Oral Answers to Questions

David Mundell Excerpts

Wednesday 7th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very serious issue not just for the whisky industry, but for biscuits and cashmere. I am pleased that biscuits are now off the tariff carousel. The Boeing-Airbus dispute has been many years in the making. It is unfair. It is harmful to both industry and consumers. However, in the trade talks that have opened up with the US, we have now got agreement to have a bilateral discussion—in other words, not using the EU negotiators anymore—with the US. The good news I can tell him is that we have moved to a new phase. The Secretary of State for International Trade this week is starting discussions to try to resolve this problem.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I very much welcome the fact that 11,000 or more of my constituents have benefited from the furlough scheme. Covid is changing our economy. We therefore need to focus on creating new sustainable jobs. That is why it is even more important that we press ahead in the south of Scotland with the borderlands growth deal. Will my right hon. Friend agree that we need renewed impetus into the deal, in particular into delivering the mountain bike innovation centre of Scotland in Innerleithen?

[Mr Jack]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the invaluable work that he did in bringing the borderlands growth deal to fruition. I am also delighted to inform him that the business case for the mountain bike innovation centre was delivered by the Borderlands Partnership only yesterday. It obviously has to go through further assessments in the usual way, but I am well aware of and support the initiative, because mountain biking in what is a very beautiful part of Scotland is an incredibly popular sport, and it is locally a very popular initiative.

Constitutional Law

David Mundell Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) [V]]

May I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) on his return to the role of shadow Secretary of State for Scotland after his sabbatical? One of the great disappointments to me in my time as Secretary of State was the announcement, following his departure from that role, and in the absence of a Front-Bench spokesman, that either the Leader of the Opposition himself or the shadow Chancellor would participate in Scottish questions. Perhaps not unsurprisingly, immediately before the first such occasion, a shadow Scottish Secretary was appointed.

This process is important. It is unusual not just because we are participating in a virtual Chamber but because we are in the Chamber more generally. Usually, section 104 orders and others that flow from the original Scotland Act are transacted on the Committee corridor and get very little attention, but, as the Minister said, they are in many ways the backbone of the devolution settlement and the relationship between the two Governments and Parliaments. It is very easy, particularly given some of the headlines and media reports that we have seen in recent weeks, to think that the devolution settlement is not working, but this order and all the others that go through Parliament are actually a manifestation of the fact that it is working. Behind the scenes, officials in the UK Government and Scottish Government work closely together to ensure that these orders and the things that really matter to people in Scotland—the provision of a police service and a criminal justice system—go ahead in a way that relates to the whole of the United Kingdom. As the Minister said, this order ensures that, if people are in England or Wales, such orders still apply and the benefits system recognises that.

It is very important, when we see the flare-ups that sometimes happen between politicians north and south of the border, that we understand that, in the day to day, the devolution settlement is working and has been tested through these systems. There were many times when I had to put through orders on matters of substance with which I did not agree, but I did agree that the Scottish Parliament had made that decision, in terms of the devolution settlement, and therefore it was appropriate that the Westminster Parliament and the UK Government ensured that that legislation was fully enacted.

I want to give my thanks and praise to the police in Scotland for the job they do more generally and what they have done specifically during the coronavirus crisis. I particularly commend the chief constable of Police Scotland, Iain Livingstone, for his calm, measured approach to these matters. He said right at the start that it was important that he continued on the basis of policing by consent. From my experience, and from feedback I have received from constituents, I think that has been achieved. That is very important. He underpinned that by setting out three key roles for Police Scotland: ensuring that social distancing is enforced to reduce the mortality rate during the spread of the virus; ensuring that the relationship of trust between the public in Scotland and the police is maintained; and, of course, ensuring the welfare and safety of not just police officers but their families.

I also commend the chief constable on his very reasoned approach. When there were some differences in the guidance between England and Scotland and we heard some unhelpful suggestions, from my point of view, that we should have border patrols, Iain Livingstone was clear that that would be a wholly inappropriate use of police resources. That was very helpful for my constituents, many of whom cross the border regularly.

The Minister and the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland have already alluded to the shocking report that in the first few weeks of the lockdown 100 officers had been attacked or the subject of abuse. As the deputy chief constable Fiona Taylor said, that is outrageous and disrespectful. Abuse and assault are simply not part of the job of police officers and can never be tolerated. I think that that is at the heart of the legislation in the Scottish Parliament and this subsequent order to ensure that we do not in any way accept that the abuse or assault of police officers is regarded as routine or tolerated. In the event of such behaviour they must be supported in every way.

I do not think that we waited six years for this subordinate legislation to come through just so that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), who in 2014 was the Justice Secretary in Scotland and brought forward that Act, could speak in this debate. I am sure he must be disappointed, given the passion that I know he has for this matter and for an effective criminal justice system, that it has taken quite so long for the legislation to be fully enacted and this order put in place, just as I am sure he was disappointed that it took until 2019 for the victim surcharge fund, which was also announced in 2014, to get up and running in Scotland.

This is not, Mr Deputy Speaker, the place to rehearse arguments that are rightly had in the Scottish Parliament, but it would be wrong for me not to ensure that the House is aware that my Scottish Conservative colleagues in the Scottish Parliament are concerned about the Scottish National party Government’s approach to the police and justice system in Scotland, particularly in relation to the ongoing issue of police funding and the ability of the police to do the job that is important to them. Indeed, my colleague Liam Kerr MSP has brought forward legislation in the Scottish Parliament which would give police officers even further protection. The events to which I have just referred, which have happened to police officers on at least 100 occasions, demonstrate that it is appropriate to have additional measures in place. Conservative colleagues in the Scottish Parliament will continue to advocate for that, and to call the SNP Government to account on their approach to policing and justice in Scotland.

The order, however late in the day, is to be welcomed. It is important that, wherever people who have been asked to make such an order are in the United Kingdom, the orders can be effectively approached. I therefore hope that the House will take the view that the order should be passed.

I have one specific query that I want to raise with the Minister, which is in relation to the Department for Work and Pensions and its ability to deal with such things at this time or in the immediate future. As we know, and as the shadow Secretary said, there has been an increase in the existing claimant count, so that is an increasing workload, but it has also obviously prioritised within its workload. I hope the Minister, in his closing remarks, will confirm that the DWP will in due course have the capacity to deal with these orders. We all want to see a minimal amount of these orders, because the optimum situation would be—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We gave you a bit of injury time to get the question out and I know the Minister heard it. Thank you very much for your contribution. I call Kenny MacAskill.

Scotch whisky: US tariffs

David Mundell Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2020 Westminster Hall

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effect of US tariffs on the Scotch whisky industry.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. I am delighted that the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), is responding to the debate, because he is the Member of Parliament with the most whisky distilleries in his constituency. He has been a powerful advocate for the industry since he was first elected.

For some years, the Scotch whisky industry has enjoyed a renaissance. There is a romance about Scotch, a heritage that is unmatched, and a global reach that is unrivalled. As an economic reality, Scotch whisky provides jobs and investment in rural communities, underpins a supply chain that extends across the UK, and has become central to Scotland’s tourism offer, attracting visitors to our shores from all over the world. As Secretary of State for Scotland, I spoke often of the whisky industry’s stand-out success. By the end of my tenure, I could recite the numbers in my sleep: £4.7 billion in exports to 180 countries globally, 40,000 jobs supported across the UK, 20% of UK food and drink exports, 41 bottles exported every second.

Global Britain, which is being debated in the main Chamber right now, is surely about reinvesting in the UK on the world stage; championing rules-based trade; and demonstrating that the UK is open for business, outward-looking and confident in its trading prospects. The Scotch whisky industry has led the way on that in its 150 years of exporting. Distillers large and small bestride the world and the brands have become some of the most recognised globally, as I saw for myself when promoting the industry in countries as diverse as Argentina, Mozambique and Japan, always with positive support from the Scotch Whisky Association and its members.

This great Scottish and British export has been put under considerable pressure since the imposition by the United States last October of a 25% tariff on the import of all single malt Scotch whisky and Scotch whisky liqueurs. I asked an urgent question in Parliament ahead of the tariff’s imposition and during the debate that followed, along with other Scottish Members, I set out the industry’s concerns about its potential impact. The Prime Minister spoke to President Trump, as I requested in those exchanges, and many MPs lobbied US Ambassador Woody Johnson.

Regrettably, the tariff imposition went ahead. I should be clear, however, that the US is legally entitled to impose the tariff because of the World Trade Organisation’s ruling on the long-running dispute between the EU and the US about aircraft manufacture. To cut a long story short, the WTO found that both Europe and America had given illegal subsidies to Airbus and Boeing. The WTO said that until the subsidies were repaid and their impact eliminated, each side was entitled to impose retaliatory tariffs on the other’s exports to encourage compliance. That may be legal, but it is a bitter blow to the Scotch whisky industry.

The US is Scotch whisky’s most valuable global market; more than £1 billion of Scotch whisky was exported there in 2018. The disconnect between the source of the dispute and the UK products affected by the tariffs is particularly galling. The US chose not to impose tariffs on imports from UK aircraft manufacturers, so Scotch whisky is bearing almost two thirds of the total tariff liabilities imposed on UK exports to the United States.

Our cashmere and shortbread industries are feeling the pain every bit as much. As the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) have highlighted, those industries have also been targeted and their imports to the US subject to a 25% tariff. Given the importance of cashmere to the Borders, my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk raised his concerns directly with the EU Trade Commissioner. Depressingly, they have not even replied, which suggests that the EU does not recognise the economic impact of those taxes on businesses in rural Scotland.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for his tenacity in pursuing this matter, which concerns us all. He has highlighted the vastly disproportionate effect that the tariffs will have on the Scotch whisky industry. He has also referred to other important Scottish exports that are affected. Has he seen any analysis of the proportionate effect on Scotland’s economy, compared with the economy of other parts of the UK, of the imposition of those tariffs? If that has not been produced, does he agree that it would be a good idea for the Government to produce it?

[David Mundell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. I will come on to the initial feedback in relation to the impact of the tariffs. If we cannot resolve the issue in the short term, however, his suggestion has much to commend it.

As the hon. Gentleman alluded to, it is the small businesses, the new distilleries, that will be worst-hit as a consequence of a dispute in an industry with which they have no connection. Large spirits companies have portfolios of products that make them less vulnerable to market changes, but as Diageo chief executive Ivan Menezes recognised today, it is “devastating” for the industry as a whole. He said:

“It’s not a big impact on Diageo on the single malts into the US, however for the industry in Scotland, it’s devastating. It impacts small distillers, farmers and employees there. Thousands of jobs. That’s our focus. We hope sense will prevail between the US and the UK and the EU to get these tariffs down.”

It could get worse. Following a WTO ruling last December that the UK, among other European countries, was still in breach of WTO rules in its support for Airbus, the US Government proposed to increase existing tariffs and expand the coverage to include more products. As early as next week, we will know whether the tariffs on Scotch malt whisky or other Scottish products will rise or widen in their scope. Most troublingly, they could include blended Scotch whisky.

Meanwhile, since June 2018, the EU has imposed a 25% tariff on US whiskies in response to US tariffs on steel and aluminium. That is another long-standing dispute and another unrelated sector bearing the painful consequences of Governments’ failure to resolve disputes. It is a far cry from the mid-1990s, when the US and the EU, together with Canada and Japan, agreed to remove all tariffs on imported brown spirits. That unleashed an increase of 270% in total Scotch exports to the US. That is impressive, but it is put in the shade by the 400% increase in US whisky exports to the UK over the same 25-year period. Friendly competition has been good for both industries, for tax revenues and for consumers.

It could not be clearer that the UK Government need to resolve the outstanding issues on UK subsidies to Airbus to ensure that the UK is fully compliant with international law in the WTO’s view. That is evidently key to ensuring the return to tariff-free trade in whisky across the Atlantic.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this issue to the Floor of the House. He is making a compelling argument for the virtues of free trade, something that we have not had to do for some decades now, although I fear we may be returning to it again in the future. Does he agree that there is a fundamental disconnect here? If the sector that is in breach of WTO rules is not the one that suffers the penalty, there will never be any incentive for the behaviour to be improved.

[David Mundell]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. His constituency makes two excellent whiskies, Highland Park and Scapa. People involved in the distilleries have nothing to do with the steel and aluminium industry; they have nothing to do with competition in the aircraft industry. It is completely wrong that they should be drawn into what is not their dispute. That is why we must resolve the underlying disputes.

[Mr Carmichael]

The right hon. Gentleman refers to Highland Park and Scapa, both of which are products that are owned by larger groups, and so will probably be better able to sustain the damage brought by the tariffs. Surely, however, we must view the industry as one unit. The small, start-up distilleries, from Arran back in the 1990s to Kilchoman and Ardnahoe on Islay now, are the businesses that will suffer the most serious impact; they play an important role for the success of the conglomerates.

[David Mundell]

I absolutely agree. It was very welcoming to hear Ivan Menezes, head of Diageo, one of the most successful spirits companies in the world, focusing on that. He said that although Diageo has a portfolio of spirits and can weather the storms, this is devastating for the industry as a whole; Diageo wants to see a resolution through its own offices and through the Scotch Whisky Association for the whole industry.

Since a tariff was imposed on 18 October, export figures appear to paint a bleak picture, although there may have been some additional exporting ahead of the possible introduction of the tariffs to avoid them. According to the Scotch Whisky Association, single malt Scotch exports to the US in November 2019 fell by 33% by value compared with November 2018, following a fall of 26% in October. Although it is too early to tell the longer-term impact, if such drops in exports are sustained over a year and mirror the fall in US whisky imports to the EU in the last 18 months, that would mean a loss of around £100 million in exports to the United States, with a corresponding impact on investment, productivity and, eventually, jobs at home.

For medium-sized and smaller distillers, single malt is all they have and the US market is vital. They have invested in single malt because that industry is growing. Over the last decade, global sales of single malt have grown 166%, and growth in the United States has been even higher—up 230% over the past 10 years. These small and medium-sized distillers cannot shift their investment and are being hit particularly hard.

Distillers are waiting now to see what will happen in the next few weeks. They have paused investment, reduced exports and delayed launching new brands. Some have cut jobs in the US and have stopped hiring in Scotland. Over time, as stocks in the US market run down, the impact will be clearer. Some brands will disappear from the US market altogether, as it becomes uneconomic for smaller distillers to export them. Market share and brand recognition built up over many years, once lost, will take a considerable time to rebuild. The longer the tariffs are in place, the more profound the impact will be on the industry and in Scotland.

Three months ago, when it became clear that import tariffs would be imposed on Scotch whisky, the UK Government asked the Scotch Whisky Association to suggest a package of support for the industry to help distillers cope with an unprecedented challenge in its largest marketplace worldwide. That request was welcome, but the industry is now looking for action to follow through on the proposals submitted. The Budget is due soon, and yesterday my hon. Friends the Members for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) and for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) and I met the Chancellor to discuss those proposals and how the industry, and cashmere and shortbread, could be helped more generally in the current circumstances. I look forward to his formal response in or before the Budget.

Obviously, any increase in excise duty in the March Budget would be unacceptable, and the potential impact of the introduction of a digital service tax on UK/US trade discussions and on whisky needs to be understood. It is too simplistic to suggest that France’s decision not to proceed with the digital services tax as planned is the reason why champagne and cognac are not subject to the tariffs, but the full implications of the unilateral introduction in the UK of a digital service tax need to be understood before that step is taken.

It is instructive that the EU has already agreed to increase the co-financing for wine promotion schemes to help boost exports in the face of the tariff on wine. Since the EU imposed tariffs on US whisky, the US government have delivered a $3 million package for trade promotion activities in the EU. The UK Government can learn from those actions. Support must clearly be focused on the need to build a more secure UK base while the US market, which is the cornerstone of investment and business plans, is under threat. We also need to see a resolution of the underlying dispute, starting by taking unrelated sectors out of the line of fire, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said.

On a visit to Roseisle Distillery on Speyside last December, the Prime Minister committed to removing the EU’s tariffs on US whisky as soon as the UK is legally able to following its departure from the EU. That was a welcome statement. I know the Prime Minister, the International Trade Secretary and the Trade Minister have raised this issue at the highest levels in the US Administration in multiple meetings and calls. As we embark upon a trade negotiation with the US, eliminating existing tariffs on both single malt Scotch whisky and American whisky would be an important early confidence-building measure. I urge the Government to make that explicit when publishing the UK’s negotiating objectives for trade talks with the US; otherwise, one could understand why an industry as pro free trade as the Scotch whisky industry would start to question the value of such talks.

We need to find a solution that works for the Scotch whisky and US whisky industries together. We need to return to tariff-free trade in whisky across the Atlantic. We need to see a laser focus from the Government on resolving the Airbus issue. I hope the Minister will commit to pressing colleagues in the Department for International Trade and 10 Downing Street to do that, and will reassure us that the concerns we have raised about a digital service tax are well understood within the Government, to ensure that no further unintended or collateral harm is done to the Scotch whisky industry.

Every time a small Scotch whisky distiller exports a bottle of single malt Scotch whisky to the United States, it is writing a cheque to the US Government for an additional 25% of its value, to pay for a dispute that has nothing to do with it. We should think about that for a second. On average, one bottle of single malt is exported to the US every second, and every second since 18 October, each bottle has had an additional 25% tax added to it. That equates to 5,400 bottles being taxed over the course of the debate, if it runs its duration. No business or industry could sustain that for long.

The scale of the industry, and its importance to Scotland and the wider UK economy, should focus minds on a swift resolution to this dispute. From my constituency in the south of Scotland, to communities on Speyside and on the islands of Scotland, ambitious small businesses are paying the price for a trade dispute that is entirely unrelated to their industry. That cannot be fair or proportionate, and we cannot allow it to continue.

[Ms Karen Buck (in the Chair)]

It might be helpful to Members to know that we will start the winding-up speeches at about 2.40 pm. Given the number of people who want to speak, Members should limit themselves to about five minutes, so that everybody has a chance to be called.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

Thank you, Ms Buck, for your chairmanship of the debate. By Scottish political standards it was very consensual, and I am grateful to the Members who took part. It was a particular pleasure to be, for the first time in 15 years, in a parliamentary debate that involved the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill). In a different life, we used to spar in the Scottish Parliament.

It was also good to hear from the new hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), who brings a great deal of experience of this industry to Parliament. She touched on the importance of the whisky industry in rural communities. The industry provides jobs of a quality that is not otherwise available in rural communities. Across large swathes of Scotland, the whisky industry is the only industry that can provide such jobs, which is why it has huge importance way beyond simply the revenue it can generate.

Having heard other Members mention the whisky interests in their constituencies, I realise I was remiss in not mentioning those in my own. I should, of course, have referenced the revitalised Annandale Distillery on the outskirts of Annan, which produces two whiskies: Man O’Words and Man O’Sword. I think we have kept mainly to the Man O’Words tradition today. I also have in my constituency a large maturation facility near Poniel in South Lanarkshire, which is part of the Bacardi group under the Dewar’s label. Both are very important to my constituency.

I was pleased by the contributions from across the Chamber, but I was particularly pleased by the Minister’s remarks. He committed to responding to the SWA’s proposals about support for the industry. As he alluded to, that work should be done in conjunction with the Scottish Government; both Governments have levels of responsibility here. He also touched on tourism, and the whisky industry has raised issues about making distilleries more carbon-neutral. There are a number of issues. Duty, however, is very important, and his restatement of the Conservative party manifesto commitment to a duty review is extremely welcome. Given the hard work that he, others and—if I may be so bold as to say so—I put into getting that commitment, we want to see it followed through.

I hope that those in the Treasury, the Prime Minister and others take on board my points on concerns about a digital services tax and how that might impact whisky and other products. I hope we will be able to follow through on the Prime Minister’s commitment—which, as the Minister said, was made at Roseisle Distillery in his constituency—that the UK, once it is legally able to, will remove tariffs on bourbon and other US whiskeys. That would be a huge sign of our commitment to free trade and our positivity about resolving this issue. As I said in my opening speech, I want us to get to the point that we can go into trade talks with the US clear that there will not be duties on whiskies, whether they are from Scotland or the US.

I hope this debate has been a positive contribution to the ultimate resolution of this issue. It is clear that Members from Scotland representing all parties want to see this issue resolved and want this industry, which is vital for our country and our communities, to prosper in the way it has in the recent past. That can be achieved through the removal of US tariffs and the non-application of further tariffs.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the effect of US tariffs on the Scotch whisky industry.

Claim of Right for Scotland

David Mundell Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Tonight, I rise to remind the House that the claim of right for Scotland is a principle that recognises that the people of Scotland have the sovereign right to determine the form of government best suited to their needs. This right is well established; it was first set out in the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320 and was most recently endorsed by Parliament in the Commons in a debate in July 2018—a debate in which I was privileged and proud to speak.

In Scotland, this House is not recognised as sovereign. The people of Scotland are sovereign, and they are angry that this House, this Government, are over-reaching themselves by trampling all over Scotland’s devolution settlement, with repeated and concerted attempts by Tory Members to shout down Scottish National party Members when we dare to speak up on behalf of Scotland.

The debate tonight comes at a critical time for Scotland, with the UK on the cusp of withdrawing from the European Union—something which the people of Scotland rejected by a significant majority, but which is to be imposed upon them against their expressed democratic wish. However, if one accepts the European Union referendum result in England despite all the cheating and law breaking that we all know went on, because the democratic will of the people of Scotland is different from the democratic will of the people of England, then—too bad—Scotland is to be ignored, dismissed and dragged out of the European Union anyway.

With the Westminster power grab and the lack of consent given to this disastrous Brexit by the Scottish Parliament, the devolution settlement has been trampled underfoot by this Government—so much for a so-called union of equals; so much for Scotland leading the UK, not leaving the UK. How can this be a union of equals when the democratically devolved legislatures in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have all refused to consent to this Tory Government’s withdrawal agreement, which will damage our jobs, our prosperity and our relationships with our European partners? This Brexit, which may yet deliver a no-deal scenario, is to be forced on Scotland against her will, exposing for all to see the myth of the so-called union of equals.

In the general election a few weeks ago, the Tories in Scotland unequivocally urged voters in Scotland to vote Tory to stop indyref2. We in the SNP stood firmly and proudly on a platform of saying no to Brexit and saying yes to the people of Scotland’s right to choose their own future. Scotland, by and large, did not vote Tory, but voted SNP in huge numbers. The SNP won 80% of the seats in Scotland, yet this Government still refuse to accept that the people of Scotland have made their choice—that they want Scotland to have the right to choose its own future because no one is better placed to make decisions for Scotland than the people who live in Scotland.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I hear what the hon. Lady is saying, but in my constituency and other constituencies in the week of the general election, SNP candidates told voters that the election was nothing to do with independence, but that they were to vote SNP if they were against Brexit or if they were against Boris. However, at 10 o’clock on 12 December, it was all to do with independence.

[Patricia Gibson]

This is the kind of wilful, fingers-in-ears attitude that we have come to expect. Not everybody in Scotland who voted SNP is yet persuaded of the argument for independence, but what they do want is the right to choose.

We know that the Minister will trot out well-worn phrases and lily-livered lines about the SNP not winning more than 50% of the popular vote in the election in 2019. However, he must consider that the first-past-the-post voting system that he supports is the one in which we are working. Further, the SNP in Scotland has won the council elections in 2016, the Holyrood election in 2016, the general election in 2017, the European elections in 2019 and the general election in 2019. Each of those five elections was contested on one proposition by the Tories: “Vote Tory to stop indyref2”. The Tories in Scotland never mentioned any policies or discussed any other issues. They simply said, “Vote Tory to stop indyref2”. And yet, still they could not get close to beating the SNP in these elections.

For anyone to deny the democratic right of Scotland to have a say over her own future path, or to try to shift the goalposts on what winning an election actually means or looks like, is deluded. Doing an impersonation of King Canute trying to hold back the tide simply shows the desperation and arrogance of this Government, who think that if they can just ignore the pesky Scots for long enough, they will just give up. We will not give up. We in Scotland have a right. We have a right which we claim in no uncertain terms, to choose our own future, and we will not be denied.