Devolution in Scotland

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered devolution in Scotland.

I am jolly glad I came to the Chamber when I did. [Laughter.]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for making time available for this debate and for recognising that it is a debate that holds great significance for the whole House. I thank those Members who supported my application to the Committee for the debate. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), who chairs the Scottish Affairs Committee and who has been a personal friend of mine since our time together in the Scottish Parliament.

I begin by making no secret of the fact that I lead this debate as someone who believes in the strength of our family of nations and that we can make people’s lives better through co-operation and partnership by pooling and sharing resources. I believe that my credentials as one of the first of my party’s Members of the Scottish Parliament and now as a Scottish Member of the UK Parliament make it clear that I am a devolutionist to my core, one who will always believe in the value of the Scottish Parliament and its potential to work best for the people of Scotland when it works constructively alongside Westminster. I will not have it said here today, or anywhere or ever, that I am against devolution—I am not. I truly believe in it and also know that the Scottish Parliament is comparatively young, hence why I am here today, initiating what I hope will be a civil and valuable discussion into the successes and failures so far of our system of what one might term “multi-level governance”.

I am proud to have been a founding member of the Scottish Constitutional Convention responsible for the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999. I am proud to say in my own way that my name is on the historic claim of right for Scotland—I do not think that any other Member of this place can say that. Of course, I was then elected to the Scottish Parliament in the first elections in 1999, and I witnessed the way that it developed over the next 12 years. Crucially, during those first years, I became a member of the Holyrood progress group, which oversaw the building of the Parliament. People like me and others saw the Scottish Parliament as, to quote the late, great John Smith, the

“settled will of the Scottish people”.

I say that to reassure the House that my thoughts come from a place, I believe, of true experience.

Let us remember that the scheme for the devolved Parliament, as enshrined in the Scotland Act 1998, was about the concept of there being no need for a second Chamber in Edinburgh because the Committees of the Scottish Parliament were intended to fill the role of holding the Executive to account. That could have entailed, where necessary, amending or initiating legislation in a fashion similar to the House of Lords today. As an example, I highlight the role of the education Committee in the first Parliament, of which I was a member, in tweaking and amending the then Scottish Government’s first education Act. Was that a reflection of the consensual attitude that many MSPs displayed during the first term of the Scottish Parliament? Very possibly—perhaps the hon. Member could comment on that.

A few initial thoughts come to mind. Although the Committees did largely fulfil some of that function during the first 12 years of the Parliament, I am bound to add that the advent of the SNP Government in 2011, which controlled not only the Chamber but all the Committees, changed that dynamic. I would argue that, after that year, the failure of some Committees to show any real teeth meant that some bad legislation came to be. I need only quote one example, and that is the ill-fated deposit return scheme—I rest my case.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The hon. Member is making a very good speech. As a fellow Member of the Scottish Parliament for 10 years, I concur completely with his comments regarding the Committee structure. There are many faults about the other place, but it is significantly better at scrutinising Government, holding Government to account and improving legislation than the Committees in the Scottish Parliament, so I agree with him.

[Jamie Stone]

I thank the hon. Member, who, like me, was an MSP all those years ago. Why, to take up his point, is the Scottish Parliament not working the way it is intended to? I think part of the answer lies in the fact that making someone the Chair of a Committee in the Scottish Parliament is in the gift of the party leaders. That can lead to Committee Chairs, particularly those in the Government party, feeling somewhat beholden to their party’s leadership and being, I would suggest, sometimes rather less than willing to say boo to a goose when it comes to challenging or amending legislation.

In Westminster, Committee Chairs are chosen via a secret ballot of the whole House. I would say that the independent-mindedness of Committees and those who lead them is very much a strength. In that respect, we have in Westminster a certain safeguard against the risk of passing completely unworkable legislation. My purpose in making this assessment is not in any way to enlarge on the proposals for a second Chamber in Scotland; the Scotland Act 1998 was very clear that the Scottish Parliament would be unicameral.

Similarly, we can see that there are grounds for Westminster to learn lessons from Edinburgh. I have had the honour, as I said, of being a Member of both the Scottish and UK Parliaments. When people ask me, as they often do, how the two compare, I often say that we MPs are deeply envious of the access to Ministers that MSPs enjoy. The direct and frequent communication between the Scottish Government and their opposition strikes me as a very positive facet of Scottish democracy.

Furthermore, the fact that there are only 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament means that the Members all know each other—or at least know each other an awful lot better than would be normal here. There is recognition of the strengths and weaknesses of those 129 individuals. How should I put this, Madam Deputy Speaker? That is not necessarily something that we can perceive in Westminster, where we have a great number of Members. In fact, I am afraid we can all think—no names, no pack-drill—of Members who somehow slip under the radar; let us just put it that way. I do not intend to be one of them.

The Scottish Parliament has become much more powerful than it was when I was there—just look at the tax and social security powers—but as an MP from the far north of Scotland, I am constantly reminded of just how centralised Scotland has become. Decisions are too often not taken close to the communities that they affect. There has been devolution from Westminster to Holyrood, but practically nothing from Holyrood down to councils or communities. In fact, when it comes to police and fire services, power has simply been grabbed by Edinburgh.

One of the most interesting academics to comment on the matter, and one of the first to scrutinise devolution, James G. Kellas, emphasised that merely establishing new institutions such as the Scottish Parliament cannot fundamentally alter the efficiency of decision-making norms. Instead, he said, we must respect the interplay between respective institutions and their political behaviours. That is what he prescribed to modernisers like me, who hoped that devolution would bring longer-term stability to British politics and give it a new lease of life. In recent years, however, we have seen just the opposite: a breakdown of constructive intergovernmental relations and a move towards polarisation that has pitted the Scottish Government against the UK Government as rivals, rather than partners. That has been clear on multiple occasions over the past decade. Scotland needs Governments in Edinburgh and London that are capable of working together, and of ironing out differences of opinion, where they exist, maturely, within proper frameworks, and without always resorting to legal action and court battles.

That leads me to the elephant in the Chamber, if I can get away with that expression. Most significantly, and perhaps least surprisingly, the chasm in our system of governance was most strongly pronounced during the Scottish independence referendum in 2014. The subsequent repeated calls for a second referendum have coloured the relationship between our two Parliaments ever since. I am a proud Scot—I always have been and I always will be—so for me these have, alas, been dark times, with too much grievance, too much aggression and too much resentment. On top of that, I humbly suggest that the people of Scotland are tired and frustrated—and they have a case. They see their household bills soaring. They have long waits to see their GP, they have the ferry fiasco, and they have a Scottish education that we all know simply is not what it used to be. Scotland deserves better, and the Scottish Parliament needs to show people that it can respond to the challenge at hand and change people’s lives for the better.

I think back to what my party, when it was in coalition, delivered in its first terms in government, including free personal care, eye tests, dental checks, bus passes, the smoking ban and fair votes for local government. Indeed, it was the signature of my then party leader Jim Wallace that broke the ground on freedom of information. We collectively cared about getting the basics right, and were determined to show that devolution could deliver the change that people wanted to see. I do not suggest that that was just the attitude of the governing parties in the coalition; there was co-operation with the Scottish National party and the Conservatives, from time to time.

I touched earlier on the works of James G. Kellas, and I return to his predictions in 2001. He warned that observers of devolution might develop an “expectations gap”, as Scots could develop resentment, feeling that the potential of the Scottish Parliament was unfulfilled, or limited by a system of multi-level governance. There could be truth in that, but we still have a chance to rectify it. With last year’s change of government in Westminster and the Holyrood elections next year, this is surely the perfect time to revise our approach to our system of multi-level governance in the UK in order to engage with those feelings of discontent and negotiate a better way forward—together, not apart.

No legislation is forever, including our beloved Scotland Act. All legislation is from time to time re-examined and amended; that is how we do things in the UK. That is surely one of the foundation stones of British democracy. To put it simply, we can come together to better understand how to make our Union more workable and acknowledge what needs to change. Governmental co-operation and multi-level governance can improve, and I strongly believe that the vision of the founding members of our devolved Governments can and does endure. There is still hope that our Parliaments can build a stronger relationship for the future, in the face of increasing uncertainty and threats from beyond the seas.

I conclude with one simple request. The UK Supreme Court ruled in 2022 that the Scottish Parliament cannot legislate for an independence referendum without Westminster consent. I touch on that issue in the hope that this debate will not be wasted, and co-opted into a debate revising and exhausting the legality of that decision. Instead, I invite all Members from every corner of the House to engage in a constructive debate about how we can improve what we do. That is essential, particularly in the face of increasing uncertainty and—let us be honest—threats from across the seas to the way in which we do things in our precious democracy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Beautifully timed, Mr Stone. I call Patricia Ferguson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Melanie Ward]

I thank the hon. Member; I have seen the work she has been doing on this issue. It is essential that the special intensive care treatment available for premature and sick babies at the Victoria hospital does not change in any way. I wish the Scottish Government would get on and act to put at rest the concerns that our constituents no doubt share about that.

[Jamie Stone]

May I offer a warning from history? During the time of the coalition Government in Edinburgh, I pled the case for maintaining consultant-led maternity services based in Wick. No sooner did the SNP Government get in than the service was downgraded. Now mums have to travel huge distances to give birth, and the grisly fact is that one mother of twins gave birth to one child in Golspie and the other in Inverness. That is intolerable in this day and age.

[Melanie Ward]

I can feel the horror that the hon. Member feels for what his constituents have been put through because of that downgrade.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jamie Stone]

Looking back to a much younger version of myself going to my first meeting of the Scottish constitutional convention in 1989, I never would have dreamt then that I would lead a debate of this nature in this place, but here we are. I thank from the bottom of my heart all Members who have made contributions, and I hope that from time to time, the present Scottish Government—or any Scottish Government—will look in the mirror and think, “Are we doing things right?” I hope that Hansard is looked at, read and thought about, because there is room for improvement.



I leave you with one last thought, Madam Deputy Speaker, which may take colleagues by surprise. There have been repeated references to someone during this debate. I remember getting into the lift in Holyrood on my first day there after my election in 1999. A tall, gangling figure was in the lift. He looked me up and down and said, “And who exactly—um—are you?” That was Donald Dewar. When I said who I was, he said, “Ah! We had had hopes of that seat, but I am sure we shall work together in a very satisfactory manner.” And we did.

I have had conversations with Labour Members about this, but I am not aware of any image of Donald Dewar in this place. Given that this was a man who made such an extraordinary contribution to the constitution of these islands, that may be something that the Art Committee might want to think about.

[Patricia Ferguson]

I am sure you will take this in the spirit in which it is intended, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have to tell the hon. Member that unfortunately that request has been rejected by the Art Committee. I am not sure that I will necessarily take that lying down, as he would imagine, but it has been rejected as things stand, and I thought it important for him to know that.

[Jamie Stone]

Well, well, well, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know the hon. Lady well and I doubt very much that she will take it lying down, and I am sure that she will have the support of others. Whether we see devolution as a means to an end called independence or see it, as I do, as a way of improving services in Scotland, I think we should all honour that particular man.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I am not sure that it is entirely in order to correct the record, but there are, in fact, images of Donald Dewar in the parliamentary collection.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered devolution in Scotland.

Spending Review 2025: Scotland

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) on a thorough and well thought-out speech.

Before I go any further, I should state my credentials as a devolutionist. My name is on the claim of right for Scotland, signed all those years ago in Edinburgh. I was a founding member of the Scottish Parliament and served on the Scottish Constitutional Convention before that. I believe in devolution and had the honour to serve as a Member of the Scottish Parliament for much of my present constituency for some 12 years. Looking back on those days—my goodness me—what would we have done with £9.1 billion? It would have been an absolute godsend.

What my constituents have great trouble understanding is how the money seems to go in one end of the pipe but not come out the other. I have probably bored this place endlessly about maternity services in the far north of Scotland but, for old times’ sake, I am going to do it again. We used to enjoy a consultant-led maternity service based in Wick, in Caithness, and mums could give birth locally. It was then proposed, during my time in the Scottish Parliament, that that would be taken away and done from Inverness. We saw that one off, however; the then Labour-Liberal Scottish Executive changed their mind and left the service local.

As everyone knows, because I have said it so many times, more recently that change has come to pass and we no longer have a maternity service based in Caithness, in the north of Scotland. Mothers have to take a more than 200-mile round trip to give birth, even in the middle of winter, when the A9 blocks at the Ord of Caithness. You have to be joking! In one harrowing case a mother bearing twins was on her way from Caithness to Inverness and gave birth to the first child in Golspie and the second in Inverness.

During my time in the Scottish Parliament, we made the argument to Ministers and there was a change of heart. No matter what I and the people of Caithness say now, we cannot get the Scottish Government to change their mind, yet we see all the money going in. As soon as I heard about the £9.1 billion, I said on the record that I sincerely hoped some of the money would go in the direction it ought to, to give mums and babies the same rights as in other parts of Scotland.

Another grouse is that Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the successor body to the Highlands and Islands Development Board, which was set up by Harold Wilson’s Government in the 1960s, is financially a shadow of what it was. At the end of the day, that body, notwithstanding its change of name, is about securing investment and high-quality employment in some of the more remote parts of Scotland. In its day it was highly successful and helped not just halt but reverse depopulation—the new highland clearances—which has been the curse of the highlands for far too long. Again, we see the £9.1 billion coming in and ask where it is going.

I also want to make a wider point. I remind colleagues that I am a convinced devolutionist. However, I suggest that where there is a failure to understand where the money goes or a belief that it is not being delivered fairly, that is corrosive to that cherished notion of devolution. That is a dangerous path to tread.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

The hon. Member, as usual, makes a powerful case for his constituency, but I am surprised that he is repeating the Labour figure of £9.1 billion, which has already been heavily criticised by the Fraser of Allander Institute. Did Labour get it wrong or did the Fraser of Allander Institute get it wrong? I just want clarification on that point of fact. I would hate for the hon. Member to be using dodgy Labour figures.

[Jamie Stone]

I would hate to mislead hon. Members, but nevertheless, the perception remains that lots of money is going in one end and not coming out the other in different parts of Scotland. That is a dangerous perception, to say the least.

The hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) is known to be fair-minded. I hope that he will take back to Holyrood what I think will be the nature of this debate and reflect it there in an honourable and fair way. These are genuine worries. I did not sign the claim of right for Scotland on a whim; I signed it because I believed it back then. I really do want to see the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government thrive, and I hope that in years to come we will see things being done rather differently.

Scotland: Transport Links

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

Congratulations on your appointment, Mrs Lewell-Buck. I am sure you will do the job with elegance for many years to come.

It has already been said, has it not? My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) made the point that some of us have to use roads to get to airports to fly here. He mentioned the disgrace of the A9. I was in Holyrood when Alex Salmond promised the dualling of the A9, and when he promised the dualling of the A96. The response to that one is hollow laughter—there are still traffic lights at the railway bridge at Oyne. These people are simply not competent to run the transport of Scotland.

But here is the point: just like my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland does, we need flights to make up for the lack of proper transport on the ground. Right now, we have one flight in and out of Wick airport, run by Eastern Airways—which is better than none, I admit, but we had to fight to get the public service obligation for that. If we are to ensure the economic regeneration of the far north of Caithness, as Dounreay, which was the dynamo of the economy of the farms, runs down and is decommissioned, we will have to encourage other industries to come in. I am sure the Government will do laudable work on that front, but if we do not have the flights in and out of Wick airport, it will not help very much.

Although the Aberdeen flight to Wick is welcome, we need flights to Edinburgh and Bristol and to wherever we can get them. That will make all the difference, so I conclude with a simple plea: please can we get more flights in and out of Wick airport? We need them desperately.

Budget: Scotland

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz—and I mean that most genuinely. One of the things Members should never do in this place is bore the House, but I am afraid that I am about to do so, because I am going to sound like a cracked record.

How many times have I mentioned the ongoing scandal of pregnant mothers having to travel a 200-mile round trip from Caithness to Inverness to give birth? In weather like the stuff we are having right now in the north of Scotland, you have to be joking. The A9 was blocked at Helmsdale a view days ago, and thank God no pregnant mum tried to make the journey down to Inverness. I have gone on again and again to the Scottish Government about having a safety audit done on this perilous policy. We had a consultant-led maternity service based in Wick in Caithness.

[Torcuil Crichton]

I take what the hon. Member says about pregnant mothers having to travel long distances. In my own constituency, pregnant mothers have to travel two weeks before their baby is due to another island where they are given an overnight allowance of some £50 or £60 in a tourism economy where beds cost £120—so they are having to pay out of their own pocket for their pregnancy.

[Jamie Stone]

It is a nonsense. Constituents like the hon. Gentleman’s and mine are losing out and have lost out for years. We had a consultant-led maternity service in Caithness until, hey presto, this SNP Government took over; very shortly after, it was downgraded and got rid of—as simple as that. I and others have written to John Swinney inviting him to come north to Wick to get in the back of an ambulance in winter and make the journey for himself to see what it is like. I do not believe we have had an answer, and I expect a dusty one when it comes. It is a scandal and a disgrace, and it is on the watch of the SNP Government.

Right now, we have one psychiatrist in the north of Scotland—just one—and we have a huge problem with the mental health of young people. This morning I rang a mother from Caithness, Kirsteen Campbell, who thinks it will be two or three years before her child can be seen by a professional to sort out their problem. During the election, I spoke to a mother in Evanton in Easter Ross, who told me how her child—who I will not name for obvious reasons—had not been to school for a number of years because the school could not deal with the issues that this poor, wretched child had. It is a scandal.

In the short time available, I have given just two examples of failures. Turning to the subject of debate, I sincerely hope and pray that the Scottish Government will use this extra money to address these issues finally, before it is too late and something terrible happens on the youth mental health front or a mother or child loses their life. We had an issue where a mother was pregnant with twins, but one twin was born in Golspie and the other had to be born in Inverness. Imagine how awful that is for a family—it is a shocker.

I close with this: the two issues I have outlined are issues that really, really matter to ordinary people. We can talk about this or that in politics, but these are the big, chunky issues on the doorsteps. People are not stupid out there. I hear my good friends in the SNP sitting to my left, and they are good personal friends, but something happened in July, when the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) was returned with the bump that he was and when my majority went up from 204 to just 11 votes shy of 10,500. That, I think, is the Scottish people telling us something, and anyone who does not listen to that is simply whistling in the hurricane.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kenneth Stevenson (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) for securing this debate.

It is right that we recognise the positive impact the Budget will have on Scotland. For too long residents in my Airdrie and Shotts constituency have been let down by Governments who have treated working people as an afterthought. They have been let down by incompetence from Conservative Governments here in Westminster and SNP Governments in Holyrood. They have felt the impacts in their pockets and can see the impacts in their depleted public services. However, this Budget puts us on a positive journey towards changing that.

The Budget delivers the largest settlement for Scotland since devolution. It will allow potential to be unlocked and public services to be invested in. It is a Budget that has ended the era of Tory austerity, puts working people back to the forefront and prioritises economic growth. It is a transformative Budget that has been a long time coming, and it is little surprise that it is a Labour Government delivering it.

I thought the Scottish Government would be pleased with the settlement they have received from the UK Labour Government. It has given them the opportunity to right the wrongs of their almost 20 years of mismanagement and incompetence and deliver a budget that works for Scotland’s working people.

[Jamie Stone]

Does the hon. Gentleman, who is making an excellent contribution, agree that the reason why the SNP Government did not welcome the announcement was that the Labour Government successfully shot the fox?

[Kenneth Stevenson]

I entirely agree, and we could go on. We could go on about the promised 800 GPs that are missing. We could go on about ferries. We could go on about everything. We could go on about selling off the seabed for well under what was required and not having any manufacturing input in Scotland for wind turbines or solar or any advanced manufacturing.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty McNeill]

My hon. Friend is entirely correct, and I commend her for standing up for her town. In England this Labour Government have already delivered lower business rates for leisure, hospitality and retail businesses, which can help high streets, and I am sure that every Scottish MP wants to see that policy replicated in Scotland.

As we are discussing brilliant towns, it is timely to mention brilliant retail workers too, especially at this time of year. I am supporting the Christmas campaign organised by the Scottish Retail Consortium and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers to encourage everyone to respect our shop workers at this particularly busy time of year.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

For far too long Ullapool, in my constituency, did not have a post office, which caused great inconvenience to local people. Recently, however, Tesco stepped into the breach, and we now have a highly successful post office in a branch in the middle of Ullapool. May I recommend this approach to regenerating town centres to the Ministers?

[Kirsty McNeill]

We are delighted to receive representations of all kinds on how to improve our town centres. We know that they have suffered neglect for far too long. I hope that all Scottish MPs will have been lobbying for the kind of support for our leisure, hospitality and retail sector that this Government have already given south of the border.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

I hope that, in a later question, the shadow Secretary of State will apologise at the Dispatch Box to the country for crashing the economy, and to pensioners for what has happened to them as a result.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

2. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on support for the space sector in Scotland.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Ian Murray)]

I was delighted to speak at the Space-Comm expo last month in Glasgow, where I met a wide range of industry members, both national and international, and recently I was fortunate enough to visit the SaxaVord spaceport in Shetland, where I saw wonderful progress. I have also met representatives of Orbex in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, and will continue to champion Scotland’s spaceports, including in Sutherland in his constituency.

[Jamie Stone]

The Secretary of State mentions Orbex. At present, it employs 125 people; by 2030, it could employ as many as 500. Is the Secretary of State willing to visit Orbex in Elgin and, indeed, the Sutherland space launch site?

[Ian Murray]

Elgin is certainly not the final frontier, so I would be very happy to visit. The Minister for Science recently visited the UK Space Agency’s new office in Edinburgh, and during that visit, he echoed my sentiments about the importance of Scotland’s space sector. The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms has recently met Orbex as well, and I will remain in close contact with my ministerial colleagues to ensure that we back the sector. I am very happy to visit when ministerial time allows.

Points of Order

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Further to those points of order, Mr Speaker. I share on behalf of all those at Reform our deepest condolences to Moira and to Alex’s wider family. I met Alex Salmond just over two years ago in the world of media. I had a radio show every Sunday for about two years. It was all going fine until I took a holiday and Alex Salmond kindly stepped in. In over 100 shows, I survived the challenges of investigations and things, but Alex’s enthusiasm, energy and determination in that three-hour show meant that it was the only show of mine that triggered an Ofcom investigation. Although we differed politically, Alex sort of sought me out in the media, and I think he took pity on me, in a strange way, because he understood the challenges—the mad challenge of trying to set up, run and fund a small political party. He was so generous with his words of advice, wisdom and encouragement, and I will never, ever forget that.

None of us likes losing, but I was with the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (Sir David Davis) last year at the Edinburgh fringe, and we had a hearty, inspired debate—I will not tell the House the topic—hosted by Alex Salmond, and I have to say, it was like the right hon. Gentleman and I were in the lion’s den. It was one of those rare moments when we enjoyed losing, because we lost to a truly great man.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

Further to those points of order, Mr Speaker. It may come as a surprise to Members that I have a photograph of Alex Salmond in my back hall. That is because a long time ago, he, the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) and I were all members of the Students’ Representative Council of St Andrews University. It was a sleepy organisation in which we debated this and that. Then, with a flash and a bang, like Mephistopheles appearing in “Doctor Faustus”, he was there from nowhere—a fully equipped, fully armed, formidable young politician, still in his late teens. That came as a shock to us all.

Having debated with him in student debates, I can tell the House that if he turned that laser eye on you and fired a verbal sally, it went straight through you, and then straight through the wall behind. He was a superb debater—I have never seen his like. What was fascinating about him was that he was a fully developed politician so early in life. He knew exactly what he was about and was determined to achieve his end.

I was also briefly in the Scottish Parliament, as the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) alluded to. In 2007, at a reception at the Signet library in Edinburgh, he said, “Jamie, I want a word with you.” He cornered me in one of those half-moon-shaped alcoves and told me very forcibly how supporting the SNP Government in 2007 would lead to a revival of the Liberal party in the Scottish Parliament.

Mention has rightly been made of his widow, Moira, whom I found to be a very nice person indeed. She once stopped me in the Royal Mile, shortly after Alex had become First Minister, to say that she had got that dreadful upright piano out of the drawing room at Bute House. She just wanted me to know that. My thoughts are not only with Alex’s family but with his circle of friends, to whom he meant a very great deal. Our condolences should go to his family and to his friends as well.

Charles Stewart Parnell made his name in history, and I believe that Alex Salmond will do so in exactly the same way, for many years to come.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)]

Further to those points of order, Mr Speaker. I associate myself with so many of the comments from Members across the House. I first encountered Alex Salmond as a star-struck teenager, and a member of the 79 group attending a particularly fractious SNP conference in Ayr in 1982. So fractious was the conference that Alex was subsequently expelled from the party, albeit briefly. At the meetings that followed, even though he was less than 10 years older than me, I listened to the spellbinding oratory of this young man. He was destined for greatness then.

Alec and I became close allies in the late 1980s. I was part of the campaign team that saw him elected as SNP leader in 1990. Our paths took wildly different trajectories, clearly, but we kept in touch on and off over the decades. I would not be here today were it not for Alec having arranged for me to go through to Edinburgh so that he could persuade me to put my hat in the ring for the SNP in Argyll and Bute in the 2015 election. I am far from alone in being an SNP politician who owes a huge debt to Alec Salmond. He was a titan of our movement, an irreplaceable force without whom our independence, when it does come—which it surely will—would never have been achieved.

My thoughts are with Moira, as are those of so many in this House. My experience of Moira is that she is a very quiet but absolutely formidable force. I learned very quickly that if we wanted to get Alec to change his mind, we should go not to him but to Moira. She is an incredible force in herself. My deepest condolences and sympathies are with Moira and Alec’s immediate family. I do wonder when we will see his like again.