Hansard

Certainly, the work that we did on the devolution commission meant that, for more than two years, we were engaged with civic Scotland, the trade unions and the business community. All the proposals have been out there and people have been thinking about this over a long period. Of course we want people to be engaged, but equally we have a timetable that Patrick Harvie would reasonably expect us to deliver.

I understand the dilemma of some people in the Scottish National Party. By having to accept the democratic decision they have then to give meaning to that decision. It means that the focus must be on making devolution work in itself. The reality is that if people are not willing to let go of their constitutional project, the Parliament will be seen as a stepping stone, with the decision of the people to stay in the United Kingdom becoming a bridge to the position that the people soundly rejected. We need to move beyond that. We need to look at how we make this place work, rather than constantly talking about further powers.

I have been very clear: there will be more powers for the Parliament. The vow is something that I keep seriously in mind. It is, of course, consistent with our being part of the United Kingdom. However, my other argument, which we will not finish discussing today but which I hope that members will treat with respect, is that we must pursue the agenda of a fairer, more equal Scotland. Ever since the result of the referendum, I have said that where we can work together we will do so. We will work on securing powers, but we also need to work on the other side of the agenda.

Our commitment is to work with the Scottish Government and the Parliament where we can and to open up our thinking on actions and priorities to the people throughout Scotland who have become energised. I make that commitment, and I hope that other members can do so, too. The challenge for the Opposition is not to oppose for opposition’s sake; the challenge for the Scottish Government is not to focus simply on what might be, if we had more powers, and instead to focus on what it can do now.

Scotland has been on pause for the past two years, and it cannot be acceptable that we have to wait even longer for agreement on more powers. We understand that, pre-referendum, to make their case people had to say that only with independence could we make a difference. However, in the challenge of a post-referendum Scotland, “only with independence” is not good enough. We need to hear more about what can be done. We need to hear more about the art of the possible, right now.

In the next period, we need to refocus on a politics that has driven change throughout generations: a politics of justice—social, economic, environmental and educational—a politics of fairness and equality of access and opportunity, and a politics of integrity, whereby we seek to be open and honest in debates, respecting one another where we agree and where we disagree.

I regret that, in the amendments, the response to the challenges that we face seems to be to cling desperately to the language of the referendum battle, with a focus on the constitution rather than on the changes that we can make right now. Our motion was deliberately written in a wide enough way to offer an opportunity for us to come together and find common cause.

In the time that I have left, I will focus on two issues in that regard. First, the extent to which people care about the national health service and are concerned about any suggestion that it might be privatised was clear throughout the referendum period. We know that people want the NHS to work in their interests. We also know that there are huge challenges. It is not good enough to create the impression that everything in the NHS is fine and we do not need a review or any coming together to challenge that view.

We have said that we should come together, get rid of the party politics—the politicking and the dividing lines—and show that we are willing to listen to patients, staff in NHS organisations and people throughout the country, who are desperate for us to wrestle with the big problems in the service and find solutions. I hope that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing will respond to our offer to work co-operatively.

Secondly, childcare was a feature of the referendum debate. All members know that there are things that need to be done to support people in that regard. It cannot be good enough that people spend as much on childcare as they spend on their mortgages or that they have to consider whether they can afford to work, especially when we understand the economic importance of good childcare, as well as its social and educational importance.

Our suggestion is that we take a simple step, right now, by offering a childcare place to mums who are going to college. We can do that together, right now. We can continue together on a longer journey as we seek to cap the cost of childcare for families, using our abilities in the Parliament and beyond to make a difference.

In both areas, we can rise to the challenge. I hope that other members will think so, too. The reality is that, over the past two years, we have spent time, money, energy and effort on settling the decision on the constitution. We will put further energy into ensuring that we craft powers that make this place even stronger, but my plea is that in the next two years we spend as much time, money and energy on making visible progress on equality and working together on the big issues that were evident across the country during the debate.