Meeting of the Parliament 08 October 2014
I hope that we can have a productive debate. The previous debate became very aggressive and unpleasant. We need to find a way of moving on to ensure that we see this as a creative and open place. The intention of the motion is to allow us to start exploring the possibilities and the options that this Parliament might progress over the next two years.
We know that we made history in Scotland on 18 September. We made a significant decision and, for the first time, it was a democratic decision of the people of Scotland that we should stay strong in the United Kingdom. We ought to resist the temptation to rewrite history. Instead, we should grasp the opportunity together to shape the future—a future of a strong Scottish Parliament inside the United Kingdom, responding to the priorities of people from across the country.
I know that we all remember the referendum debate in different ways, with different emphases and priorities. On one side, people looked at the issue of powers and at how to make the Parliament work effectively inside the United Kingdom, looking at what powers are consistent with the pooling and sharing of resources across the United Kingdom—the very heart of the argument for the United Kingdom. On the other side, there was discussion and debate about how we create a fairer and more equal Scotland, in which the national health service and childcare featured strongly as key areas that are precious and significant to people. People on both sides of the debate were wrestling with ensuring how to make progress on those issues—we know that they are significant for people far beyond this chamber.
It is important that we accept the result. We should not attempt to rewrite what that result meant. We should resist the temptation to suggest that the people who argued for yes were somehow robbed by the result, that people were duped or tricked or that we presume that people voted no not because they actively wanted to stay in the United Kingdom but because they were somehow fooled. It serves no one in Scotland well to encourage that idea.
We should not seek to redefine the vow that was made by the parties arguing to stay in the United Kingdom or try to misrepresent what it was talking about. I contend that it is not acceptable to identify powers that were not named in the vow of commitment—as the First Minister has done—in order to establish a sense of bad faith. That is simply not acceptable.