Hansard

I guess that, if we want to find the atmosphere that will allow us to explore the common ground, we all have a little way to go.

In a couple of days’ time, I will address my party’s annual conference. I am looking forward to having the opportunity to thank my party colleagues new and old, whether they have been involved in politics and activism for a long time or have just recently become engaged, for the spirit in which they conducted themselves during the debate.

Just as, over the years, I have found common ground on a range of different issues with the Labour Party, the Liberals, the SNP and even—once in a while—the Conservatives, my party had to find it in itself to campaign for the clear majority view in the party supporting a yes vote without ever disrespecting, or undermining the friendship that we have with, those in the party who voted no. There are people who voted no and have just joined the party as well, and I am really glad that our presence on the political landscape is still able to bridge that divide.

It was possible to take a clear, passionate and articulate point of view in the debate without disrespecting people who voted a different way. In my experience, the bulk of the debate was conducted in that way.

That wider public engagement—that re-engagement, that connection with politics—came about because there was a great big idea that transcended traditional party lines. It transcended the identity of any political party or political figure, large or small. The danger that we are in at the moment is that we could pull up the drawbridge again and say, “That’s that over and done with, the decision’s been made and politics is for politicians and the political parties again.” That is a profound danger and, whether someone voted yes or no, whether they are a campaigner, an activist, a journalist, a voter, or a writer about Scotland’s history or its future, it is a danger that we absolutely must avoid.

I am very happy that my party was invited to send a representative to the Smith commission, and that it has agreed that I am to be that representative. I am happy to have the chance to take part in that discussion, but let us be realistic. The breakneck timetable that has been decided on and which now has to be lived up to—it cannot be broken without betraying the trust of the people who listened to that promise—will allow next to no opportunity for people outside the political bubble to shape the process and the outcome, to have their say, be heard and make a difference. People turned out to vote in record numbers because they knew that the decision would make a difference in a way that all too often, many people feel, elections no longer do. If we want people still to feel that there is a reason to get involved—that their action and their voice can make a difference—we must avoid the view that the process is about political parties reaching a deal, being satisfied with the deal that they have made and simply implementing it.

There is still time. The time that is available to us for meaningful public participation is not the time in the run-up to 30 November, when Lord Smith will publish his report. The time that is available will come afterwards. A few weeks for people to fire in their views by the end of October, with a report being written by the end of November, is not enough time. However, it will be months before legislation passes through, presumably, both Parliaments to implement whatever comes out of the process. We should use those months creatively in ensuring that this is not just about meeting the needs of the people inside the political bubble; it is about taking away a little bit of power from ourselves—away from the political parties, big or little—and giving that power back to the public.

Is there room for common ground? Of course there is, but only if people on both sides of that yes-no divide are willing to move towards the common ground. We will not find the common ground if people dig in their heels and say, “This is what we’ve published already,” or, “This is what we need to live up to the vow.” If either side digs in their heels and says, “This is what has to happen,” we will not reach the common ground and we will have missed that opportunity.

If we begin with a discussion—not just between the five political parties and Lord Smith, or between the two Governments—on the purpose, as Johann Lamont rightly said, of sharing the wealth of the country more fairly, strengthening local communities and local economies to make decisions for themselves and speeding the transition to a sustainable Scotland, I believe that we will end up with a compelling set of powers that may not be independence and may well be beyond what some other people have already published but which will meet the needs of the people of Scotland.

I move amendment S4M-11116.1.1, to leave out from “a real opportunity” to “Parliament” and insert:

“an opportunity to deliver substantial further powers and responsibilities to the Parliament but that the commission must be followed by a period of meaningful public participation, given the severely limited time available for the public to engage with the commission itself”.