Meeting of the Parliament 03 October 2023
This debate fulfils a commitment that I made during a members’ business debate on a similar range of concerns, which Keith Brown brought before the Parliament. I said that we would bring forward a debate in Government time. I am glad to see that we can expect greater participation by Labour and Liberal Democrat members in this debate than there was in Mr Brown’s debate. In that regard, although I make it clear—it will not be a surprise—that the Government’s perspective is that the people of Scotland would be best served by independence, under the current constitutional arrangements there is little to disagree with in Neil Bibby’s amendment, which we will support. We will oppose Donald Cameron’s amendment.
Today’s debate goes to the heart of why, back in 1997, the people of Scotland voted so overwhelmingly to set up a Scottish Parliament. They did so in the face of fierce opposition from the Conservative Party. That opposition was predictable, because it was the reality of unelected Westminster Conservative Governments that drove, in large part, the devolution movement. People were sick of decisions being taken by Tory Governments that were rejected time and again by voters in Scotland.
That democratic imperative led to the establishment of this Parliament. People believed that decisions about Scotland should be taken in Scotland. Although there were, and are, differences between the other parties about the final destination of that home rule journey, the Parliament has narrowed, if not entirely eliminated, the democratic deficit.
As well as that strong sense of democratic renewal, there were practical policy reasons that led to the reconvening of the Scottish Parliament. The scandal of the poll tax was probably one of the worst examples of the imposition of policy against the wishes of the majority of the people who live in Scotland.
Since the establishment of the Parliament, there have been real gains, which have often commanded cross-party support. However, today, the Tories are intent on rolling back the gains of devolution—taking back to Westminster the control of policy and widening the democratic deficit once again.
The Conservatives have just six MPs in Scotland but, too often, they behave as if they can ignore and override our democracy. Alister Jack uses his position as Secretary of State for Scotland to act as some kind of on-high governor-general telling the elected Government and elected Parliament of Scotland what is or is not acceptable to him.
The Scottish Government has set out several ways in which the United Kingdom Government’s actions have constrained and undermined devolution. Those include reducing the effective powers of the Scottish Parliament through the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020; giving powers to UK ministers to intervene directly in matters that are within devolved responsibilities; undermining the Sewel convention; for the first time, blocking legislation on devolved matters that has been passed by the Scottish Parliament; putting at risk European Union laws on environmental protection, food standards and other devolved matters; and taking a direct role in devolved policy and decisions on public spending on devolved matters, bypassing the Scottish Parliament. Evidence on all of those is set out in detail in the Scottish Government’s paper “Devolution since the Brexit referendum” and in our evidence to Scottish Parliament committees.
Since the publication of that paper, there have been further developments on two of those issues, which I will explore in more detail in my remarks. The first is the UK Government’s continued erosion of the Sewel convention, culminating in its approach to the Energy Bill, which stands that convention on its head.
The second issue—the focus of the Government motion—is the emerging implications of the internal market act and its wide-ranging practical constraints on the ability of this Parliament to pursue policy objectives and implement the choices of the people of Scotland.
In highlighting those two areas, I do not want to underplay the other threats to devolution that we have set out. For example, we can all see the risks in the so-called “levelling-up agenda”, which attempts to give UK ministers a role in setting priorities and targets for devolved matters such as health and education. That strikes at the very purpose of devolution.
Similarly, the direct spending of money in devolved areas by UK ministers bypasses this Parliament, risks an incoherent approach to policy and removes clear accountability for public spending decisions on devolved areas in Scotland.