Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy

Debate between Pete Wishart and Christine Jardine

Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

It was going so well. I had the Conservatives agree to this and I think I had the Labour party agree to it, but the Liberals just could not bring themselves to agree with the proposition that an independent Scotland would be a successful, independent nation.

[Christine Jardine]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I think we have heard from the Liberals. I will come back to the hon. Lady, because I have other assertions to make. I think we have now all agreed, other than the Liberal Democrats, to that one, so let us try another.

I am going to speak about all our resources. Let us include a good proportion of nearly all of Europe’s oil and gas reserves; the greatest potential for renewable energy that exists in Europe; vast fisheries; and a water supply that is the envy of the world. With all of that, Scotland has what it takes to be an independent country. Can we all agree to that?

[Christine Jardine]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

Let us see whether the hon. Lady will agree that Scotland has what it takes to be an independent country.

[Christine Jardine]

May I point out that the hon. Gentleman misinterprets what all of us think? None of us has ever said that Scotland could not be independent, but the people of Scotland, when given the choice, voted no, because they feel that their future is better within the United Kingdom.

[Pete Wishart]

That is a little more encouraging, because I think we are moving towards the assertion that Scotland would be a successful country and it has more than what it takes to be one. Throwing this theme a wee bit further on, we could even suggest that Scotland is perhaps the best resourced country that has ever considered becoming independent. I think that is pretty incontrovertible. No country is better endowed to be an independent nation. When we look around Scotland, whether at our oil and gas reserves, our fisheries or our potential renewable energy, we see that no country is better prepared for this than Scotland. Can we agree to that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s other points, which are important, but I am keen to say this: I wanted to find agreement across the House. I thought I was making a bit of progress, but it is disappearing a little. I will try once again, to see whether I can do it.

All I want is for everybody to agree that the only way for Scotland to be a member of the European Union is by becoming independent. We know that because all the other parties are parties of Brexit now—they all want to make Brexit work. I do not know how they will do that. I do not even know whether it is possible to make Brexit work; it is almost designed not to work. It is not any sort of economic strategy but an ideological mission. But they want to make it work, so we are left in a situation where the only way—I do not see how this can be uncontroversial—to make Scotland a member of the European Union is for it to be an independent nation. We know that the Scottish people want that because that is what they voted for. We are talking about democracy: the overwhelming majority of Scottish people voted to remain in the European Union, and every single poll since then has shown that they want to rejoin the European Union.

[Christine Jardine]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

No; I have given way to the hon. Lady before.

Let us all agree that the only way for Scotland to rejoin the EU is by becoming independent. I will try another one; this one is probably not going to get there, but let us see. The only way for Scotland to get the Governments that it always votes for is as an independent nation.

Strengthening Standards in Public Life

Debate between Pete Wishart and Christine Jardine

Wednesday 17th November 2021 Commons Chamber

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

It is great to follow the Leader of the House. I do not often get the opportunity to follow him in a debate in the House, so it is good to see him in his place and in such fine fettle and a reasonably good mood, after the difficult and torrid time he had at the Dispatch Box yesterday. It is good to see him back here today, taking up his responsibilities as Leader of the House, and coming here and fronting the important debate we are holding today.

Today is an auspicious day. Today we mark the two-week anniversary of this new age of Tory sleaze, and the not-so-glorious era of Tory chaos on standards and behaviour—a period in our political history that will now never be forgotten. Like all great historical epochs, it has its heroes and villains in the people who have defined it. Most notably among them is, of course, the Leader of the House himself. Then we have the Government Chief Whip, and it was all masterminded, organised and administered by the chief of staff of this organisation, the Prime Minister himself. This is the troika of standards misery; the holy trinity of standing up for your pal when the going gets tough.

Then there are the winners. We know who the winners are, as there are quite a lot of them. They have made an absolute fortune out of those second jobs. Good on them—they are the winners. Then there are the losers and the victims, and I am trying to think generally about who those people might be. The victims, I think, are those who believe in propriety, and those who want our politics to be beyond reproach. Surprisingly, among the victims in all this I look to the Tory Back Benchers, who have been dragged up that hill by the dysfunctional Grand Old Duke of York, only to be marched all the way down again. Then, when they thought they had got to the bottom, they were dragged further into the ground by their Prime Minister. They have every right to be upset with their hard Brexiteer colleagues who are running this Government, and I am sure they never signed up to be part of a House that is so singularly loathed by the people they represent. Day after day, the headlines keep coming. Yesterday’s were quite amusing. They all involved the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, who seems to have been levelling up on his obligations to his good friend and leadership donor, David Meller, who he put in the VIP lane for £160 million of PPE contracts.

Today our attention and focus has turned to the concept of second jobs, and in their traditional, good-natured way the Government seem to want to make an absolute and utter hash of it. I think we have a good idea of what the public want when it comes to MPs’ second jobs. They want to be absolutely satisfied that no Member of Parliament is profiteering from their position as an MP. They want to know that their MP is dedicated exclusively to them, working full time in their interests and that they are their only concern. They most definitely do not want to see Members of Parliament earning the eye-watering, obscene figures that some have earned doing second jobs. They actually believe that we are handsomely paid. Most members of the public probably think that we are paid far too much for what we do. I am sure that if we were to ask them, they would be all in favour of reducing our salaries. They certainly do not believe that we need a second job to supplement the more than generous salaries that we receive for doing our important work.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The hon. Member is making a powerful point about second salaries. It was announced today that we have record inflation, at a time when we already have a cost of living crisis and rising energy bills, so does he agree that the fact that we are arguing over the fine print of whether or not MPs can earn more money does us no credit whatsoever, and that cross-party consensus would be best served by backing the Opposition motion?

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Lady will not be surprised to hear me say that I wholeheartedly agree with her. We have a cost of living crisis and it was announced today that inflation is going through the roof, yet we are here debating our income and going over whether we think it is right and appropriate for MPs to earn even more than the very generous salaries that we already get for looking after constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I am sorry—not you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that you govern yourself very effectively, but they can govern themselves in all their corrupt, sleazy beauty while we could get on with running a proper, democratic, accountable Scottish Parliament in an independent Scotland. That is the answer to what the hon. Gentleman said.

[Christine Jardine]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I will not—I have given way to the hon. Lady and I have to get on.

We have a real issue with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), because he has the very definition of a second job, being both a Member of this House and a Member of the Scottish Parliament. He also has the added complication that he is a part-time assistant referee. His difficulties have only been compounded, and it gives me no pleasure to say this, because he did not properly declare the considerable sum—

Covid-19: Future UK-EU Relationship

Debate between Pete Wishart and Christine Jardine

Wednesday 15th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), even from this slightly disconcerting and unusual location. That, however, has nothing to do with the fact that I have become increasingly frustrated on the Opposition Benches this afternoon. The debate has been more about political point-scoring than the interests of the people of Scotland, or any other part of the United Kingdom for that matter.

I find myself increasingly torn—torn between my belief that our Government really should have asked for an extension and my recognition that the time when it was possible has passed; between my belief in the European Union and my acceptance that that particular battle has been lost—we are leaving; and between actually supporting the SNP in this last-ditch attempt and turning my back on its frankly hypocritical self-serving, narrow, nationalist argument.

There is no good outcome to this debate for Scotland; the people of Scotland cannot gain anything from it. When I saw that it was a nationalist Opposition day debate, I expected that we would talk about the state of our oil industry, the pressure on our airlines and airports or the state of our health and education. No—we have another process debate aimed at independence. I am tired, so very tired, of listening to the nationalists claim to speak for the people of Scotland. The nationalists speak for fewer than half the people of Scotland. They do not speak for the majority; they speak for 45% at the last count. The people of Scotland deserve so much better than that.

[Pete Wishart]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Christine Jardine]

I will not, thank you.

We have heard SNP Members claim today that tearing Scotland out of the European Union will be bad for its economy—and yes, I agree that it will be dreadful for its economy—but I am then astonished that they can keep a straight face and tell the people of Scotland that tearing Scotland out of the UK will not be just as bad, if not worse, for its economy. Please, give the people of Scotland the credit we deserve.

The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) had a lot to say about democracy, but what about the democratic decision in 2014? Did the nationalists not turn a deaf ear to those 55% of the people of Scotland —the same 55% who did not vote for them in 2019? There is a familiar ring to that: 45% and 55% against.

We have been warned from the SNP Benches about zealots with no thought for anything but the project, and I have to ask myself: which zealots are they talking about? Perhaps they are pointing in the wrong direction. I also have to ask myself about the amount of time that we are wasting in talking about process. I am tired of listening to this vision of British politics that has no Scots in it. There are Scots in the current Government and there were in the last Government, and there are Scots on the Opposition Benches and in Committees throughout this House. Can a party obsessed with Scottish history not stretch their minds back a decade to when a Scottish Prime Minister was standing at the Dispatch Box?

At the conclusion of this debate, I will in all probability —in fact, I shall—support the SNP in the Lobby, but not because of anything that they have said today: not a single word. It will be in spite of every word that they have said today. I believe that our Government should have asked for an extension, but I also believe that it will be in the best interests of every person in this country—I mean the United Kingdom, of which I will argue to my last breath for Scotland to remain part—that we put the argument behind us and move on to building a stronger economy, creating a better society and getting us through what we are told will be the worst recession in 300 years. Those of us north of the border will need all our friends in the south to help us through it together.

20 Years of Devolution

Debate between Pete Wishart and Christine Jardine

Thursday 11th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

My hon. Friend has made a valid and strong point. He is absolutely right about equal marriage, and about the way the Scottish Parliament responded. There have been other progressive developments on social issues, and I am particularly proud that our Parliament has taken up such causes so dramatically and consistently. I look forward to seeing further examples of progress in the future.

It is right for us to keep devolution under review, and I am proud of the work that my Committee has done over the past few months in assessing it after 20 years. We focused particularly on intergovernmental relations, and suggested a number of far-reaching reforms. We believe that, if implemented, our conclusions will make a significant difference in the quality of the inter- governmental relations that currently exist throughout these islands.

I think we can all agree that, institutionally, the Scottish Parliament has functioned well and is now an immovable feature, secure in the fabric of our democracy. It is there to stay. However, the relationship between the two Governments has not kept pace with developments, and the machinery for dialogue and engagement has not kept up with the evolving dynamics of devolution. What we have found is that intergovernmental relations are under pressure as never before. It seems that, having emerged from the experience of the independence referendum, they have been challenged to within an inch of their lives by Brexit.

Before I go into that further, I will give the House the good news. The relationship between the two institutions seems to be functioning well at a sub-political level: the work between civil servants, for example, continues unabated. Our Committee heard solid evidence from senior civil servants that everything was being conducted perfectly well, and that work was being done behind the scenes. However, we were concerned about the quality of the relationships across these islands, and we made a number of recommendations in that regard.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very strong case, but does he agree that responsibility for the relationship between the two Governments is not something that we should dictate through paperwork, or something for which we should have to resort to legislation? Is it not up to the two parties in government to be grown up, to sit round the table and to take part in constructive discussions, rather than engaging in what we often witness here—petty bickering about just about everything when an excuse can be found for it?

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Lady is an assiduous member of the Scottish Affairs Committee, and as I look around the Chamber I see other assiduous members. I agree with what she has said, but I think it is incumbent on us to have the mechanism, the infrastructure and the machinery to ensure that when Governments disagree—as they will when they have particularly different policy objectives —we can accommodate that disagreement, shape it up, and resolve some of the tensions and difficulties that are encountered.

Let me now go back to the beginning, because, as the hon. Lady knows, the Committee looked into this in great detail and heard a great deal of evidence. In the early days of devolution, everything was straightforward and easy. The Labour party was in government in Cardiff, Edinburgh and London, and intergovernmental relations were conducted among comrades, friends and colleagues who would just pick up the phone and get in touch with each other to resolve any difficulties. They were generally resolved very easily; I am sure that you remember those days, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Only one issue was not resolved, and it remains in the name of the bar in the Scottish Parliament. In a dramatic rebuke to Scottish colleagues who dared to suggest that they should become a Government, Big Brother down here—in the form of Labour Members—said, “They can call themselves the White Heather Club, but they will never be a Government.” To this day, the bar in Holyrood is called the White Heather Club as testimony to that fantastic rebuke from our Big Brother Westminster Labour colleagues.

It took the UK Government three years to keep up with developments and acknowledge the change when Alex Salmond rebranded the then—it has to be said—pathetically named Scottish Executive the Scottish Government.

I think it is fair to say that the cosy relationship that existed in the early days of devolution was pretty much shattered with the arrival of the SNP minority Government in 2007. This was an SNP Government who were prepared to push the boundaries of the devolution settlement and who tried to define a new means and method for us to assert ourselves as a nation, and they were not content being restricted to what was available in the then devolution settlement.

Then of course came the independence referendum, and who will ever forget that? Curiously, inter-Government relationships survived the referendum relatively intact, and that was because there was a need for engagement between the two Governments and we had the Edinburgh agreement and rules were set up for that. That taught us the lesson that things can be done if there is structure, rules and a means to come together for agreed objectives, and the agreed objective during the independence referendum was that it would be done properly and constitutionally.

Brexit has broken that, however. What we have with Brexit is two Governments, one in Scotland and one in London, with totally different objectives on the issue of leaving the European Union. Scotland wants nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit; it returned one MP with a mandate for an EU referendum, and we have consistently said we find this counter to our national interests. But of course we have a UK Government determined to deliver Brexit. We should have in place, however, a means to be able to accommodate that—to be able to ensure that these types of differences can be dealt with and negotiated smoothly.

That brings us to the machinery of all this. At the very top is the Joint Ministerial Committee. We looked at a number of options for transforming or even replacing it, but came to the conclusion that replacing it would not serve any great purpose. So we suggested a number of things that we could do to improve the functioning of the JMC, because it is not working properly; it does not have the confidence of the Scottish Government and it does not particularly have the confidence of the Welsh Government. The UK Government set the agenda, and they are responsible for all the dispute resolutions, and they seem to be the arbiter of what happens and how things are conducted.

We said that things have to change dramatically, and there is one phrase that runs through almost every chapter of our report: “parity of esteem”. We therefore propose that the JMC be a body where all four of the Governments are treated as equals, and as such we recommended that JMC meetings should be hosted and chaired by each of the UK Administrations on a rotating basis, and that meetings should be held frequently and have a set schedule with agendas agreed in advance between all parties.

We also asked the Government to explore third-party mediation, because again we received a number of pieces of evidence that suggested that this was not working. We also said that the JMC should look at dispute resolution and made a number of recommendations about Whitehall Departments becoming devolution-proof.

Referendum on Scottish Independence

Debate between Pete Wishart and Christine Jardine

Monday 13th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I value as least as much as everyone else in this room the right to petition Parliament and hold debates such as this as an important aspect of our democracy. Similarly, while I disagree vehemently with independence and the call for a second referendum, I respect the right of all those who make that argument. However, like the vast majority of people in Scotland, I am becoming somewhat frustrated with the SNP’s inability to listen to what they are being told.

We have heard that the petition opposing a second referendum has 221,000 signatures. In my constituency, the petition saying there should be a second referendum had 572 signatures. The number of signatures on the petition saying, “Please, no. We don’t want another one,” was 4,474. There is a clear mandate to all of us: the people of Scotland do not want another referendum. They are heartily sick of this continuous constitutional argument that is stultifying Scottish politics.

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

I thought the Liberal Democrats were for a second referendum. Is it not the case that the Liberal Democrats want another referendum on leaving the European Union? When the Scottish people observe that contradictory position, what do they think?

[Christine Jardine]

When they observed what the hon. Gentleman calls a contradictory position, they voted for us and voted his party’s MPs out at the election. If we look at the figures, we see that 37% of the electorate in Scotland voted for the Scottish National party and 62.5% voted for Unionist parties, including the Liberal Democrats. As has been mentioned, the SNP gave us a wonderful White Paper that set out exactly what the case was. That is very different from a big red bus with some numbers on it and people not knowing what they are voting for.

[Pete Wishart]

You are for a second referendum.

[Christine Jardine]

No, I am for a first referendum on the actual deal, which is a very different thing.

The constitutional debate in Scotland is all we have heard since 2011. We have heard about the division in families and the ended friendships. It has dominated a political period in which we would be far better off addressing the problems that beset Scottish education, health provision and general infrastructure. Do not take my word for it: there is clear evidence in the figures before us. We have heard about the plebiscites and the polls over the past few years, which consistently put no to a second referendum well ahead.