We are talking here about the government of Scotland, so I hope it is not contentious to say that what should be uppermost in all our minds are the views of the people who live there. I am very much in favour of evidence-based policy, by which I mean that we should try to make things right according to the facts of the situation. We are in a fortunate position in this debate because we do not have to guess what the people of Scotland think, as they have been consulted quite extensively over the past year.
We are having this debate today because of the referendum that took place on 18 September, when the people of Scotland voted on whether they wanted to be an independent country. They decided by 55% to 45% that they did not want to be an independent country and leave the United Kingdom, and I respect that result and that opinion. But no one can deny that one thing that swung that vote in favour of the no campaign was the intervention by the leaders of all
three Unionist parties who promised substantial new powers for Scotland should it decide to stay within the United Kingdom. The vow that was published and signed in The Daily Record and promoted the length and breadth of the country was definitely a major factor on which the outcome of that result depended.
The response was to set up the Smith commission, and Lord Smith has now reported and given his view. We took part in that commission and we signed up to it, but we made it very clear that the Smith commission is a floor, not a ceiling, on the ambition of Scotland for additional powers. We made that clear from the word go. We argued for that in the run-up to the election. There was a raging debate during the election campaign about whether the Smith commission was an adequate response to the wishes expressed by the people of Scotland in the referendum. We said that it was not, but that it was a start and that we needed to go further to satisfy the aspirations and hopes that were given to us by the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown and others who said that we would get substantial new powers. They said that we would have home rule and that it would be as near to federalism as possible. That is what the people of Scotland were promised, and the Smith commission does not add up to that. We took that argument and put it before the Scottish people in a general election, and we asked them to say whether they agreed with our analysis that we should go beyond the current Smith commission. What happened? They voted for us. They voted for us not just by a little bit but by a lot. More than 50% of the people who turned out at that election voted for members of the Scottish National party—I ask Members to try to get the name of our party right.
The question now is: does the Bill before us respond to what happened at the general election. I must say—the Secretary of State can correct me if I am wrong—that the Bill looks as though it was drafted before the election; its clauses are very similar to those that were published in January. The speed with which the Bill was published makes me think that there has been very little reflection over what happened at the election, and over the views of the Scottish people. Very little has been included in the Bill in response to those things.
I ask the Secretary of State and the Government to consider making changes to the Bill so that it reflects the views of the people of Scotland, delivers the promises of the Smith commission and, where possible, goes beyond the commission to do things on which Smith is silent—I am talking about the administrative changes that the third sector and specialist organisations in Scotland are asking for and that could easily be granted—and responds to our argument for granting substantial new powers that would be tantamount to the vow that was made.
One thing the Secretary of State could do quite easily is say, “We will accept the amendments about the permanence of the Scottish Parliament, albeit within our flawed and unwritten constitution.” The Government could make a statement that “This Chamber agrees that the Scottish Parliament will never ever be taken away without a referendum of the people who live in Scotland.” It would cost the Government nothing to accede to that amendment, so why do they not do it? They would be demonstrating some respect towards the people who have sent us to this Chamber to argue these points.
Let me turn now to the issue of full financial autonomy. Last week, I was in the strange position of finding myself misquoted by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State, shadow Ministers and—just to complete the pack—the leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats in the Scottish Parliament. I did not know whether to feel victimised or honoured. I am delighted, both in recent press articles and in this Chamber today, to be able to put the record straight. I am absolutely committed to the idea that the Scottish Government should be responsible for raising the revenues that they spend. To be honest, that should be a non-contentious point. In any structure in the world where there is a federal relationship and a federal-type Government, or even a devolved Assembly, those arrangements are commonplace. I have yet to hear the argument against that view.