12/01/2012 Politics Scotland

A very warm welcome from the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood

where all morning MSPs have been debating the topic of the SNP's

proposals for a referendum on independence. I would not be

surprised if that topic came up in the First Minister's Questions.

Let's cross to the chamber. Thank you, Brian. That debate has

been followed by general questions on a variety of subjects, the First

Minister getting his papers together and preparing to answer

questions. I think he would be surprised if the News of the week

on the referendum did not play some part in discussions today. It has

been a tale of two Governance, Westminster and Holyrood are giving

over who has the authority to set out the ground rules for this

referendum, the date and nature of its scrutiny by the Electoral

Commission. Even who may get to vote. The SNP wish to allow 16 and

17-year-olds the opportunity to vote. We had a number of detailed

submissions on that from members throughout the morning and now we

move to First Minister's Questions -- First Minister's Questions.

Johann Lamont in the Labour corner, and we also expect to hear from the

Conservatives. The ambassador of Denmark.

We now move to First Minister's Questions. Question number one,

Johann Lamont. Can we have the microphone on? Your

card is not in. My no technical difficulties

delaying us here. -- minor technical.

To ask the First Minister what engagements he has planned for the

rest of the day. Digging a forward the Government's

programme for Scotland. We now know that it is the First

Minister's preference that in autumn 2014 the people of Scotland

will be asked to decide Scotland's constitutional future. No one can

doubt of what a momentous decision this will be. What will the First

Minister do to ensure that we can and all of Scotland will have

confidence in the timing, governance and scrutiny of this

referendum? I refer to the amendment we placed

up to her motion this morning which says that in a couple of weeks we

will be bringing forward a consultation paper for all Scotland.

That includes political parties, voluntary organisations, the third

sector, all the people of Scotland to make their views known, it will

set out the terms, procedures and timetable of the referendum we

propose. The referendum, of course, for which we received an

overwhelming mandate in the Scottish elections.

I did it note the amendment lodged by the First Minister, and I was

disturbed by the tone and prescriptive nature of that

amendment, and the rejection of an offer genuinely need to come

together to build a consensus. Last May, the First Minister told the

chamber that, despite an SNP majority, he did not have a

monopoly of wisdom. Let me humbly offer at the First Minister some of

my own wisdom. The fact of the matter is, just because he can do

something, he can try something through this process, it does not

mean it is in his or Scotland's interests for him to do so. It

would not be wise, in my view, to go ahead with a referendum process.

He must surely understand that he must dispel the perception that he

is acting in the interest of the SNP and not of Scotland. I repeat

my offer from earlier this week and this morning - will the First

Minister, not just meet with party leaders to talk, but work with them

to agree a consensus on a way forward on a referendum process

that is fair and beyond question? I think Johann Lamont might well be

pleasantly surprised when she sees the consultation document. It is in

the interests of this chamber and to Scotland. It will be clear from

this document that the process is clear and transparent and does this

nation proud. I assured her when she sees the consultation document

she will be reasonably surprised and perhaps encouraged by the tone

of it. Where I disagree with Johann Lamont, I think it extraordinary to

talk about this Government being prescriptive. I did here

representatives of the third sector in Scotland. John Downey of the

voluntary organisations and Ian Galloway of the Church of Scotland

saying explicitly this morning that they did not want politicians to

foreclose on the options before the people. Johann Lamont's motion did

exactly that in terms of how the question should be asked. Can I

give her this assurance? This Government is aware of its

responsibility, not just to this chamber, but to the people of

Scotland, and will bring forward a consultation document that will

genuinely be that too. It will put forward our views, but one prepared

to listen to the political parties in this chamber and right across

the spectrum of Scottish society. That is all we can have a

referendum in which we can be proud and a debate in which we can be

proud and all the people will know they have had their full

opportunity to contribute to that process above the most important

decision facing this nation for 300 years. I think the difficulty is,

the First Minister does not know how to build a consensus.

I ought not to be pleasantly surprised enough for date as a

Leader of the Opposition, I ought to be part of the process of

shaping the thinking of what that referendum will shape -- will say.

The reality is, I accept he may not put a high price and the wisdom of

the leader of the Labour Party, but I do reflect in the wisdom of

others. A Professor told us, two questions

in a ballot where people are asked to vote on both options is simply

not feasible. There is a good chance you would end up not going

what people really want. They want the union to work. The

First Minister wants to break it up. Surely the First Minister agrees we

need clarity on the result, and instead of resisting the offer of

legal clarity being given by the UK Government, he surely may agree

that his fellow nationalist, a Scotland refuses to be -- if the

Government refuses to give powers to this constitution, the

referendum may not be illegal. Nicola Sturgeon said the SNP has

always said the preferred option is a straight question, yes or no, to

independence. It seems we have an agreement on that. We do not need

to muddy the waters. All parties agree this should be again saw no

question. When the First Minister said he

will consult, will he listen and act on what he hears?

The Deputy First Minister said exactly what the SNP have said for

a number of years. Of course our preference is the independence

question, and that will be in the ballot paper, but we do not have a

monopoly of wisdom. That is precisely why be listened to civic

Scotland and their point of view. That contrasts markedly with a

Labour motion before this Parliament which says it wants to

drop to civic Scotland but rejects one of the arguments coming forward

from civic Scotland. We will listen and not prejudge what people have

to save. One of the problems I have with Johann Lamont is the extent of

being in cahoots with the Conservative Government in

Westminster, which is no clear. I am a great but student of body-

language, and I was watching the Labour benches every time the

Conservatives said they were standing shoulder to shoulder

earlier on in this debate. There was a lot of discomfiture on the

Labour benches. I think there will be a lot more as we see the extent

of the claims of their colleagues in Westminster about how they have

been working hand-in-hand with the Tory Government in Westminster in

order to put forward d'etat to this Parliament and the people of the

Scotland. -- diktats. There is no difficulty whatsoever. What is

difficult is the strings the Prime Minister wants to attach to section

30. Surely this Parliament must agree that the place this must be

built must be in Scotland. It must be led by this Parliament, produced

in dialogue with civic Scotland, and it must produce a debate which

I hope this nation can be proud of. The First Minister offers a false

prospectus. He says the choice is independence or the Tories. Neither

of these things are what Scotland really wants, and this debate must

be conducted in terms that recognises -- that recognise

Scottish Labour has a positive influence on Scotland and the

United Kingdom. Can I give him some advice? A symbol of your

recognition that you did not have a monopoly of wisdom, is not simply

to find people who agree with you, you need to work with those who do

not agree with you. The fact of the matter is, when this decision is

made, depending on the will of the Scottish people, Scotland will

separate from or remain in the UK. The day after that referendum, all

of us in this chamber, every Scot, will unite, work together and make

Scotland the best it can be, whatever the constitutional

arrangement. Will the First Minister accept the responsibility

here to be a national leader and call for us to come together on the

process around the referendum. To make sure that he is not just

acting as a party leader board that he will deliver a free and fair

referendum that everyone in this country can trust and upset.

I welcome part of that question, because within it are sentiments of

which I very much a proof. Can I assure the Labour Party that when

the amendment to Johann Lamont's motion tops about consultation with

all the people of Scotland, but does include the Labour Party? It

absolutely includes the Labour Party. When we produced that

consultation document, I think perhaps some of the fears Johann

Lamont has expressed will be seen not to be strongly held. I am

looking forward, as we agree this process, to us getting onto the

arguments that are really going to matter. I do not agree with the

Labour Party's expression today that evolution and independents are

opposites. The whole basis on which I campaigned with the late Donald

Dewar in 1987 was on the prospectus of increasing power to Scotland.

They were not officers, they were part of a continuum -- they were

not opposites. It does affect what we can and cannot do in Scotland.

Have no doubt Johann Lamont is as fiercely concerned as I am with

levels of child poverty. Some statistics we saw this week, for

example. She must acknowledge that what is happening in terms of

welfare reform and Westminster now threatens to undo all the progress

that has been made in recent years. How can we reconcile that with not

acquiring the powers? I heard in the debate about what was the SNP

going to do about nuclear weapons in Scotland? The only basis that

the people of Scotland will be able to move weapons of mass destruction

from our soil is if we have the powers that an independent

Parliament will bring. I have every interest in making sure we have a

consensus on the process. I have every interest and will make every

effort for us to do it, because I am anxious, as I hope every other

member in this chamber is, to get to the nub of the argument, to let

the Scottish people decide their own future. Because that future is

one with powers for this Parliament that can create a prosperous

economy but also adjust society. He question number two, Ruth

Davidson. The to ask the First Minister when he will next big with

the Secretary of State for Scotland. I have no immediate plans, but I

did speak to him on Tuesday. The First Minister spoke this

morning about his desire for consensus on the referendum process,

but then in the next breath said that consensus had to bow to his

majority. In an answer to Johann Lamont, he said he had no problem

with that the section 30 motion but with any strings attached. Let's

look at one of the strings he objected to. He casts doubt on the

integrity and impartiality of those serving on the electoral commission

and wants to hand-pick his own team to oversee the referendum. He may

like to think he is a team captain, but that does not mean he gets to

pick the referee. Does he want to repeat the comments made in his

name by his official spokesman this week? Does he want to stand up now

and impugn the reputation, impartiality and neutrality of the

commissioners on the electoral commission.

I am not impugning the repeated -- reputation of anyone in this

chamber or outside. I read this morning the feelings of the

Scottish Trade Union Congress on this very matter, and I approved of

what they had to say. I know that Ruth Davidson does not take to

heart what the TUC has to say, but perhaps she should read these words.

Secondly, this Government have involved the electoral commission

in the elections and Scotland. I would ask Ruth Davidson to wait for

the consultation paper and if she is dissatisfied with what that

consultation paper says, are then the representations she, like the

Labour Party, are able to make to the Government will have a full and

frank hearing. I do think many of the difficulties she thinks are

apparent will not be as difficult as she feels. Can I say about the

strings attached that., is it not, is a question of principle. There

is no question of objecting to a legal referendum. In one of our

documents we pointed out that could be a pursuit -- that we will pursue

a legally binding referendum. Do the that -- the difficulty is we

can have this section to take only if it fulfils certain criteria. We

can see the principle of obtaining a referendum, who vote in that

referendum, surely we nullify the whole point of the democracy of the

Scottish people and their ability to select in this Parliament as

they have done, parties which have a mandate. It is not just the SNP

who supported the SNP process in this election, the Greens did as

well, parties to are mandated to pursue that. We will have a process

which is open and transparent and consultative, but it means the

decision has to lie in Scotland, I would have suggest that much of

that ground is given when the SNP voted for the Scotland Act. I would

like to get back to the question I asked the First Minister. It was

reported on Wednesday and I quote from the press and Journal, the

First Minister's spokesman said organisation should be barred

because it has political appointees on its board. I am glad he

recognises in his answer that he voted to extend the role of the

Electoral Commission, and that the SNP has bemoaned the fact that they

were not around to be involved in the referendum in 89. Why eat

doesn't he trust the Electoral Commission now? His Akua it --

accusations raised doubts about whether he was illegal, a fair and

decisive referendum. If he has evidence against the impartiality

of the Electoral Commission, will he produce it? It is best to listen

to the first answer before the second question. I repeat that I am

not impugning the integrity of the Electoral Commission or anybody

else in my contributions. Tasked with responsibility of making

recommendations, this independent body, on the referendum. The

crucial point Ruth Davidson misses is that when we evolved the

Electoral Commission and it became accountable in that sense to the

parliament, that was the crucial point. If she pursues that line of

accountability and holds that thought and waits for the

consultation document, which she will get a chance to participate in,

perhaps she will find her fears can be somewhat dissuaded. If I could

say this gently. There were some remarks made earlier in the debate

and not everybody has a clear recollection of the 1979 referendum

as I do, but I do not think that inciting the 1979 referendum,

rigged by Westminster, that any of the anti- independent parties are

on the strongest ground on which they could stand!

Can the First Minister confirmed that on Monday of this week more

than 700 employees of a construction company in my

constituency discovered they had gone into administration, putting

vital jobs at risk. Is he aware that his company, which has a long

successful history, was taken on by a venture capitalist, and since

that time it has gone from healthy profit of over �100 million

turnover into receivership without warning with the Bank refusing to

extend credit and directors leaving at the end of last year with pay-

offs. Does he recognise the impact this will have on my constituency?

Will he agree to a meeting with the appropriate minister of his

government with myself and Westminster colleague to discuss

what avenues are available to protect the workforce? You yes. I

am aware of the situation -- yes. I agree to the meeting. I can also

tell that the relevant minister is speaking with the administrators

today to discuss the situation. I see from the comments that he might

have more information to bring to the discussions and we welcome that.

I make sure -- will make sure a ministerial meeting is held as

early as possible. To ask whether it remains the Scottish

government's position to hold the referendum in the second half of

the current parliamentary session? When he tabled a question, little

did he think that events would have moved on in terms of the debate

over the past few days. The answer can only be, yes! I thank him for

his answer. I am glad he is following the wishes of the

Scottish people rather than a group of Old Etonians from London. It is

reported David Cameron and Ed Miliband are agreed in this issue.

Does the First Minister agreed that the attitude in London is a perfect

example of why Scotland needs this so that decisions about the future

of our country can be taken by those who care most about the

country, the people of Scotland. does well to mention one of the

finest men I have ever known and the phrase, his phrase, deployed

many times, deeply-felt, it was one of the finest phrases, it does not

matter where you come from, it is going -- his way you are going to

as a nation. I will not the labour the point, but I will say that I

think that a Labour leader at Westminster who get the response

from a prime minister as saying he is 100% in agreement probably has a

reasonably short time frame are left on his term of office. To ask

what action the Crown Office has taken in response to legislative

changes about double jeopardy. Scottish government brought into

force exemptions to the rule against double jeopardy. The lord

advocate asked the solicitor general to review cases that may be

prosecuted under the new exceptions to the rule. That review is ongoing.

Once it is completed, contact will be made with victims or families of

victims of the cases. Following the conviction and jailing of two men

for the murder of Stephen Lawrence, may I raised the case of a man

brutally stabbed to death while visiting his girlfriend. Nobody has

been jailed for his murder. His family awaits justice. The Stephen

Lawrence case shows the impact new evidence and technology can have

been delivering justice. Will the Crown Office re-examined cases like

that. Will the First Minister do what he can to ensure that no stone

is left unturned in the search for justice for the family mentioned.

This is a serious issue for Scotland and for -- the chamber has

huge sympathy for the family. The Act provides that it is possible to

look at persons in serious cases if there is new and compelling

evidence. The consideration of cases under the Act is a matter for

the Crown and has to be a matter for the Crown. Thus assist -- the

solicitor general who has been asked to prioritise cases stated

that the announcement -- at the time of the announcement, that it

is committed. As the member will understand, I have to be careful as

a politician in what I say. We should have faith in the ability of

Scotland's pot -- prosecutors to ensure that investigations and

prosecutions have taken appropriate cases. Reopening such cases in the

interest of justice is the right thing but requires time and effort.

Can he tell us what resources have been made available to examine any

evidence brought forward, and can he reassure any potential new

witnesses that such evidence will be considered properly? I can

certainly assure him that the lord advocate will have all resources

required. It is not my function as a politician to interfere in the

process, but in terms of resources, we have assurance they have the

resources to pursue cases. Everybody in the chamber should

trust the independent prosecutor's. If they have the resources to do

the job, they will do what is in the interests of justice, given the

new powers. We are closing on a sombre note. Earlier, serious

discussions about the independence referendum. The motion from the

Labour Party says there should be cross-party talks on timing for the

referendum. The amendment Alex Salmond referred to, which will be

carried given the majority, says it will be the responsibility of the

Scottish Parliament to decide timing and arrangements. You have a

fundamental division. Alex Salmond said he was open to the idea of