.

    This is a matter of great interest to my constituents in Chesterfield. It is a fact that people across England feel very passionately and strongly that the United Kingdom is better together, and that the success of Scotland and the success of England is assured by our being together in the United Kingdom. We gratefully remember the many contributions made by Scots to the United Kingdom in a whole variety of different ways. The successful Union we have had over hundreds of years has led to Britain being the successful country that it is.

    It was precisely because it matters to me and my constituents that, during 2014, I went up to Scotland and spent a considerable amount of time campaigning in the independence referendum, speaking to people in an array of constituencies.

    Angus Brendan MacNeil

    I hear the hon. Gentleman’s confession that he went up to Scotland for the 2014 referendum. Did he, on any doorsteps in Scotland, say to the people that voting to stay in the UK would guarantee their place in the European Union, or was he a Brexiteer by that point?

    Mr Perkins

    Clearly, I went up there to make the case for Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom. I absolutely recognised that that was a choice for the people of Scotland, but it was a choice that was going to affect England. The fact that we were to have a referendum on our relationship with the EU was already known in 2014, because the Conservative party had already committed to that and the people of Scotland voted to remain on that basis. Clearly, I was hopeful that the people of Britain would vote to stay in the European Union. In fact, I only wish that the hon. Gentleman’s party had put the same effort into that referendum as the Labour party. If it had, we might have seen a different outcome.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Mr Perkins

    A number of people want to intervene. I will accept interventions, but I will not accept one from the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), because she misrepresented me previously. She said that I had said that I had apologised for the Government’s record. I have not; I have done the opposite. [Interruption.] I will check the record very carefully. She misrepresented me and if she wants to correct the record I will let her, but if she does not want to correct the record I will hear from the right hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie).

    Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)

    The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to make the case he is making, but given that in Scotland we voted to stay in the European Union and given that in his constituency 34,000 voted to leave and only 22,900 voted to remain, would it not have been better, instead of wasting his time in Scotland, if he had done his job in Chesterfield, instead of having that act of economic self-harm that is Brexit?

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Mr Perkins

    May I respond to the point that has just been made? I worked very hard during the Brexit referendum to make a case, but I accept that people across the coalfield voted in a different way. I return to the statistic that I put to the right hon. Gentleman’s leader, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). The Scottish National party spent a paltry £91,000 on the EU referendum. During the Scottish independence referendum, it spent £1,344,000. The truth is that the people committed to Scottish independence believed that the outcome they got was exactly the one they wanted. They wanted the rest of the UK to vote out while Scotland voted to stay in and that is why they did not lift a finger to get a result. Because of the limp effort it put in, the turnout in the Brexit referendum was lower in Scotland than in any other region or nation of the United Kingdom. That is the reality. The Scottish National party made it very clear to its voters that it was happy with that outcome. It knew there was a likelihood that that outcome would strengthen its case for Scottish independence.

    Kirsten Oswald rose—

    Mr Perkins

    If the hon. Lady is willing to withdraw the comment she made, I will give way to her.

    Kirsten Oswald

    I am grateful to the hon. Member. I am somewhat perplexed. I pointed out that his colleagues had made comments that clearly apologised for the UK Government’s economic mismanagement. I do not know why the UK Labour party would support that, but that is its problem, not mine. I absolutely stand by my concerns about the Labour party’s position on Brexit. It is unclear to me why Labour Members are so supportive of Brexit, considering the damage that it has done to Scotland, or why the hon. Gentleman continues to suggest that people such as me, with a 73% remain vote in my constituency, somehow were not marching the streets, as all my colleagues were. Scotland did not want to leave the EU and we want to be back in it. The hon. Gentleman might not like that, but he does not get to misrepresent it.

    Mr Perkins

    I hear what the hon. Lady says, and I repeat what I said: if the SNP was desperate to stay in the European Union, it had a funny way of showing it. Why is it—[Interruption.] I will respond to the points that have been made. Why is it—let SNP Members answer this—that the SNP spent just 7% of the amount of money on the Brexit referendum that it spent on the Scottish independence referendum? The only conclusion that I can come to is that the SNP did not care nearly as much about that.

    I accept that the people of Scotland—the majority of people who voted in that referendum—voted to remain in the EU. However, the turnout in Scotland was also very low and I believe that the SNP’s lack of effort was a major factor.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Mr Perkins

    I will return to the subject—[Interruption.]

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)

    Order. I have to protect the hon. Gentleman. He has as much of a right to speak as anyone else. Let us give him a chance.

    Mr Perkins

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. During that Scottish referendum, I was in Edinburgh, Cumbernauld, West Dunbartonshire, Airdrie and Falkirk, and I spoke to people about the issues and about how much I hoped that they would choose to stay in the United Kingdom. The people I spoke to on the doorsteps were pleased to debate the subject. Lots of them voted to stay in the UK and lots voted otherwise. Virtually all those constituencies ended up voting overall to stay in the UK, but they recognised that not only was this a matter on which the people of Scotland would decide, but that the matter was of interest to people across the United Kingdom.

    The basic assertion that the Scottish National party made—that an independent Scotland would be part of the EU but that it would take the pound and, at some point in future, have a Scottish pound—has been absolutely blown to pieces by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South. That was clear for everyone to see, and the momentary quiet that descended among those on the SNP Benches when he was making his case spoke volumes.

    We have heard from SNP Members—

    Kirsty Blackman

    Will the hon. Member give way?

    Mr Perkins

    I will, because I was about to refer to the hon. Lady’s speech, so that is perfect timing.

    Kirsty Blackman

    I am very pleased that the hon. Member has given way. Is he aware that if all the 1 million people in Scotland who voted to leave the EU had voted to remain in the EU—if we had had a remain vote of 100%—we would still have lost the referendum?

    Mr Perkins

    That is an important point. I could make the same point about the response in Chesterfield. Of course, this was a vote for the entire United Kingdom. However, I want to respond to something else that the hon. Lady said; although I disagree with her conclusions, I thought that she made an excellent speech. On her point about the independence referendum, when I was up in Scotland for that, it was said very clearly by Alex Salmond, and it was very clearly understood by the people of Scotland, that that was a once-in-a-generation referendum. That was said strongly.

    The hon. Lady has spoken powerfully about the mandate that the SNP has won by getting Members of Parliament elected to this place. Is she making the case that we should have had another referendum after the 2015 election, another after the 2017 election and yet another after the 2019 election? Every time the SNP has a majority of MPs in Scotland, should we have another referendum? If not, how often should we have these referendums?

    We all know that if the 2014 referendum had had a different result and people had voted for independence, there would have been no second referendum. There might have been a 0.1% majority, but it would not have mattered: that would have been enough to say, “We have heard the voice of the people.” But the referendum was lost by more than 10%, and there was an immediate demand for a second one. How often do we have to have these referendums? If the independence campaign wins the next one, does the hon. Lady want the best of three?

    Kirsty Blackman

    I was talking about the different ways in which Scotland has given us a mandate for an independence referendum. When SNP candidates stood for the Scottish Parliament in 2021, the SNP committed explicitly in our manifesto to a referendum on independence. The Scottish people have chosen to have that referendum by voting for independence-supporting parties. If that is not the route for the Scottish people to have an independence referendum, what does the hon. Gentleman think their route to choosing a referendum should be?

    Mr Perkins

    I notice that the hon. Lady has answered my question with a question. My question was a very specific one: how often will we have this referendum? It is not for me to set the terms of a referendum, but I do think that things would be very different if opinion polls showed that the view of the Scottish people had massively changed since 2014. I could not ignore that, because this is a question for the Scottish people.

    When the opinion polls turned in 2020, showing more Scottish people in favour of independence, we heard about them all the time. Everyone was always saying, “Oh, the latest polls say this.” Then I thought to myself, “Everyone seems to have gone a bit quiet about the polls. Why aren’t they mentioning them?” I had a little look on my phone. Of the last 19 opinion polls, including the most recent one paid for by the Alba party, only one showed majority support for independence. Of the last 44 opinion polls, only four have shown a majority for independence. If there had clearly been an overwhelming shift in opinion that had not been reflected, things would be different, but there has not. The truth is that opinion polls suggest that we are broadly in a similar place.

    It is a shame that the hon. Lady did not respond to my question. If 2014 was not once in a generation, as the people of Scotland were clearly told at the time, when will be? When will enough be enough?

    Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) rose—

    Mr Perkins

    Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to answer that.

    Deidre Brock

    I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the hon. Gentleman. Will he accept the words of Ciaran Martin, the former constitution director at the Cabinet Office, who prepared the legal documents for the Edinburgh agreement? He said:

    “‘Once in a generation’ was not a legal commitment, believe me…It’s just a slogan.”

    Mr Perkins

    I accept that it was not a legal commitment. I am not suggesting that it was; I am not saying that there is not a legal right for the UK Government to decide that it is time for another referendum. However, we are talking not about the legal right, but about whether there is an electoral argument for another referendum. The question that I have asked three times now, but that no one has been willing to answer, is when the question will be settled. If losing the referendum in 2014 was not enough, let us say that we have another referendum next year: if SNP Members lose that, when will the next be?

    Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)

    I have some breaking news for the hon. Gentleman: democracy is not a one-time event. As we are talking about timescales, I would be interested to know something. If his party were to win the next general election on a manifesto commitment to have a referendum on taking the UK back into the European Union, would it not be within its rights to hold that referendum?

    Mr Perkins

    That is a great “gotcha”, but my point is that there is a question here: for people in Scotland, when is enough enough? No one has been able to answer that. Let me return to the point that I made a minute ago. If the referendum in 2014 had had a different result, there would not have been a second referendum; that would have been it. The SNP cannot consistently say, “Every time we lose, that is not the end of it, but the one time we win, that is the end of it”, but those are the rules that they want to play to.

    Several hon. Members rose—

    Mr Perkins

    Many of my hon. Friends are waiting to speak, and I want to make sure that they have that opportunity.

    I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South raised the subject of the SNP’s record on education, because it is a compelling one. For much of my lifetime the Scottish education system has been the envy of us in England, but that is not the case now; in fact, it has gone backwards. It is very noticeable that the SNP seems constantly to want debates about things that are not the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament, but runs away from the subject of its actual record.

    The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) suggested that the Scottish people were entitled to money from the UK Government and should not be expected to be grateful, and I entirely agree with her. I recognise that we are in a Union to which we all make contributions. It is the case that more money is spent per head in Scotland than in Chesterfield, as an SNP Member mentioned earlier; it is also the case that Scotland makes contributions to the United Kingdom, to defence through Faslane and through oil receipts, and that there are other respects in which its contribution is significant. That is why I think we are better together. I reject it when people in my constituency say that they resent the fact that Scotland does well out of the UK, and I also reject it when SNP Members suddenly say that they want to isolate oil revenues as if that were the only game in town.

    When the people of Scotland voted in that referendum in 2014, they clearly understood that there would be about 60 Scottish MPs in a Parliament of 650. To consistently suggest that somehow this is news to the people of Scotland who voted in that referendum is nonsense. Only once in the last 47 years have people in Chesterfield voted for an MP who was a member of the party represented by the Government. Quite often in their contrary way, they have voted in a different way from the country as a whole. That is how democracy works.

    I do think there is a real bit of cakeism among the members of the Scottish National party. The hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) said bairns in Scotland were better off than bairns in Chesterfield and that was all about the Scottish Government, while the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said there was a lot of poverty in Scotland and that was the fault of the UK Government. When it is good it is to do with Holyrood and when it is bad it is to do with Westminster, and I do not think that that is either helpful or sensible.

    The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) posed the question, “Can Scotland be a successful nation?” He refused to define a successful nation, but he told us that every nation that was independent was successful, having signed a motion which said that the UK was failing. It is clear that, in the SNP’s eyes, the UK is failing. Every single country that is independent, in the SNP’s terms, is successful, and we are asked to say whether Scotland would be successful without any description of what that success would look like.

    I do not think that those who believe Scotland is better inside the United Kingdom have any less confidence in the people of Scotland, or any less confidence in the contribution of Scotland, the economy of Scotland, the business of Scotland, the geography and geology of Scotland, or the challenges facing Scotland. We recognise all of those just the same, but we also recognise that it is the strengths of Scotland and of the other countries of the United Kingdom that collectively make us as strong as we are.

    That is the case that we make, and it cheapens politics for people on the independence side to suggest that they somehow have a greater patriotism than people on this side. I have to say, having watched my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South when Scotland are playing football, that there is no greater Scottish patriot than him—and no more deluded Scottish football fan than him either. People on all sides in Scotland are passionate about Scotland and proud of being Scottish, but many of them also believe that Scotland’s contribution to the United Kingdom and to being part of one of the major nations of the world should continue. I am glad that this debate has taken place and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South for the compelling case that he has made today. I look forward to listening to the other contributions.

  • Amy Callaghan – 2022 Speech on Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy

    Amy Callaghan – 2022 Speech on Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy

    The speech made by Amy Callaghan, the SNP MP for East Dunbartonshire, in the House of Commons on 2 November 2022.

    While we hold this debate, a cost of living crisis continues to hit people the length and breadth of these four nations. Scotland has a chance to shelter our people from facing the brunt of Tory mismanagement of fiscal responsibility, and from the Tories’ disregard for people. I say that with confidence, because Scotland does not and will not vote Tory.

    I need not lay bare the many merits of independence for our nation in this speech. Successive Governments in this place have been covering that for us more than adequately, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) covered a number of those merits in his usual fashion—at great length. I will, however, outline a vision—my vision for an independent Scotland. I see our role in this as being to win over the hearts and minds of those who are still undecided, but that happens on doorsteps and in our communities, not through a speech from these Benches.

    Like, I am sure, many of my colleagues, I am often asked why an independent Scotland will be better, fairer, and why it will make us happier. A straightforward answer is: we will get what we vote for—so, not the Tories. We have not chosen market upheaval; to close our borders; to ask women whether they have been raped before they can access welfare; to cut energy support; to crash the pound with unexpected borrowing; or to ship people—our people—off to Rwanda without considering the ramifications. It was mere days ago that the Home Secretary referred to groups of refugees who have come to our coast in search of a better life as an “invasion”.

    Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)

    I do not whether my hon. Friend, like me, has been contacted by many constituents about that. If she has, she will know that it is not just us, and that the people of Scotland are utterly horrified and ashamed about words such as “invasion” and “scourge” being used to describe vulnerable human beings who are fleeing conflict in other parts of the world. Does she agree that independence would give us a massive benefit as we would no longer have to be even partly responsible for shameful policies that treat human beings like they were worse than the dirt on the bottom of our shoe and that, once we are free of the UK, we can treat them like the human beings that they are?

    Amy Callaghan

    I welcome that intervention and agree that the language used by the Home Secretary is shameful. I think that my constituents agree as well.

    Every single one of those wounds has been inflicted on us by Tory leadership—leadership that the people of Scotland did not choose. We have a chance to be a much bigger player on the world stage. We have a chance yet again to stand shoulder to shoulder with a multitude of our closest allies at a time when the world has rarely seemed so unstable. But as usual, it is ordinary people who pay the price for decisions made by a Tory Government we did not vote for.

    The cost of living crisis continues to spiral out of control. The Trussell Trust handed out 2.1 million food parcels across the UK in 2021-22, yet the SNP must continue to call on the UK Government to develop comprehensive child poverty targets. The Government would clearly rather spend their efforts on protecting bankers’ bonuses than on investing in people.

    We can think about austerity no longer being imposed, poverty being no longer a political choice forced on our communities and Scotland having a Government—its only Government—elected by its people, for its people. Every child in an independent Scotland should go to school with food in their tummy because their family could afford that from a true living wage, not at the expense of their parent or guardian not eating—and definitely not from accessing a food bank. There should be no need for food banks in an independent Scotland. We are endlessly grateful for the service that they provide in our communities, but they are a by-product of the first round of austerity, not a long-term, sustainable solution to ending poverty. I dread to think what is coming with the Prime Minister’s and Chancellor’s austerity 2.0. That is why our vision for a better, different Scotland is so crucial at this time.

    We need only take one look at the legislation coming out of this place—the single market Bill, the Public Order Bill and the Nationality and Borders Act 2022—to see why people across the political spectrum are talking about another independence referendum. The majority of Scotland’s MPs are outvoted at every turn while the Government make up legislation as casually as if it were a shopping list. With an independent Scotland, we will get the Governments that we vote for and we will be rid of the economically irresponsible Tories for good. We have a bright future. We have the opportunity to gain powers that will allow us to rescue many Scottish children from a life of poverty. Very soon, I know that Scotland will grasp that opportunity.

  • Kirsty Blackman – 2022 Speech on Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy

    Kirsty Blackman – 2022 Speech on Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy

    The speech made by Kirsty Blackman, the SNP MP for Aberdeen North, in the House of Commons on 2 November 2022.

    When I joined the SNP more than 20 years ago, I did so because I wanted Scotland to become an independent country. I believe that the people of Scotland should be able to make the important decisions on the issues that matter to us. It was not all that long after the reopening of the Scottish Parliament, and devolution was still finding its feet. It was also not that long after we had managed to extricate ourselves from 18 years of Tory rule—18 years of Tory Governments, who Scotland had not voted for since 1955.

    In the time since I joined the party, we have had another 12 years of Conservative government Scotland has not voted for. I honestly thought that it could not get more damaging, and that we could not have a more damaging Government and a more damaging Prime Minister, than what we experienced during the Margaret Thatcher era. Then David Cameron said “Hold my beer”, and had the Brexit referendum. Then the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said “Hold my beer”, demonised immigrants and put in motion the hardest possible Brexit. Then the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) said “Hold my beer”, and destroyed what little faith the public had left in politicians being honest. Then the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) said “Hold my beer”, and crashed the economy. If the current Prime Minister asks someone to hold his drink, I recommend running a mile. Scotland has not voted for any of this chaos. We did not vote for a Brexit referendum, we did not vote for Brexit, we welcome immigrants—and we do not vote Tory.

    Our Scottish Government are consistently having to mitigate Tory-inflicted hardships in order to offer some measure of protection for our constituents, and I will make no apology for making the wellbeing of the people of Scotland my ideological mission. Because of the decisions of the UK Government we did not vote for, four out of 10 on those on universal credit skipped meals this summer. Mortgage rates have soared £6,700 a year on average. Since last year, energy costs have gone up £1,200, while pasta costs 60% more and bread costs 40% more. The UK Government have capped benefits and reneged on the pensions triple lock—and we did not vote for this. The people of Scotland and the country of Scotland cannot afford to be part of this Union.

    Mhairi Black

    As my hon. Friend will be aware, during the last referendum campaign we were continually told that we were in a Union of equal partnership. As she has touched on, even if every single seat in Scotland—all 59 seats—was SNP, the city of London, for instance, has 73 MPs. Is that not ridiculous, and how can this ever be a Union of equals if the second largest nation of that Union can be outvoted by one city?

    Kirsty Blackman

    My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and she lays out very clearly the democratic deficit facing Scotland.

    We cannot afford to continue having our resources squandered by Westminster. We cannot afford to go without energy market reform. We cannot afford trickle-down economics. We cannot afford the UK’s xenophobic immigration policy. We cannot afford to keep people having no recourse to public funds, which is making some of the poorest people in the UK even poorer still. We cannot afford a UK Government who refuse to increase the minimum wage. We cannot afford to keep having our workers’ rights stripped. We cannot afford locally—the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), who has just stepped out, mentioned this—to have a UK Government who refuse to match Scotland’s funding for our £500 million just transition fund.

    This UK Government are failing to tackle the issues that are facing our constituents. It is a joke that they keep mentioning the £37 billion support package. It is a joke that they keep mentioning people being £1,000 better off. For some unknown reason, the UK Government have included a freeze on alcohol duty in their £37 billion calculation. On what planet does that help people to pay their fuel bills or feed their children? People are not £1,000 better off as a result of the energy support provided. The average household is still paying double what it was paying last year. Where does the Prime Minister expect people to find the extra money?

    A quarter of people across these islands have got no savings. With borrowing costs rocketing, people are spiralling quickly into unmanageable levels of debt, and that is only set to get worse as the cold weather kicks in. We have consistently voted against that, yet the larger size of England means that we are consistently burdened with Westminster Governments who do not care. Owen Jones published a video that he made during the Tory party conference. He pointed out that mortgage rates are going to go up as a result of the mini-Budget. The Tory party member he was interviewing replied, “I don’t have a mortgage.” That is the attitude we are faced with in the Conservative party. Many Tory party members and donors are doing all right, Jack, so why bother taking action? Our constituents are scared, and the UK Government are refusing to provide adequate help or certainty. The Prime Minister will not even commit to the triple lock or to uprating benefits in line with inflation.

    My colleagues have spoken about Scotland’s potential. We have so many resources. We can lead the world in the deployment of renewables, and we can reach our economic potential. We have the best educated population in Europe. We have the talent and the potential, and we are not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) said earlier, singularly unable to flourish as an independent country. An independent Scotland would use its potential to ensure minimum living standards. How is it that in 2022 we are having to say that? Why are we being approached by constituents who have nothing, and who are experiencing poverty that has not happened in this widespread way during my lifetime? Before this cost of living crisis, some people were living below the destitution line, despite being in receipt of social security. Other European countries have stepped up and provided far higher levels of support to ensure that people can live through this crisis.

    What are the people of Scotland doing about this? We are consistently exercising the democratic rights that we have to vote for the SNP. We have a majority of independence-supporting MSPs in the Scottish Parliament, and we had our best ever council elections this year. We have been the third largest party in Westminster for seven years, despite standing in less than one tenth of the seats. Yet the Westminster Government suggest that we have no mandate. I will say who has no mandate—the Tories. They have no mandate to inflict Tory economic policies on our population. They have no mandate for xenophobic immigration policies, and no mandate for cutting social security. If this is a voluntary Union of nations, why are the UK Government not respecting the mandate given by the people of Scotland to the Scottish Parliament to hold a referendum? Why have we had to go to the Supreme Court to assert our right to hold the referendum, and how can the UK Government justify arguing against that? This is not about identity; this is about democracy. Scotland has voted for the right to choose our own future, and we will do everything possible to ensure that happens.

  • Martin Docherty-Hughes – 2022 Speech on Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy

    Martin Docherty-Hughes – 2022 Speech on Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy

    The speech made by Martin Docherty-Hughes, the SNP MP for West Dunbartonshire, in the House of Commons on 2 November 2022.

    I was actually glad to the hear the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) speak up on behalf of the Union. We might not agree, but at least a Conservative and Unionist party Back Bencher from Scotland is here to do the job they are paid to do by their constituents. I know that the Secretary of State was here earlier and that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), is here now, but it is commendable to see the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan here doing his job. That is what we are all here for: to speak up on behalf of our constituents. I just thought it was important to say that.

    On the constitutional debate that we are having—there is an element relating to the constitutional position—the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) talked about a covenant. The treaty of Union is not a covenant; it is a piece of international law, into which two independent—

    Robin Millar indicated dissent.

    Martin Docherty-Hughes

    Well, the hon. Gentleman can shake his head, but he perhaps needs to read up on English, Welsh and, separately, Scottish history and about the pre-treaty parliamentary positions.

    Let us go back to the debate at hand. In 2017, in the aftermath of the Brexit referendum, the now Prime Minister was clear—

    Robin Millar rose—

    Martin Docherty-Hughes

    No, I have just started, so I hope the hon. Gentleman will let me go on for a wee bit.

    In 2017, the Prime Minister said that

    “it seems hard to block”

    a second independence referendum for Scotland. Let me also repeat the words of another Tory Prime Minister, whom I repeat time and time again for the historical record. The former right hon. Member for Finchley said that if the Tory party

    “sometimes seems English to some Scots that is because the Union is inevitably dominated by England by reason of its greater population.”

    Now, that is just a simple fact, and the former right hon. Member for Finchley was correct.

    They then went on to say:

    “The Scots, being a historic nation”—

    I am sure that you and I agree at least on that, Madam Deputy Speaker, although I will not ask your opinion from the Chair—

    “with a proud past, will inevitably resent some expressions of this fact from time to time. As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination.”

    We are a nation. We are not a region. We are not some subsection of some great state in the Soviet Union. We are a nation of historic lineage going back into time immemorial that people all over the world call home. They continued by saying that

    “thus far, they have exercised that right by joining and remaining in the Union.”

    They go on to say, and this is worth repeating time and again:

    “Should they determine on independence, no English party or politician would stand in their way, however much we might regret their departure.”

    That, I think, is a clear constitutional position.

    Members will be relieved that I do not intend to go over many of the excellent points already made by my colleagues—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) is welcome to interject at some point if he wishes. Let us go to the economic case for independence, because that is the crux of the matter. This may go back to some of the questions raised by Government Members, because I cannot help but feel that things are often framed very much in the wrong way. If things were perfect for the Scottish economy, or for the UK economy—I mean the United Kingdom of Great Britain and also Northern Ireland, which does not get much mention from some on the Government Benches—there would not be so many SNP MPs here making the case for independence today. Our aim is not to tweak the economy here or there or hope for some marginal improvements for Scotland; Scottish independence is a political project—a political choice for the people of Scotland, should they make it—that seeks to change the underlying economic conditions in order to improve the lives of everyone not only in my constituency but across the length and breadth of Scotland.

    While at one time that idea may have seemed utopian, the events of the last few weeks and months—actually, the last few years—have turned the chronic problems of the UK economy into an acute polycrisis of stagnant wages and productivity and plummeting competitiveness precipitated by the disastrous consequences of a Brexit that Scotland did not vote for.

    Angus Brendan MacNeil

    My hon. Friend is right: this is not about utopia; it is based in reality, because we have an example in front of us. One hundred years ago, the poorest part of the United Kingdom was Ireland. It became independent and shed the six counties that had the majority of the industry. One hundred years later, Ireland’s GDP per capita is well ahead of the UK’s. Such a thing can happen only when a country can make its own political choices, rather than them being abdicated to people for whom that country does not vote and who do not care about that country.

    Martin Docherty-Hughes

    I totally agree with my hon. Friend. That is the premise for independence. An independent country would seek trade deals and agreements with those countries with which it seeks to boost trade. It would seek to boost productivity, improve competitiveness, and get rid of the idea of stagnant wages, because that is the basis of the UK economy.

    Turning again to Brexit, in the past year alone—not since 2016, but in the past year—my constituents in West Dunbartonshire, which is one local authority area, have lost £32.5 million in exports because of Brexit. On top of the cost of living crisis, that comes to £869.97 per household. In my part of the world, that is a lot of money when people are trying to pay their electricity or gas bill, even though Scotland produces more gas than we need. It is an absolutely failed economic model.

    Our current economic model is quite simple: we get a fiscal transfer every year from the Treasury, and in exchange we accept—and have accepted—that macro-economic policy will continue to be made with London and the south-east of England in mind. My constituents receive—this may go back to some of the questions from Government Members—slightly higher per capita public spending in return for what is essentially a guarantee that their wages and the Scottish economy will grow at a slower rate than they do here in London and the south-east of England.

    In the past, that felt like a fair exchange. We were told that the engine of the UK economy would power up more quickly after recessions and recover more quickly from blows than the peripheral areas. That meant that the fiscal transfer could continue. No one seemed to notice the divergence over time, which led to the situation that was memorably compared by the economist Duncan Weldon: the UK economy basically consisted of the Republic of Singapore surrounded by a series of Portugals —no disrespect; I love Portugal—with a high-wage, high-productivity engine that could support the sluggish economies of its hinterland.

    That divergence has led to the incredible reality of northern English regions and constituencies now being poorer than the former communist parts of east Germany, with other states that did not have an open economy until 30 years ago, such as Poland, Slovenia and Estonia, not far behind. The change of the economic crisis from chronic to acute can be put down to Brexit and 12 years of Tory misrule, but I have to say to my friends on the Labour Benches that the seeds for two decades of stagnant productivity and wage growth were sown during their period in office with their total inability to challenge the UK’s macroeconomic orthodoxy.

    I am mindful of the comments of my former colleague, Andrew Wilson, who was a Member of the Scottish Parliament and has written a lot on these issues. He calls the UK an “aeroplane with one engine”. In good times, we are unlikely to notice any turbulence, but that cannot be guaranteed forever. When the engine begins to run more slowly than its competitors, as we are seeing now, there is a knock-on effect for everyone, including those in Scotland.

    Simply, people across these islands are getting poorer, while those across the Sheuch in Ireland are getting wealthier all the time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar said. Let us not forget that Ireland, as an independent sovereign state, used the pound from 1922 to 1928 and was then pegged to the pound for 50 years. People should not just say that the fiscal position cannot happen; we need to be conscious about history and the reality on the ground. The people of Scotland recognise that.

    Angus Brendan MacNeil

    My hon. Friend raises an interesting and important point. Ireland was pegged to the pound for all those years, which probably held it back and was a mistake. It was unpegged when the UK went cap in hand to the International Monetary Fund for a bailout in the 1970s, and Ireland then—combined with joining the European Union, incidentally on the same day that Scotland joined—took off.

    Martin Docherty-Hughes

    Indeed. The underlying economic case for this Union, the British Union—not the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—that we get slightly higher public spending in exchange for worse wages and growth begins to fall apart when average incomes in the UK decline relative to those of its neighbours.

    As it is appropriate to ask Scottish National party Members to lay out the economic case for independence, it is also appropriate to ask questions of the Conservative Government and of the Labour Opposition, who seem unwilling to diverge from the Government on matters of macroeconomics. I would love to hear from the Front-Bench teams what they would say to people from West Dunbartonshire when they ask what the cost is to them over a working life of having lower wages than their peers in similar parts of northern Europe. Similarly, they ask about the economic value attributed to combining those lower wages with fewer years of healthy working life lived.

    Ian Blackford

    I commend my hon. Friend on his excellent speech. In essence, there are three components of growth: population, productivity and participation. One thing that has been ascribed to the Union since 1850 is the relative decline of the Scottish population, because there has been a lack of economic opportunity to drive up wages and productivity. We are being held back by the migration policies of this Government, which are, sadly, supported by the Labour party. That is why we need independence, because we will need migration to drive up the opportunities in Scotland and to deliver economic growth.

    Martin Docherty-Hughes

    I am grateful for that intervention from my right hon. Friend, and I fundamentally agree. As the grandchild of migrants, I hope they brought something at least to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as I hope many future migrants will bring to an independent Scotland.

    Ultimately—and, again, I come back to the Government —we can put a price on the fact that people in Clydebank, Dumbarton and the Vale of Leven die younger than comparable cohorts in Denmark, Ireland and even the south-east of England. In 2014, my constituents were among the four council areas in Scotland that voted to change the dismal economic calculus of Britain, because it never has worked for them and it never will work for them. I cannot help but feel that unless both the main Unionist parties in this Parliament—the Conservative party and the Labour party—find answers to these simple questions, there are going to be a lot more of my constituents voting for independence next time.

  • Robin Millar – 2022 Speech on Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy

    Robin Millar – 2022 Speech on Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy

    The speech made by Robin Millar, the Conservative MP for Aberconwy, in the House of Commons on 2 November 2022.

    It is a pleasure to rise to speak in this debate. I have listened with interest over the past couple of hours and welcomed the tone and the plea of the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) for a serious debate. However, I share the Secretary of State’s sentiments that there is no desire for a referendum. There is no desire from these Conservative Benches to see Scotland break away from the United Kingdom.

    Ian Blackford rose—

    Kirsten Oswald rose—

    Robin Millar

    Please, let me make a little progress.

    It is important to enter into that serious debate.

    I find myself standing here asking myself questions about identity when the matter of independence is raised. Identity is a complicated business. As a proud Welshman and supporter of this Union, I find myself at the heart of a web of family, communal, economic and national bonds and histories. These bonds link me to those across these islands whose past and whose future are interwoven with my own. I cannot hold it against SNP Members that they find themselves pulled in a different direction. Our disagreements on identity are those perhaps of the heart, not just of the head.

    The foundation of the state is a serious matter, deserving serious scrutiny and question. Millions of people across these isles, and, indeed, the world, would find their lives dramatically shaken by the break-up of the United Kingdom. Those who seek to found their arguments on promises of prosperity have also the utmost responsibility to set out plans that are honest, transparent and detailed.

    Ian Blackford

    Let me commend the hon. Gentleman for the way that he is going about this. May I say to him respectfully that this is not to do with identity. There is the phrase, “It is not a question of where you are from, it is where you are going.” It is about that shared identity that we have for the country. On the question of the demand for independence, will he not acknowledge that there is an independence majority in the Scottish Parliament, and the SNP won that election to the Scottish Parliament last year on a manifesto commitment to delivering that referendum to the people of Scotland?

    Robin Millar

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. They are good questions and I shall try to do them justice in my answer. First, on the matter of identity, I have a sense of where I am going, but I also have an acute sense of who I am, and pity the person who does not.

    On whether there is a democratic mandate for independence within the Scottish Parliament, I do not see that there is. That body does not have the power in law to call a referendum, so I could, with confidence, look at the SNP manifesto and say, “Do you know what? I love what it is planning to do with services and with help for the homeless, the poor and refugees, but I do not care for independence. However, I can give the SNP my vote because the Scottish Parliament would not have the power to call a referendum.” I do not see a democratic argument for independence in a majority in Holyrood.

    Martin Docherty-Hughes

    I think the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar)—Aberconwy is a beautiful part of Cymru—said on the Floor of the House of Commons that the Scottish Parliament does not have the ability to call a referendum under its set-up. Perhaps that is why the Scottish Government are going to the Supreme Court. I take it that his premise is that the only place that has the sovereign capability either to grant a referendum or to recognise the result of a general election is the House of Commons. If so, it is up to his party to recognise that all the pro-independence MPs on these Benches represent the majority of Scottish constituencies, in the UK’s constitutional situation, and to accept that result.

    Robin Millar

    I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but he plays with the difference between a referendum and electoral representation in a House that runs a first-past-the-post scheme. I am happy for those arguments to be played out in a place where greater minds than mine can exercise themselves on that.

    Angus Brendan MacNeil rose—

    Robin Millar

    I wish to make a little progress.

    Having said that serious plans deserve serious question and scrutiny, I was disappointed to discover that the SNP Administration’s recent economic plan for separation fell short of what I would consider serious consideration. The paper contains no modelling, no projections and no hard analysis of the implications of independence—criticisms that were laid by many against this Government in recent weeks.

    Two key arguments in that document for separation put forward by the SNP are a reversal of so-called austerity and EU membership. I will consider both points briefly. On austerity and state spending, an independent Scotland would have, as we have heard, a high public sector deficit. In fact, it would be among the highest in Europe, with state spending exceeding tax receipts by 12%, and yet the SNP contends that spending is not high enough. Indeed, the Scottish Government announced real-term cuts of 8% to local government, the police, prisons, universities and rural affairs after the Institute of Fiscal Studies warned that they faced a £3.5 billion overspend. That is crucial in understanding what the implications would be for an independent Scotland.

    Angus Brendan MacNeil

    The hon. Gentleman seems to say that if a country, a state or a Union has a 12% deficit, it cannot be independent—that should be news to the UK. I have a couple of questions for him. Does he accept that this is a political Union, and is there a democratic way out? When we left the trading bloc of the European Union, we had a right to choose. Surely that right exists in relation to this Union, too.

    The hon. Gentleman says that Westminster can block a referendum, but if the Scottish Parliament were to hold an election—he mentioned elections earlier—on the sole question of independence, would he, as a democrat, recognise that, or would he seek to find a way to worm his way out of the straightforward recognition of the will of the Scottish people?

    Robin Millar

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. I missed his earlier invitation for pizza. I would gladly discuss those points over a pizza, but I will not get drawn into that tangle now—it is an important tangle and these are important questions. However, I offer this observation. For me, this is not a transactional, contractual relationship between two parties. The relationship that the United Kingdom had with the EU was of that sort. The relationship that we enjoy as part of this Union is a covenant, an intertwining of a relationship over centuries. It goes beyond a simple piece of paper. In fact, one of the great deceits of the past couple of decades has been the mistranslation of, and confusion over, Union and devolution. A deep and complex relationship has been misinterpreted as a contractual relationship, which is the basis of devolution.

    Angus Brendan MacNeil rose—

    Robin Millar

    I will not take an intervention on pizza, thank you.

    How is such spending to be managed? Where is the central bank to buy Government bonds? Where is the support of the UK taxpayer? How is Scotland to simultaneously build up the estimated £64 billion in reserves that it would need to join the EU? The welfare of millions rests on the answers to such questions, but the document is silent.

    Moving on to the EU, the document notes that the single market accounts for a minority of Scottish exports, or about 18%, compared with the 60%—fully three times as much—exported to the rest of the UK. How then can trade with the EU compensate for cutting off Scotland’s biggest trading partner?

    What would be the effect of customs checks on the border? How would those who travel across the border daily to buy groceries interact with stringent EU agrifood checks? How would farmers whose land is split by the border contend with the EU’s sanitary and phytosanitary checks—the same checks that have stopped tractors because of mud on their tyres and that have refused permission for loads to be taken to Ireland because blue ink has been used instead of black ink on the forms?

    David Duguid

    My hon. Friend gives a good example of why we need to stay together as a Union. On this Back British Farming Day, does NFU Cymru agree with the National Farmers Union of Scotland that keeping the integrity of the internal market of the United Kingdom is far more important than any other external market?

    Robin Millar

    Indeed it does. The internal market we enjoy by virtue of being a United Kingdom is of huge importance to every farmer in every part of this United Kingdom. There is more I could say on that, but I will keep to the thrust of this debate.

    I must agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray): there is no plan. The SNP’s plan is no plan at all. It falls short on how key public services will continue to be funded and to operate. Further, it does not address the two biggest shocks to our economy in the past two years—a covid pandemic and a war in eastern Europe. The UK Government have responded to both by virtue of the strength of the United Kingdom economy, for the benefit of all parts of the United Kingdom. There is no provision, however, in the plans of the SNP and the Scottish Government for a response to such emergencies and no demonstration of the resilience necessary to cope with the global storms we must weather.

    The plan fails to give those whose livelihoods depend on the UK an idea of how they would be able to provide for their families. It fails to offer anything to communities that would be split by a new border. In short, more than matters of the heart or even of the head, and more than the hard-nosed transactions of an economy, the plan fails in its moral duty to the people of Scotland.

    That moral duty is real. The fate of Ukrainian refugees is a concern to us all, and we know that the people of Scotland and the Scottish Parliament extended a warm welcome to many of them. However, that warm welcome has been poorly served. We know that those people are being housed in temporary accommodation on ships, and that the space they are allocated on them is less than the amount a prisoner in a Scottish prison can expect by law to enjoy.

    Angus Brendan MacNeil rose—

    Kirsten Oswald rose—

    Robin Millar

    I will take an intervention from the hon. Lady.

    Kirsten Oswald

    May I gently ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the treatment that his Government are meting out to those who are fleeing to the United Kingdom, in contrast with the welcome and the open door that the Scottish Government have given to Ukrainian refugees? Will he reflect very carefully on the set lines that he is talking about, which do not reflect the reality on the ground?

    Robin Millar

    I take the hon. Lady’s point in the spirit in which it was intended, but perhaps she or another Member could answer whether it is true that Ukrainian refugees have had to be housed on ships in Scotland because there has not been the accommodation they were promised. They have received a warm welcome across the UK—I have no doubt that, or about the ambition behind it—but my point is the reality of public services in meeting that ambition. That is the thrust of this debate. It is a debate about independence and the economy, and about how we meet the reality of providing for those on who depend on us.

    I will make one more point on the question of moral duty. Ireland has been mentioned a number of times as an example. Ireland secured its independence in 1922, but as one of his first actions the Irish Minister for Finance, Ernest Blythe, cut the pay of civil servants and reduced Government spending from £42 million in 1923 to £28 million by 1926. That is a one-third cut in Government spending in the years immediately following independence. These are real questions about the consequences of a transition to an independent nation but, again, on these practical points of a plan for independence, the document presented is silent.

    I will finish on this point—

    Angus Brendan MacNeil

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Robin Millar

    No, I have taken several interventions. The planning of a new country is a serious undertaking, but we have yet to see a serious plan.

  • Pete Wishart – 2022 Speech on Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy

    Pete Wishart – 2022 Speech on Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy

    The speech made by Pete Wishart, the SNP MP for Perth and North Perthshire, in the House of Commons on 2 November 2022.

    I am delighted to be called so early, Mr Deputy Speaker; I was not expecting it. I want to see whether we can do something different in this debate. These debates are always characterised by real polarisation, with people who are passionately Unionist on one side and wanting to put that case, and with us on the SNP Benches wanting to put the case for an independent Scotland. I am going to see whether there is any place where we can get agreement, perhaps even on a set of principles on which we can engage, based on something approaching a consensus around the language. I might not be successful, but I will give this my best shot and see how far we get.

    I am going to propose a few assertions, just to see whether the House will agree to them. The first is that Scotland would be a successful independent country. Surely all of us could agree on that. I am not sure about those on the Labour Front Bench, because I put that to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and he was not so sure. But even the most rabid, passionate Tory Unionists surely would not try to assert that the Scottish people, with all their history of invention, creativity, innovation and imagination, would somehow uniquely fail, among all the peoples in the world who have secured independence, in making a success of our independence. So can we call agree that Scotland would be a successful independent country?

    Ian Murray

    I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am delighted that he has given way so early. This debate is not about that; it is about the broken proposition that he is putting as a prospectus for that independent Scotland. That is what we have demonstrated has holes in it. It is up to him to make that proposition, not us.

    Pete Wishart

    I will respond to that challenge and I thank the hon. Gentleman, because I think I heard him say that Scotland would be a successful independent country. I think that is what he was saying.

    David Duguid rose—

    Pete Wishart

    I want to hear the hon. Gentleman say that too.

    David Duguid

    If the hon. Gentleman is looking just for that quote, to edit it for the purposes of having a video clip, I am happy to oblige. But just as an independent or separate Scotland could possibly succeed, would he also argue that an independent England, an independent Wales or an independent Northern Ireland would succeed as well, but not nearly as much as a United Kingdom?

    Pete Wishart

    This is progress. I feel that I am on the right track with this, because what we are getting across the House is agreement to the assertion that Scotland would be a successful independent country. I have no doubts whatsoever that England, without Scotland’s contribution through its resources, would be equally successful as an independent nation; I believe that somehow it would just about muddle through without our support—

    Jamie Stone

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Pete Wishart

    I hope I am going to get a clean sweep here and get the Liberals to agree to this. I am counting on the hon. Gentleman to do that.

    Jamie Stone

    I hate to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but if he took a straw poll of the pregnant mothers in Caithness who now have to travel more than 100 miles to give birth in Inverness—this has happened on the SNP’s watch—he would get a pretty dusty answer.

    Pete Wishart

    It was going so well. I had the Conservatives agree to this and I think I had the Labour party agree to it, but the Liberals just could not bring themselves to agree with the proposition that an independent Scotland would be a successful, independent nation.

    Christine Jardine rose—

    Pete Wishart

    I think we have heard from the Liberals. I will come back to the hon. Lady, because I have other assertions to make. I think we have now all agreed, other than the Liberal Democrats, to that one, so let us try another.

    I am going to speak about all our resources. Let us include a good proportion of nearly all of Europe’s oil and gas reserves; the greatest potential for renewable energy that exists in Europe; vast fisheries; and a water supply that is the envy of the world. With all of that, Scotland has what it takes to be an independent country. Can we all agree to that?

    Christine Jardine rose—

    Pete Wishart

    Let us see whether the hon. Lady will agree that Scotland has what it takes to be an independent country.

    Christine Jardine

    May I point out that the hon. Gentleman misinterprets what all of us think? None of us has ever said that Scotland could not be independent, but the people of Scotland, when given the choice, voted no, because they feel that their future is better within the United Kingdom.

    Pete Wishart

    That is a little more encouraging, because I think we are moving towards the assertion that Scotland would be a successful country and it has more than what it takes to be one. Throwing this theme a wee bit further on, we could even suggest that Scotland is perhaps the best resourced country that has ever considered becoming independent. I think that is pretty incontrovertible. No country is better endowed to be an independent nation. When we look around Scotland, whether at our oil and gas reserves, our fisheries or our potential renewable energy, we see that no country is better prepared for this than Scotland. Can we agree to that?

    David Duguid rose—

    Pete Wishart

    Are we good for the hon. Gentleman to agree on that?

    David Duguid

    I could not agree more with the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), who said that nobody would disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s assertion other than for the fact that the people of Scotland have repeatedly—or have when it counted—voted to stay in our United Kingdom. Being in the UK is better. [Interruption.] Let us all agree that Scotland is great. Scotland is fantastic. Scotland within the United Kingdom is even better. But will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the SNP’s proposals for an independent Scotland would mean rejoining the EU and therefore rejoining the common fisheries policy?

    Pete Wishart

    I am so grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the EU because of what I am going to say now. I suspect I will not get the same range of agreement around the House with this particular assertion: the only way for Scotland to be a member of the European Union is for it to become an independent nation. Do we all agree with that? [Interruption.] I am hearing a couple of noes, mainly again from the Liberal Democrats; I have to say that I am very disappointed with them. I thought I would have had a more encouraging response from them.

    Mr Perkins

    I do not know whether at some point the hon. Gentleman is going to touch on the motion that we are actually debating. His theories about interesting questions, which I would be happy to discuss with him in the Strangers bar, are not relevant to the debate we are having.

    In the motion, his party describes Britain as a “failing state”. Without defining “failing” or “successful”, he now asks us all to say whether an independent Scotland would be successful. If Britain is failing and Scotland is going to be successful, why is it his proposition that Scotland should keep the pound, given that he claims it is failing?

    Pete Wishart

    I will say a couple of things gently to the hon. Gentleman, who, for all his noise and bluster in the Chamber, I actually respect. Look—this debate is about Scottish independence; I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman missed that.

    Mr Perkins rose—

    Pete Wishart

    I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s other points, which are important, but I am keen to say this: I wanted to find agreement across the House. I thought I was making a bit of progress, but it is disappearing a little. I will try once again, to see whether I can do it.

    All I want is for everybody to agree that the only way for Scotland to be a member of the European Union is by becoming independent. We know that because all the other parties are parties of Brexit now—they all want to make Brexit work. I do not know how they will do that. I do not even know whether it is possible to make Brexit work; it is almost designed not to work. It is not any sort of economic strategy but an ideological mission. But they want to make it work, so we are left in a situation where the only way—I do not see how this can be uncontroversial—to make Scotland a member of the European Union is for it to be an independent nation. We know that the Scottish people want that because that is what they voted for. We are talking about democracy: the overwhelming majority of Scottish people voted to remain in the European Union, and every single poll since then has shown that they want to rejoin the European Union.

    Christine Jardine

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Pete Wishart

    No; I have given way to the hon. Lady before.

    Let us all agree that the only way for Scotland to rejoin the EU is by becoming independent. I will try another one; this one is probably not going to get there, but let us see. The only way for Scotland to get the Governments that it always votes for is as an independent nation.

    David Duguid

    That doesn’t make sense.

    Pete Wishart

    The hon. Gentleman says that that does not make sense, but when I was elected in 2001 Scotland voted for Labour; it got the Government that it wanted. But since 2010, Scotland has never had the Government it voted for. What I am saying is uncontroversial: the only way for Scotland always to get the Government it votes for is as an independent nation. I thought we might have a little difficulty with that one, but the reaction does not seem too bad. I am a bit more encouraged, so I will see how much further I can get.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) always refers to Ireland, and he is right to; it is a great example. If we look at other European nations such as Ireland, Iceland, Finland, Norway or Denmark—they are all roughly the same size as Scotland, at 5 million to 8 million people—we see that they are all much more successful than Scotland. They are all powering ahead, with economic growth and GDP figures that we could envy. Can we all agree that there is something about the constitutional arrangements of Scotland that does not let us prosper as our neighbours do?

    Angus Brendan MacNeil

    My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point. He just listed nations in the top 10 of the UN human development index. Here we are as Scots MPs in the UK, and the UK is at No. 18—and we are told that we are a poor part of that No. 18. Those who have left, such as Ireland, are 10 places higher. Of the countries he has mentioned, Iceland and Norway are at Nos. 2 and 3. He makes the case brilliantly.

    Pete Wishart

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who takes these issues seriously.

    I have been a bit encouraged. Here is one that I am pretty certain Members from other parties will definitely agree to. I think we have to be honest about certain things and acknowledge that there will also, obviously, be difficulties. However, I think independence will be positive for Scotland; like our near-neighbours, we could be an incredible nation if we were in charge of our own affairs.

    Let us see whether other Members agree—I am almost certain they will—that there would be issues at the starting point of Scottish independence because of the deficit we have as part of the United Kingdom. We can all agree with that: no objection from the Conservative Benches to that. Can we also agree that the way to resolve the deficit, as has been demonstrated by colleagues, is to remove the conditions that create it? Can we agree to that?

    What we want is to have the full range of economic powers that will allow us to properly address the issue and to remove ourselves from the very institutions that give us the deficit as a result of being part of the United Kingdom. Can we agree to that? Other hon. Members are silent; I do not think they are agreeing—they are just humouring me now.

    David Duguid

    I seek clarification about what the hon. Gentleman is actually asking. Is he saying that by removing Scotland from the United Kingdom, Scotland’s deficit will no longer exist?

    Pete Wishart

    I will put it the other way round; it might be easier for the hon. Gentleman to comprehend. We have this notional deficit as part of the United Kingdom. We all agree that these other nations are powering ahead of us. According to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), we have a deficit that apparently means that we cannot be independent, but we have the deficit because we are part of the United Kingdom. What strikes me as the logical course of action is to extricate ourselves from the conditions that have given us the deficit. That means leaving the United Kingdom and ensuring that we get the full suite of economic powers to deal with the situation.

    I think we all agreed that we as a people are resourceful enough to make a success of our independence and that, with its abundant natural resources, Scotland has what it takes to be an independent country. What is happening to make us have this deficit, according to the hon. Members for Edinburgh South and for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid)? We have the skills, the history of inventions, the creativity, the universities in the top 100, the oil and gas, the fisheries and the best potential for renewables in Europe. Why do we have a deficit? Maybe I am just not getting it, but I sense that it is to do with the constitutional arrangements that we find ourselves in.

    I do not think I did too badly with all that; we got rough agreement on a lot. Let us park all this. Please—I never want to hear anybody suggest ever again that our nation, the people of Scotland, are somehow too wee, poor and stupid to make a success of independence. Never again! [Interruption.] I am hearing the hon. Member for Edinburgh South clearly. What I say to him is that I will make sure that no one in the Scottish National party utters that. Can he do the same in his party and can the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan do it in his? Let us never hear that suggestion again.

    That was a useful kickaround. We have agreed all these things. What do we do now? How do we have the debate about going forward? We have to have the debate. People have knocked about opinion poll figures, but we are at 50-50 in the polls and the issue has to be resolved. It is intolerable that it should not be—we cannot continue into the future like this. Everybody says that we had a referendum in 2014, and yes we did, but Scotland in 2022 is almost entirely different from how it was in 2014. The United Kingdom today is unrecognisable from how it was in 2014. We have consistently and continually elected Governments with a commitment to holding a referendum and moving towards independence. SNP Members are here as representatives of that very mission. We have to resolve this.

    My last plea is this: let us all demonstrate to the Scottish people that we are not some sort of hostage within the United Kingdom; that we are the equal partner that everybody talks about and that was described so eloquently during the last independence referendum—during our campaign to lead Scotland. Let us test this. Let us have the debate. Let us take all the pillars of the Better Together campaign—the things that sustained this tent that accommodated both Labour and the Tories, which was so catastrophic for the Labour party. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South is one of only a few Labour Members in his place. It was a terrible experience for Labour. All those central pillars are now gone. The case for staying in the Union has gone, particularly given the crisis and the chaos of the past few weeks. Scotland cannot put up with this anymore—we cannot be governed by incompetents who drove us to the very abyss of a pension crisis. We cannot go on like this. The last thing on which we can all agree is that we must have a referendum to settle this.