Meeting of the Parliament 16 September 2015
I welcome the opportunity to have this constitutional debate one year on from the referendum on Scotland’s independence, which took place on 18 September 2014. It is clear that the referendum has had a profound and positive effect on our nation and our democracy. We have seen a level of informed and engaged debate that has reinvigorated politics and has involved people—old and young alike—across our country.
It is worth recalling that more than 3,600,000 people turned out and cast their votes—a turnout of more than 85 per cent—which is higher than for any previous election. The result may not have been what I wanted, but we must celebrate the level of democratic engagement in the process.
There has been a real legacy from the referendum, into the bargain. The turnout in the recent general election was 71 per cent in Scotland, compared with 66 per cent across the United Kingdom as a whole. That was also an increased turnout on previous UK general elections. In addition, 80 per cent of people in Scotland have discussed politics since the referendum compared with 67 per cent in the United Kingdom.
The engagement and the reinvigorated politics continue, as does the close interest of the people in how we are governed, who makes the decisions, and who decides who makes the decisions in Scotland.
The first and critical test that we face in honouring the democratic renewal is in fulfilling the undertakings to strengthen the powers of this Parliament that were made during the referendum campaign by those who were opposed to independence and successful in the referendum.
Today is exactly one year since “The Vow” was made on the front page of the Daily Record. On 16 September, the Prime Minister, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg jointly promised “extensive new powers” for the Scottish Parliament. The vow also said:
“People want to see change. A No vote will deliver faster, safer and better change than separation.”
That was not the first promise of further devolution that had been made during the campaign. Danny Alexander said:
“Scotland will have more powers over its finances, more responsibility for raising taxation and more control over parts of the welfare system—effective Home Rule”.
The Prime Minister said:
“The status quo is gone. This campaign has swept it away. There is no going back to the way things were. A vote for No means real change”.
He also said:
“If Scotland says it does want to stay inside the United Kingdom then all the options of devolution are there and are possible”.
Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister talked of
“nothing less than a modern form of Scottish Home Rule”.
He also said:
“We’re going to be, within a year or two, as close to a federal state as you can be in a country where one nation is 85 per cent of the population.”
On the back of those undertakings—with the legitimate expectation of proposals that could be accurately described as a form of home rule or near-federalism—my party and every other party in the Scottish Parliament took part in the Smith commission that was set up by the UK Government.
The Scottish Government had some misgivings: in particular, we had misgivings about the process. Political parties trying to reach an agreement in a room seemed to be about as far away from the participative, open and engaged democracy of the referendum campaign as it was possible to get. However, we accepted and respected the outcome of the referendum, so both my party and the Scottish Government played a full and constructive role in the Smith process.
We made no secret of our view that the Smith commission’s final recommendations did not go far enough; neither do we believe that the Smith commission’s proposals met the undertakings of the UK parties that set it up in the first place.