Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy

Debate between Ian Murray and Pete Wishart

Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

I will come back to hon. Members—I promise I will come back—but let me just make some progress.

All this brings us to deficit and debt, which is the great elephant in the room when it comes to independence. Let us talk about what independence would cost, and the scale of public service cuts that would be required. Very helpfully, These Islands—an organisation that believes that Scotland should stay in the UK—made the following comment, which I thought was quite interesting:

“We are waiting with trepidation about how the Chancellor will fill a £50 billion black hole”,

which, it said, equates to about 2% of UK GDP. An independent Scotland would have to fill a hole equivalent to more than 10% of Scottish GDP, so there would be five times the problem that has been created by the Tories at Westminster. As the First Minister acknowledged, the Scottish economy would be cut off from its biggest trading partner by a hard border. But before we even take account of the devastating impact of this, we just have to look at the Scottish Government’s own accounts.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Murray]

Let me just finish this point. I promise that I will give way in a moment.

We are not helped by the Scottish Government’s paper itself, which simply chooses to ignore the figures from Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland and pretend that they do not exist. The paper says:

“No estimate of the fiscal starting point for an independent Scotland’s finances is included in this document.”

That is rather surprising, because the SNP has—along with Labour and other Opposition parties—rightly been demanding that the UK Government produce the figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility on the forecast for the UK economy on the basis of their botched mini-Budget. The SNP does not even mention its much-lauded growth commission, which it has now junked. That does not seem very reassuring.

[Pete Wishart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Murray]

Let me just finish this point. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman.

The starting point was always the Scottish Government’s own accounts—the GERS figures that the First Minister used to use as the starting point and bible have now been disowned. Every previous key document on their independence case had referenced those figures, and I have them here. Their independence referendum White Paper states:

“GERS is the authoritative publication on Scotland’s public finances.”

“Scotland’s Future: What independence means for you” cites its source as Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland—that is, GERS. “The Economic Case for Independence” states:

“This report uses data published in the annual Government Expenditure and Revenue for Scotland (GERS) report.”

“Pensions in an Independent Scotland” also states:

“This report uses data published in the annual Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) report.”

“Your Scotland, Your Voice” states:

“The most recent GERS demonstrates that Scottish public finances ran current budget surpluses in each of the three years”.

[Pete Wishart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Murray]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman before his knees give out.

[Pete Wishart]

I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but he need not worry about my knees. He is coming very close to saying that somehow the Scottish people, with all our resources and our history of invention and creativity, are unique in the world in that we would not be able to make a success of independence. What does he think is so lacking in the Scottish people that we, among all the peoples of the world, would not be able to make a success of being an independent nation?

[Ian Murray]

By the hon. Gentleman’s proposition, I could go into Barclays bank on Monday morning when my mortgage is due and say, “I’m not going to pay it” while waving the saltire. I wonder if the bank manager would accept that as payment.

This debate is not about the Scottish people; it is about the bust proposition that is being put to the Scottish people on independence. There is no doubt that the Scottish Government are now GERS deniers. These are their own figures; this is the crux of the issue. The Scottish Government’s own accounts show a deficit in Scotland of £23.7 billion, which is equivalent to 12% of Scottish GDP or 1.5 times the entire budget of the Scottish NHS. How do they plan to resolve that deficit? Where will the spending cuts land? If they are going to borrow tens of billions to support a new currency, what happens to the day-to-day spending deficit? Do they borrow that as well? At what cost, and in what currency? I am afraid that this paper makes the Conservatives’ mini-Budget look like an economic masterstroke.

Let me finish by talking about borders. For the first time, the Scottish Government and the nationalists have admitted that there would be a hard border between Scotland and England. Families and businesses who for three centuries have bonded and traded freely would be split up by a hard border, a different currency and a different country—[Interruption.] Members keep braying from a sedentary position, but they have no answers to these questions. In fact, the answers they are giving us make their position worse, not better. Let us be clear: Scotland trades more with the rest of the United Kingdom than it does with the rest of the world combined. The SNP’s response to the Conservatives’ damaging Brexit is to commit an act of economic folly that would be several orders of magnitude worse.

The SNP has no credible answers on pensions either. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber claimed that the UK Government would continue to pay Scottish pensions after independence, having seemingly not read his party’s own policy from 2014. So who will pay? Will somebody clarify whose position on pensions is right? Is it the right hon. Gentleman, the First Minister or the papers that they have put into the public domain?

Let me finish with words from themselves—

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am delighted that he has given way so early. This debate is not about that; it is about the broken proposition that he is putting as a prospectus for that independent Scotland. That is what we have demonstrated has holes in it. It is up to him to make that proposition, not us.

[Pete Wishart]

I will respond to that challenge and I thank the hon. Gentleman, because I think I heard him say that Scotland would be a successful independent country. I think that is what he was saying.

Standing Orders (Public Business)

Debate between Ian Murray and Pete Wishart

Tuesday 7th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

This is the second time this afternoon that I have debated English votes for English laws on the Floor of the House, and I have to say that I did not expect to be speaking conclusively on EVEL on either of these occasions. It is always a pleasure to address some of the issues surrounding English votes for English laws.

SNP Members see this very much as a technical change to the Standing Orders, and we are quite surprised that we are getting into a general debate about the whole insidious package of English votes for English laws. I totally understand Labour’s concerns, and there are good reasons to be concerned, but it seems a curious environment in which to be having some of these debates about EVEL just now.

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is the very distinguished Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee on which I serve. For clarity, will he re-emphasise that he and his party previously supported English votes for English laws?

[Pete Wishart]

I am happy to confirm that we believe conclusively that English Members should of course be responsible for all their own measures, and we agree that it is up to English Members to determine their own legislation and their own policy. We have a very elegant solution for that, and I think the hon. Gentleman knows exactly what territory we are getting into with that. English votes for English laws is simply the wrong way to do that. As a package, it has been utterly divisive in this House and has been supported by absolutely no one other than the Government themselves, so I think it should be reviewed. I shall come on to that later, and I will allow him to come into the debate again if he thinks it necessary.

Let me address what is before us now. When it comes to these changes to the Standing Orders, we need to recognise the fact that the Scotland Act 2016 devolved to the Scottish Parliament the right to set the main rates of income tax—and thank goodness for that. This was agreed between the party of the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and my party in the Smith Commission, and we are grateful to know that the rates of income tax are now a responsibility for the Scottish Parliament. That is a good and positive thing, which we very much welcome.

We see the motion as a recognition of our legislative authority on rates of income tax and as a tidying up exercise. If anything—I am loth to concede this to the Leader of the House—it is helpful in clarifying the new arrangements on Standing Orders relating to English votes for English laws. That is why I am surprised that Labour has decided to have a real debate and conversation tonight about EVEL. I am always happy to debate EVEL. I am just surprised that Labour has chosen this evening to conduct such a debate.

The changes take account of the fact that there might, in future, be resolutions or pieces of legislation relating to main income tax rates that are specific to England, or to England, Wales and Northern Ireland but not Scotland, because those matters have been properly devolved. It also makes changes to ensure certainty on who are and who are not Scottish taxpayers. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South will remember the tortuous conversations we had on trying to identify who are and who are not Scottish taxpayers. The changes will clarify that a touch and are therefore reasonably helpful in that regard.

There is much about English votes for English laws that SNP Members do not like. You know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that our issues with EVEL are many and manifest. No one understands what on earth is going on. We just had a Legislative Grand Committee. The bell went off, the Mace went down and the Mace went back up again, and not one Member from England had got to his or her feet to contribute. I have the House of Commons record for contributions in Legislative Grand Committees. In fact, I have spoken twice as much in LGCs as all the English Members put together, yet we were told that EVEL was an absolute necessity, a burning issue that concerned and consumed the shires of Englandshire as they were revolting about me and my hon. Friends coming down and voting on all their precious legislation. And what do we get when they actually have the opportunity to discuss this? Absolute and utter silence! That is why we say again that English votes for English laws are unnecessary. They are burdensome to this House and cumbersome to the way we do business. More than anything else, they divide this House on the basis of nationality and geography. It is on that basis that we profoundly disagree with the whole idea of English votes for English laws.

Now that is all well and good—I am looking at you, Madam Deputy Speaker, getting edgy and tetchy about where I am going with this—but in our view this is not the place to have this debate. I am surprised at Labour’s lack of understanding about what is being pitched by the Government. As the Leader of the House says, this is a technical change to Standing Orders. I understand that the Labour party will press the motion to a Division. I will support Labour on that as I will oppose English votes for English laws at any opportunity, but I know that the Leader of the House finds it very curious that Labour has decided that this will be a matter of principle on which to vote this evening.

English votes for English laws is an absolute disaster. This is nothing to do with the Leader of the House, bless him; this is all about his predecessor’s charge to bring this forward to the House without any due regard to its impact on our business. It is wrong. It does not work. The House does not require it and it does not satisfy anybody. It does not satisfy us in Scotland. It certainly does not satisfy English Members, who have not contributed one peep to English Legislative Grand Committees. This is an opportunity for the Leader of the House. Yes, go ahead with the technical changes. There is no real issue from us on them, but he will not get the support of the House on EVEL. He has seen all the reviews and reports and it manifestly does not work. It sits awkwardly with the idea of a unitary UK Parliament, where every single Member should be equal. This may be the wrong place to have that fight, but on EVEL we are in the trenches and will support Labour this evening.

Post-study Work Schemes

Debate between Ian Murray and Pete Wishart

Thursday 8th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Fourth Report of the Scottish Affairs Committee of Session 2015-16, Post-study work schemes, HC 593, and the Government response, HC 787.

Mr Rosindell, it is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship in this short debate on the Scottish Affairs Committee’s report about post-study work schemes for Scotland. One of the first things that we did after I assumed the Chair of the Committee, which is obviously a pleasure and a privilege, was to go to Scotland and ask the people of Scotland, regular contributors to the Committee’s work and other stakeholders what they wanted from the Committee. I felt that was the right thing to do, and I think colleagues on the Committee who are here today found that a valuable and worthwhile session. It helped us to create a report about the Committee’s work and decide what work we would undertake during this Parliament.

One key theme that emerged, and that people stressed to us that they were really keen for us to debate and discuss, was the prospect of a post-study work scheme for Scotland. We would expect the higher education sector to say that, and of course it did, but we also heard clear representations from business, trade unions and practically every sector in Scotland. We therefore decided to publish a report on post-study work schemes, and we are pleased that it has received so much attention in Scotland.

During our inquiry, the Committee heard from Universities Scotland, the UK Council for International Student Affairs, Colleges Scotland, the Scottish Council for Development and Industry, the Institute of Directors, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, the Scottish Government, and the Immigration Minister himself and his colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland. Essentially, we heard a practical chorus of overwhelming support for the reintroduction of a dedicated post-study work scheme for Scotland. The only discordant voices in that general chorus of desire for such a scheme to return were those of the man who has his hand up—the Immigration Minister—and his colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland. Everywhere else we went, every submission that we secured and every piece of evidence that we heard during the many sessions that we had on this issue very much supported the idea that Scotland should have a dedicated post-study work scheme to retain our international students.

It is perhaps fortuitous that we are having this debate the week after the Committee published our report “Demography of Scotland and the implications for devolution,” which I very much recommend to the House. The Committee is particularly pleased with the report, as it offers a fascinating snapshot of the population and demographic trends in Scotland. Essentially, it concludes that Scotland’s population is growing, which practically everyone in Scotland welcomes. Population growth could not make the Immigration Minister more miserable when he gets his figures for the rest of the United Kingdom, but in Scotland we welcome it and recognise it as a key factor in our economic growth and wellbeing.

Some of our findings in that report are interesting and pertinent to this debate. There are troughs and spikes in Scotland’s population. One of the peaks is among 17 to 19-year-olds, among whom there is immigration to Scotland. The Committee interpreted that as people coming to Scotland to be educated because of our wonderful higher education sector. Our universities are world-class; three of them are in the top 100. However, the Committee was somewhat concerned by the trough in 22 to 25-year-olds, among whom there is not immigration but emigration. People at that critical age, who are at the start of their working careers and could make a real contribution to Scotland’s economy and wellbeing, are actually leaving Scotland. That worried us. The Committee interpreted that as students who we had educated to a high standard in our wonderful universities leaving the nation of Scotland. We found it hard to understand why on earth we would open our doors to international students who wanted to come to Scotland and enjoy the experience of being there, educate them to a high standard, and then boot them out. We found that very difficult to comprehend.

Let me outline the current situation and conditions in Scotland. In 2014-15, there were 29,210 non-EU international students enrolled in Scottish higher education institutions, representing 12.6% of the total higher education student population. In 2013-14, the last year for which we have figures, fees from non-EU international students made up 12.5% of the total income of Scottish HEIs. It is hard to get economic assessments, but it has been estimated that non-EU international students contribute more than £400 million in off-campus expenditure, which obviously benefits the many towns and cities that have a wonderful university as part of their community.

That financial contribution is obviously welcome—it was welcomed by practically everyone we spoke to—but my colleagues on the Committee will remember clearly that when we visited Aberdeen and were hosted by the University of Aberdeen, it was stressed to us that although that was great, those international students also enriched our college and university campuses with their experiences from different nations and made those campuses multicultural and multinational. Learning alongside students from all around the world gives indigenous Scottish students a fantastic experience. Universities Scotland stressed to us that that was as important as international students’ financial contribution.

Non-EU students currently study in Scotland on general tier 4 student visas. Under the conditions of that visa, those students can study and work while they are in Scotland, but critically, they have four months to find secure employment after they complete their course or they have to leave the United Kingdom. It seems that the only available route for students to try to secure employment is the route between tier 4 and tier 2—a route that was described to us by employers’ organisations, trade unions and industry representatives as complicated, tortuous and almost impossible for some employers to secure. To be eligible for that route, graduates must have completed their course and have a job offer with a salary of at least £20,800 from an employer that is licensed to sponsor a tier 2 visa. Employers’ organisations told us that that was cumbersome and burdensome and some employers did not even bother trying, because they knew that it would be a tortuous process.

That £20,800 minimum salary for a tier 2 visa applies right across the UK; it makes no difference whether you are in London, Inverness or Northern Ireland. It may be possible for a 22-year-old in London to get a graduate entry-level salary of £20,800, but that is almost impossible for a new graduate in Scotland to secure. We see that in the evidence. We found during our inquiry that tier 2 sponsors are mainly in London and the south-east; in 2013, 63% of them were located there, compared with only 6% in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for giving way. He will recall that one of the key parts of the evidence that the Committee heard was Scottish universities themselves saying that when they take on some postgraduate employees, they do not pay them £20,800 a year. Even they are not able to retain the very best of the staff they train.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely spot on. The Committee took issue with the idea that £20,800 is somehow applicable to the Scottish situation. I will come back to that point, but first I will make a few other remarks about how we could resolve this general situation.

In the past, we had a dedicated post-study work scheme in Scotland—the famous Fresh Talent initiative, which ran so successfully between 2005 and 2008. It was initiated by the former Labour First Minister Jack McConnell and had the overwhelming support of the Home Office down here. I still meet students in Perth who studied at the University of the Highlands and Islands who are products of Fresh Talent and are now making an incredible contribution to my community and constituency. Fresh Talent was subsumed into the general tier 1 post-study work visa scheme that ran from 2008 to 2012. Although that was still a post-study work scheme, it ended Scotland’s advantage in being able to secure and keep international students. We did not mind that as long as we still had some means to secure international students who wanted to remain in Scotland. It was only with the election of a Conservative-led Government in 2010 that we saw the beginnings of the end of any dedicated post-study work scheme.

I will try to understand the Government’s motives for all that. In the response to us, they said that the scheme was apparently “too generous”. I would hazard a guess—perhaps I am out of place here—that that is something to do with the Government having almost an obsession with immigration numbers, and that their general desire to get immigration down from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands was behind the idea of closing any notion of a post-study work scheme. International students were an easy target—of course they were—and we could see where they were coming from. Everything has to be done through the book—in order to secure international students, universities and higher education institutions have to go through a complicated process. It was so easy to close those routes and, instead of doing the hard work about illegal immigration, target the students. However, targeting students was a singularly self-defeating initiative. The people we want to stop coming into the country and staying here are the most educated—those we spent a fortune on—who want to stay in our country.

Of course, a lot of things were said about what the Government did. The Scottish Affairs Committee, before I assumed the Chair, did a report about that and warned of the consequences, as did the Select Committee on Home Affairs, of which I believe you were a member in those days, Mr Rosindell. Those reports said that there would be consequences and an impact, and an impact there has been. One thing the Committee was keen to discover and determine was what sort of impacts the closure of that route had had on Scotland, and the clear message we got from practically everyone was that the impact has been significant, negative and stark.

We cannot get a proper picture because the evidence is patchy, so the only thing we could look at was migration from tier 4 to tier 2, but we were able to estimate that there has been a fall-away of 80% in international students continuing to work in Scotland after their studies. That has had an immense adverse impact on our access to talent, and it has resulted in increased skills shortages in all key sectors the length and breadth of the Scottish economy.

More than that, there is the disincentive value of not having a particular route. We heard again and again from representatives of the education sector that Scottish universities are now losing out in the race to secure international talent from across the world. We are moving into a different type of working environment in the ability to share and transfer knowledge. The knowledge economy will be so important to economic growth as we go forward, and Scotland is in a great position because of the quality of our universities and the research done in Scotland, but we are now told that there is a massive disincentive to coming to Scotland.

Students sitting in, say, India, Australia or Kenya, and looking at the UK will be hearing all this stuff about Brexit and the splendid isolationism that the UK seems to want to be part of. If they are hearing that all the debate about leaving the European Union was about immigration and people not being welcome, they are not going to be particularly inclined to seek out a university in Scotland, as part of the United Kingdom, to come to and study. They will be thinking, “What on earth would I go there for, when I would be made most unwelcome and probably get booted out the minute I finish my course?”

House of Lords Reform and Size of the House of Commons

Debate between Ian Murray and Pete Wishart

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

I would support Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan and their many hordes if it helped to defeat this Government. I have no issue or problem with supporting the House of Lords when it gets something right, but that does not make it any better on these issues. I have sensed the pain in the past few months of so many Conservative Back Benchers who have looked at this place and got increasingly upset that the Lords has defied its will. This Government do not particularly like to be challenged, but the fact that they are being challenged by an unelected, undemocratic House is beginning to disturb the Conservative party, and so I say join us in dealing with this undemocratic disgrace.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I agree that we should be doing something about the House of Lords quickly. I know that the hon. Gentleman is an intelligent character, so perhaps he can help me out with some maths. The current Prime Minister and the former Prime Minister have wanted to cut the number in this place from 650 to 600 to save £12 million, yet they have stuffed the other place, costing £34 million. To me, that sounds like a cost, not a saving.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman is spot on, although actually it is worse than that, as the last figures we have are for 2014-15, when the cost of the House of Lords was approaching £100 million—that is what we are actually spending on it. Instead of reducing that, this Government’s sole intention and ambition on the House of Lords is to continue to increase the size of that place.

Let us take a cursory look at our latest batch of new parliamentarians—the 16 new appointees from the former Prime Minister’s resignation list. This list was oozing and dripping with patronage and cronyism. We now have 16 shiny new parliamentarians to welcome to these Houses of Parliament, but let us look at who they are. Thirteen of them are Conservative—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Let me tell people exactly what they are like before they say that. Five of them were senior members of staff in the former Prime Minister’s office, with one a former special adviser to that Prime Minister. One was a special adviser to the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. One is a Conservative treasurer who just so happened to have given the Conservative party millions and millions of pounds over the years. Curiously—this is the one that gets me—one is the former leader of the Conservative remain campaign, who, I suggest, is not getting a peerage for any great success that he has delivered to the Conservative party.

Housing and Planning Bill

Debate between Ian Murray and Pete Wishart

Tuesday 12th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I knew his would be one of the quality interventions of the debate. He is absolutely right. The only thing I would say to him is this: where on earth is his Front-Bench team? They are not even prepared to make a speech or statement. Why are they not participating? Labour Members used to be stalwarts of this debate. I remember when we had 50-odd Labour Members for Scotland. They would have been making a fuss and standing up for Scotland’s interests, yet today there is absolute silence from the Labour Benches.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I am delighted the hon. Gentleman has given way, because no SNP Members have participated in the Bill proceedings. We agree that this process is a complete charade, but while I was voting at 2.45 am last week on behalf of my constituents, he was in his bed.

[Pete Wishart]

Maybe. It is with great fascination that we hear from the one and only Scottish Labour Member of Parliament. Perhaps the reason the hon. Gentleman is in such a diminished position is the Labour party’s silence on these issues. The fact that Labour Members have ignored them all the way through speaks volumes about the attitude of the Labour party. I do not know whether it is due to the particular chaos it is going through, but we need to hear from Labour Members to find out their view about what has happened.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Ian Murray and Pete Wishart

Monday 29th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

It is great to see you in the Chair, Ms Engel. Congratulations on your elevation to Deputy Speaker. It appears that in tonight’s debate there is a sense of déjà vu, as we debated full fiscal autonomy a few weeks ago. Given that the Committee stage of this Bill has been dominated by the SNP manifesto commitment to deliver full fiscal autonomy and bringing forward its watered down promise to deliver it this year, it is good that we have the opportunity to try to put it into this Bill. In fact, as we witnessed last week, the SNP’s hand had to be forced by its arch Thatcherite colleagues, when its Members went into the Lobby with the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). I said at the time that the worst possible scenario for Scotland would be the SNP demanding full fiscal autonomy and its being delivered by a majority Conservative Government. Those words were echoed—

[Pete Wishart]

rose—

[Ian Murray]

Let me just finish this point. Those words were echoed by Dave Watson, the head of campaigns at Unison Scotland, who said:

“An incoming Tory government faced with a big number of SNP MPs, saying, ‘OK, if that’s what Scotland voted for, let’s give them Full Fiscal Autonomy.’ The Treasury would be able to dump £7.5bn of the deficit on the Scottish Government and just walk away.”

The fact that the SNP has another fudged amendment this evening shows that it does not believe that full fiscal autonomy would be good for Scotland.

[Pete Wishart]

rose—

[Ian Murray]

Before the hon. Gentleman pops up to say, “Too wee, too stupid and too poor,” as he always does, may I remind the House that that was a phrase coined by the SNP Finance Secretary and no one else? It is worth putting that on the record, given that he always pops up to say that.

Lord Smith of Kelvin said in his report that one of the primary aims of the Smith agreement was to provide the Scottish Parliament with accountability—

[Pete Wishart]

rose—

[Ian Murray]

I said that I would give way, and I will do so when I have made a little progress, given the late hour.

Lord Smith said that the Scottish Parliament was a Parliament that spends resources but does not raise any, so there is no accountability or responsibility. The Scotland Act 2012 resolved that position a little with the devolution of the most immovable taxes and 10p of income tax—

[Pete Wishart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Murray]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman before he bursts a blood vessel.

[Pete Wishart]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. This rewriting of history is great and it is fantastic to find out the position of the Scottish National party, but perhaps he can explain the position of Scottish Labour. He abstained on full fiscal autonomy. Is that because he is uncertain, or is he perhaps now unsure about full fiscal autonomy?

[Ian Murray]

I am delighted by that intervention. What I did not want to do last week was rain on the parade of the Scottish National party as its Members went through the Lobby with the Thatcherite Conservatives to deliver full fiscal autonomy for Scotland. That is what seems to be wrong. The SNP is in full agreement with the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) again tonight on the subject of the devolution of the entirety of income tax. Perhaps the party has a right-wing agenda after all.

As we know, the Bill provides full control of nearly 50% of revenues and more than 60% of spending. According to the Library, that will be 65% if the devolution of housing benefit is agreed tomorrow, making it one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the world. The OECD ranked the Smith proposals and came to the same conclusion.

With that accountability and responsibility must come transparency and honesty. During the general election campaign, the First Minister and SNP candidates repeatedly said that they would vote for full fiscal autonomy this year. That was reaffirmed in the television debates. All the impartial and independent expert analysis of full fiscal autonomy shows clearly that that would devastate Scotland’s financial position. That is the genesis of our new clause 1. If the Scottish Government want to dismiss all the independent experts simply because they do not agree with them, let us set up an independent commission to consider the consequences on Scotland’s finances of full fiscal autonomy.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Ian Murray and Pete Wishart

Monday 8th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend raises the fundamental principle of nationalist politics. I remember the former First Minister, the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), taking great credit when unemployment fell in Scotland, and then blaming everyone else when unemployment rose, and that was a regular trend throughout the time of his premiership in Scotland. [Interruption.] I can hear him chunter “Shameful” from the Back Benches. People just have to look at the record and determine the facts for themselves.

[Pete Wishart]

I would go further than my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond). The result for Labour a few weeks ago was catastrophic, and we have heard nothing thus far from the hon. Gentleman’s contribution that suggests that he is addressing those problems. What will he do? Will we hear a new story from Labour? Will it work with us on a progressive agenda across Scotland so that we can take on the Tories, address austerity and deal with the menace of Trident?

[Ian Murray]

Well, if my mathematics is correct, I have been on my feet for 15 minutes, and it is quite obvious that the hon. Gentleman has not listened to the first eight pages of my speech. It was about social solidarity and some of the changes that we want to see in this Bill. Let me put it on the record that I have just seen a tweet from him claiming that Labour will not vote on the SNP amendment tonight. Well, I understand that the amendment has not been chosen, so perhaps he would like to correct the record on his Twitter feed rather than yet again spreading mistruths in this House for political gain. This is a serious Bill that is trying to develop the constitutional settlement for Scotland.

Devolution and the Union

Debate between Ian Murray and Pete Wishart

Thursday 20th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil). I am surprised he has been able to speak in this debate, because he has been telling everyone that the SNP was restricted to one speaker. As I understand it, he actually applied to speak some time ago. Perhaps we can get a bit of reality into these debates, because they are incredibly important. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) for securing the debate, because it is very important that we discuss these matters in the light of the independence referendum.

I would like to reflect on the comments made by the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), who is not in his place. He made what I think was a rather disingenuous speech, saying that he was speaking in this House on behalf of 1.6 million people. I thought he would be representing his constituents. I will be speaking for everyone in Scotland, because that is what we are here to do. We are not here to rule out those who voted yes or those who voted no. I hope he will think about that.

Devolution has changed the country for the better, and Labour is the only party that has consistently been the party of devolution. The Conservatives were against it in 1997 when one of the first Bills in Tony Blair’s first Government was for a referendum. Thankfully the Bill was agreed by a large margin and the Scottish Parliament came into being. The previous Labour Government set up the Calman commission to put in place the next stage of devolution, and that journey has continued: the Scotland Act 2012 will be implemented in stages up to 2016, and in recent weeks, the Scottish Finance Minister has announced the devolution of stamp duty and landfill tax and what that tax landscape will look like.

Devolution has always been a journey, and Labour has always been the party of devolution. That is why I am surprised by the motion. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) gave some superb examples of how devolution could help the English regions. However, this area is so complex that I cannot understand why some Members will not accept the need for a constitutional convention. It is incredibly important. If we learned anything from the referendum it was that when we involve people they tend to get engaged to ensure we do what is right for local communities. If politicians cook up something in this place, it will not be accepted around the country, which is why a constitutional convention is the most important thing.

For that reason, it was disappointing when the Prime Minister stepped out of Downing street before it was even light, after the results of the referendum, and completely trashed what had been said to him as the results were coming through. The vow was clearly in place. It said we would keep the Barnett formula and that more powers would be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Crucially, however, the cross-party Smith commission, which has Liberal Democrat, Conservative, Labour, Scottish nationalist and Green representation, has been set up and is due to deliver a negotiated settlement on time. I was incredibly disappointed, therefore, that the hon. Member for Moray, when pressed, did not say that he was looking forward to the Smith commission or that he would abide by its conclusions. It sounded as though he was hinting that he might agitate, even though it will be a negotiated settlement.

It is up to us as politicians to listen to what the people of Scotland said, and they said they wanted to stay within the UK and that they wanted more powers for the Scottish Parliament.

[Pete Wishart]

rose—

[Ian Murray]

I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but only if he makes a relevant point, not a frivolous one, as he has been doing.

[Pete Wishart]

I will try to do my best for the hon. Gentleman. When the former leader of the Labour party in Scotland, Johann Lamont, left her position, she muttered something about a branch office and the dinosaurs in this place. Does he recognise any dinosaurs among his hon. Friends?

[Ian Murray]

I knew that would be a waste of an intervention. Many Scottish Members want to speak, but the behaviour of the SNP today has been appalling. I wish it would engage with this issue.

People want politicians elected to represent them to talk about the things they tell us about, and we have listened to the Scottish people. SNP Members might not believe it, but it was a no vote. Their own leader said that would be it for a generation, yet they have even been talking about unilateral declarations of independence. The people have spoken, and politicians must listen. The Smith commission’s recommendations will be out next Thursday and will be implemented as per the plan. That was the vow to the Scottish people, and it will be followed through. It is part of a variety of devolution measures that this party has delivered and which are still to come.

UK Constituent Parts (EU)

Debate between Ian Murray and Pete Wishart

Wednesday 21st November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Pete Wishart]

I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman. There are 640 of you guys and only six of us, so I will use my time, if that is all right.

Over the past few weeks, the debate has fallen to a new all-time low, with some appalling personal attacks. Things were said in the Scottish Parliament that would never have been allowed by you, Mr Crausby, or the Speaker, and yet, the guys who made such remarks complain about the comments in the online section of The Scotsman sinking to such a low spectacle. What are they saying? Not only are they saying that we will not get European membership, but according to the former Prime Minister, we will be little more than a British colony. According to the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling)—their campaign leader—independence would be nothing more than the road to “serfdom”. People cannot say too poor, too weak and too stupid any more; they know that that is not a great way to enlist the Scottish people’s support. They only hint at that now. The most comical remark, the one that I have enjoyed most in the last two weeks, was that the music that I had spent 15 years making would no longer be my music—British music would not be ours any more—as if music, the ridiculously free-spirited and wonderful thing that it is, has frontiers or boundaries, but that is what these people are saying. They are scaremongering on culture. Welcome to the positive case for the Union.

Of course, the plat du jour this week is scaremongering on Europe. That is what they are doing, and doing well. Barely a day goes past without another instalment in the scaremongering stories, always in association with their friends in the press. Their message to the Scottish people when it comes to Europe is, “You cannae dae this, we’re no gonna let you do that and don’t even think about this!” If I have got their position right, it is something like this: “You’re not going to get into Europe. You’re going to go to the back of the queue behind all the accession states.” That is their position; I think that that is their top line. But if we do somehow manage to get into Europe, it will be on the worst possible terms and conditions. I think that I am right in saying that this is their position. Then if we do manage to get into Europe and on the worst possible terms and conditions, we will be forced to join the euro—but do not worry, because we will not get into Europe anyway.

[Ian Murray]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I said that I was not giving way.

These people need to get their act together on the scaremongering, so that we can understand what they are saying.

The subject of this debate is the constituent parts of the UK and EU membership. Scotland is a constituent part of the United Kingdom. We are currently a member of the European Union. After independence, we will continue to be a member of the European Union. We are in the European—

Scotland Bill

Debate between Ian Murray and Pete Wishart

Thursday 26th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

One of the first things we did when we came into government, back in 2007, was to ensure that we were a Scottish Government. If it looks like a Government, walks like a Government and quacks like a Government, it is a Government. We will continue to be that Government. The days of the unambitious Labour-Liberal Executive have now gone, and thank goodness for that.

We welcome the amendments, and I look forward to discussing the others and finding out why the Labour party has changed its mind on—

[Ian Murray]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I have just about finished my speech, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. I have had enough of Labour Members’ interventions, as they all tend to be on the same theme, but I thank him for his interest.

We will support the Lords amendments. It is in Scotland’s interests that the powers should be transferred, and we will continue to support the rest of the amendments.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Ian Murray and Pete Wishart

Monday 7th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

Reciprocal arrangements work across a variety of jurisdictions. Of course a health scientist trained in Scotland could work in England. We have a separate NHS, which has developed differently from the NHS in the rest of the UK in the past 10 years—that seems to have escaped hon. Members in the debate. It has new professions that require different regulation.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I have given way enough—I did not want to spend so much time on this, but I have been generous in giving way to several Labour Members. [Hon. Members: “Give way!”] Go on, then.

[Ian Murray]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, even at the second attempt. Does he agree with the NHS in Lothian, which covers my constituency, and the Health Professions Council, which gave written evidence to Holyrood when the Scotland Bill Committee sat? It stated:

“We observe that there is a widespread consensus that a consistent UK-wide approach to the regulation of health professions is both appropriate and beneficial to professionals and the public.”

Why does the SNP differ from that approach?

[Pete Wishart]

I have no doubt that that is exactly what was said, but the only evidence taken by the Calman commission was from two royal colleges, which talked only about doctors.

Tuition Fees

Debate between Ian Murray and Pete Wishart

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I should like to start by saying just how proud I am that, in Scotland, under a Scottish National party Government, we will not be introducing these pernicious tuition fees. We will not follow the example of the Conservatives, the Liberals or Labour by burdening our students with crippling debt. We will do all that we can to ensure that in Scotland, education remains free. It will remain free to us because it is important to us. Scottish education was built on the foundation of being free, and our universities were built on that principle. It is a tradition, a history and a culture that we cherish, and we will not give it away lightly. Tuition fees, introduced by Labour and taken up with relish and aplomb by the Conservatives and their Liberal minions, are something that we will not—

[Ian Murray]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I want him to say how sorry he is for introducing tuition fees, and to congratulate the SNP Government on getting rid of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

I do not know what I have done to make everyone begin to be rude to me, but the Secretary of State started it, so perhaps I have done something wrong.

Let me compliment the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) on the start of his speech. Will he comment on the massive amount of communication in which he has engaged with the Scottish people, which is similar to the communication in which the Liberal Democrats have engaged? Would he, too, lie to students at a general election by saying that he would write off all the student fees? Would he lie to students to get elected, and then turn his back on that pledge as well?

[Pete Wishart]

It will not surprise you to learn, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I am disappointed by the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I expected a little contrition on Labour’s part, even if it consisted only of the words “We are sorry for introducing tuition fees”. If you were a student in Scotland and you had a choice, who on earth would you support? Would you support the Labour party, which introduced tuition fees, wanted to increase them exponentially and initiated the Browne report, or would you consider the SNP, which had nothing to do with tuition fees and even went as far as abolishing Labour’s graduate endowment? That was our commitment to free education in Scotland, and I make no apologies for it.