Meeting of the Parliament 19 December 2019
I want to do two things in the time that we have available for today’s important debate. Before I do that, I note that I am disappointed in the boorish and rude language that we have heard from some members this afternoon. It is unbecoming.
I want to look at the principled, entirely reasonable and well-supported case for having referendums framework legislation on the statute book. I also want to spend just a short time exploring the wider matter of Scotland’s undeniable democratic right to choose her own future.
Although I do not speak today as the convener of the Finance and Constitution Committee, I put on record my grateful thanks for the fantastic support that I have received from the committee clerks throughout the passage of the bill.
I move on to why all parties in the chamber should support the bill at decision time. The policy objective of the bill is to put in place a generic framework for referendums and provide the technical arrangements for any specific future referendums. It is safe to say that the policy objective found almost total support from electoral professionals and across academia.
For instance, the Electoral Commission’s view was that the bill
“would help to provide clarity of the rules for anyone administering or campaigning at a particular referendum.”
The Scottish Assessors Association welcomed the bill on the basis that
“there will be one set of legislation to govern all referendums in Scotland.”—[Official Report, Finance and Constitution Committee, 18 September 2019; c 2.]
The view of the Electoral Management Board for Scotland was that
“Rationalising existing laws to create a single, consistent framework governing referendums offers many benefits to the voter, to campaigners, the regulator and electoral administrators”.
It saw the bill proposals as a “wholly positive policy direction.”
The Institute for Government said that the overall policy objective was a “good one” and that
“standing legislation is preferable for the purposes of consistency and to prevent manipulation of the rules”.
Dr Alan Renwick of University College London’s constitution unit “strongly welcomed” the proposals for a standing legislative framework. Among others who provided supportive comments were Dr Theresa Reidy and Professor Toby James.
Therefore, those of us in the chamber who are genuinely interested in following an evidence-led path when placing legislation on the statute book should support the bill when we come to decision time this evening.
I conclude with a short comment on the result of last week’s general election, and the vital importance of recognising and implementing the outcome of the democratic process. In doing so, I recognise the achievement of the Conservatives in winning a majority. I may despair at the outcome, but respect and face that reality I must. However, so, too, must the Tory party in Scotland respect and face the reality of the outcome of the election in Scotland. Yes, the election was a victory for one-nation conservatism, but that one nation was England. Scotland chose a different path and her democratic wishes must be respected.
If, on a vote share of 43.6 per cent and seat share of 56.1 per cent, the Conservatives claim a democratic mandate for the UK to leave the EU, how can any argument stand against the democratic legitimacy of the outcome in Scotland, where the SNP share of the vote was 45 per cent and seat share was an emphatic 81 per cent?
I say in all seriousness to the Tories that the democratic voice of Scotland will be respected and the people of Scotland will choose their own future.
16:03