Referendum Special Politics Scotland

Good afternoon. The referendum is over, but the dust has yet to

settle, with a majority of Scots voting no to independence last

Thursday, many on both sides of the debate are now asking what can we

expect? Will it be devo max, Devo plus, a federal UK, or just nothing

at all? At Holyrood, MSPs are about to hold a debate about the

referendum result. We will cross to the chamber shortly. And it will be

the first time Alex Salmond has addressed the parliament since his

defeat and resignation last week. We will also go to the Labour Party

conference in Manchester to hear what their leader, Ed Miliband, has

to say, about more powers for the Scottish parliament and perhaps for

the English regions as well. First, we will get the thoughts of our

political leader Brian Taylor who is at Holyrood. What can we expect to

hear this afternoon? It is intriguing, because it is quite

difficult for them to get the tone right. I am sure the First Minister

will be regretting the fact that the people of Scotland did not vote his

way, but I think he will take comfort from the engagement, and the

evident enthusiasm for the process, of the referendum, and also the

dissipation of 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds. He will suggest that

this should be extended to other elections. But in terms of the

substance, in terms of the meat, I am sure he will say that he and the

SNP and the supporters of independence more generally will, to

borrow a phrase from his resignation statement, hold the foot to the fire

of the unionist parties, in terms of obliging them to go as far as

possible. How hard will it be for them to strike the right balance,

accepting the result but keeping the dream of independence alive? It is

difficult for both sides. The temptation is to rerun the

referendum, to do a screaming match. I do not think that would do any

good. I think it would make sense for them to be magnanimous, in terms

of the perspective of the union. I'm sure that Alex Salmond and his

colleagues will seek to work within the grain of the views the people of

Scotland, while it will be understandable if they want to add

some jibes about the suggestion that they believe there has already been

backsliding from the union parties, something that is denied on their

side. The parties of the union are outnumbered in the Scottish

parliament, but they will be the ones who are feeling like winners

today. What will they be doing to drive at home. I think there will

probably take the perspective of Jim Murphy, that the union side won, but

they should not be vanquished. Maybe the atmosphere of the chamber, the

fact of the two antagonistic sides coming together again, will produce

sparks of vitriol. But it would be sensible, I think, if they were

perhaps able to contain that. But we will see. The no vote, of course,

follows a promise of more powers for the Scottish parliament from UK

party leaders. How important, then, is Ed Miliband's speech to his party

conference this afternoon? It is a sign, it is an indication. You have

the debate and discussion going on at the UK Parliament as well,

whereby the Conservatives are saying, yes, they endorse the idea

of more powers for the Scottish parliament, they signed up to it at

the end of the referendum campaign, but they are suggesting there should

be a process of English votes on English laws, something that causes

problems for the Labour Party, because there could be a future

Labour Prime Minister who requires the support of Scottish MPs to

govern. And if there are English votes on English laws, that

individual would perhaps be unable to enact legislation affecting 85%

of the population. The Conservatives genuinely believing English votes on

English laws, but it implicates David Cameron's backbenchers. It is

entirely partisan. What they are doing is saying, that coming up to

the general election, I, David Cameron, tried to give you, the

people of England, English votes on English laws, and Ed Miliband

stopped me, so you should vote Tory. I think there is very much a

political agenda being issued here. And the man in the middle, Lord

Smith of Kelvin, who has been tasked in trying to build a consensus, has

been reminded of just how difficult that could be, with his intervention

today, saying you cannot force an agreement between the parties. He

has effectively got to produce a White Paper by November 30. The

White Paper that was produced in 1997 followed years of discussions

between the cross party conventions. The process took years.

Now we are expecting him to jump forward on the basis of the despite

proposals that the various parties have. Maybe the timescale will

concentrate minds. Among others, Lord Smith is looking for support

from the SNP. I am absolutely of the view they will give that support,

not least because they are -- if they are involved in the process it

drives up the common denominator to a slightly higher level than might

otherwise be the case. But will that commitment from the SNP, for

enhancing powers to the Scottish parliament, mark a departure from

their commitment, ultimately, to independence? Or is it just an added

extra? No, it doesn't. The statement of aims of the SNP is independence,

and furthering the interests of the Scottish people. This comes under

chapter two. Just finally, in terms of Ed Miliband and his speech, just

how difficult a position is he in? Because, after all, he relies on

Scottish MPs to get a majority at Westminster. He knows that devolving

more power to Scotland is required. But there is a knock on effect from

that? He may rely on Scottish MPs if it is relatively tight. Tony Blair,

for example, had a majority in England as well. I think he has more

of a problem in England. Of course he has a problem in Scotland, he has

disturbed the haemorrhage of support that was apparent there in terms of

the independence vote, stop that from happening at the general

election. But he has got a problem in England, because of this

challenge by the Conservatives on English votes on English laws. Too

many English people that will seem like common sense, and Ed Miliband

is not arguing against it, he's just taking longer to think about it. I

think that could be a problem for him as well.

Thank you, Brian. We will cross now to the parliament chamber. The First

Minister, Alex Salmond, is about to speak. But first, the presiding

officer. In fact, here is Alex Salmond.

I think the presiding officer. I'm glad you decided to do time for

reflection today, because the remarks he made, which I support and

agree, they chime in exactly to the first point I was going to make in

this statement. You rightly identify that last week's referendum was the

most extraordinary, empowering and exhilarating experience. And huge

credit to that is due to both sides in the referendum campaign. When we

reflect on that, it is worth comparing it to our previous

experience of constitutional referendums. In the vote of 1979, it

was a botched job. The side which gained the most votes was unable to

have its wishes put into effect. The 1997 was an altogether different

experience. It was a great experience, actually. But we should

remember that the turnout in that referendum, however successful, was

60%. Last week, as you correctly identified, the turnout was 85%. The

highest for any vote on this scale ever held on these islands. And in

my estimation of the exception of the handful of miscreants, both

sides of the debate conducted themselves in an extraordinarily

democratic, civilised and engaged manner. And therefore, to every

single campaigner and a voter, whatever your view and whatever your

vote, I want to say thank you. This has been the greatest democratic

experience in Scotland's history, and has brought us great credit,

both nationally and internationally. APPLAUSE

And that overwhelmingly positive side to the referendum experience is

now generally recognised. It is a shame that a few largely

metropolitan journalists concentrated on negatives and minor

elements, because the true story to emerge from the referendum is that

Scotland has had the most politically engaged population in

western Europe. For both sides, that is a significant and positive fact

to be reckoned with. We need to retain and encourage the people's

engagement, vitality, spirit. Nothing is more important for the

future than that. I will add a few caveats to that point towards the

end of my speech, but right now I want to focus on that positive. So I

will focus on two points in particular, which arise from this

referendum. The first is this. There is not a shred of evidence for

arguing that 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds should be allowed to

vote. -- should not be allowed. Their engagement in this great

constitutional debate was second to none. They proved themselves to be

the serious, passionate and committed citizens we always

believed they would be. Everyone in this chamber should be proud of this

chamber's decision to widen the franchise. There is an overwhelming,

indeed an unanswerable case, for giving 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds

the vote in all future elections in Scotland and indeed across the

United Kingdom. All parties in this Parliament, I think, should make a

vow to urge Westminster to make this happen in time for next year's

general election. The second question, which is one that is

already asked by many people, is whether we move forward from here?

From the moment the result of the referendum became clear section 30

of the Edinburgh Rugby and came into effect. That means that both the UK

Government and Scottish government are committed to accepting the

outcome of the referendum and working together in the best

interests of Scotland and the rest of the UK. I believe strongly in

section 30. I put it into the Edinburgh agreement. It was the red

line issue for the Scottish Government in the same way that the

red line issue for the UK Government was not to have devo max on the

ballot paper. And therefore, the Scottish Government will stick to

section 30, the clause that we insisted in being in the agreement.

And that means that the Scottish Government will contribute fully to

a process to empower the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people.

We will bring forward constructive proposals for doing exactly that. I

have related this intention to the Prime Minister within minutes of the

result being confirmed. -- re-laid. I welcome the appointment of Lord

Smith. He is a trusted person who in recent months and recent years has

given great service to Scotland, and to his oversight of the Commonwealth

Games organising committee, which was outstanding and indeed

exemplary. I should say that David Cameron it surprised me, and I

suspect others in this chamber, with his statement on Friday morning,

less than an hour after the outcome of the referendum was confirmed. He

said in that statement that change in Scotland should be in tandem, and

in case we didn't understand what that meant, he repeated, at the same

pace as change in England and the rest of the UK. That condition, as

all of us will know and recognise, would risk throwing the entire

process into DeLay and confusion. -- into DeLay. It would directly also

contradict the clear commitments made during the campaign. The

briefing from Downing Street yesterday afternoon was very

different from the Friday morning statement. That suggests that the UK

Government is starting to understand the importance of meeting its

commitments during the campaign. It is crucial that they do have that

understanding. For this Parliament, we, all of us, have a responsibility

to hold Westminster's feet to the fire to ensure that the pledges are

met. That's not just the job for the Scottish Government, it is one for

all parties in the parliament. Indeed, we might well argue there is

a special obligation on the unionist parties. They promised devolution.

It is essential they deliver. But all parties should understand, and

understand this well, that's the true guardians of progress are not

the political parties at Westminster or the political parties here in

this chamber, or Lord Smith. They are the energised electorate of this

nation, the community of Scotland who will not tolerate any

equivocation or delay. I was struck yesterday by the statement of Graeme

Smith, of the Scottish Trade Union Congress. And I suspect in that

statement he captured the feelings of many, many people in Scotland.

This is what he had to say. " The vast civic movement for meaningful

and progressive change that has built up in the last two years is

impatient for change, and will not accept minimalist proposals

developed in a pre-referendum context, handed down on a take them

all leave them basis. They are not going to be passive participants in

the process, or tolerate political obfuscation or compromise. The

sooner that politicians recognise this and get down to working with

civil societies and the communities and the people of Scotland to

deliver a comprehensive new devolution settlement, the better".

What Graeme Smith said is absolutely correct. The referendum debate

engaged people in every community of our country. Its final outcome

cannot be a last minute detail -- deal between a small group of

Westminster politicians. Lord Smith has already recognised the need to

capture the energy of the referendum debate. All of us should support

this commitment to genuine consultation. After all, one thing

we now know is that proper consultation and debate energises

people rather than distracting them. It is worth remembering that since

the Edinburgh Rugby and was signed in 2012, the number of people

unemployed in Scotland has reduced by 40,000. -- Edinburgh agreement.

We now have record employment in Scotland. We have record female

employment, and the fastest rising ever female employment in Scotland.

The economy has come out of the Great Recession head of the rest of

the UK. Scotland has outperformed every part of the UK aside from

London and the south-east for foreign investment. Visitor spending

has increased exports have grown, the Scottish has increased 30 new

bills into this Parliament, and we have delivered the most successful

Commonwealth Games in the history of the Commonwealth Games. I mention

that, in passing, because in the last parliamentary debate before the

referendum, Joe element expressed concern about the way in which

Scotland has been paused on big decisions facing our country.

Scotland was not on pause for the referendum. It was on fast forward

on the economy, as every statistic indicates. Of course, this

Parliament rightly has also occupied its attention on introducing

measures to alleviate the effects of Westminster legislation, like the

council tax reduction scheme, to help 500,000 of our fellow citizens,

or the bedroom tax alleviation, to mitigate the impact of the bedroom

tax. Asking ourselves as a country what sort of nation we want to be

isn't something that is separate from good government. It is part of

good government. Political confidence and economic confidence

go together. All of us have a responsibility to maintain that

political confidence and self belief, to enable an empowered and

engaged electorate in delivering meaningful changes to devolution.

Any improvement of the devolution settlement will require a consent

motion here in this Parliament. There is a clear role for this

Parliament in considering what new powers should be delivered. There

will doubtless be a range of views and proposals. The Scottish

Government's view of enhanced devolution settlement should pass

rekeyed tests. It should enable us to make Scotland a more prosperous

country, the jobs test. In particular, genuine job creating

powers are important. They should allow us to build a fairer society.

We need to address the underlying causes of inequality in Scottish

society. And they should enable Scotland to have a stronger and

clearer articulated voice on the international stage. The Labour

Party, less than two weeks before the referendum, premised home rule

for Scotland within the United Kingdom. -- promised. We have to

ensure that the power is delivered to this Parliament match not just

the rhetoric but also the ambitions of the people of Scotland. It is

also vital that you economic powers do not in any way disadvantaged

Scotland. The bow made by the unionist party leaders was

absolutely clear that "because of the continuation of the allocation

of resources, the powers of the Scottish Parliament to raise

revenue, we can state categorically that how much is spelt on the NHS

will be a matter for the Scottish parliament". But the delayed

devolution motion released over the weekend failed to repeat that

promise on the Barnett formula. The Barnett formula promise is

essential, as the Unionists now acknowledged, until Scotland has

control of all of our own resources. And so we need clarity, that UK

parties will stay true to their promises and vows about Barnett. We

need to ensure that the Scottish parliament is entrenched in

legislation. But it can therefore never be abolished or diminished by

Westminster. That was clearly promised by the referendum, but that

again is missing from the Parliamentary motion at Westminster.

And while making that important change, the United Kingdom

government should finally give a statutory basis to the civil

convention of legislative consent motion is. Overall, there is a great

opportunity for this Parliament. We can work together to help the UK

Government deliver its promise of significant extra powers for this

chamber. We can do so in such a way that interests and engages the

Scottish people. I did say earlier there were two caveats I want to add

to the hugely positive nature of the referendum process. Both involve the

criminal law, and therefore they are worth putting in this statement.

There is the outstanding matter of the Treasury briefing of the evening

of September ten. 45 minutes before The Royal Bank of Scotland board

meeting finished. We need to establish the full circumstances and

justification for this briefing, and how it can be anything other then

contrary to section 52 of the criminal Justice act of 1993.

Secondly, the scenes we saw in Glasgow around Saint Georges Square

on Friday night cannot be tolerated. We expect to know that police

Scotland will take proper and necessary action against those who

indulged in prearranged thuggery against the peaceful demonstration.

The full force of the law will be enabled, and be expected, to make

sure that we eradicate such behaviour from Scottish life. The

late Donald Dewar, in what I believe to be the finest speech of his life,

spoke at the opening of this Parliament in 1999. He reflected at

one point on the discourses of the Scottish Enlightenment, as an echo

from the past which has helped to shape modern Scotland. What we have

seen in these last two years is a new discourse of Democratic

Enlightenment. Scotland now has the most politically engaged population

in Western Europe, and one of the most engaged of any country anywhere

in the democratic world. This land has been a hub of peaceful,

passionate discussion, in the workplace, at home, in cafes, pubs,

and on the streets of Scotland. Across Scotland, people have been

energised, in cafes, pubs, and on the streets of Scotland. Across

Scotland, people have been energised,, and I expect in the

experience of anyone in this chamber. We have seen a generational

change, in attitudes towards independence and greater

self-government, and also in how politics should be carried forward.

We have a new body politic, Nu spirit abroad in the land, which is

speaking loud and clear. All of us must realise that things will never

be the same again. Whenever we are travelling together, we are a better

nation today then we were at the start of this process. -- wherever

we are travelling. We are more informed, more enabled, and more

empowered. As a result of that, our great national debate, in my

estimation, will help us make a fairer, more prosperous and more

democratic country, and in all of that, all of Scotland will emerge as

the winner. APPLAUSE

Thank you. I now call on Joanne Lamont.

Thank you. We might want to reflect that it is a good idea to give me 18

minutes on a regular basis. That is for another day. To the First

Minister, we will have an opportunity to speak at a later

stage about his contribution to Scotland as First Minister. We

recognise it is a very significant day for him. But we will have the

opportunity properly to talk about the massive contribution Alex

Salmond has made to the life of Scotland, and I look forward to that

opportunity, but I also recognise it is a very significant time in his

career, and we should reflect on that. There can be no doubt that

last Thursday was a big moment in Scotland's story. All of us in here

have been passionate in the positions we have taken, whether it

has been for yes or for no. We have argued it long and hard. But the

reality now is that the people of Scotland have decided. They have

decided that they wished to remain inside the United Kingdom. And that

means that it cannot be politics, it can never go back to where it was

before. We know that the debate over Scotland's future provoked lots of

energy and passion, and people were genuinely weighing up the arguments,

testing the facts, and coming to the conclusions which they felt were

best for their families. A huge turnout, and the arguments and

debates we heard all around us, the activist -- activism from all young

people, proved that politics is still relevant to people's lights

when many feel disconnected from the democratic process. I am immensely

proud of the young people in my party who carried themselves with

dignity, voted with passion and commitment, and made their arguments

for staying inside the United Kingdom. And I know that on the

other side, people feel the same way about young people who were engaged

in their argument. I was immensely proud and emotional on the day of

the election, to travel with my family, with my son in particular,

at 17, taking the opportunity to vote in Scotland's future. It was a

momentous occasion for him, and I would certainly agree with the First

Minister, that the question of votes at 16 is something that should be

embraced. We are committed on this site to votes at 16. Votes at 16 has

been our policy for years, and we wanted to happen, and I do not

believe there is any good reason why it should not happen right now. The

First Minister referred to the question of the civil motions and

the entrenchment of this Parliament. Again, I am happy to agree with him,

because these guarantees change that is fairer, faster and what the

Scottish people demand. I welcome his statement on the statutory basis

for the civil convention and legislative consent motions. It was,

of course, first mentioned by Labour in our devolution commission

proposals. Our devolution commission report stated, "we recommend that

civil convention should be given a statutory basis to reflect the Riata

of the Scottish Parliament's permanence and irreversibility. --

reality. So we do, I think, agree on these questions. But of course, we

also know that this debate has not been without these consequences.

Energy and passion was sometimes misplaced, and became aggressive. I

have to say to the First Minister, I do not think you can simply describe

this as the behaviour of AQ miscreants. On both sides, we should

respect -- reflect on behaviour that was intimidating, and was aimed at

silencing people. I, for my part, will do all I can to make sure that

anybody on my side of the debate is left in no doubt that that behaviour

was entirely unacceptable. APPLAUSE

I simply ask the First Minister to do the same. It cannot be that we

believe that laying siege to the BBC for over four hours, insulting staff

as they were going about their business, was the behaviour of AQ

miscreants. I don't think anybody in here really thought that was

appropriate behaviour, and I do think it is a matter you should

distance yourself from. Of course, the debate, by its nature, was

divisive. It was from many people putting so much energy and effort

into their respective campaigns. There were always going to be a lot

of disappointed Scots. We all have a responsibility to heal that divide,

rather than foment any lingering creepiness of bitterness. Much has

been made on the yes side of the 1.6 million Scots who supported the

cause. It is an amazing achievement to get that many people in a country

of this size to vote for any proposition. But we should recognise

the achievement of the no side, which gained 2 million votes of

support from our fellow Scots, who believed that we are stronger as

part of the United Kingdom. We didn't presume a single vote, and to

receive this clear endorsement for the United Kingdom has changed

Scottish politics forever. The constitutional question has hung

over this country all of my life, and I give absolute credit to the

First Minister for giving the people of Scotland the opportunity to

answer it. While he might not have got the result he was looking for,

we can all agree that the United Kingdom is now the settled will of

the Scottish people. APPLAUSE

No longer will I United Kingdom be the consequence of a deal struck by

the privileged few. It is now the choice of the many, expressed in a

fair and democratic way in which we can all have confidence. It should

market a new phase in Scottish politics, now that the issue has

been firmly settled. -- mark a new phase. I don't speak for the 45%. I

don't speak for the 55%. I speak for the 100% of people in this country

who want politics to be about their lives, their concerns, their

families and their future. I have been advised on many occasions that

it is not a good look to give the electorate a row when they disagree

with you, and I think I should reflect on that now. It cannot be.

We have to reflect. We cannot allow the idea that somehow people were

robbed, that people were tricked, that if only we could have persuaded

the over 55s we could have won. That language is a language which

continues the division that we saw too often in the period before.

These figures on over 55s in themselves are simply not true, but

the main point is this. Before Parliament, we had a number of

impassioned debates on the yes side, who said that only by voting

for yes can we do certain things. We cannot spend the next two years,

having moved from "if you vote yes, this will happen" to "if you had

voted yes, that would have happened". We cannot leave the

politics of the place in that shape. We need to move on. While the

referendum was divisive, a consensus emerged among all of the key figures

on a number of areas. We don't need anybody to hold our feet to the fire

and make it this -- in making this Parliament work. We don't need

anybody to hold our feet to the fire in getting the powers for this

Parliament that will make it stronger still inside the United

Kingdom. I give my commitment that we will bring powers over taxation,

over welfare and we'll align them with the powers that are already

here to create jobs and enterprise and give people skills, to use our

procurement policies, to give people a living wage. Bring both of these

powers together to make sure that we have a Parliament that delivers to

the people of Scotland. APPLAUSE

This one side of the argument has been about strengthening the

Parliament and the people of this country will hold us to that

commitment. But the other side of the argument, the other side,

prosecuted both by "yes" and "no", that the issues were on the

doorsteps with people concerned about the future and careers and

jobs and rights in the workplace. These are the other sides of the

bargain and we all together need to deliver on these in the next two

years. APPLAUSE

We all know that childcare is a problem for many families and we

have a responsibility to help them. We will work with the government

where we can build a consensus on delivering those policies. We all

agree that our NHS should be free at the point of need and protected from

private profit. We will work with the government if they want to do

these things. But we do need honesty from the Scottish government about

what they're currently planning for the NHS and in other areas too. So

that we can help work in that process. If I might be forgiven to

say one area, where I'm sure people can agree, is something for example

like land reform. Because it's been part of a radical agenda for Labour.

If we were to see social change within the communities, then land

reform can deliver that. There is a will within this Parliament to

change the concentrated pattern of landownership across Scotland. We

have received the recommendation from the group and between now and

2016 we can and must look at how to enact that. We must introduce

radical changes and address the fact that 423 people own 50% of privately

owned land in Scotland. Devolution has taken us along, but it's a

journey that's not complete. It's about political will and I will work

with people right across the chamber who are willing to do that. This

highlights areas where we can come together over the next period to

make a radical difference to people's lives. Because there is

less than two years left of this Parliament, before we go to the

people again in May 2016. As the First Minister highlighted, I

previously described Scotland as being on pause as we debated the

referendum. Everyone must agree that the enormity of the referendum

debate has resulted in less focus on other areas such as education and

health. And, indeed, the long list of things that the First Minister

highlights as being successes are for me proof, proof, that devolution

inside the United Kingdom has worked for the people of Scotland.

APPLAUSE I want to work more with him on

these big questions. How do we give people a living wage? How do we

protect our Health Service? How do we address the needs of your young

people who don't make it through university, to give them the

opportunity to take up the jobs created by the Scottish government?

Perhaps now, with the constitutional question settled, we can go back to

debating these issues on Thursday -- and Thursday's legacy can be this.

We start to discuss what it can do, rather than what it can't. I so

agree with the Presiding Officer that we need to open up our panel

and Graeme Smith that we must again see our Parliamentary process, the

walls breached bivelyic Scotland and the trade unions and that our

committees listen to them, but that each and every one of us go out and

listen to what people in our communities are saying. Let this

place again be a lively energised place where we don't presume we know

the answers, but have the confidence to listen to the people who do,

because despite being on opposing sides, I believe that the two

million no to voters and the 1.6 million "yes" voters have much in

common. I was struck that many on both sides were asking the same

questions, but coming up with different ways to get to the answer

we all want. I have already become the process of meeting with,

speaking to, phoning, contacting people that I know voted yes. I have

done that. Because I respect the fact although we may have come to a

different conclusion, but they were driven by the very same things that

brought me and many other people into politics. I don't fear engaging

and working with anyone who has the interests of Scotland at heart, who

genuinely wants to wrestle with the issue of equality and who is as

troubled as anyone in here is about the existence of food banks and the

young people, their life chances are determined by the time they're

three. This is the time for all of us on all sides of that debate, to

look and search for the things that we have shared in common, so that we

can address that cry from the people of Scotland that they wanted real

change. Because, we know, they all shared a desire for change, whether

yes or no and a belief that we can do better than this. They all

displayed a renewed confidence in this Parliament let's now use it to

deliver the change we need. No-one believes that Scottish politics can

go back to business as usual. Nor should we let it. And I promise you

that while I enjoy shouting at people as much as anyone, it cannot

be the only default position of anybody. If we want to respond to

the awakening that the First Minister described, it cannot be

that any of us, any of us, goes back to business as usual. We know that

the people of Scotland have said it and we also know the message that

drove that debate was what is happening in our communities is not

good enough. Let us find a way, let us find a way together to respond to

that challenge. Because, the eyes of the world have moved on. Scotland

seemed like the centre of the universe as the world's media

descended on us and the debate was being discussed all over the globe.

I don't ni chi fan le ma of us real -- think any of us realised that

that debate would open up and the interest would be prompted at the

world. We know we were interesting for a time, but we recognise that

things move on. However, the eyes of Scotland are still trained on us

now. They look to us to bring about the change they need, a change in

our politics and a change in their lives. Let us not lapse into the old

debates of the past and be found wanting. Let's now, together, take

on the challenge laid down to us by the people of Scotland to see this

strong Scottish Parliament standing strong inside the United Kingdom.

APPLAUSE Thank you. Eight minutes. Thank you. I would like to thank the

First Minister for advanced sites of the statement and -- sight of the

statement and I would like to add a few more words. I was eight years

old when Alex Salmond was first elected an MP and 11 when he first

led his party, so he has been a dominant force in Scottish politics

for the entirety of my political awareness. He's also changed

Scotland through his time in both Parliament and government and I

think anyone in the chamber recognises that. There we go.

APPLAUSE Scotland has just had the biggest,

broadest conversation about the future of our country and it was a

conversation that saw schoolchildren line up with grandparents and half

the world want to join in. It saw David Bowie, and Kermit the Frog

declare for one side with Billy Bragg and Brian cox and Grounds

Keeper Willie on the other and find common cause with many people. It

was a conversation that as a nation we needed to have. A conversation

that energised Scotland like no other and engaged us too. And I

agree with the First Minister that the story of this referendum was

participation. The number of people who turned out to vote, the number

who turned out to help, who got involved, having never previously

posted a leaflet or knocked a door, the number who thought this

discussion, this decision, was too important for them to sit this one

out. And the number of young people, having their first taste of

front-line politics. I have met on both sides, teenagers who were

passionate, informed, articulate and who will, without doubt, be our next

generation of MPs, MSPs and ministers and I know that these

young people have added to the debate and proven by their

intelligence and contact that we must look at the franchise across

the whole of the UK. This was a conversation that has been in large

part a credit to our nation and a conversation that that same nation

needed to open up. It has energised Scotland, but divided Scotland too.

Now, after every vote has been cast, every ballot has been counted, it is

time for the country to come back together. To accept that the

majority has spoken. That over two million people came together to back

one proposition against the other. It is time for the country to move

forward with common cause. And for that to happen it's going to require

leadership. It's going to require an acknowledgement from those at the

top that was a free, fair, open and decisive ballot. It was the Scottish

government that set the question. It was the Scottish government that set

the date. The Scottish government who set the franchise. And the

elected leadership of the Scottish government who put taxpayers' money

at the machinery of the government's Civil Service behind trying to

secure a "yes" vote. I am glad that the First Minister mentioned the

Edinburgh Agreement's, because both signatures are there in text. The

two governments look forward to a referendum that is legal and fair,

producing a decisive and respected outcome. The two government are

committed to continue to work together constructively in the light

of the outcome, whatever it is, in the best interests of the people of

Scotland. That's what they signed up to and Scotland demands no less and

I'm glad that the First Minister says he will honour that commitment.

I know that it's hard. Before we broke up for the final campaign

period, we had a debate in this chamber and I laid out how I would

feel if the upcoming ballot didn't go my way. I said that I would grief

for what I -- grieve for what I would feel that I lost. I understand

that is how many are feeling who voted for independence. Hearts and

grief and loss, but that pain is not healed by people crying foul and

that grief is mot ministered to by talk of a conspiracy. To truly come

back together and move on, we need acknowledgement that the process was

not flawed and not just the mechanics of the process, but the

process itself. The act of asking all citizens who are of age to

decide which constitutional future they choose. That direct democracy

with all votes weighing the same is the correct way to decide our

future. Since Friday, we have had three senior nationalist, including

the First Minister himself, saying that there are other ways to

unilateral declare independence and we need those at the top to accept

that result, because without that we cannot move on and move on we must.

This Parliament and the members in it need to get back to the job that

we were elected to do. We need to have a broad discussion about

educational reform. We need to know the impact of cutting 140,000

college places on the skills base of the future workforce. We need to

have a full review of our Health Service. We need to know where the

IFS says health spending has been going up in England, but falling

here. We need to know about the 450 million worth of further cuts this

Government is planning to the Health Service. Cuts that it wanted to keep

from the public and that an NHS whistleblower felt so strongly about

that they risked their job to let the public know. We need an update

on the Police Service, one that routinely stops and searches

children and sees officers armed and on the streets without the consent

of the public, to change that policing nature. We also need to

know that with independence taken off the table for a political

lifetime, this Government is going to stop the politics of grievance

and try to make devolution work. I have five pages of quotes here from

members on the benches where they say only with independence. Only

with industry pence can we boost business. Keith Brown, February

2014. Only with independence will we see the interests of Scotland's

people put at the top of the agenda. Annabel Ewing. Only with

independence can we help women back into work, Nicola Sturgeon and only

with independence will we transform childcare. Order. Order. Presiding

Officer, this Government has spent seven years telling the country all

about things that it can't do and now it has just 18 months to tell us

the things that it can. One of those things that it can do is help

deliver more powers for the Scottish Parliament. Because, this referendum

was never about no change. Change is coming. It's about whether that

change should happen within our outwith the United Kingdom. For

months, SNP members have attacked proposals for further devolution,

the ways to make the Parliament more responsible and better and deliver

more for the people of Scotland. Yet, we are committed, the three

pro-UK party leaders and we came together in June to make that

commitment to further powers. We added to it in August under the

watchful gays of Donald Dewar -- gaze of Donald Dewar. I want this

Parliament to have to look Scotland's taxpayers in the eye and

I am intent on making that happen. The chair of this process, Lord

Kelvin was announced by the Prime Minister on Friday. I met with him

this morning. A Church of Scotland paper will be read by the next month

and engagement of the people of Scotland will start therefore. Draft

legislation will be prepared by the start of the year. This process is

real. It is happening and it will change the powers of this

Parliament. And the SNP needs to make a decision, is it going to

continue sniping from the sidelines or is it going to get on board and

work in good faith to develop our democracy here in Scotland? The

referendum was held. Millions voted. The outcome was decisive and it must

be respected. We need to get back to the jobs that we were elected to do,

making this devolved Parliament work for the people of Scotland.

APPLAUSE Six minutes. Thank you. The First

Minister and I spent only one year together in the Westminster

Parliament, but even just in that one short year I could see that he

had tremendous political skills. Even though I can recognise in this

political world that in opponents they have such skills, even if we

don't agree with their political beliefs and that is no more the case

than with the First Minister. I'm sure we'll get another opportunity

at a later stage to wax a wee bit more lyrical about his achievements.

This has been the democratic experience of my lifetime. Never in

my 30 years of politics have I seen anything like this. When was it the

last time that voters marched up to you in the middle of the high street

and demanded a 20-page document from you to read? When window cleaner was

arguing about the technical aspect of the European Union membership and

the Panama currency arrangements and it was even a topic among the German

tourists in Fort William, but the most inspiring aspect I found was

that the 16-year-old voter, who was voting for the first time ever, did

so with great pride, confidence and knowledge and I agree with the First

Minister, when he said that all 16 and 17-year-olds should get the

vote. They've carried themselves extremely well in this referendum.

They have given opportunities for 16 and 17-year-old right across the UK.

We should be endorsing that. The people of Scotland deserve the

widest and highest praise for rising to the occasion. They made Scotland

shine last week. We must treat that pride with care. We have a

responsibility to respect the decision backed up by two million

votes. The highest-ever endorsement for a political decision ever made

in Scotland. The First Minister is fond of expressing great confidence

in the ability of the Scottish people. To my great disappointment

over the weekend, that confidence evaporated. The First Minister

should not question the judgment of the people just because they didn't

agree with him. Within hours of the result and agreeing to participate

in the process for more powers, onfully -- on Friday, the First

Minister was activity seeking to undermine it with a range of bogus

distractions, claims and allegations. Today, he claims that

he accepts the result, but his complete statement betrays that

claim. With a new leadership in the SNP I have perhaps some hope that

that will change. This morning, I was pleased to meet Robert Smith, to

take him through my party's proposals for a more powerful

Scottish Parliament inside the United Kingdom. Members have known

he has been tasked to lead the effort. It's a tight timetable, but

I am confident that agree can be reached. Members will know that

Liberal Democrats published our proposals two years ago under the

chairmanship of Sir Menzies Campbell. It reflected the desire of

people in Scotland, we believe, that they wanted change, but change

within the United Kingdom. We propose that this Parliament raises

the majority of the money that it spends, those missing powers and

give us control of the purse strings and therefore control of our destiny

on the doe mess sick side. If we wanted to do something different

from Westminster, we could. If we want tax cuts for those on low and

middle incomes, we can choose to do that. If we want to invest more in

childcare we could raise the extra funds to pay for it. And that can be

done within a federal structure, where the big risks and rewards in

an uncertain world can be shared across the whole United Kingdom. We

say that the whole of income tax, including the rates and bands should

be decided here. Add in other taxes and we give the powers that tackle

inequality and address wealth to this Parliament. We propose to

assign the revenues from co-operation tax, so we --

corporation tax, so we can grow the economy here and we argue for

borrowing powers, so we can invest and save for the long-term future of

the country. And we think more can be done to integrate services for

people looking for work if the power over the work programme resided here

too. A federal settlement will give this institution permanency. What

the Liberal Democrat plans will do is equip every part of the United

Kingdom. First and certainly in Scotland, with a nimble government,

able to respond effectively to issues in Scotland with the

financial resources and clout to make that happen. It's a positive

agenda. I hope the SNP engage constructively and positively as

well. Not with some back-door attempt to rerun the referendum. Not

with some back-door attempt to put forward three tests that send exact

-- that sound exactly like the three tests that the First Minister set

for independence. But with positively proposals for change that

reflect the biggest-ever democratic endorsement this country has ever

seen. We also need to see, not just powers transferred from Westminster

to here, but powers transferred down into communities as well. It is

quite striking the difference in the votes and different parts of the

country. The most sceptical parts were often the most remote parts

from this Parliament. We need to push power down to communities so

they can have a bigger say. In conclusion, the result on Friday was

clear, legal and decisive. I'm sure no-one in this chamber will dispute

that. Two million people decided we were better together. As the First

Minister said last week, the question of industry pence has been

-- independence has been concluded for a generation and possibly a

lifetime. It has been laid to rest. Our task is now to build a better

Scotland, that makes the hopes and ambitions of people in Scotland. The

55% as well as the 45%. They've high hopes and we have our work cut out

to meet them. Thank you. APPLAUSE

Six minutes, Mr Harvey. Thank you. We have been back in the chamber

something just under 55 minutes and it seems that we can all make

statements about bridge building and finding common ground, but it seems

as though perhaps we may discover we mean slightly different things by

it. I would like to echo the thanks expressed by several speakers

already to the many campaigners and activists, the many people, who have

become politicised throughout this process. I have found it an

energising experience and privilege to take part in this historic

debate. And this high level of public participation. I know there's

been bad behaviour on both sides, as Johann Lamont said and as the First

Minister recognised. I condemn bad behaviour on both sides, whether

I've seen it on-line, in public meetings, on George Square or

outside the BBC. But I have found it far easier throughout this entire

debate to find examples of inspiring, compelling, creative and

inclusive behaviour. APPLAUSE

On Sunday, a few days after the vote, when I was frankly still

catching up on sleep, as many were, I had the chance to speak at a day

for the UN international day of peace. What excellent timing that

was. I talked about some of the examples that I had found of the

"yes" campaigner knocking on doors, who found an elderly gentleman who

was basically getting up on voting because he had mobility problems and

he didn't know if he could get to the polls and she called him the

beTer together team -- beTer together -- Better Together

campaigner who organised getting thiple there and the friends and

families who did find they were voting in different ways, but that

had not dented the bonds of friendship and love between them.

That I believe has been the empathy and goodwill shown by the vast

majority of people taking part in this debate and it's been a

privilege. My own party has, all through this, had a range of views.

A large majority of us campaigning enthusiastically for a "yes" vote,

but very many of us finding that we need to demonstrate that it's

possible to disagree in the spirit of friendship, because that's what

was happening inside our party. There were many reasons why we

didn't endorse devo max or the inbetween options. I don't see any

variant of devo next that doesn't increase the need to represent

ourselves on the world stage, that doesn't increase the need to take

the furthest steps on. It may be a long-term debate now as to whether

that is the direction that Scotland goes, but some process in this

direction is now going to happen and we need to find the opportunities

and avoid the pitfalls. The Smith Commission very clearly is not going

to have the time to undertake the depth of public engagement that I

believe Scotland deserves to have. And that those newly politicised

people around Scotland deserve to be able to take part in. We have to

find a way to avoid it being just another party political stitch-up

though, whether it's large parties or small parties, if this is a deal

done inside the political bubble, then it will fail to give effect to

that ground swell appetite and enthusiasm for genuine democratic

reform. There is a risk of rush and we all know that vast legislation

can sometimes be bad and the timescale has been committed to. We

need to hold those promises to account. But we also need to make

sure that the detail is right. And there is a connection about UK

reform. Clearly, the two timescales cannot be alined. But also they

cannot -- allined, but also they cannot be separate. A committee is

looking among other aspects of the remit, at the next stages of

devolution in Scotland. The timetable as well as the impact on

devolution throughout the rest of the UK or decentralisation. There

will have to be some alignment of the Parliamentary processes too.

Fundamentally though, my concern is about the idea of a transfer not of

genuine economic powers, the ability to run different economic policy for

Scotland's different circumstances, but instead the transfer of a

responsibility to implement somebody else's economic policy and at the

moepT that means making Westminster's cuts on their behalf.

That is a concern that we must avoid. Westminster has an innate

resistance to change. We only need to look at the time it's taken to

debate the future of the House of Lords to see that. Against that

resistance to change, we see an appetite in Scotland among voters

for the change that's needed not only to a broken political system,

but to the broken economic system that has been propping it up. There

are other areas to look at decentralisation from the voting

system to equality law, transport, energy and decentralisation within

Scotland. The First Minister said quite

rightly that this now leaves us with the most politically engaged

population in western Europe. Power, we're going to have to accept,

should not ever be corralled by politicians. It can be taken from

us, and will be a healthier, stronger and more democratic country

when all of a sudden a healthy respect and awareness of the ability

of an electorate to exercise that power, and to take power from us at

any given moment. The generational change, as well, which the First

Minister spoke of, is exciting. I say that knowing that my own

party's youth wing is bigger than my entire party was five days ago, and

that is an exciting and terrifying prospect. Votes at 16, the new

engagement of people who have not been politically engaged before, and

potentially the prospect of new political and constitutional

relationships within these islands, all of these things leave me, in the

absence of Independence, I have to admit, with some mixed feelings.

Mixed feelings, which of course brings me to the First Minister.

And, as others have said, we will have the opportunity to debate our

feelings about Mr Salmond's contribution later. But I can only

acknowledge that I can think of nobody else in the Scottish

political landscape, whether I have been on the same side of this debate

or on the other side of different debates with him, nobody else in the

political landscape who has done more to advance the case for

democratic, radical reform of the Constitution of these islands, and

although I have not always voted with him on budgets or other votes,

I pay tribute to Jim for that. -- tribute to him.

We now move to open debate. Speeches of six minutes.

Thank you, presiding officer. I, too, would like to pay tribute to

the First Minister, and to the campaign leaders across the board

for the referendum campaign itself. More importantly, I would like to

pay tribute to the tens of thousands of folk who slogged away for months

to try to achieve their vision of a Sarah -- fairer, more socially just

Scotland. My SNP colleagues and myself worked side-by-side with

members of the Green Party, radical independence campaign, and labour

for Indy. We were joined under the Yes Aberdeen umbrella by swathes of

people who had never taken part in the campaign before. People like

Dale, who canvassed and leafleted morning, noon and night said that he

could see his vision come to fruition. People like ten-year-old

Elenor, who supplied our Yes have with cookies. And people like

98-year-old Mrs Margaret Coral, who is wise words went viral on Facebook

and Twitter, even though she didn't know what they were. The fact that

so many folks who had never been involved in politics before joined

us in our efforts was truly inspiring. Having new people working

alongside veteran campaigners from various political campaigns could

very well have been fraught, but it wasn't, as everyone shared the same

hope and vision. They conveyed that hope and vision to people and

communities throughout Aberdeen, inspiring others to register to vote

for the first time, to vote for the first time, and to participate in

campaigning for the first time. The truly amazing thing about the

referendum campaign is the amount of participation that took place. I am

proud that we witnessed record turnouts across the country, and

even more gratified that the gaping chasm that normally exists between

turnout in rich areas compared to poorer areas narrowed. That is

something that would have made the late Brian Adam very happy, as he

worked hard to improve turnout and trust in politicians and the poorer

areas of Aberdeen during his many years on the council and in this

Parliament. Trust is now a key in ensuring that people who have been

disenfranchised remain enfranchised. We should entrust our young people

to make decisions and should give them the vote in every election. The

vast bulk of young folk studied the debate and made their choices from a

very informed position. The folk who voted no did so for many reasons.

Somewhere scared into doing so, like a number in Aberdeen's Polish

community, who were told they would be deported if there was a yes vote,

or senior citizens who were told that they wouldn't get a pension in

an independent Scotland. That trust, that faith, was shattered by fear,

and it is a poor politician who has to rely on here to win. -- rely on

fear. Others voted no because of the vow of more powers, and that thou

must now be kept by those on the low side. -- no side. When I joined the

SNP half a lifetime ago, I signed and membership card which pledged me

to campaign for an independent Scotland and the furtherance of

Scottish interests. I will continue to campaign for an independent

Scotland, but until the day that the people of Scotland decides that is

the right way forward, I will do everything in my power to further

all Scottish interests. I will lobby and campaign, to ensure that powers

over tax and social Security are decided in this place, so that we

can enact a fair wage policy, and protect our most vulnerable, their

carers and their families. I will continue to argue that we should

have control over our economy, and all of our resources, including our

vast wealth, our oil wealth. So that we can create jobs and opportunity,

and I will continue to fight against the abhorrence that is tried I will

always believed that we should put nurses before nukes, teachers before

Tridents, and before bombs. The promise of devo max was what enticed

a number of votes -- folks to vote no. Devo max, which politicians

stopped from being on the ballot in the first place. They did everything

in their power to stop that going on that referendum ballot paper.

Scotland is now watching to see if the promises, though thou, is kept

by no politicians. Democracy and participation have grown in Scotland

over these past few weeks and months. The people of this country

now recognise that they themselves have power. That genie is now well

and truly out of the bottle. Woe betide any politician or political

party that does not recognise that Scotland and our people have changed

forever. Thank you, presiding officer. Thank you very much. We

now: Neal Finlay. Before taking an oath in this

Parliament, I made a statement that I believe the people of Scotland

should be citizens, not subjects, and I hoped firmly that my

allegiance should first and foremost be to them. Well, I believe in that

principle even more strongly now following events of last Thursday.

The sovereign will of the majority is to remain as part of the United

Kingdom, and I have spoken to friends and constituents and

relatives, and I know it is painful for those who worked very hard for a

yes vote to acknowledge. But the facts are that the majority of the

electorate voted no. Not by a tiny margin. I imagine a 400,000, more

Scots voted no then yes. An entire 10% of the electorate. Presiding

Officer, there are some who question why people on the left, like me,

voted no. For me, I didn't take a knee jerk position, nor a narrow

party political decision. It was a decision made for clear and

principled reasons. I voted no because I want to see a fairer, more

equal society. Ending 0-hour contracts, addressing the abuse of

agency working, blacklisting, fair pay, dignity at work, and building a

caring public service and maintaining the NHS that we all

want. These are the issues that motivate me, and have always vote --

motivated me, and are central to my political philosophy. I am grateful

for the integration edge intervention. Does continued

austerity, with 60% of the cuts to come and Labour Party has signed up

to 90%, going with your agenda? Given that the 6 billion black hole

budget -- ?6 billion black hole that we would have had in the budget, I

believe we would have had turbo-charged austerity if we had an

independent Scotland. These things are central to my political

philosophy. It is why I have always been a member of a trade union. It

is why I have always used my time in this Parliament to campaign on these

and other issues, which affect everyday people's real lives. I want

to see change as much as anybody inside or outside this market caused

-- Parliament. I want to see change for mothers in Liverpool as much as

Leith. I fundamentally believe you do not create change by dividing

along national lines. The greatest force we have for change is the UK

labour movement and trade movement. It is the labour movement which has

led and delivered the greatest advances for working people we have

ever seen. The right to vote, the NHS, the minimum wage and the

welfare state and this very Parliament, they were not delivered

because political elites handed these things down to us, but because

working people have campaigned for and demanded them. It is that

commitment to the collective advancement of working people that

makes me a socialist and not a nationalist. I want powers to

redistribute wealth from rich to poor, not to provide tax cuts for

the biggest tax dodging corporations. The Scottish

Government said they wanted a fairer, more equal Scotland, yet

they only redistributed policy in the White Paper was a 3% tax cut for

corporations. That is not the way to create a fairer society. And I

accepted the council tax freeze puts money in people's pockets, but it

also rewards those with the most expensive houses, whilst the

services the poor rely on our cut as council budgets are reduced. It is

not progressive. In our NHS, we see crises brewing by the day, at

recruitment, accident and emergency, GPs, bed blocking, and a budget that

is due to be slashed by ?500 million, as exposed during the

campaign. The First Minister may laugh at that, but I am sure those

sitting in hospital are not laughing at it. And yet we are told the

government is protecting the NHS. We saw 130,000 places cut, in a

deliberate policy which is stifling the life chances of our young

people. And yet despite all of this, the government betrays these policy

choices as progressive claims, claims which went unchallenged by

anybody else in the yes camp. Forgive me for giving way. It sounds

as if Neil Findlay is trying to fight a 216,000 devolved election

campaign without any additional powers to this Parliament. Why don't

you actually use the last few minutes of your speech to support an

additional power to this Parliament, which would give us more social

justice? Why don't you and your party pursue a progressive policy

agenda with the powers you have now? Then you can have your new powers.

Presiding Officer, on both the node and the yes side, many of us want

similar things. We want a fairer and more just Scotland, and a caring

Scotland. We simply disagreed on the best way to achieve that goal. The

task now is to convince those in power that being all things to all

people changes little. We need progressive action to address the

inequality in our society. In conclusion, I think there are two

distinct lessons from Thursday for us all. One, people want economic

and societal change. And two, the majority don't believe you have to

break up the country to achieve such change. Finally, can I say gently to

the First Minister, I know that he is hurting, but can you imagine what

would have happened and what he would have said if there had been a

yes vote, and any of the no parties had said, that if they had received

a majority of the following election, they would unilaterally

reversed that democratic referendum decision? That would have been a

constitutional outrage. So can I ask the First Minister to reflect on his

comments of yesterday, and consign his plans for constitutional coup

d'etat to the wastepaper bin marked "very bad and dangerous ideas"?

Because I know, sir, that the people have spoken. They want a fairer

Scotland. The test of this government will be whether it is

willing to use the powers it has two tech progressive decisions to

improve the lives of the poorest in society. Those with the broadest

shoulders should carry the greatest burden. Progressive politics, with

redistribution at its core, must win the day. Annabelle Ewing, to be

followed by Stuart Stevenson. Thank you, presiding officer. What a

privilege it is to be called to speak in this debate this afternoon,

and what a time it is to be alive in Scottish political life. Because

although on the night, or on the morning of Friday the 19th of

September, it became clear that the people of Scotland had said no, what

we witnessed during a referendum campaign was engagement with the

democratic process at a level unprecedented in these modern times.

And with the turnout, as we have heard, of 85%, and 97% voter

registration, I think it is fair to say that the systems of Scotland

have now come alive. They have raised expectations about the level

of political debate and involvement future democratic contests. I hope

that all parties live up to those raised, heightened expectations.

Indeed, as I was going around to polling places, I have never seen

such enthusiasm on the part of so many voters. People who may not have

voted before, but they felt that their vote with simpering not make

any difference, still came out to vote in great numbers. People who

had never been involved in political campaigning before, standing at the

church or school gates, urging their neighbours to vote yes. Young people

dancing in the streets, and car horns tooting. Underlying this

fantastic, joyous display of engagement in democracy was, I would

say, one key emotion. That of hope. Hope that by voting, people could

bring about improvements to the lives of themselves, their families,

their communities and their country. Hope that by using their sovereign

power between 7am and 10pm on polling day, they could usher in

themselves, through their own actions, a more prosperous and

fairer Scotland. Nowhere was this enthusiasm and engagement and hope

clearer to see then among the young people of Scotland. What a credit

and inspiration the 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds are to their country,

because their involvement was truly wonderful to behold. Sadly, some of

them may not realise that it is not within the gift of this Parliament,

the Scottish Parliament, to extend their voting rights to any other

election. Like much else to do with our daily lives here in Scotland,

that power over the voting age still lies with Westminster. I do hope,

therefore, that there will be cross-party support in Scotland for

the SNP's call to extend the franchise to 16-year-olds and

17-year-olds across the board. Indeed, what politician could look

young people in the eye and tell them that though they were deemed

mature enough to vote for the future of their country, they are somehow

not eligible to vote in the coming Westminster and subsequent

elections? What is clear is that we are all going into the future

together. The 45% as well as the 55%. We are all about the business

of working together for a better Scotland, and in the best interests

of the Scottish people. That is why it is so vitally important that we

come here in our Scottish Parliament, hold Westminster to

account, for the last-minute promises the Unionist parties made

to people who, in all good faith, relied on those promises when they

came to vote, some 25% of all though voters, by all accounts. That is why

it is so important to ensure that the powers the Unionist party --

Unionist parties promised as being meaningful to our daily lives in

terms of job creation, tackling poverty, protection of the

vulnerable and giving our care is a better life, and in terms of

ensuring and its national platform for a distinct of Scottish voice, it

is vital that we ensure that all these powers are now delivered, and

as per the timetable, that they promised. It has to be said,

presiding Officer, that the last 72 hours or so have not been good in

those concerns, amongst those eligible to vote in Scotland, who

has been watching very carefully that the so-called vow to Scotland

will not be honoured. I would have to say, in that regard, that over

the same short period of 72 hours, the SNP, and I know it is the case

with the Greens and other parties, have seen our vast increase in

mental -- membership. In the case of the SNP, I believe, the figures keep

changing from minute to minute, but I believe we have doubled our

membership since Thursday, and we have seen our membership grow to

some 51,000 people or more. What a credit to the engagement of the

people of Scotland. People are energised, and they are now taking

ownership of their own future, and quite rightly so. In conclusion,

presiding officer, I would simply wish to say that are truly

remarkable First Minister, Alex Salmond, has taken Scotland into a

new era. An era of self belief and of confidence. An era of people

rightly understanding that they are entitled to be ambitious for their

country, and they are entitled to have hope for their lives, and their

family lives, and that they can indeed be better. For my part,

presiding officer, and for the 71% of the 16 and 17-year-olds who voted

yes, the dreams of a better future for Scotland are very much still

alive. Thank you, presiding officer. Stewart Stevenson, to be followed by

Jackie Baillie. Thank you, presiding Officer. This

is the fifth referendum in which I have campaigned, starting with the

1975 EEC referendum. Like other referenda, it has been an

opportunity to work across the chasm of the established party political

structures. In 1975I campaigned on behalf of the SNP against the

economic community. I had my own private use. When I went and voted,

I voted against my party. I voted for the proposition. I am not sure I

have told many people that, but I think this is a good time for us all

to recognise that political parties have not control of their members or

supporters or a monopoly of wisdom, and I know, because I have been one

of them who has crossed that line. Now, in referenda, we build new

teams to fight campaigns. And I want to just spend a couple of minutes

talking about the First Minister's own abilities in regard to building

teams. I first met the First Minister in the mid-19 70s, when, as

a student, he was the editor of the Free Student Press. I am not going

to say anything that may pre-empt what he will write in his biography

in due course. It is all in the public record. This is just to

remind him. The Free Student Press was a great effort. It was a paper

that went to every student in Scotland once a term, paid for by

advertising and contributed to by many. I mysteriously found myself

part of the team in a tiny way, providing some photographs. He drew

me into a team as he drew others. The 1979 referendum campaign was one

where Alex essentially orchestrated across the party campaign in West

Lothian, and SNP campaign in West Lothian, and he ran the Labour

campaign in West Lothian as well. How many men can run three campaigns

and not run -- not break sweat? That is magnificent. And indeed, in the

Ascherson's book in the 1979 referendum, he picked out the West

Lothian campaign as by far the most effective of any of them during that

referendum. Now, in 1987, he defeated the incumbent Tory. At the

time that he did so, we were looking at a constituency where unemployment

was in the worst quintile in Scotland. Unemployment was a very

significant problem. When Alex left office, the constituency was in the

best quintile for employment. The First Minister was absolutely

correct to focus on the needs for real powers that generate

employment. And of course, how was it done in Banff and Buchan, to move

from the worst quintile to the best? Every time there was a fight for the

jobs, the First Minister was at the front of the fight. That is what he

has done throughout his political career, and I know he will continue

to do so. He is a man who takes on immense challenges, and there was no

greater challenge than the challenge of the Peterhead fishing boat the

Sapphire. The Sapphire sank within sight of the harbour mouth. The

families who had lost their loved ones, because all on board were

lost, sought to have that boat lifted and the recovery of their

relations. It was an impossible task that no one else would have

contemplated doing. Somehow, within a matter of days, we had millions of

pounds worth of effort committed to the raising of the Sapphire, and at

a quarter past eight, on the 14th of December, 1997, the Sapphire was

brought in by the Tak lift seven barge into Peterhead harbour. That

was an achievement of great moment, and it was an achievement, building

a team, drawing people in, but fundamentally it was an achievement

focused on giving comfort to people, to individuals. Nothing to do with

party politics, and everything to do with doing the right thing by

people. Our First Minister is very robust in how he deals with

perceived weakness and failure, and rightfully so. But when people need

support, in extra mess, he is first in the queue to be delivering it. He

built a team in 2007 that delivered the first-ever SNP government, a

team of individuals, without including themselves a single minute

of missing serial -- ministerial time between the lot of them. He

turned us all into a very effective team. In 2011 he earned the right to

lead, for the first time, a majority government. In 2014, from a position

a couple of months ago, around 30%, we ended up at 45%. Not alone, but

by building a team, across political parties, and people of the party.

That is the effort that he put into it. We are looking today, of course,

at a no vote, that was victorious, that might yet to be seen to be a

pyrrhic victory. Today's Australian newspaper, in its leading article,

says that Scottish Nationalists need not despair. They have lost a

battle, but not necessarily the war. Presiding Officer, one of the great

Chinese philosophers said that the greatest of the greatest leaders,

that people will say, we did it ourselves. If there is a message

from this referendum, the people will say, we did it ourselves. Alex

Salmond Milli helped. -- merely. I call on Jackie Baillie, to be

followed by Mark McDonald. Thank you, presiding officer. There

will be much written and spoken about the referendum. Much of it we

will agree with, other views will no doubt be contested. As we interpret

and reinterpreted the result, I find myself agreeing with at least one

thing that Jim said. That is that from 15 hours, from 7am to 10pm, the

people of Scotland were indeed sovereign. Their voices, their

views, their votes, were all that mattered. And whether it was the

queues at the polling stations the first thing in the morning, or the

steady stream of people throughout the day leading to a huge turnout,

it was an incredible day. And the people of Scotland said, quite

decisively, no thanks to separation, by a margin of 55% to 45%. I thank

all of them for voting. I am, however, astonished, but perhaps I

should not be surprised, that a mere 24 hours later the sovereign will of

the people of Scotland were simply brushed aside and Alex Salmond was

declaring UDI. One cannot help but think that despite his resignation,

he is axillary intent on causing maximum difficulty for his deputy,

because you cannot on the one hand talk about respecting the result and

then deny the democratic will of the people and set out plans to simply

assert independence will stop now, as the heir apparent, Nicola

Sturgeon needs to be very clear. Does she respect the will of the

Scottish people? Does she respect the result? Will she get on with the

business of government, or does she deny that democratic will of the

people, and simply assert independence? I know her voice has

left her. When her voice does return, I look forward to her

answer. Let me turn to the YouGov survey, because I do want to debunk

some of the myths around it. The first is that the age profile of

those who voted, somehow, is instructive. Well, it is

instructive, because it is not true that there was a majority for no

only amongst the people aged over 65. In fact, there was a majority in

every age group, from 16 to over 65, with the exception of 25-39 age

ranges. So in four out of five age groups, the majority voted no. There

have been some frankly reprehensible things said about those over 65,

which I hope the SNP will distance themselves from. The second myth is

that women were increasingly voting yes. The gender gap showed that by a

margin of 16%, more women were voting no. And the third myth is

that the Labour vote was haemorrhaging to the yes camp. Yet

the truth is that whilst 27% of Labour voters did vote yes, 22% of

SNP voters actually voted no. So let's have no more selective telling

of the referendum story. I think it would do you well to listen to this.

The people of Scotland voted. The people of Scotland voted no. The

settled will of the Scottish people is to remain in the United Kingdom.

That was that democratic decision, and we should respect it, not

diminish it. That is -- that said, I think this has been, without a

doubt, an exciting and energising time in Scottish politics. I am

genuinely pleased that the engagement and levels of interest

across our communities. And whether it has been during the organise

debates we have had with each other, or doorstop conversations, I am

struck by how much we agree on. Our vision for Scotland is a shared one.

In terms of the outcomes that we seek to achieve, social justice,

fairness, equality, there is much more that unites us than divides us.

It is our job, in this Parliament, to work with civic Scotland,

indeed, all sections of this country, to heal the divisions. And

what better way of doing so than by focusing on what we can achieve by

working together? I know that there are many things we agree on across

this chamber. We have debated these issues often enough in the last few

months. The fundamental difference, though, is that I believe this comes

about through political determination and will, not

constitutional change. Some of our greatest achievements, like votes

for women, the creation of the NHS, legislating for the minimum wage,

have taken campaigning and political struggle, and such economic and

social policy advances are not arrived at by simply changing the

bottle. The frame for my politics has always been social justice.

Tackling child poverty, providing the best start in life,

opportunities for families to prosper and succeed. These are the

very areas that I want us to work together on across the chamber, and

we will face a number of domestic policy challenges. Health, which is

the responsibility of this Parliament. When we learnt from a

leaked paper that the SNP's proposals were to slash ?450 million

from front-line services, including services at a hospital in my area

and in another leaked paper, 10% savings to be made over the next two

years from the newly formed health and social care partnerships in

greater Glasgow and Clyde alone. I was encouraged that the Cabinet

Secretary said none of this was true and I look forward to supporting him

in ensuring those cuts don't happen. The people in Scotland voted "no".

We will remain in the United Kingdom and we need to respect that. But

it's clear that of all the people that voted, whether "yes" or "no",

they share a desire for change. It is therefore our responsibility in

this place to set our divisions aside and to unite together to

deliver that change. APPLAUSE

When I arrived at my local polling station on Thursday morning, it was

around 7. 45 and usually when I arrive there it's usually empty and

usually there have only been a very small handful of people voting on

their way to work. I arrived to find a bustling polling station at that

time in the morning and was advised by the staff on the polling station

that they had had a queue out the gates waiting to go and vote. As I

arrived at the came pain rooms and spoke to -- campaign rooms, and

spoke to my fellow campaigners, that was the same at other stations and

including those where normally the polling stations staff have to find

ways to keep themselves entertained during long fallow periods. On this

day, during this vote, they were very much stressing about the

possibility of a serious rush around about tea-time. One Ning that we

should do -- one thing we should do is to pay tribute to those people

who staffed the polling stations and who assisted with the vote itself,

because many people who arrived at those polling stations had never

cast a democratic ballot before and required assistance and support and

required the patience and perseverance of those staff and we

should pay tribute to them and their work for ensuring that the vote was

able to be carried out without any fuss or significant delays and

without people finding that they were unable to get access to the

polling stations. Also, in terms of participation, the point has been

made around the narrowing of the gap between the poorest communities and

the wealthy community. I think my colleague Kevin Stewart mentioned

the late Brian Adam and one of the things Brian would have been proud

about, was the turnout, but the voting of "yes" which would have

given him a smile. The other thing which struck me during the campaign

was the people who campaigned. I've been involved in local politics in

Aberdeen, not for as long as some of them over there, but over a decade

now and I know the familiar faces and the people who you can rely on

to turn up an election campaign to knock on doors and do the jobs

needed to be done. There were a lot of faces in the campaign that I had

never seen before. A lot of people who were not involved in politics,

whether with the SNP or any other party. I want to mention and again

Kevin Stewart mentioned the Aberdeen branch of Women for Independence.

They were led by a lady called Gillian Martin, who is a constituent

of the First Minister, who became inspired to get more involved

following the passing of Malcolm McDonald and she posted on her blog

at the time saying what would Margot do and decided she would get

involved? Gillian and her team were a force of nature. They were holding

information meetings across the north-east and they were manning a

stall or womening a stall in the city centre to pass out information

to voters to talk andance questions from voters as they -- and answer

questions from voters as they passed by. They were getting people who had

never been involved or engaged to become involved and engaged in the

process. Another group who surprised me were people who I knew myself,

some of the playground mums at the school where my daughter is part of

the nursery, who were telling me about the work they were doing

within their friend groups and the playground itself, within their

families to talk to people about independence, to talk about the

opportunities they thought would bring and came out and started door

knocking and getting involved in the campaign proper. If you had said to

these people six months prior to the vote they would be actively involved

in a campaign they would probably not have believed you and the same

goes for the people who didn't get involved, but got involved in terms

of the debates and public meetings, people who I know from the school

days, who I saw in the audience, who if you had said to us at school not

only they would be in the audience, but I would be speaking at a public

meeting would probably not have believed it. One other thing on

that, because when the First Minister was out campaigning with us

not long before the vote he was handed a letter from a young girl,

Molly, aged eight and three quarters and she thanked him for fighting for

her future. And I would point out to the First Minister he said her

ambition was to go to university and her mum says she wants to grow up to

be Nicola Sturgeon, so perhaps you can pass that on. One other group

who deserve mention are Scotland's carers and certainly a large number

of carers who took the opportunity to get involved and to put down the

marker for the kind of things they wanted to see in the future for

Scotland and a declaration was signed by well over 100 carers

supporting a "yes" vote. Not just supporting a "yes" vote in and of

itself, but looking for greater control of welfare for Scotland and

greater control of the powers that influence and effect the lives of

carers and those that they care for. Greater powers on welfare was hinted

at during the speech that Johann Lamont gave and I think what carers

would like to see and the ones who have got in touch with me, is more

detail around what are the welfare powers and taxation powers we'll see

in Scotland, because we have had the promise of more powers and we need

flesh on the bone and we have to understand what those powers are and

how we can use those to transform lives for Scotland's carers and the

people in general. The people of Scotland are active and engaged in

their hunger for change and we must ensure that's delivered.

Annabel Goldie. All of us will have, as is already clear, different

recollections of the referendum campaign and different reactions to

the result. I think it's important within this Parliament of all places

we are responsible about what we saw and -- say and careful in how we say

it. It's true that the numbers of voters registered and the turnouts

of 85% reflect the degree of engagement which is unprecedented.

That is reassuring and welcome. I accept the single issue is the

interest. I'm not going to dwell on the campaign like many. I've

received numerous stories of conduct that was inappropriate and

unimpressive. I did hear directly from "no" voters who were scared to

display window posters or wear stickers. If they were justified in

that apprehension that is certainly not the political climate I want to

see in Scotland. Democracy is underpinned by freedom of opinion

and freedom of expression. With respect for those who hold opinions

with which you disagree. Depart from that with self-indulgent displays of

veple on and contempt and democracy is deserved and our country

diminished. For myself, I very much enjoyed the campaign. It was a

positive experience and my front room windows and stickers remained

in tact. What I do know is how the debate divided Scotland. As passions

ran high, fistures ran deep in families, communities in the

workplace and among friends. Let me turn to the result. Voters in

Scotland decisively rejected industry pence and endorsed the

partnership of the United Kingdom. That is a clear and democratic

outcome. This is not about triumph and victory. This is about allowing

Scotland to have her say on an issue of unparalleled importance, hearing

what she said, accepting that verdict and moving on. The Edinburgh

agreement was framed in the knowledge that one side or the other

would be deeply disappointed. That is why the agreement as indicated by

the First Minister and signed by both him and the fir minister,

confirmed that both government would respect the outcome. We now have to

implement the spirit of that agreement. We need to do that,

because democratic will obliges up to do that, because it's the right

thing to do, but most importantly of all, because for the sake of

Scotland, we must move forward into a new era. I do not want to diminish

what I know is a deep sense of disappointment and dismay felt by

those in the SNP and all the other parties and people involved in the

"yes" campaign. We have to leave Holyrood for now. That debate

continues this afternoon. And it resumes tomorrow. But, while MSPs

look ahead to the prospect of more powers for the Scottish Parliament

one man who would be in a position to deliver them, if he becomes Prime

Minister, has also been making a speech today. He is of course, the

Labour leader Ed Miliband and he's just finished in Manchester. He's

been speaking about devolution and about the US-led air strikes which

were launched overnight targeting Islamic State militants in Syria. I

want to start by talking about somebody whose fromle Salford just

down the road from here and that's Alan Henning, a British hostage

taken by Islamic State. His wife, Barbara, made a moving appeal for

his release over the weekend. Alan Henning is an aid worker simply

trying to make life better for victims of conflict. I think it

should tell us all we need to know about Islamic State and their murd

Russ ways, that they take a decent British man like Alan Henning

hostage. And it's not just British people that they're targeting. It's

people of all nationals -- narmTS and reledge -- nationalalities and

religions and it's why we have supported a coalition not based on

military action, but muple action and political -- humanitarian action

and political action, to counter the threat. This week, the President of

the United States and the British Prime Minister are both at the UN.

We support the overnight action against Islamic State. What needs to

happen now is that the UN needs to play its part, a UN Security Council

resolution to win the international support to counter that threat.

APPLAUSE Friends, this country will never

turn our back on the world and will never turn our back on the

principles of internationalism. And those values and those values are

reflected not just in our country, but in this party, in this hall, and

in this great city of Manchester. APPLAUSE

We need here in serious times, not just for the world, but for our

country too. And our country nearly broke up. A country that nearly

split apart is not a country in good health. I want to start by thanking

all of Labour's team Scotland for the part they blade in keeping our

country -- played in keeping our country together.

APPLAUSE Let us thank them all. Gordon Brown,