Tavish demolishes SNP on "Tartan Tax" - speech in full

I can't really remember that many really spectacular speeches  that are so good, that capture the mood of the moment so perfectly that they give you goosebumps coming from the Holyrood Chamber. Patrick Harvie and Malcolm Chisholm on Megrahi come to mind. Malcolm Chisholm on Trident was another good one. And Patrick Harvie's speech on the 2009 budget may not have helped him in the long run but it was utterly brilliant to listen to. Today Tavish Scott showed why he deserves to be in that elite group.

He gave what was to me the speech of the day, if not the session during the debate on the SNP's failure to maintain the Parliament's power to vary the rate of income tax. Delivered with real passion, anger and forensic clarity, he completely demolished John Swinney's argument and the SNP's position that it wasn't really their fault and it didn't really matter that much anyway.  Several times he asked whether the situation had arisen because of SNP deceit or incompetence and questioned the SNP's very credibility and trustworthiness on constitutional matters. Audacious, definitely - but entirely justified.

It's clear that Swinney's biggest mistake was not to tell Parliament what was going on in the three and a half years between them taking office and Michael Moore's letter to Party leaders last week - but Tavish asked how that could simply be a benign error when they'd talked about using the power to implement a local income tax when they must have known that was impossible.

The speech was so good that I've decided to publish the whole thing below. The words themselves are good, but nothing can really compare to actually seeing them come to life.

When this Nationalist Government is in a hole two things happen. We’ve seen it before.

The SNP dissemble, shout, scream, throw mud, make it up and blame anyone else they can.

Then they wheel out Alex Neil.

 I thought Ministers had to behave. Not after last night.

There’s only one further step they can take – Mike Russell.

The facts of this disgraceful episode are simple  - and what they show is either SNP deceit or incompetence.

The first fact is this.

That this Parliament was given the power to vary income tax by the people of Scotland in a vote. Not a party, not  minority government, not a First Minister, not a Finance Secretary but the Parliament.

Fact – There is a cost to retain the mechanism to allow that power to be exercised.

Fact – how much that was is now a political slanging match.

But the point that matters on this constitutional power is that the SNP have stopped that power being used not only now, but for the new Government elected next year.

Fact – Mr Swinney, nor any of his Ministerial colleagues, and most certainly not Mr Salmond, at any stage since 2007 informed, debated or discussed with parliament this decision. Was that deceit or incompetence?

Fact - Yesterday Mr Swinney said MSPs were “too busy” to be told about this 2007 decision.

Since 2007, the Finance Secretary has had the opportunity to present his position on 110 separate opportunities:

·       Presented 4 budgets

·       Published 8 budget revisions

·       Participated in 15 budget debates

·       Made 24 appearances in front of Finance committee

·       Delivered 29 ministerial statements to Parliament

There has also been:

·       A debate on ‘strategic budget scrutiny’

·       2 debates on the strategic spending review and

·       6 debates on the Scottish Government’s programme

Presiding Officer, there’s also been one debate on ‘Improving Accountability’,

John Swinney chose not to speak in that one.

Too busy?!

Too busy to find ways to explain the Government’s decision to Parliament.

Deceit or incompetence?

Fact  -  when proposing the Local Income Tax, the SNP Government said they would use the tax varying powers to make that happen.

The Government statements on how LIT would be implemented, misled Parliament, and misled any voter who supported LIT on the basis of that change. At no time in explaining why the SNP had dropped LIT, did Mr Salmond or Mr Swinney explain that they couldn’t implement LIT because the tax power could not be used.

Mr Salmond, on the day of the ditch, looked me in the eye in the back of this Parliamentary chamber and explained why LIT was being dropped.

As always Mr Salmond didn’t give the truth that day.

So Presiding Officer, was all that deceit or incompetence?

Fact – in the Budget debate exactly a week ago, the Finance Secretary’s Budget document said this, from the Budget 2011-12 document:

“Our opportunities to vary taxes are limited to the Scottish Variable Rate, which no Scottish administration has chosen to use since Devolution, and some discretion over non-domestic rates. We confirm that we will not use the Scottish Variable Rate power.”

In addressing Parliament last Wednesday, the Finance Secretary implied that he had considered using the tax varying power and dismissed it. If that’s not misleading Parliament I don’t know what is.

Was that deceit or incompetence?

·       So, are using the tax powers of this Parliament available? No.

·       Was Parliament told in 2007, 2008, 2009 or 2010? No.

·       Can LIT be implemented? No.

·       Has Parliament been misled? Yes

·       Has the Finance Secretary had 110 separate Parliamentary occasions to say what’s going on? Yes

·       Has a minority nationalist Government misled Parliament? Yes

·       Has the SNP treated the people of Scotland who gave this power to this Parliament with contempt? Yes.

While Mr Swinney is put up today, the blame for this is not his alone. It sits next to him.

We’ve had one sanctimonious lecture after another from Alex Salmond on the respect agenda.

Today defines Mr Salmond’s respect for the Scottish people and for this Parliament.

Mr Salmond, respect is something you earn. And no one will respect you again on the constitution, on Scotland’s future and on the Government of our country.

Mr Salmond expects to pass a Budget. To negotiate with other parties. After this. After the way he handled Local Income Tax. After his Finance Secretary’s speech a week ago. There’s no one else to blame. This is the Salmond government. And today its shown its real colours.

What Mr Salmond and his Government have utterly failed to do today is explain whether all this mess is deceit or incompetence. Deceit and incompetence are the two words his government will be known for.

Respect?  – Not  a chance.

And amid all this just imagine for a moment what would have happened if the Nationalists were in Opposition.

What would they have said about a Government giving up powers the people had given Parliament?

·       Many would have howled – full moon or not.

·       Some would have shed real tears.

·       A few ambitious backbenchers might have gone on hunger strike until the powers were returned.

These are people who make a constitutional crisis out of which museum has the Lewis chessmen.

Yet they, the SNP sign off and sign away the choices and powers of Scotland’s own Parliament – the wish of one and a half million Scots discarded without a murmur.

I care about this place. I am deeply proud of it.  I am honoured to be a Member – to represent Shetland. Most of us here share that.

So I do utterly condemn the cavalier and arrogance with which Salmond’s SNP Government treat Scotland’s Parliament.

The Scottish Parliament was designed to be a clean break with some of the worst practices of Westminster. Today is the worst of Westminster forced on Holyrood by nationalists.

Today is absolutely not a day to be proud of:

Today this Nationalist Government is betraying the word inscribed on Parliament’s mace – ‘integrity’.

Respect?  – Not  a chance.

The Liberal Democrats support the amendment tabled in the names of Mr Gray, Ms Goldie, Mr Harvie and mine. Any Government worth its salt would get it when all the Opposition parties get it together – do you get it Mr Salmond?

A Morning at the Pantomime - Holyrood Megrahi Debate misses the mark

So, our Parliament gathers to scrutinise one of the biggest decisions ever taken by a Scottish Minister. Yes, the mood is going to be tense, but you would expect an air of industry, of gravity. You expect the contributions to be full of detailed analysis and careful consideration. You would think that everyone would absolutely be on their best behaviour, knowing that the rest of the UK and potentially America is watching.

This is a Parliament that usually produces some quality when the chips are down. In its ten years it's done some great work to pass some great legislation, such as abolishing tuition fees, the smoking ban, a fair voting system for our Councils and giving mothers the right to breastfeed in public. The contributions of MSPs from all sides working together have made these laws better. We have good reason to take pride in Holyrood.

Unfortunately, our MSPs can occasionally be relied upon to behave with all the decorum of a roomful of 2 year olds fighting over a single bag of sweeties and today was one of these occasions. It was as if the nation had dressed its parliamentarians up in their best clothes for the big occasion and crossed its fingers and hoped for the best that they would be on their best behaviour.

It didn't take long for the fun and games to start. You would have thought that Alex Salmond, as First Minister, would see for himself a certain responsibility to ensure that the debate started on the correct note of solemnity, of gravity. I am not immune to the man's many charms and talents. At his best he can be funny, engaging and persuasive, but, like the girl with the curl in the centre of her forehead, when he's bad, boy is he horrid! He can be boorish, aggressive and more interested in showmanship than substance. Today, unfortunately, was not a good day. Before the debate had even started, he was on his feet cheekily asking if it would be in order for Labour to amend their motion given the developments overnight (of Bill Rammell confirming that Brown didn't want Megrahi to die in a Scottish jail). It was blatant political posturing, and you could actually feel the atmosphere in the Chamber, even diluted through the television, turn ugly and hostile. He did himself no favours, and I count myself as being on his side for the purposes of this debate. He certainly doesn't make it easy for people to take his side, sometimes.

We then had Kenny MacAskill propose his motion which he did competently except for one significant point. I think from what he said, and I'll edit this posting and put in the exact words, that there is sufficient reason to doubt whether Megrahi was advised that he did not need to drop his appeal for his compassionate release application to be considered. Like many, I would have preferred to see that appeal come to fruition. It also seems that Kenny MacAskill couldn't really remember what was said at the meeting. Surely all this should have been properly recorded. He did make one very good point though - telling Parliament that no compassionate release application where the evidence presented was in favour had ever been turned down by a Minister.

Richard Baker followed for Labour and to be honest, he was lamentable. All he seemed to be interested in doing was getting the SNP rather than properly examining the issue. His erratic delivery of a poisonous argument did him no credit.

Things started to improve after that. Bill Aitken for the Tories talked a lot of rubbish about how Megrahi could have been cared for in Scotland - completely ignoring the fact that his family were in Libya - but he did seem to at least get the tone right.

It had been a bad start, but it started to seriously get better from this point on. I always expect great things from Lib Dem Justice spokesperson Robert Brown. I might not always agree with him, and I wouldn't have voted for his amendment today, but I totally respect what he had to say. He made some very serious and measured points about whether the Minister had been properly advised, and whether he had read and followed all the guidance on compassionate release. It was a valid point to make, and one which never really got a proper answer. It did highlight a flaw within the process which I think a future Justice Minister would do well to learn from. Unfortunately, that's as far as I got with his speech because the tv coverage stuttered to a halt and he'd finished by the time it came back on.

Patrick Harvie got it spot on - pointing out that the features of the justice system lauded by Labour as being as far as compassion should extend, parole and appeals, were actually the bare minimum that you'd expect.

Elaine Murray, the MSP for Lockerbie gave a passionate and emotional account of the effect of the events of 21 December 1988 on the town. She felt very strongly that MacAskill, if he was taking representations from the US Families, should have actually met the people of Lockerbie who might not have lost anyone in the incident but were still traumatised by the events of that night. She described the account of one woman who had contacted her who had been terrified for herself and her 3 month old baby as the plane fell out of the sky. It was appropriate that Parliament should hear these accounts so that the people of Lockerbie could at least feel that someone was taking notice of them. Jim Hume, the Lib Dem MSP for South of Scotland echoed this call.

My own MSP, Angela Constance, also gave a solid and worthwhile contribution. Others from the SNP benches did the usual toadying Government bench stuff, but she actually had some different and good points to make. She talked about how she'd been around the constituency listening to people's views and she got the impression that most people were calm about it whether they agreed with MacAskill's decision or not. I'd say she was spot on with that. She also pointed out that Hillary Clinton, although she'd condemned the Scottish Government's decision, had also met with Gadaffi's National Security Adviser.

Michael McMahon started his speech with some low political blows and I was just about to leave the room in disgust to make a cup of tea when he started to take Kenny MacAskill to task about the "Higher Power" comments in his earlier statement. I'm glad somebody did - although McMahon didn't do it quite as well as Kelvin.

Other contributions which impressed me came from Dr Ian McKie, who, as a GP will hav treated many Cancer patients and will have witnessed at first hand how quickly things can change and how a condition can deteriorate, and Shirley Anne Somerville whose speech was pretty anodyne but at least got some of the good international press for the decision on the Official Report.

The end of the debate was not conducted in such a principled tone, though. Rather than giving Kenny MacAskill the chance to respond to the debate and answer the many valid questions that had been raised, Salmond decided to do his usual pugnacious grandstanding, throwing political punch after political punch was just not appropriate. Certainly, he'd had to listen to the same sort from the other side, but I'd hoped he'd rise above it. He said at the beginning of his speech that he'd respond to the political rubbish first and then the serious points - but he never got to the serious stuff

While Salmond ended the debate badly, I was determined not to end this posting on a negative note. I'd say that the man of the match was again Malcolm Chisholm, though clearly and calmly sticking by his principles and stating that if it was not a free vote he'd back the Government. Exactly the sort of principled stand you'd expect from someone who has shown such courage and wisdom before. I think that many people across Scotland, across the political spectrum, will admire what he did today.

I hope that there is a chance to move on, now. Parliament has now had its say and the Government has been, unfairly in my view, defeated.