Hansard

I am pleased to have had the chance to take part in the debate and that, broadly, it has been consensual. Several members have referred to the fact that, in the inception of the citizens assembly, there was a bit of a danger that it would get caught up in big, binary constitutional debates in which we all already have our entrenched positions. Other than one or two slightly grumpy comments today, it seems as though most people have moved on from that and recognised that the citizens assembly has the potential to enrich our national debate in new ways.

I will reflect on one or two of my recollections of the binary constitutional debate that we had in 2014. In many of the public meetings at which I spoke, I had the strong impression—and I still believe this—that a great many people in Scotland were capable of disagreeing in good spirit and seeing both sides of an argument. Whichever way they ended up voting, they were able to engage with both sides of the argument. Most people do not engage in politics in a rigid, binary way. That is still true, and will be true again if Scotland’s national debate returns to the question of independence. That is one of the reasons why deliberative processes, such as citizens assemblies, can enrich our national debate. They bring in people who are not already seeing things through a rigid, binary frame and thinking, “I’m in this camp, you’re in that camp, and that’s why we disagree”. Citizens assemblies can get beyond such thinking and, in this case, it has done so.

Claire Baker reflected on her experience of speaking to some members of the assembly who were actively engaging in political debate for the first time. That engagement is to be welcomed.

As several members have said, in this debate we will all find things with which to agree and disagree. Some people will be enthusiastic about rent controls and others less so. Some people will support what the assembly has said about climate change, but others may be a little more sceptical. In the report, I can find several references to economic thought that is clearly rooted in growth ideology that I do not share. None of that is the point, because the purpose of the assembly is not to decide on and implement specific policies but to enrich our debate in ways that we as elected politicians cannot do on our own—to throw open the doors.

I am reminded of my experience of the first session—before I was elected as a member of the Scottish Parliament. I was a campaigner for the repeal of section 28, which was, from my point of view, a nasty, pernicious and homophobic hangover piece of legislation. Getting rid of it became a very difficult process. A deeply divisive campaign was run against my community’s human rights. However, it felt as though this Parliament’s doors were open. I was able to engage with the political and committee processes and to give evidence to MSPs as a witness.

That sense of its being a Parliament whose doors are open and in which the citizens of Scotland are able to participate has always been an important part of my reason for having supported the creation of the Scottish Parliament in the first place. We do not always get it right, but we must never stop innovating and finding new ways to throw our doors open. The greater use of citizens assemblies is undoubtedly a part of that.

It is no great secret that John Mason and I disagree pretty fundamentally on a great many issues, but in his speech he agreed with something that I said, so I will agree with something that he said—that people can want incoherent or inconsistent things. He is absolutely right about that and it is one of the reasons why I am not drawn to the idea of Government by referendum on specific measures—the idea that every tax policy, every spending policy and every piece of legislation should be subject to a referendum. Referendums are for putting to the people the questions that we cannot resolve through the Parliamentary process—the big, overarching choices, such as which path our country should take. All that is enhanced by a rich national debate.

Another point that Mr Mason talked about was whether citizens assemblies should evolve into a role that is akin to that of a second, revising chamber. I think that there is great merit in that. Yes, there are questions about the legitimacy of somebody who has been randomly selected, instead of chosen by an electorate, but, for goodness’ sake, we should compare that to what the UK has by way of a second chamber, in which people are given jobs for life and can never again be held accountable. The idea of a citizens assembly as a revising chamber—even if set up a bit like a committee, to examine and revise one piece of legislation—has, I think, great merit.

On issues from the climate assembly to the potential drafting of a future constitution for Scotland, and on divisive political questions such as drugs policy—which elected Parliaments often fail to address in a coherent way—a great many questions would be greatly enhanced by the wider use of deliberative and participative processes such as citizens assemblies.

Finally, I once again thank all those who have contributed to the work of the assembly, and I look forward to Scotland’s national debate being further enriched in new ways by the continued use of participative processes to challenge as well as inform us.