 can to avoid it happening again and to help them build up a better healthcare system in all their countries. My apologies to the two members that I was unable to call. We move to the next site of business, which is a debate on motion number 11301, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon on Scotland's evolution commission, the Smith commission. Members who wish to take part in the debate should press a request to speak button now. I will give a few moments for everybody to settle. I now call on Nicola Sturgeon to speak to move the motion, Deputy First Minister, 14 minutes. Thank you very much indeed, Presiding Officer. It is now, of course, nearly six weeks since the referendum, and the sense that our country has changed, changed for the better and changed for good, I think, grows ever stronger with every day that passes. Expectations have changed. The people of Scotland have been promised substantial additional powers for this Parliament and want to see those promises delivered in full. The state of our democracy has changed. At the level of turnout in the referendum, the extraordinary level of engagement during the campaign have both set new standards in participative democracy, and I think that that is something all of us in all sides of the chamber would welcome. I think that our outlook has changed. We have emerged from the referendum as a more self-confident and more self-aware nation, ready to tackle the challenges and the opportunities that lie ahead. Of course, there has been some change for political parties as well for the SNP and the Greens, thousands of new members, new leadership for the SNP, for Labour, let's just say, they live in interesting times. Change for everybody and change that I think is welcome not just across this Parliament but positive, vibrant change that is welcome right across our country. It will come as no surprise to anybody in this chamber to hear me say that I believe as passionately today as I did before the referendum that Scotland should be and will be in future an independent country. I also accept unreservedly that independence was not the choice of the Scottish people on 18 September. That is democracy and I accept that. I also accept, and I think that this is an important point for me to state on the records, that independence will not be the outcome of the process currently being led by Lord Smith. Scotland will become independent only when a majority of the people of this country vote for that in a referendum. I believe that it will happen, but when it happens, it is a matter for people in this country. Yes, of course. Murdo Fraser. I am grateful to the Deputy First Minister for giving way. In the very last speech that she made in the Scottish Parliament before the referendum, she said that the referendum was a once-in-a-lifetime vote. Did she mean what she said? I always mean what I say as Murdo Fraser, I am sure, knows. I think that all of us would do well to learn from the process of the referendum. I say that not in some kind of party-political way, I say that sincerely. One of the things that all of us, whatever side we were on in the referendum should have taken from that campaign, is this. The people of Scotland are in charge. It is not for politicians on either side of this debate to dictate the destination of the debate. Whether and when Scotland becomes an independent country will be determined by the people of this country. I think that that is a principle that all of us should be able to achieve. Although I have accepted before, and we will do so again, that the Smith commission will not result in that outcome, it does in my view offer an enormous opportunity for all of us to rethink the future governance of our country. As I have said previously, we will work in good faith with Lord Smith and all of the parties involved. John Swinney and Linda Fabiani are representing the SNP on the commission. They will do so constructively and they will seek to do so in the best interests of the people of Scotland. I would call on all representatives on the commission to do the same, and I would expect that all of them will do. Of course, it would not be appropriate for any of us during this debate to prejudge or constrain the outcome of the Smith commission process in any way. We must all of us respect Lord Smith's work and allow those discussions to take place. However, I will today set out the case for the ambitious proposals that the Scottish Government published on 10 October. The first point to make is that we are not seeking powers in this process for their own sake. What we are proposing is an ambitious approach that seeks to give this Parliament the tools that this Parliament needs to tackle the real issues that it faces in Scotland. Powers that will help us, as the Parliamentarians of our country, to make Scotland a more prosperous country with job creation a priority. On that note, I would welcome very warmly the input and intervention of some of our major airports calling for the devolution of air passenger duty. Powers that will enable us, as Parliamentarians, to do as much as we can to make our country a fairer society so that everyone, no matter their circumstances, has equal access to opportunities and a fair chance in life. Powers that will give Scotland a clearer and a stronger voice on devolved issues on the world stage so that we can best represent our interests abroad and strengthen our international relationships. I hope that all of us could unite around those principles, if not necessarily unite behind the package of powers that will enable us to put them into practice. That is why we are putting forward a coherent suite of proposals that, taken together, will transform the ability of this Parliament to make real and lasting improvements, in short, to transform the ability of this Parliament to serve the people that we are elected to serve. Our approach to the process and our proposals are underpinned, rather, by four interconnected objectives. I hope that that will be my last Friday in slip of the debate—underpinned by four interconnected objectives. Firstly, the outcome of the process must meet the expectations of the Scottish people. I make no apologies for repeating that point. There is a powerful majority for change in this country. Between the 45% who voted yes and the significant number of people who voted no on the promise of more powers, on the promise of the vow, that represents a majority for change. The rhetoric of the Westminster parties during the campaign of home rule, deval max, near federalism must now fallow through into a commitment to deliver substantial additional powers for this Parliament. We have seen at least one poll since the referendum showing 66% support for deval max. Deval max defined as all powers short of defence and foreign affairs, so that is where public opinion is. If that public opinion is not met in terms of what the Westminster parties now are prepared to sign up to, that will be unforgivable. The people of Scotland will not be prepared to forgive that, and that should be something that is in the minds of all of us. The agreed outcome must significantly enhance the democratic and financial accountability of this Parliament and government to the people that we serve. It is not credible, in my view, for this Parliament to raise only a fraction of the expenditure that it controls, so any settlement must bring into better alignment the revenue and the expenditure powers of the Parliament. Our proposal is for full fiscal responsibility in order that we can be more directly accountable to the Scottish people with the tax revenues raised in Scotland being retained here. Scotland is in a strong fiscal position, and that would continue under further devolution. However, getting the powers that fiscal autonomy would deliver is not about standing still, it is about empowering this Parliament to grow our economy better, faster and more sustainably with more jobs at the heart of that growth. Turning to democratic accountability, we all know and we can collectively be proud of the record of this Parliament in delivering positive change in areas that we are responsible. The smoking ban, free personal care and free higher education are just some of the examples of that. We have provided a level of access to decision making for people and organisations that Westminster, frankly, has never and can never achieve. We have to build on that and bring key decisions that affect the daily lives of people in Scotland in areas such as tax and welfare closer to the people that they affect. I believe that this Parliament, this institution, must also become responsible for its own affairs. We demonstrated collectively as a Parliament and as a people that we could make a success of the biggest democratic event in this country's history. Surely we can now be trusted with the Parliament's own structures and procedures and with decisions about elections in Scotland. Our third principle is that we must transform the ability of the Scottish Parliament to create jobs and growth, tackle inequality and represent our interests in the EU and international community. That is the very essence of the powers for a purpose argument. Our proposals are about giving the Scottish Parliament real policy levers to deliver change. Any employer, any economist will tell you that tax and welfare are key levers to promote jobs and growth. Any charity, any advice worker will tell you that they are also at the heart of delivering a fairer society. Any fisherman, farmer, export business will tell you that having a voice in the EU is critical to promoting our interests. Yet Westminster remains the dominant force in all of these areas, often taking decisions that do not reflect our circumstances and which are opposed by this Parliament and by a majority of Westminster MPs. There are many examples of how having powers in these areas would significantly enhance the ability of this Parliament to grow our economy, to ensure more ability to tackle poverty and inequality, control over the minimum wage, for example, allowing us to do much more to tackle one of the biggest scandals in Scotland today, which is the level of in-work policy. By contrast, we know that decisions at Westminster, such as the bedroom tax, for example, simply run counter to what we are trying to achieve. Our final principle, Presiding Officer, is that any agreed arrangements must be fair and equitable, and they must enable this Parliament to receive and reinvest the financial and economic rewards of sound decision making, as well as having the tools to manage the risks of our new responsibilities. Our proposal, as I have said, is that the Scottish Parliament should raise all of its own revenue. I think that that is the most coherent way of achieving that. Of course, Barnett would still be required during the transition, and if any final agreement falls short of that and requires allocation of resource from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament, it must also be equitable. In our view, it is based on the continuation of the Barnett formula, which I am glad to see is now a position that all of the parties say that they agree with. Although some of the noises that we hear from the colleagues of the parties that are represented in this chamber from Westminster would cause significantly more concern than that. I believe that we have put forward a coherent and ambitious package of proposals, but the final word that I want to say is about the process of the Smith commission. I said at the start of my speech that I know that this process will not deliver what I think is best for Scotland. I go into that with open eyes and with the ability and the willingness to compromise in order to secure the best deal that we can for Scotland at this time. For me, that means recognising that independence will not be the outcome that powers, for example, over defence, security, intelligence, the currency, citizenship, foreign affairs and no doubt other aspects will remain at Westminster. I also recognise that we will not get everything that we ask for in the proposals that we set out on 10 October. That is what I mean by compromise, pragmatism, realism and a determination to get progress. For others represented in this chamber, I think that that must mean recognising that they will need to go substantially further than their currently published proposals to show Scotland that they are serious about delivering on the promises that were made in the referendum. I have to say that I was encouraged by not often something that you hear me say by comments from the Conservatives that their proposals should be viewed as a floor, not as a ceiling. I think that that was a welcome comment to make. I hope that others will take a similarly constructive approach. I hope that we will get some clarity this afternoon from Labour, whose proposals have been widely described as the weakest of every party. I know that it is a difficult timing issue for Labour, given the co-incidence of a leadership election with the Smith process. Nevertheless, I hope that we can get some clarity on the areas where Labour is going to go beyond the woefully inadequate proposals that were published in advance of the referendum. That is the spirit that we enter this process. I hope that we can come out of this with something that takes this country forward. I also hope that, as Lord Smith has indicated his intention to do, the wider public get to be meaningfully involved in this. One of the wonderful things about the referendum was that public engagement. What we do not want to do is to go back to the days when we try to do deals behind closed doors. The public are in charge of the future of this country. I think that that means that it will always go in the right direction. This party, this Government, is determined to play an active, constructive and positive part in that. I have great pleasure in moving the motion in my name. I now call on Drew Smith to move amendment number 11301.1, in the name of Ian Gray. Mr Smith, 10 minutes. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. This is an important and timely debate. I thank the Scottish Government for bringing this motion before Parliament. At the outset, I also say that Labour members will support the motion today, as we fully support the work of the Smith commission. We welcome the fact that it is now taking forward the work to entrench and enhance devolution within our United Kingdom. That is happening so quickly after the referendum is obviously welcomed on this side, because we were clear before the referendum that, if Scotland chose to remain within the UK, it would be a vote not just for partnership with our closest neighbours and friends in the rest of Britain and, as the Deputy First Minister alluded to, the first-ever democratic endorsement of the union, but also a vote of confidence in devolution itself, as well, of course, as being the best result for jobs, public services, businesses and people alike. Before I go any further, Presiding Officer, I move the amendment in the name of Ian Gray. That makes it clear that the contributions of all parties should be noted and welcomed alongside the proposals that the Scottish Government has brought forward, of course, after the vote. The referendum was the biggest exercise in democratic participation that our nation has ever seen. It is therefore important that participation in this process is as wide as possible within the timescales that were set out to the Scottish people and which have been honoured to date and which we believe must continue to be honoured. The task is to achieve the greatest possible agreement between the political parties, just as has been done in the past by the pro-devolution parties and our other partners. I hope that, across the chamber, we do share an objective in wanting to see this Parliament strengthened and entrenched in the constitutional settlement, which the Scottish people have themselves chosen. Labour's proposals for devolution were published some seven months ago, following months of consultation within our party but also with academics, trade unions, businesses and a variety of interested individuals and groups. Many of those same groups will be making their own submissions now to the Smith commission directly. Again, we welcome that. Earlier this month, Scottish Labour submitted our proposals, which have been agreed by our annual conference and along with our proposal for a UK constitutional convention. Those changes are what we have already guaranteed to be delivered by the next Labour Government. The other parties have their own commitments. For the first time, the SNP has accepted that devolution as strong Scottish Parliament—not just at the moment, Mr Crawford—is the people's settled will. Labour's proposals were developed on the basis that we wish to bring forward powers for the Parliament. Would Drew Smith describe his party's proposals as a floor, not a ceiling? In other words, does he recognise that they were minimalist? Is there an appetite on the part of the Labour Party to go further than the submission that they have put in? What I am about to do is to describe Labour's proposals myself at the Deputy First Minister will allow me to do so. I would simply say that we are not going to negotiate an outcome to the Smith commission that should rightly take place within the Smith commission. Our proposals were brought forward, powers for a purpose, clearly aligned to progressive purposes. Our tax and welfare, the work programme and trenching the Parliament, housing benefit, the railways, health and safety, access to employment tribunals, attendance allowance, equalities and, of course, double devolution. Our desire to devolve power not just to this place, but also away from it, to local government and the communities that it serves—no thank you, miss White. We are interested not in power for its own sake, but for the purposes for which it can be used to secure and enhance the devolution settlement and to make a difference to people. There is too much noise in the chamber. Allow the speaker to be heard, please. There are issues that have been raised in the context of the independence debate, which the Deputy First Minister was right, showed an explosion in engagement and ideas, and that should now inform what happens next. I agree. There are also issues that have been debated for longer and over the period of successive Governments. Beyond that, we need to think carefully about the issues that are likely to continue to be of importance, such as our demographic challenge, the inevitable decline of our revenues available from finite resources such as oil and gas as a major component of our economic success, and the continuing challenge of climate change in our approach to issues such as hydraulic fracking. Any division of power between different layers of government will create potential inconsistencies and necessitate partnership working between different levels of government. We should not see that as a problem to be overcome, but understanding that working together, a strong Scottish Parliament and a partnership with the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland is the instruction that the people of Scotland have given us. I hope that both the process of the Smith commission and the transfer of powers which will follow it and the goodwill that we all show to each other means that new partnership arrangements are created between this Parliament and Government elsewhere in the UK and indeed at the UK level. In trenching the Parliament, it means setting out explicitly that this is a permanent feature of our constitution, endorsed as it is by not one but now two referendums. I disagree, for example, with the UK Government's proposals in relation to the Human Rights Act, but I would regret any suggestion that many of our fundamental rights should be different or indeed competing in different parts of the UK. There will now need to be a consideration, I would rather make the point if you do not mind, Ms McDonnell. There will now need to be a consideration for how respect for human rights is best embedded in the principles of this Parliament for the future and how our citizens have the best possible support to access their rights and achieve redress when it is required. The proposals that we have made to Lord Smith represent Labour's view, but we are absolutely committed to engaging with those with alternative perspectives and especially to hearing new ideas on matters that we have not considered previously. Lord Smith has himself asked the political parties to maintain something of a self-denying ordinance, asking them in the Scotland Sunday just this week to let the nominees get on with it. The Deputy First Minister has set out her proposals, as is her right, and the commission will examine them along with everything else that the others have said. I was interested in suggesting the press this morning that this debate could be seen as an attempt to procure a mandate from the Scottish Parliament for the Scottish Government's own view. Of course, we have been here before. Before the referendum, the SNP had a majority in this chamber in the Scottish Parliament passed motions supporting Scottish independence, but that was not what was agreed by the people of Scotland because there was no mandate in the country for the Government's constitutional proposals. Similarly, there is no majority for any one set of party proposals in the commission. The debate needs to be more than partisan. If Parliament cannot be used as an alternative route to the commission that we have all agreed to take part in, if we do that, then we will achieve nothing other than making constructive discussion more difficult and damage the good faith that is vital to this process. I have no doubt that there can be a degree of common ground found, for example, on issues such as votes at 16, where there is a common goal between the Scottish Government and ourselves, but not all the parties in the commission. Likewise, there are issues that will be common to those parties that campaign to secure Scotland's place in the UK, which were opposed by those on the losing site. However, the correct place for all of that to be resolved is in the commission. I believe that the debate can provide an opportunity, because it is a welcome debate, to allow ideas beyond those expressed by the party's submissions to be expressed for the case for them to be made in more detail. I hope that we will hear more, for example, on how the cause of women's equality in public life might be advanced in this process, or the case for real and genuine devolution away from central government, because we have had a period of centralisation in Scotland's governance in favour of reinvigorated local democracy. I know that I have been contacted by a number of constituents with specific ideas about what they want to be considered. No doubt that others, too, will have been encouraging them to make a direct contribution to the commission. What I want to do today is to make it clear that the principles that my party will now continue to apply to the process. They have been outlined before and they remain. The process is about enhancing and entrenching devolution within the United Kingdom. People in Scotland voted for a strengthened Parliament working in partnership with the rest of Britain, not in opposition and not in competition to it. That means that we must continue Scotland's representation in the UK Parliament. That issue was decided conclusively in the referendum. It is also our position that the continuation of the Barnett formula must not be put at risk by fiscal proposals that would lead Scotland worse off than it is now and threaten the public services for which we have a responsibility to maintain. Throughout the referendum, Labour's argument was that we could enjoy the best of both worlds. A strong Scottish Parliament backed up by the strength of the UK, and a UK that is at its heart based on the pooling and sharing of both the risks that we face and the resources that we have across the whole of Scotland. That was the argument that won the referendum. Alongside powers for a purpose, that is what will guide Labour's approach to this debate. It is also worth remembering where the Smith commission process originated. The commitment of the pro-devolution parties to widening and improving devolution were continually called into question by those who favoured ending devolution and opting for independence. We had this constant suggestion and smears of bad faith, and that was a campaign. Those things happen, but the timetable that was set out by Gordon Brown was about demonstrating that our good faith would be held to in an immediately testable way. That is what the progress of the Smith commission has already demonstrated. Maintaining good faith in this process is what Scottish Labour will stick to in the period ahead. Devolution is not a consolation prize. It is a prize worth seizing on its own merits. I now call on Murdo Fraser. Six minutes are there by Mr Fraser, please. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I start by welcoming this debate. I have my party paying tribute to Lord Smith and his commissioners for the very important work that they are undertaking, and I can also signal at the outset our support both for the Scottish Government's motion and for the Labour amendment. It is one of the golden rules of politics, that you cannot please everyone at the same time. The formation of the Smith commission proves this point precisely. On the one hand, you had a lot of people, many of them on the nationalist camp, jumping up and down, demanding implementation of the so-called vow that appeared in the daily record a few days before the referendum vote. I see that they are getting very excited already, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I am barely into my first minute. On the other hand, there are voices among them, the former First Minister, Henry McLeish, who has said that the timetable is far too short, and the much more elongated process is required and much broader public consultation, and that has been echoed by other voices as well. I do happen to think that when politicians make commitments, they should try to meet them whenever possible. The Prime Minister, David Cameron, could not have moved faster than he did within a few hours of the referendum result being announced. He came out from number 10 Downing Street and set out that a Smith commission would be established to deliver the promises made in the vow. It does seem unreasonable now to criticise him for taking this forward. When it comes to honouring commitments, let us not forget the point that I raised just a moment ago. The Deputy First Minister herself said in the very last speech that she made in this Parliament before the referendum that it was a once-in-a-lifetime vote. I hear what she said in response to my intervention about the Scottish people being in the driving seat for this, and she is absolutely correct. Of course, she will be banning accidents, the leader of the devolved administration in this Parliament very soon. She will have a very strong leadership role, and I hope that she will stick to the commitments that she made prior to the referendum. The Smith commission does have an ambitious timetable, and its work is not at the moment. Its work is proceeding quickly, but it is not as if we are starting with a blank sheet of paper. We have been having this conversation about Scotland's constitutional future for many years and with added impetus over the past 24 months. All three Unionist parties have already brought forward their own proposals for improving Scotland's governance within the United Kingdom. All three parties had their own internal processes and external consultation in drawing up their plans. From my party's perspective, the Strathclyde commission report was the culmination of an extensive process of discussion and consultation, and it is generally acknowledged that it represents a comprehensive and ambitious set of proposals to devolve further powers to Scotland, particularly around tax. I will give way to Ms Ewing. To the member for giving way, on that very point, does he therefore agree with the Strathclyde commission's conclusion that there would be no need for fresh legislation with respect to the devolution of APD? Yes, it is the position of the Scottish Conservatives that APD should be devolved, and we will continue to be at that point within the Smith commission. I hope that answers Ms Ewing's questions unequivocally. I have said before that the implementation of the Smith commission proposals would give Scotland in the UK many of the features that would apply to a state in a federal system. The essence of federalism is the sharing of sovereignty and a clear division of power between the different levels of government within a state. That would not necessarily involve substantial additional devolution beyond what is currently being proposed. Indeed, anyone who makes that case clearly has not looked at federal systems as they operate in countries such as Germany or the US. However, part of the problem with the debate is that such terms such as federalism and devalmax are bandied around without many folk having a clear idea as to what those actually mean. Can I admit that parties on all sides of the debate are equally guilty in that respect? There are some on the unionist side who have used the term devalmax as a catch-all phrase to describe any form of additional devolution, but to many on the nationalist side, devalmax has a specific defined meaning. It was set out a few moments ago by the Deputy First Minister, referring to a situation in which everything is devolved of Scotland except for defence and foreign affairs. The Scottish Parliament is entirely responsible for raising all revenues within Scotland and paying a sum to Westminster to cover the cost of the very minor reserved competencies. The problem with this nationalist definition of devalmax is that this is not an arrangement compatible either with a federal United Kingdom or for that matter any sort of continuing UK state, and I have no federal system in the world operating on this basis. In its recent paper, The Day After Judgment, Scotland and the UK After the Referendum, Professor Jim Gallacher states of devalmax, and I quote, It is simply a botched form of independence and does not lead to a sustainable economic or social union. It is not sustainable economically as the conditions of fiscal shaling support that support a stable currency are not met, nor does it meet the conditions of social solidarity implied in a common UK pension and welfare system. If that is what is meant by devalmax, then, frankly, we would be better off being independent. I know that there will be nationalists who will quote an opinion poll that they commissioned with all sorts of leading questions, suggesting that the majority of the people in Scotland support devalmax. However, if devalmax represents independence in all but name, that is precisely what was rejected by the people of Scotland in a referendum just a few weeks ago, and nationalists have to learn to live with that result. So let us not get distracted by those diversions. I think that I'm in my last minute. There is a consensus in Scotland, a consensus that we want to remain part of the United Kingdom, but we do want to see further devolution. I believe that the Strathclyde commission proposals present a sensible balance between the demands for further devolution, particularly greater financial accountability, but also the strongly expressed view of the Scottish people that they wish to see the United Kingdom continue. Whether it is the Conservative proposals that form the basis of a new settlement or something else will be for the Smith commission to determine, let us wish it well in its important work, and let us hope that we achieve a lasting settlement for Scotland and the UK that provides us a better system of government for generations to come. Many thanks. We now move to the open debate. Six minute speeches, please. Annabelle Ewing, to be followed by Sarah Boyack. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm very pleased to have been called to speak in the debate this afternoon on the Smith commission for this debate. Today affords all the political parties represented in this chamber the opportunity to set out what they see as the key principles underlying their submissions to the Smith commission. At the same time, it is important to note that the objective as far as engagement is concerned goes far, far beyond these walls, and it must be as inclusive as possible, as the DFM has said. For it is indeed the people of Scotland who must have the opportunity to inform and to influence the implementation of the proposals through the widest possible engagement. In that regard, what we have seen over the last weeks is literally, I believe, thousands of individuals, as well as third sector and other organisations, taking the time to formulate and to submit their positions to the Smith commission. This element of the process, I think that it's important to note, concludes on Friday of this week, and I would urge all of those who are interested in making a submission, listening to the debate this afternoon, but have not yet done so, to email to have your say at smithifoncommission.scott their own submissions by the close of play this Friday. It's very clear to me, Presiding Officer, that the consideration of what change Scotland wants and needs is very much rooted in the massive engagement that we have witnessed as part of the independence referendum campaign, a campaign that galvanised significant sections of the population to want to ensure, going forward, that their voices were indeed heard, and for the hope and the excitement and sense of opportunity that we see around us in our change Scotland is indeed alive and well, and I would submit growing. It is within that context of the legitimate expectations of the people of Scotland based on the promises that were indeed made that the Smith commission must operate. Indeed, what expectation could there reasonably be other than that maximum self-government within the UK should be delivered as a result of the Smith commission process? We need to look no further, Presiding Officer, to find support here with respect to what the Unionist parties said in the days immediately in the run-up to polling day. Gordon Brown, on 8 September 2014, 10 days before polling day said and I quote, the plan for a stronger Scottish Parliament we seek agreement on is for nothing else than a modern form of Scottish home rule within the United Kingdom. Nick Clegg, UK Deputy Prime Minister said on 13 September 2014 five days before polling day and I quote, Scotland will have more powers over its finances, more responsibility for raising taxation and more control over parts of the welfare system, having an effective home rule but within the security and stability of our successful United Kingdom at the direct quote from Mr Clegg. David Cameron, UK Prime Minister, on 15 September 2014 three days before polling day said and I quote, if we get a no vote on Thursday that will trigger a major unprecedented programme of devolution with additional powers for the Scottish Parliament. As to the infamous vow which we have referred to in caveata terms this afternoon from at least the Tory benches, the vow itself published in the daily record on 16 September 2014 two days before polling day and signed by the UK Prime Minister, the UK Deputy Prime Minister and the UK leader of the opposition. We note indeed the promise was made of extensive new powers and I quote directly, the Scottish Parliament is permanent and extensive new powers for the Parliament will be delivered. So those were indeed the promises made and that is what the people of Scotland have the legitimate expectation to now see delivered and that within the timetable set forth. For our part in the Scottish National Party, we have I believe captured those legitimate expectations on the part of the people of Scotland in the key principles underlying our submission which are that we need powers for a purpose that is powers that will enable our Scottish Parliament to help create jobs and economic growth, to tackle inequality and to represent our interests in the world in the areas within our responsibility and of course powers that will significantly enhance the financial and democratic accountability of this Parliament to the people of Scotland. Such a package will allow this Parliament to deliver real change for the people of Scotland and that I submit, Presiding Officer, is exactly what this people of Scotland want and expect. In conclusion, Presiding Officer, there is therefore a challenge I believe that faces all the unionist parties and in particular I would appeal here to the Labour Party to take the opportunity it now has to raise its sights and to be radical in its thinking. For surely, Presiding Officer, the Labour Party in Scotland does not want Scotland to continue to be treated simply as a branch office of Westminster, a situation in which no one, Presiding Officer, could reasonably describe as the best of both worlds. Thank you for your brevity. I now call on Sarah Boyat to be followed by Kevin Stewart up to six minutes please. Thank you Presiding Officer. I think Drew Smith made a very powerful speech about the need for making sure that Governments work together and for real devolution for the Scottish Parliament and the argument that we get the best of both worlds, a strong Scottish Parliament backed by pulling and sharing across the UK underpinned the recent referendum debate and the Smith commission now has the task of delivering consensus on modernising our devolution settlement. Much of our focus has rightly been on strengthening the Scottish Parliament but I want to add that we need to be focusing on new powers for our local government as well. Double devolution needs to be on the agenda of the Smith commission. It was a key part of our submission, as Drew Smith has said today. We need to create the political space to discuss the devolution of powers from both the UK and Scottish levels of government to our local councils and on to our local communities. It is a challenge that we need to push back to the Scottish Government. You need to engage in that debate every bit as much as you demand that we look at the debate that is needed in the Smith commission. There was not one reference of it in the first two speeches that we have heard today from the SNP benches. It was a key part of our proposals, our powers for a purpose. Local government services have a huge influence on our lives and we need to think about how they work together, how they have more resources and I think that the commission and local government put it really well. It talked about spheres, not tears. Yes, of course. Nicola Sturgeon I agree with her wholeheartedly on her point about making sure that power, if they are transferred to Scotland, lie at the right level within Scotland and I would endorse many of her comments about local government. As I think a candidate for the leadership of her party, can I ask her to share with us perhaps her thoughts? Does she think that Labour's submission to the Lord Smith commission goes far enough or are the areas where she would hope to see it develop over the next period? I accept that. Am I a test? We are never going to be able to make Nicola Sturgeon happy with our submission. We know that. I would like to push back though. Order. I would like to push back though and say that if we are having a proper discussion, let us put local devolution, let us put double devolution firmly at the centre, no thank you, you have already spoken at length. Our vision for local government is to see decisions about local communities taken locally. In our devolution commission, we argued for double devolution and the reversal of the trend under this SNP government to centralise local services and control funding. Nicola Sturgeon talked about the importance of fiscal accountability. Look at our local councils, what fiscal accountability, what independence do they have to set the revenues that come in towards them. While the debate on the Smith commission focuses on greater accountability, on funding and new funding streams for the Scottish Parliament, it is vital that we focus on devolving from the UK and the Scottish Parliaments down to local government level as well. I am grateful to say about it for giving way. I wonder if she would reflect on the fact that local government, when she was a supporter of the administration, had about £2 billion of its funds ring-fenced and controlled, directed by St Andrew's house. Now, today, that ring-fencing no longer exists, giving local authorities £2 billion of financial flexibility that they never had when Labour was in power. Sarah Boyle. First of all, that is a moot point. The finance minister might like to go out and talk to my constituents who have seen their flood-improvement measures delayed for years, because one of his colleagues, Mike Russell, completely changed the funding mechanisms and devolved the opportunity to local government. Instead of getting 80 to 20 per cent support, they have to fund it themselves, so there is an outcome to that. There is an outcome that communities are experiencing. Never mind the billion pounds, never mind the billion powers that has been taken out of spending on social justice programmes across the government, which is also important in terms of local government. Order. Allow the speaker to be heard. We need to see devolution from both the Scottish Parliament and from the UK level. While English local government is facing even bigger cuts than our councils in Scotland, they are getting city deals, initiatives, new opportunities, new resources and new fiscal levers to enable them to work together to promote investment, infrastructure, jobs and training. You can see the impact that that is beginning to have, particularly in big cities such as Manchester and Leeds, and there is an ambition for that in Scotland as well. Yes, of course. On that point, we will say that the Scottish Government's £500 million commitment to the Glasgow city deal and, secondly, our growth accelerator model financing that is allowing the redevelopment of James's quarter in her own city. Why can't she recognise the things that are already happening? Finally, I agree with her on the local government point. She still has not answered my question. Does she think that Labour's submission to the Smith commission goes far enough? I did answer that with respect. In particular, the local government recommendations were welcomed by many organisations as being a breath of fresh air, as being real powers being devolved to our local communities. The Deputy First Minister would do well to look at those comments. We recommended significant devolution of financial resources in relation to employability programmes, training provision and housing benefit. We want our local authorities to have real resources to be able to shape and support our local communities. Higher quality training programmes are appropriate to the needs of social and economic priorities. We want to increase the capacity of local authorities to deliver better value in housing support and to significantly increase the capacity of affordable local housing. £1.7 billion currently comes through housing benefit. That money needs to be used by local government to much better effect. We also argued that the agenda needs to take on the idea that the Orkney, Shetland and Western Isles councils and other councils that have islands communities need to have more opportunities and that we need to devolve the Crown Estates commission. There are lots of ideas in our report. Rather than complaining about us not going far enough, I hope that the SNP benches will take that opportunity to look at new powers for local government, will look at the opportunities that come through the Smith commission and will support Labour's proposals on powers for a purpose. Our communities urgently need those extra fiscal levers, extra financial support and the extra opportunities to regenerate our communities. Let's make sure that we focus on double devolution as well as strengthening our own Scottish Parliament. Thank you. Many thanks. I now call on Kevin Stewart to be followed by Tavish Scott up to six minutes please. Thank you very much. A very interesting speech from Ms Boyack there where she has mentioned the commission looking at local democracy but has failed to mention the local government committee hears report into the flexibility and autonomy of local government. I hope that the Parliament will be able to discuss that in the near future. I'm surprised that somebody has talked so much about independence for councils and yet at the same time didn't feel it the right thing to seek independence for her nation. I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate and believe that the people of Scotland who were hugely engaged in the referendum will be watching this process very carefully indeed. I like to start on the engagement issue. The referendum campaign led to 97 per cent of people eligible to vote, registering to vote, a turnout of 84.6 per cent and more people than ever before were involved in the political process and I would certainly like that to continue. Young people were engaged to a huge degree with almost 90 per cent of 16 and 17 year olds registering to vote. We must ensure that we continue to enthuse our young people and this Parliament should be given the power over elections to ensure that our young people continue to be able to cast their votes at every election. If you're old enough to marry, to work and pay tax, you're old enough to vote for the government that taxes you. We also should do everything possible to ensure that those who are older who may have registered to vote for the first time do not disappear off the registers again. This Parliament should control all aspects of electoral law, including the use of electoral registers. I'm pleased that the Minister for Local Government wrote to the UK Government on 6 October asking them to transfer all of the remaining responsibilities in relation to elections in Scotland, including electoral registers, and that should come to the Scottish Parliament. That would allow this Parliament to consider the purpose of the registers and who should have access to them and allow the Scottish Government to bring forward legislation to prevent the sale of the registers to private debt collectors among others. The Smith commission should also take cognisance of the views of the people when it comes to decision making. A recent panel-based poll shows that 66 per cent of those surveyed wanted this Parliament to control all policy areas except for defence and foreign affairs. In other words, the divo max position that most thought was what was promised in the now infamous or as Mr Murdo Fraser says, so-called vow. In the same poll, 71 per cent said that this Parliament should have control over all taxation raised in Scotland. 68 per cent said that we should control all oil and gas revenues generated in Scottish waters, and a whopping 75 per cent believed that we should control the welfare and benefits system. In my opinion, the Smith commission must take cognisance of those views, and we should have full fiscal responsibility passing to this Parliament, and we should have full responsibility for all domestic expenditure, including welfare and employment issues. This Parliament must have the ability to end the austerity agenda, which is damaging our economy and is punishing the most vulnerable people in our society. All working-age benefits should be devolved to this place, and the Scottish Parliament should have the right to set the minimum wage and deal with employability programmes that are tailored to the needs of the people of Scotland. I believe that if we hold the levers of the economic power here, we can reinvigorate our economy, create jobs and protect our most vulnerable. Why is it that London control parties believe that welfare issues can be devolved to Northern Ireland but not to Scotland? Why is it that Stormont is deemed to be capable of taking on the responsibility of setting corporation tax and air passenger duty but not Holyrood? The Tories, Liberals and Labour must explain why it is that they think that the Stormont Assembly can do these things but we here in Scotland cannot. That is a question that you must answer here today. Let's look at air passenger duty, Presiding Officer. Scotland's largest airports, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Glasgow, have today made a joint submission to the Smith commission calling for air passenger duty to be devolved to this Parliament. Chief Executive of Edinburgh Airport, Gordon Dewar, said that we shouldn't wait for another two years of negotiations to end when we have the opportunity to devolve APD to Scotland now and have immediate control over its reduction and future abolition. Both the Lib Dems and the Tories agree that air passenger duty should be devolved. The Tory Strath Clyde commission has said that there is no need for fresh legislation. Labour said that there was scope for devolving APD in its interim report but then decided against devolution of this power in its final report. It would be a show of goodwill and would prove that Scottish Labour is not just a branch office of London Labour for this power to be delivered now and without delay. I hope that we can all support that. I hope that this had been a debate about the Smith commission but instead it seems to be a debate about embarrassing the Labour Party. I suppose that that is entirely understandable. There is a leadership election going on in that party and it is quite understandable that political opponents would seek to take advantage of that. Nicola Sturgeon did exactly that in her opening remarks and in her interventions to both Drew Smith and to Sarah Boyack. Nicola Sturgeon also said that we shouldn't, in her opening remarks, we shouldn't prejudice Smith. I wish that she had read the interview that Lord Smith of Kelvin gave in Scotland on Sunday in which he said quite specifically that it would be very helpful if the party just didn't seek to bind the hands of those who are negotiating on the party's behalf. It certainly doesn't seem to me today that the tone that's come out of the nationalist benches led by the Deputy First Minister has helped in any way and they can go again. You just need to listen to it, don't you, from aside as they go on and on in that way. The Deputy First Minister did say that we shouldn't not prejudice Smith and then she went on exactly to do that in her remarks in seeking, and I quote again from her remarks, clarity from Labour. I hope that Ian Gray and Greg McLean will have the space to move on and upwards in a way that would be beneficial to this Parliament but also to the structures that many of us want to see right across the UK. Deputy First Minister made some helpful remarks, particularly on the point about rethinking the governance of the country. I absolutely agree with Sarah Boyack's observations about decentralisation within Scotland. This is not just a debate about what flows from London to Holyrood but also from Holyrood out and across Scotland. We've seen seven years of the reversal of that under the current Scottish Government and one of the clear themes that has come through in the thousands of responses that have been made to Lord Smith's commission already is a very strong public opposition to that approach and I hope that that does get reflected in what happens over the next month or so. Much is always made of the front page of the record a couple of days before polling day, rather more now than was ever made then. Again, let me quote the Deputy First Minister. She said on the 17th of September that the front page of the daily record was last minute flimsy and meaningless. Today it seems to be rather more than that. She wants to intervene, and she's very welcome to. I'll repeat it. She said that it was last minute flimsy and meaningless. Yes, of course, happy to hear that. Is the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport's intention in this debate to prove me right or is he going to try to prove me wrong? I was going to try and quote you, Deputy First Minister. You said that the vow was last minute flimsy and meaningless and now you say it's an awful lot more than that. Maybe you should make up your own mind as to what it actually is rather than inventing a whole new scenario of constitutional change that was absolutely dismissed two days before the referendum. Let me make a couple of other points in relation to what can happen in the next month. The first is that for those of us who care not just about tackling the powers that I certainly want to see in this Parliament, but much stronger powers both over taxation and welfare, tackling not just the inequality and poverty in this country, but also making sure that that can happen in different parts of the UK. There is an obligation I think on those of us who do want to see the strengthening of the whole of the UK to see that change happen not just here but elsewhere as well. I think that there are very interesting thoughts now emanating from different parts of the country as to what may happen. I have a lot of time for the arguments that are made, for example, by Dave O'Neill, the president of COSLA in relation to decentralisation, in relation to financial responsibility, in relation to financial power of local government. We have seen sadly the reversal of that over some years now and it would be very helpful if those who want to come from the responsibility side of that debate will change that position and move it forward in a way that would be genuinely beneficial to local decision making in Scotland rather than always concentrating on everything being in Edinburgh. On that principle, Sarah Boyack raised the point about the Crown Estate Commission and I want to see the Crown Estate powers of the seabed in Edinburgh. I want to see them in the islands and it would be very helpful if all those who want to support that would say so. Richard Lockhead wants to do that from the front bench. I very much welcome his support for that. On the landscape of how this will now move forward, I think it is inordinately helpful that the turnout, as the Deputy First Minister said, was so high in the referendum that happened a month or so ago because it gives a grounding and a basis for what could happen if the parties can work constructively together and the first signs are very encouraging on that if the parties can work constructively together on producing a very much stronger package for the future. To do that, we all need to accept the limitations of our own positions, the limitations of what we bring to the table, and that I mean by all political parties, and instead forge something that is much stronger for Scotland within the United Kingdom and do that in a way that is to produce powers that can then generally make a difference for the people of Scotland. I very much welcome the Smith commission and indeed the tight timetable better that than the long grass. I too accept the results of the referendum and the remit of the commission, but we have to look at the backcloth, the mood music to that commission. We have to recognise the scale of the vote for independence while accepting the outcome. 55.3 per cent, no 44.7 per cent, yes, a difference of 383 397 votes. 85 per cent turnout, that is not a trouncing. I am rather bewildered today however about the discussions about the so-called thou and whether in fact of course it was flimsy and meaningless, it is turning out to be pretty flimsy and meaningless from what is being said in this chamber today. However, it is widely acclaimed that the authorised intervention of Gordon Brown, who even reviewed a David Cameron referendum speech, is accredited with moving the yes to a no in the last days of the referendum. On that basis, it must be accepted that in that 55 per cent who voted no, there were many who were voting for something that the UK had vetoed on the ballot paper, a more powerful Scottish Parliament. So the political parties should accept that any devolved settlement must be at the higher end of devolution, which will reflect that 45 per cent yes vote and those pre-referendum promises. I therefore cannot comprehend why the Labour Party's submission from its Devolution Commission is dated March 2014, taking no account of what happened during the course of that referendum debate or the results or indeed of the Brown so-called thou. It is so timorous as to be irisible if not contemptuous of that vote. Mind you, I have no idea, even after today's debate, what the Labour Party's current position is on its submissions to the commission. The Story Strath Clyde recommendation also predates that vote. While I note, and it has been endorsed by the member today, that Ruth Davidson has emphasised that this is a floor, not a ceiling, I wait to see how high that ceiling is. I have to say to the last speaker, the Liberals, the least said, the better. The self-pronounced party of federalism, frankly, lost its way to federalism a long time ago. I turn to the exhortation of Lord Smith. He said that he wants no grievance announced in any policy area until consideration has been given to submissions from the public. He has also said that he wants a further, substantial and cohesive set of powers, his words. To that end, I consulted with my constituents, which includes Lord Smith, though I do not expect to have a response from him. The invitation to respond is coming in thick and fast, and the question is related to powers to be transferred to this Parliament, a wide range, not biased and passed by our allowances department. There was also room for individual comments. I wish more members had done the same. The summary to date of hundreds of responses that 5 per cent want no change, 95 per cent want more powers. A substantial number of that 95 per cent want a high range of powers transferred. I will give you examples. In the range of over 80 per cent, those are on issues of personal tax, corporate tax, VAT, welfare and benefits, pensions, broadcasting, health and safety, immigration, climate change, energy and telecommunications such as broadband. At the lower middle range, defence and foreign affairs, defence 55 per cent, foreign affairs 58 per cent. For me, that seems to reflect the position that we are finding from other surveys that are taken. This is a very open survey given to asking people not how they voted, did not care how they voted, wanted their views to encourage them to submit all those responses. Not edited, not summarised, will go to the Smith commission. What is to be clear about is that there must not be any stitch-up by politicians or political parties. If my mailbag is any go by, let alone that 1.6 million independence voters and the many people who voted no wanting substantial powers, then tweaking simply is not on the cards. That debate in the referendum was, as the Labour Party submitted its powers for a purpose. People wanted a socially just Scotland that reflected Scottish values, they still want to see that. This is a grown-up Parliament. I have been here 15 years now and my constituents want it to be a grown-up Parliament with grown-up powers. That is what my survey tells me and that frankly is what the other parties should be listening to from their own constituents. I now call on Malcolm Chisholm to be followed by Roderick Campbell. I would like to agree with the Deputy First Minister wherever that is possible. I welcome the new standards in participative democracy that we saw during the referendum. I hope that the wider public will be meaningfully involved in the Smith deliberations. I hope and believe that we must have enhanced democratic and financial accountability at the end of the process. It is also perhaps not an astounding revelation to say that I am quite open minded about going further than my own party's recommendations. However, I do think that they are a stronger set of proposals than many are suggesting in the debate today. I am glad, for example, that Sarah Boyack emphasised the importance of double devolution from our point of view. On that point, I wonder whether you would go further and say that there is triple devolution, because a council like Glasgow is very centralised and we need to get power down to the communities? I have supported that kind of position for a very long time. As for the Scottish Government's proposals, I do not think that it is any surprise that it has come forward with devomax proposals. It was fairly obvious, really, months before the referendum in the event of the no vote, the SNP would become the champions of devomax and that I do not object to. However, what I object to is the particular devomax narrative that has been developed very systematically by the SNP in the past six weeks. I have to give credit for the way in which everyone in the party has been saying the same thing for six weeks, but the reality is that not one person in any of the parties opposed to independence used the term devomax, either in the last week of the referendum campaign or at any other point. I reexamined the vow this week—I can't at the moment because I've already in two minutes gone on taken one intervention. The vow says that extensive new powers, sharing resource equitably, continuation of marm allocation, say on how much is spent on the NHS. Gordon Brown has been invoked. He talked about home rule, so does the Labour Party submission to the Smith commission talk about home rule. He talks about federalism. I can do no better than quote the last person who intervened. John Mason, who at the committee last week or recently anyway, said, 8 October, I think, am I right in thinking that federalism does not define the amount of power that is done at the individual state level and is more about how the structure works. I don't know where this idea that there was some promise of devomax or anything like it came in the last week of the campaign. I seriously object to the way in which that has been implied by the SNP over the last six weeks. I give way to Annabelle Ewing. I thank the member for giving way. The member will be aware that the vow itself refers expressly to the phrase, extensive new powers, signed by the UK Prime Minister, the UK Deputy Prime Minister and the UK leader of the opposition. We don't have one of those in the Scottish edition here today. Will the member care to say what he feels is meant by extensive new powers, as signed by all three unionist party leaders? I think that I am talking about that in my whole speech. I believe that we all agree with extensive new powers, but the only point that I am making in this debate is that that does not equal devomax as defined by the SNP. I think that we should accept that definition because there has been confusion in the past about different meanings of that term. One of the problems with devomax is that it is in opposition to what we regard as a fundamental principle for the devolved settlement, and that is the pooling of resources and risks. That acts completely contrary to the idea of devomax. It works to an advantage. That came up often in the referendum campaign, the way in which we benefit in terms of pensions, getting more of our population share, and that will increase in the future through that. That is a pooling of resources that helps Scotland. Many other examples could be given, but it is also pooling risks. If there is an asymmetric shock to the system—for example, local shock, which David Bell talked about at the Finance Committee on 8 October—we would be supported by the resources of the whole United Kingdom in terms of welfare in such an event. Of course, many people have commented on the crash in the oil price in recent months. Once again, that is covered when we are part of the UK, whereas it would have a devastating effect on a Scottish economy that was either independent or debomax dependent. The only example in the world that anyone can give of debomax is the Basque country. Once again, at the Finance Committee on the same date, David Bell pointed out the fundamental difference between the Basque country and ourselves in terms of the strength of its economy. Nicola Sturgeon made her today on job-creating powers, but the gap here is not as great as some individuals are saying in terms of what is up for grabs. Even under independence, we are not going to get many job-creating powers such as the power to bury interest rates. On the other hand, we already have great job-creating powers in terms of economic development skills, education, infrastructure and investment. The STUC itself is saying that there are not so many issues here, as is being suggested by the SNP. It has proposed the devolution of health and safety and labour market regulation, the STUC, and I am certainly quite open-minded about those. Finally, of course, we all agree that we have to do something about what is called the high vertical fiscal imbalance whereby we are responsible for a lot of our spending, but not much of our resources. The key last point here is income tax, and I respect and hear what Gordon Brown is saying about that. I also note what the red paper is saying about devolving all income tax to allow the Scottish Parliament more flexibility for creating a provocative tax system. That is quite an appealing idea to me. I imagine that the Conservatives support the full devolution of income tax for other reasons. There will be a genuine debate about that, and I do not think that anyone is foreclosing the conclusion to that. I do not know what people expect the Labour Party to do today, apart from coming forward with the proposals that it has put to the Smith commission, but I am sure that many people on the Labour Party and other parties are open-minded about the conclusion of those deliberations. I welcome the appointment of the Smith commission and wish it well with its task. Whether it be devomax, home rule, federalism or extensive new powers, as indicated in the vow, what it cannot be is some slight tweaking of Carman, a bit of air passenger duty here and more income tax there, as if that would be satisfactory. To Murdo Fraser, who has spoken in such barraging terms about the vow, it is just a shame that you did not make those comments before the referendum. We know, of course, that the status quo briefly. I am grateful to Mr Campbell for giving way out, but I simply said that it was so called because it was only the daily record that described it as a vow. Well, to Campbell. Now we seem to have moved on from insulting the general principle to insulting the daily record. I think that the daily record should take note. The status quo was the big loser in the referendum campaign. Only a radical change to the financial and democratic accountability of this Parliament and the acquisition of welfare powers, in my view, will meet public expectations. Something I would suggest goes beyond the abolition of the bedroom tax. Welcome, of course, though that is. I accept, of course, that to the Unionist pooling of resources and risks remains an article of faith, as we have heard from Malcolm Chisholm just now, but I would suggest that that needs to be balanced against the desire to set your own priorities. Clearly, the need is to establish what powers should be exercised is a precondition for a successful settlement. With respect to our opponents, simply to obsess about whether the Scottish Parliament is able to raise the majority of its expenditure is the wrong way to look at it. I spent part of the last recess reading Gordon Brand's book, My Scotland and Our Britain. It's silent on this question, but it has with others. He's shown a new interest in the asignation of a proportion of that receipts to the Scottish Parliament. That strikes me as a step forward, not a huge step forward, but nevertheless it indicates to me that there's some fresh thinking at least on his part. The Labour Party has, of course, been criticised for its timidity on income tax and a strong feeling that its devolution commission was watered down from its interim proposal, a fact confirmed by Labour MP Michael Conaty on Good Morning Scotland at the weekend. Without wishing to pour oil and troubled waters, it's clearly not a great help for the commission at the present time for Labour to be absent to leader in Scotland. In addition, the Smith commission needs a Labour Party that can move forward, and its representatives need to accept for the good health of the commission that an insistence on the lowest common denominator, the poorest commission, as Henry McLeish himself described it, would be a bitter disappointment. The Labour Party needs to recognise that whatever their interest in the result of the UK general election in 2015, Scotland expects delivery. Although I accept, of course, that without a leader it's perhaps not in the best position to take matters forward. On English votes for English law, what surprises me about Gordon Brand's book is that it does not feature in there in any meaningful way. Indeed, following the referendum campaign, David Cameron's attempts on behalf of the Tories to seek party advantage seemed to be such a shock to him. Had he forgotten that this is one of the failings of the Scotland Bill in 1979 that was raised by Alec Douglas Hume, and indeed opposition to the first Irish home rule bill in 1886 raised the same issue. However, where I can agree, is with those who accept that English votes for English law should in no way undermine the efforts of the Smith commission to take more powers forward. And what of the Tories on the wrong side of the referendum debate in 1997 align in the sand with Carman, now embracing devolution of income tax bans and rates under Strathclyde, but Ruth Davidson insisting that Devo Max, as most people understand it, is off the table. All I would say is that there is no such line in the sand, as David Cameron seemed to suggest last week. Although he has two redoubtable representatives on the Smith commission, some humility in respect to past mistakes might be appropriate. As for the Lib Dems, the Lib Dems are, of course, veteran home rulers. However, Scotland remembers that the Lib Dems were unable to deliver at Westminster on proportional representation, their great constitutional issue or, indeed, on law's reform. While supporting and devolving some taxes beyond income taxes to be welcomed, why are they so timid and welfare in other matters? And what about the unelected House of Lords? What guarantees do we have that a Smith commission proposal will be agreed by them? I think that we are right to worry about that. I am pleased that my party is engaging in a positive way with the Smith commission. I particularly welcome the emphasis on powers for a purpose. Notwithstanding the result of the referendum, a key test of an empowered parliament will be how it succeeds in reducing inequality in our society. The neocon model of the minimal state, no government interference and less absolutely necessary, is even under assault in America, where in mid-term elections the biggest domestic concern of voters would appear to be the ever-widening gap between rich and poor. Whatever the merits of low-corporation tax, I recognise that getting large corporate firms to pay any tax at all is increasingly difficult. That will require international action. But in no sense can it really be suggested that, without control of defence, foreign affairs and the currency, we can somehow achieve independence by the back door. How far and how long Scotland's constitutional journey takes us depends on the Scottish people themselves. Circumstances will dictate the peace. That veteran Irish nationalist Parnell said in 1885, of course, quote, No man has the right to fix the boundary to the march of a nation. While independence is not on the agenda at the present time, let's not today predict the future. We do need a settlement that commands widespread support. The referendum campaign went well beyond the parties and beyond the representatives of Civic Scotland to ordinary men and women. I am aware of the concerns of Civic Scotland, of the STUC, the Church of Scotland and the Electoral Reform Society, of their need to participate. But please, let's not end up thinking that this is just for the political parties with Civic Scotland having some kind of veto. I welcome Annabelle Ewing's comments earlier, and I'll be very interested, indeed, to see how many individuals will make their own submissions to the Smith commission. Presiding Officer, the commission seems to have made a good start. I wish it every success. Alex Rowley, to be followed by Stuart McMillan. Presiding Officer, I have also welcomed this debate today, and I welcome if we can have unity in this Parliament that our representatives of the different political parties can go forward and work hard and work together to ensure that we can reach a decision that is in the best interests of Scotland and that we can go forward with unity. I welcome the fact that Nicola Sturgeon says that her position is that they may not get everything that they want, and I think that each party has to accept that. I think that Labour has to accept that. I certainly personally take the view that Labour's submission post to a referendum was, to myd, to say the least. Therefore, I would want to see in those negotiations a position in which Labour is willing to negotiate. Therefore, it should certainly be seen not as the ceiling in terms of how we move forward. Kevin Stewart made the point earlier about controls and powers. The danger is that we get into talking about what powers we would want here when that is the job of the Smith commission. However, Kevin Stewart made the point about control over the administration of elections in Scotland. That should be a power that we should be achieving. We should be clear that, as part of that, we would see 16 and 17-year-olds having the vote in future in the Scottish Parliament in local government elections. We would be able to hopefully persuade the UK Government of the right to do that, given the result that we saw in the referendum itself. I very much welcome that. My view is that the Smith commission, regardless of what comes up at the end of the day, is not an end within itself. It is part of the late Donald Dure said that devolution is a journey, and we are on that journey. My view as a member of a Labour Party for Home rule in Scotland is that whatever powers we need as we move forward to ensure that Scotland is able to move forward in a sustainable way, and in a way that ensures prosperity for all in Scotland, we should be taking those powers, so that would not be for me the end of the road. I would like to pick up on a few points that Nicola Sturgeon made, however, in setting out the principles of what we are trying to achieve. A fairer society job creation powers have to be powers for a purpose. If we look right now in Scotland, there are powers that we are not using right now. If we look at trying to tackle unemployment, poverty and deprivation, it is not just about having powers to bring jobs to Scotland, it is about ensuring that people and communities right across Scotland are able to get those jobs. Right now, when we see the types of policies that are being brought forward, the massive cuts to the denial of college places to young people, those are all issues that we need to address right now. We should not somehow pretend that the Smith commission, whatever it comes up with, will be the panacea. I saw in one of the briefings the day that came out, it made clear that politicians need to have the will to use the powers. Right now in Scotland, I suggest that we are not using the powers that are there in our hands in this Parliament to create full employment for young people and for people across Scotland, and we need to do that. In terms of democratic accountability, Nicola Sturgeon said again that surely we can be trusted in this Parliament to have the powers that we need. I would say that yes, surely we can, but surely local government can be trusted, local councils can be trusted to have the powers that they need to tackle issues in local communities, and yet what we have seen over the past number of years is a centralisation of powers up into this Parliament, where local authorities are unable to tackle a lot of the issues that are actually out there. We need to look at how we do that. Bob Doris. I am very careful and interesting to Mr Riley's speech, and he mentioned powers for a purpose. I have heard that quite a lot. I will get many constituents. It is estimated that 100,000 children have been pushed into poverty, power here over aspects of the tax credit system. Many of my constituents would welcome that, because reforms that have pushed many of those families into poverty. Many of my constituents who voted no would welcome that as well. Is Mr Riley open minded to aspects more thorough and detailed and deep aspects of the welfare system being devolved to this place to protect our most vulnerable constituents and families? I would say two things to you. Firstly, the last Labour Government left it over 200,000 children out of poverty in this country and demonstrated that that can be achieved where is a political will to do that. Secondly, I do not actually believe that the way to lift people out of poverty is to increase benefits. The way to lift people out of poverty is to give them the jobs so that they have the independence to be able to provide for themselves. The way to do that is to look at a policy, a full employment in Scotland and cutting the college budgets and denying young people the opportunities, skills and training. We need to be more ambitious. We have an education sector sitting down there just now. We need to look at vocational as well as academic education. We need a radical programme for Scotland. We already have a lot of the powers in place to be able to do that. We have more powers coming in 2015, and we need to use those powers for that purpose, tackling poverty and equality, and then the powers that will come through the Smith commission itself. Finally, I would like to make the point that I do not support the idea that 100 per cent of the income tax is being devolved. I do see it as a Tory trap. I think that it is being used by the Prime Minister for other reasons. I certainly believe that we should be looking at 75 per cent being devolved to the Scottish Parliament taxation, but we should then be able to look at VET and 50 per cent of that revenue is being devolved to the Scottish Parliament, so making that cost neutral and creating the opportunity where 54 per cent of the spending in 2016 is controlled by this Parliament. Now, no doubt those discussions will continue within the Smith commission, and I certainly welcome the view within the Parliament that people will go into that way, I know in mind. However, remember that it is powers for a purpose. Let's start using the powers that we have. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer, and I'm delighted to be speaking in this debate this afternoon. The Smith commission does have an opportunity to help to bring forward proposals for real substantial powers for this Parliament, and it has the opportunity to take this Parliament and the people of Scotland forward by plugging some of the gaps in the democratic deficit that currently exists. I believe that the Smith commission will do that. I believe that it will produce a report that will contribute to that. I'm sure that every party that is a member of the Smith commission will clearly fight for their own corner and their own case, but at the same time compromise to allow a report of substance to be produced. I do think, however, that there are limitations to what the Smith commission can achieve. Firstly, with the short timeframe—not of the making of those in the SNP benches, of course—can it actually fully take cognisance of civic Scotland and the wider population? Secondly, where is the guarantee that the report from the Smith commission will be implemented in full and unamended at Westminster? I believe that the Smith commission has to look at two key issues. First of all, what powers can be devolved to Scotland to bring about real social change to help us to create a stronger economy with more jobs while protecting public services, and secondly, tackling inequality within our country? To do any of those two things, it must build upon the active engagement of the people of Scotland that we witness throughout the whole referendum campaign. As Democrats, we should all be proud of the unprecedented levels of voter registration, engagement and participation in the referendum, but clearly the result did not go the way that I wanted it to do, but that does not mean that I do not recognise positives from the actual process. We cannot let that level of political engagement simply dissipate and disappear, but we all have a duty to do what we can to encourage everyone to retain their interest and participation in their political process. Clearly, the electorate voted for change. Politicians from both sides of the debate have acknowledged that and, indeed, promises made before the referendum itself indicated that the status quo is no longer viable. Certainly, the Prime Minister, in his pre-referend of speech in Aberdeen, he has stated that business as usual is not on the ballot paper. The status quo is gone. The campaign has swept it away. There is no going back to the way things were. We also know that, from various surveys, the majority of voters want change. They do not want to go back to the old business as usual style of politics. They and we need real change, the impacts on everyday lives of voters, their families and all the communities across Scotland. The vast majority of the Scottish people are now expecting and demanding more powers to come to this Parliament. That is what the majority of the no campaign offered, and that is what is anticipated. The Sunday Herald published a survey that indicated overwhelming support for new powers, from all taxation to welfare and benefits, from divo max to broadcasting. The simple fact is that the people of Scotland are now more politically aware and active than ever before, and it is time to deliver for them. The Electoral Reform Society of Scotland also highlights this point, and it stresses that it feels that there is a vital component missing in the process designed for the Smith commission, which fails to reflect the levels of engagement that we saw during the referendum campaign, and that component is the Scottish people. The commission should be looking at each and every avenue to find a way to maintain the level of public participation that we saw in the referendum campaign, and the deadline for public comments to the commission, as we know, is this Friday. I am sure that colleagues across the chamber have already done what they can to encourage people to contribute to the commission, but the commission should also do everything in its power to engage with the public and civic society. The Electoral Reform Society of Scotland also made a valid point that the public should be more closely involved and their suggestions of a citizen-led process to test the outcome of the Smith commission discussions is something that should also be considered. If the Smith commission is to do its job properly, it must take on both the promises made to the Scottish people by those in the no campaign. It must ensure that the promises of effective, whether it is home rule or deval, max or featherism are towards the end product. The new powers that we get need to help us to create new jobs, protect our public services and tackle the issue of inequality across Scotland. The main political parties have already stated their positions, but we must also take into account the views of the Scottish public. We need to not only have the responsibility for the range of powers. Is the member suggesting that there should be a referendum on the conclusions of the Smith proposals? What I am suggesting is that Mr McNeill has actually listened to the public, so I think that that is important in the democratic process. We need to talk to the public, and if Mr McNeill does not want to do that, that is a matter for him. I think that we need to ensure that we have the responsibility for the range of powers, but the resources to make sure that we can make a positive change. We need to certainly make sure that we have control of as many of the levers as possible. On 8 October, during the Scottish future debate, I asked Gavin Brown if he could guarantee what the Smith commission produces will be enacted and fuelled by Westminster. Clearly, he could not provide that guarantee, and that is one of the points in the whole debate. The power lies at Westminster, and the timetable that is offered by the UK Government and the bulk of the parliamentary scrutiny will take place after the Westminster elections next year. Who knows who will be in power at that point? Who knows what type of dynamics will be in the political process? A strong report from the Smith commission gives us the chance to have something meaningful for this Parliament and the people of Scotland, and a strong report from the Smith commission reflecting the promises made during the referendum campaign will maintain the pressure upon Westminster. I believe that we will get that report from the Smith commission, but I am less convinced in the Westminster elite to not water it down as it goes through the parliamentary process at Westminster. Thank you. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. We have heard many ideas about what powers should come to this Parliament, and powers for a purpose seem to be the consensus in the term of today. This country of ours has come through and is still going through the most amazing transformation from fantastic debates in commit communities, in schools, on buses, in parks, in every single walk of life pre-referendum and now post-referendum. The future of Scotland is a topic of debate. It is being debated and it has continued to be debated what Scotland needs to be a fair, prosperous and innovative nation. Responsibility to deliver on this has fallen to all of us. Our representatives on the Smith commission have a tall order to deliver, but it is one that I think is vital to the future prospects of our people. There is no one I know who does not know what divo max means, and that is incredible. We have the most politically educated electorate on the planet, so there is no pulling the wool over our constituent's eyes, no chance whatsoever. Lord Smith, a man I have worked with on the future of the University of the West of Scotland, has a tough job, but one that I think he can handle with great skill and great humility. What powers? That is the question. There are many areas that we can focus on, but I want to focus on just a few of them today. Welfare. One of the enduring themes of the referendum debate is the impact of poverty on the people of Scotland. The common will, if you have not read it, please go and read it and focus very strongly on what we need to do to bring this issue of poverty to the fore and deal with it. As do many civic organisations also, but it is one of the main issues that came from the debate, was how do we make our people less impoverished, more advantaged and give them the opportunities they need to do that. So nothing short or full devolution of welfare will do to tackle the inequality in this, the third most unequal country in the developed world. Devolution of all benefits, not just housing benefit and the associated capacity assessments would allow this place to address the real hardships that our people have endured and continue to endure. Equality and human rights is another area that I wish to focus on, given the luch to the right Westminster on human rights. It is imperative to protect those hard fought for rights that we have. The Scottish human rights commission needs to get on with its work to protect and enhance our human rights and be a beacon for the rest of the world. Scotland does lead the way and is a beacon for the rest of the world on the subject with its Scottish national action plan on human rights. One of the things that my colleague Kevin Stewart mentioned, and it is one thing that I championed here before recess, was the right to vote at 16. That is something that is fundamental to our democracy and we have seen how well our young people took part in that. That leads me to another key power that needs devolved and is intrinsically linked with human rights. We need the power over immigration and asylum to be devolved to this Parliament. We need to address the demographic needs that we have as far as skill shortages and the academics that we need in our universities. We need to get away from the dog whistle politics from all Westminster parties on those seeking sanctuary and legitimate work and study in our country. That will allow us to get on with the good anti-trafficking work away from the anti-EU rhetoric coming from Westminster. On top of all those, employment law legislation and health and safety at work laws, I am sure that our trade unions would relish having those laws brought to this place. The most important currency that we have in our country of Scotland is our people. Getting back to empowering our people means ensuring that people do not rely on in-work benefits. It takes me back to the key point of ensuring that this place can deal with poverty in all its means. That means devolving the powers on the minimum wage, enabling this place to pay a fair day's work. Fair days pay for a fair day's work. This place should decide and that should be a priority for us all. What do we pay our people for the work that they do for our nation? Devolution of powers, what should they be, was the question that I asked at the start. Maybe we should be looking at it from the opposite point of view, and Murdo Fraser and Malcolm Chishol may not like that, but maybe we should be looking at the very few powers that should possibly be shared and not just what we should be devolved. The general public, i.e. our constituents, Murdo Fraser's constituents and Malcolm Chishol's constituents know exactly what devo max means. In fact, I think that it was actually coined by a previous Secretary of State for Scotland if my information is correct. It is not a nationalist con. It is not a nationalist myth. Devo max, people know exactly what it means. Let's not pull the wool over their eyes. Let's get on with it. Let's work with the Smith commission. Let's do what the people of Scotland want. I believe that there are 10,000 people who have contributed to the Smith commission so far. The people of Scotland are awake. They will not go back in the box. They will not give up their voice now that they have found it, and neither should we on their behalf. Let's work to the aspirations of the most important aspect of this debate, the people of Scotland and the people should be heard. Before I come, Siobhan McMahon could just say if members have electronic devices on in the chamber, could they ensure that they are on silent please? Siobhan McMahon to be followed by Jamie Hepburn. I am pleased to be asked to participate in this afternoon's debate on the Smith commission. As others have said, the referendum result could not be clearer. The people of Scotland have spoken and they have said that they wish to remain in the UK. However, the result does not mean that they want the status quo. I note that there is agreement on all sides of this chamber about this. My constituents and others wish to see a stronger Scottish Parliament within the UK. I agree and I am sure that the Smith commission will deliver that. I am excited by the process, not necessarily because of the promise of new powers for this place, but because everyone who has an opinion on what is best for Scotland and the UK has the opportunity to have their say and will have their voices heard. That will not mean that everyone will have their proposals accepted, but I hope that the debate makes us think about the country that we want and will allow us to be open to new ideas. I fully agree with the proposals that are set out in the Scottish Labour paper, particularly that the Scottish Parliament should become permanently entrenched in the constitution, partnership again should be given a legal existence, the Parliament formula should remain as a funding mechanism for public services in Scotland, housing benefits should be devolved to the Scottish Parliament and enforcement of equalities legislation should become a devolved matter. However, I have taken the opportunity to submit my own proposals. I know that not everyone in my own party will agree with those proposals, but it is something that I have been working on for some time now, and I believe that the Smith commission allows me the opportunity to put my ideas out in the public forum for discussion. I have suggested that the entire equality portfolio is devolved from Westminster to Holyrood. When that suggestion was made in 1997, it did not gain support either by Labour or the Conservatives. The Tories suggested that the proposal would undermine the level playing field for business across the UK, and that all within the UK must enjoy the same protection and anti-discrimination law. I believe that that position is no longer tenable. As members will know, I have been a member of the Equal Opportunities Committee since my election in 2011. I have become increasingly frustrated at the lack of real engagement from the Scottish Government, equality bodies and others with regard to the subject matter. I have come to hear every excuse for not doing something purposeful in this area over the last three years, and that led me to research what other countries, similar to Scotland, have done in this area. In particular, I have looked at Northern Ireland. I suggest that this is an example that Scotland should aim to follow. While I recognise that circumstances in Northern Ireland were much different when the devolution of this portfolio area took place, I believe that it can be used as a model for us here in Scotland. As a result of the store month's settlement, the responsibility for equality is the office of the First and Deputy First Minister. As a result, the Assembly has been able to legislate on age, disability, gender, race and ethnicity, religious belief, political opinion and sexual orientation discrimination. With respect to EU legislation, it is the responsibility of Whitehall to inform the Northern Ireland Government of any responsibilities that this may mean for devolved matters. UK ministers retain the power to intervene to make sure that the register complies with EU directives. Their position as having a distinctive body to legislate has enabled them to consider other avenues to potentially widen equality. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has raised issues to be examined by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, such as the rights of the non-citizens to social protection, sectarianism as a form of racism, discrimination on racist hate crime in Northern Ireland, internal immigration control and racial profile and the situation of Irish travellers. The bill-fast agreement gives provision for the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to be consulted and to advise on Westminster's equality legislation, particularly that which is being legislated due to a push from the EHRC to reflect on the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland. Again, we should do something very similar in Scotland. I believe that there is broad support for this change across civil society. The Law Society of Scotland and Stonewall Scotland argue that discrimination law should be devolved because it is closely linked to devolved matters. SCVO has suggested that some of the issues are more pertinent in Scotland than across the UK, such as sectarianism. That sentiment is also agreed by Unison and the EIS. Further, the Equality and Human Rights Commission note that it would be possible to have separate Scottish equality law in devolved areas such as housing and health, and that the Scottish courts and a potential Scottish equality commission could enforce that. In some legislative areas, so-primisee would remain at Westminster. However, it should still be possible to have a distinct Scottish equality position. I understand that there will be many pitfalls to devolve in this particular portfolio area, and it is not an either that could be devolved quickly. I believe that the Smith commission should do what is right by the people of Scotland and by the people of the rest of the UK. Therefore, I would not wish my proposal to have a detrimental impact on either section. I urge the Smith commission to have a serious discussion about the proposal, and if it felt that it could not reasonably argue for the complete devolution of equalities to Holyrood, that it looks to expanding our powers in this area. We already have public sector equality duties. Therefore, I would suggest that we are given the power to establish further duties such as one for social economic factors. That would allow us to judge policies of government like the council tax freeze and see the real impact policies like that have on our communities. I believe that by doing that and by granting us powers of enforcement, we would begin to be serious about equalities legislation in Scotland once again. The campaign that each of us has been engaged in over past months has seen the unleashing of huge interest in the direction of our country amongst the wider public. A massive energy has been created, which I believe will see people far more involved in the civic and political life of Scotland as being the case for some time. That is why I think thousands have made submissions to the Smith commission. I think that that testifies to that energy. Was I to recognise that the will of the people was not for independence although my own area did vote? Yes. I would caution against any person in this chamber using terms such as the settled will of the Scottish people. Drew Smith used that term earlier. His party seemed keen on using that term, but I think that it ill behoves any of us in this chamber to say to the people what their will settled or otherwise might be the people who will determine the future of our country and they will express their will. I will try to return to that theme a little later. I want to turn to where the Smith commission might take it. It seems clear to me that there is great appetite for this Parliament to become equipped with significant additional competences. During the referendum, 1.6 million people voted for independence. That self-evidently would have equipped this Parliament with greater powers, but we know through the Ashcroft poll that 25 per cent of no-voters—one in four—vote because they believed that it would lead to extra powers for this Parliament. We know the panel-based poll that was released to show that 66 per cent of people support devil max. 71 per cent of people support control of all taxation raised in Scotland invested in this Parliament. 75 per cent of people believe that control the welfare and benefit system should be invested in this Parliament. In my own area, there is even greater support. I can say that because it was not to keep Christine Graham happy, but it is maybe a happy coincidence that it will. I have conducted my own survey on the issue. Thus far, responses show that more than 90 per cent of people believe that all taxation should be controlled in this Scottish Parliament. 86 per cent support devil max and 88 per cent believe in the control of the welfare and benefit system. I believe that that has been informed by the experience of the referendum campaign. I believe that the vow by the three union parties was a significant intervention in the referendum. I say to Murdo Fraser, who described it as a so-called vow. We call it that because that is how it was presented. I think that, again, it will be hoped that anyone to suggest that it is a so-called vow, and it was clearly presented to the people of Scotland. I have been concerned about the response of those parties since that time. We saw the motion published at Westminster, which did not refer to certain aspects of the vow, such as the Barnett formula and the Scottish Parliament being made permanent. I have certainly been unconvinced that those same party submissions to the Smith's Commission do not meet the standards of a substantial devolution committed to that vow. On that basis, I do hope that, when we hear from the Conservative party certainly that their proposals are a floor, not a ceiling, that I hope that the Smith's Commission can look to meet. However, I believe that there are the real aspirations of people across Scotland for this Parliament to be equipped with serious new powers that can make real differences to the lives of the people that we represent. I certainly hope that this desire does not, in terms of binding the hands of those on the commission, which seems to be of great concern to have with Scotland. I do believe that, just as those of us who campaigned for a yes vote must accept the referendum result, that those who campaigned for a no vote must accept that there is significant support for substantial devolution of further power, and whether they describe it as a so-called vow or not, I believe that people understand that to be a commitment to them. Sarah Boyack talked of a desire for powers for a purpose. I very much agree with that perspective. That is why I believe that independence has powers for the purpose of making Scotland a fairer country, but we are not in that territory. Some of the powers that I would like to see invested in this Parliament, Presiding Officer, would be the control of electoral administration. We can give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote. I saw that SCVO support the perspective that 16 and 17-year-olds should be given the vote. We also saw the electoral reform society saying something similar as well. Surely, given the conduct of young voters across the referendum experience, no-one is seriously questioning their right to have a vote. I also believe that we should have tax and welfare powers to silence the inequalities, the deep-seated inequalities that we see in our country over the course of the recess. Save the Children published their poverty map, which showed that one in four children living in poverty in eight local authority areas across Scotland, indeed in Glasgow, is one in three. I believe that if we have the real powers to be and to tackle that particular social out, then we can be doing something that is worthy of the term Parliament. I also hope to see that the people will be recognised as part of this further devolution. I hope that it can be invested in this Parliament, which is answerable wholly and solely to the Scottish people. I want to very quickly conclude, because I do not have much time. I want to echo the point that was made by my colleague Stuart McMillan. It is essential that, whatever comes out of the Smith commission, the people of Scotland are involved in that process, lest that energy that I spoke of earlier would not be able to be harnessed. The will of the people that has been talked of might be ignored. I think that that would be a travesty. I hope that the people can be involved in this process. I welcome the Smith commission. I also welcome this debate very much. I am pleased to hear that it is generally welcomed in spite of some challenges about it predicting outcomes or somehow trying to influence the Smith commission. It would be passing strange if this Parliament did not. Can you turn your microphone out slightly? It would be passing strange if we did not debate this topic. For me, one of the important and central themes of the referendum at the time of the great debate was recognising the battle that we have against poverty in Scotland. In general terms, this Parliament has a responsibility to red up the consequences of poverty and inequality issues and policies from elsewhere such as homelessness, illness, crime and unemployment, but very limited powers to prevent those same consequences. It is no longer sufficient for this Parliament to mitigate the effects of an austerity programme, which has no mandate from Scottish voters. The Scottish people have the right, I believe, to choose our own political, economic and social direction. That means that this Parliament must have the powers in areas such as workers' rights, social security and inequalities to set that direction. We have a strong record on equalities in this Parliament, but the powers that we have to build on are limited. After the success of votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, which I have already mentioned by many others, it is impossible to justify taking that right away again, but that is what will happen unless we have granted the power to reduce the voting age for all elections. In this Parliament, there is also a strong belief in improving the representation of women. There is cross-party support for the women 50-50 project, which seeks legislation to improve the gender balance of the chamber, but we have no role in legislating for the election of MSPs. So, as things stand, we would have to beg Westminster to fulfil that ambition for us. The impressive political participation of 16 and 17-year-olds and the drive for equal representation are symptomatic of the search of public engagement in the future of Scotland that has accompanied and followed the referendum on both sides of the debate and has been celebrated by all parties. By contrast, those who want real engagement in UK politics have been forced to occupy Westminster Square in an attempt to be heard and have been met with intimidation and even violence by the authorities. The Scottish people, I say, will not tolerate the promises of radical devolution being buried under the kind of impenetrable elitism and grubby cynnysism that the establishment have employed at Westminster Square. If this process is to meet the expectations of the people of Scotland, it absolutely must be undertaken in the spirit of the referendum campaign, with all the passion, ambition and messy participation that that implies. I think that it is really important that we recognise how we have arrived in this place. Without the Scottish people, the voters of Scotland, albeit a great deal fewer than 84 per cent, we would not have the Scottish Government who delivered the referendum. The referendum has been seen to be one of the most amazing events in Scottish history. Let us not forget that. To walk away from that, it is no good saying that the settled will of the Scottish people when the outcome, so almost 45 per cent of the voting public, declared independence. We have to accept that for people to come that distance was really a massive achievement. Many people voted no for very different reasons, people voted yes for very different reasons, but one thing does seem to be very clear that there is now a real challenge for the Smith commission to make sure that there are real powers delivered for the Scottish Parliament to make the difference and to recognise that none of the policies are standalone. We cannot watch policies on employment policies, on welfare at a distance and expect those policies not to have effect on the powers that are already devolved. For example, the health service, I believe, is affected by those other policies. For me, it is not all about income tax. In fact, it might not even be about income tax, but the powers over other areas of public life are what will really make a difference to Scotland. As we reflect on the events of recent days, there is surely a delicious irony. In former First Ministers, who spent so much of their time in office looking over their shoulders, now asserting the independence of the Scottish body politic against interference from the Westminster political establishment. I mentioned that not through any desire to intrude on the very public grief of the Labour Party in Scotland, but simply to observe that this is now part of the backdrop to the debate that we are having about which further powers should now come to this Parliament. The other important context is the proximity to the referendum, the invigorating, energising and transformative democratic process that we all live through and participated in is one that we can all be proud of. We now need to harness the energy of the campaign, as Christina McKelvie and Jamie Hepburn said, and ensure that the outcome of the Smith commission reflects the views of wider civic society. I also agree with the suggestion of the electoral reform society that we should devolve responsibility for electoral administration and the franchise to the Scottish Parliament to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to continue to vote in Scottish elections, a point made by my colleague Kevin Stewart in his contribution. The referendum result demands not only that we respect the result but that we move the debate on to the next stage of Scotland's home rule journey. We do not have to agree that the result is, as Drew Smith suggested, the settled will of the Scottish people for all time to accept that it does settle the issue of independence for now. If we can agree that independence will not be achieved through the process of the Smith commission, we can also agree that there is now a pressing imperative to deliver further substantial powers to this Parliament, as others have said, powers for a purpose to improve the lives of the people of Scotland. The establishment of the Smith commission means that the further extensive powers promised by the three UK party leaders must come to this parliament if the vow that they made in the closing days of the referendum campaign is to be fulfilled, and if the expectations of the people of Scotland are to be met. It was Martin Luther King who said in the very different context of the struggle for civil rights in the United States, that now is the time to make real the promises of democracy, but his words are relevant to our own debate. It is surely now up to the UK parties to make real their promises. It cannot and must not be a return to business as usual. This debate is not about unionism versus nationalism. It should not be about manoeuvring to achieve short-term party advantage. It cannot be about rerunning the arguments of the referendum. Instead, it must be about achieving the maximum unity on the powers that this parliament needs to improve the lives of the people of Scotland, substantial powers that are consistent with the promises that have been made. I am grateful to the member for giving way. His speech so far tends to suggest, as have many from his colleagues on the back benches, that there is no desire among the unionist parties in this Parliament to deliver extra powers to this Parliament. Can he point to one contribution that has been made by either Labour or ourselves or the Liberal Democrats that suggests that that is the case? It is a very interesting intervention and it does not reflect the views that I have expressed in my speech. Perhaps when the member has a chance to read this speech, he will realise that he is commenting on other members' contributions by other members. I am absolutely of the view that we should seek the maximum unity on which powers should come to this Parliament. That is the purpose of the Smith commission and the party that I represent is constructively engaged in that process. Malcolm Chisholm took issue with the demand for Devo Max, but this is the same Malcolm Chisholm who said on Labour, Hame, Blog and 18 October 2011, that Scottish Labour must respond by developing a Devo Max position. Although, in fairness to Mr Chisholm, he did also go on to highlight the merits of the Devo Plus proposal from Reform Scotland, which I know my colleague Duncan McNeill has supported in the past. I am not fixated nor do I suspect other Scottish people on the language that is used to describe those powers—Devo Max, quasi-federalism, home rule or a powerhouse parliament. The important point is to bring about the transfer of what the motion refers to as substantial further powers for the Parliament and to achieve a coherent package of powers that will endure and that will allow us to make a fundamental difference to people's lives. I am confident that real progress can be made. The Deputy First Minister has set out the need for this Parliament to have control over the range of taxes, both personal and business, control of key economic levers such as employment policy and control over welfare and the minimum wage. I wish to highlight some areas that would benefit from further substantial powers coming to this Parliament. If we all agree that we would like to see greater investment in social housing, can we not remove the barriers to investment that arise from the current treasury rules to help bring about an appropriate financial framework to support such additional investment? If all the parties in this Parliament agree that the UK's post-study visa regime is significantly more restrictive than that applied by a range of competitor countries, can we not agree that this Parliament should be able to devise its own solution to meet Scottish circumstances and to allow overseas students to work in this country and contribute to the growth of our economy? If we are agreed that the roll-out of personal independence payments and universal credit are an attack on the most vulnerable members of our society, can we not unite to insist on the transfer of welfare policy to this Parliament? If we all agree that addressing low pay is a national priority, can we not unite to demand control over the minimum wage so that the Scottish Parliament can increase it annually in line with inflation and improving the lives of thousands of people in Scotland? In 1997, Donald Dure, Alex Salmond and Jim Wallace put aside their differences in order that Scotland could move forward. This is a similar moment when all parties must work together. Let that vital work of the Smith commission continue and let us achieve those powers for a purpose so that we can shape and change Scotland for the better. Thank you. I call Dr Richard Simpson to be followed by George Adam. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity of participating in this debate. It is critical that the Smith commission in fulfilling its difficult task in a fearsomely tight timetable hold to a set of principles. I think that the initial pronouncements from the commission in that respect, agreed by the three parties, is a good start, because unless we base the powers that we are going to obtain in principle, then we are going to have problems in the future. We need to recognise that Scotland does require more powers if it is to play its fullest part within a prosperous United Kingdom, that collectively in prospering we need to tackle poverty, inequality and lack of opportunity. That is the norm for too many of our fellow citizens here but, indeed, across the rest of the United Kingdom. Powers that we ask for or receive should not damage the United Kingdom. Rather than proceed with a long list of powers that should be transferred, I believe that we should start by looking at each power and deciding if this is better held and delivered at a Scottish level. Whether that is at a Scottish level here from Holyrood or whether it is from our communities and local authorities or, indeed, down to our individual smaller communities is a matter that actually has to be debated. I would entirely support Sarah Boyack's speech in this respect. I believe that there is another principle that has not been so far annunciated. That should be whether the Scottish Parliament or, indeed, the Welsh or Northern Ireland Assemblies chooses a different path. The UK Parliament should be barred from penalising the devolved Parliament. An example of that was when Lord Sutherland's UK commission report on personal care came out and in the jurisdictions of England and Wales decisions were reached which awarded different funding for attendance at two different levels and for nursing care while in Scotland we adopted free personal care. Those subsidies in England, those fundings in England, those state subsidies were different but, in total, they amounted to almost the same. Yet the Scottish Parliament has lost out in funding of around £500 million since 2002, so I welcome my party's proposal that attendance allowance and its totality should be transferred to this Parliament. It is the principle that we should not be punished that is important. My understanding of the defence of the Scottish Government in respect of not treating pensions differently in the way that they would have liked to have done as they were indicating was, again, the same principle that, to do so, they would have involved them being punished in a double way for taking an action that they believed in. The principles really are that we must take responsibility for what we do. We must never be in the position where we can actually blame others for things that should lie within our power. The attendance allowance thing I think was regarded very generally across Scotland as being unreasonable and unfair, but yet that whole area of personal care is absolutely fundamental to our future. It is crucial. We have had the Sutherland report and then on through Marmot, Dilnut and now the Barker report from the Kings fund indicating that health and social care are fundamental to the equity and justice of our society, so each jurisdiction must have the power to try its own solutions and take responsibility for them. As a public health spokesperson over the last few weeks, I have been in discussions with a number of experts who have concerns about issues again affecting our community in a different way to that of the United Kingdom. Alcohol, tobacco, obesity and premature death associated with poor nutrition affect the whole of the United Kingdom, but to a greater extent they affect Scotland. They believe that Scotland, as part of tackling those issues, should have powers to levy or not to levy exercise on any food and drink in any way that it wishes. The different public health issues in alcohol, tobacco and other food and drinks resulting in poorer health and higher rates of obesity make this a power that they believe must be transferred. I presume with a reduction in any residual block grant by a proportion that would have reflected our population share of the UK receipts. This is another principle that, where we actually act for something in our society and that creates a benefit, that benefit should accrue to this Parliament and not to the United Kingdom, I believe that is again fundamental to our approach. The example on alcohol is in relation to Canada, where different states have taken different approaches to alcohol taxes for different reasons. For example, at one point, one state had a particular problem with a high alcohol content beer. Sales were soaring. The consequences for those communities and for the health of the communities in crime and other things were significant. That state increased the duty and thereby controlled the sales and reversed the problems. Other states chose to tax in different ways—different types of alcohol—for different problems. I think that that principle is one that is important. Public health and nutrition experts will be watching other nation states and how they attempt to tackle obesity in poor nutrition through fiscal measures. While the juries aren't on many of those issues, I think that Scotland should be free to experiment. It has also been suggested by some of the experts that our Parliament should take powers over marketing and advertising of all food and drink as far as that is possible within the EU. I hope, Deputy Presiding Officer, that the settlement will be a stable one, if not for the younger members' lifetime, at least please God for mine. I hope that the constitutional debate that we have entered into will be in good faith from different parties. I believe that it is, although some of the speeches have seemed to indicate that that is not the case, that is something that I deeply regret. I think that our representatives will go into this with an open mind, as will other unionist parties. It will take stateswomen and statesmen a great deal of effort to achieve a balanced and united settlement that the Scottish people will accept. I wish them well in this endeavour. The final speaker in the open debate is George Adam. I, too, welcome the chance to speak in this debate relating to the Smith commission. Can I first recognise and welcome that all the parties in this Parliament are together in their aim of securing more powers for the people of this country and strengthening this Parliament? That is our starting point. What powers and how much of it this Parliament has is the debate, and it is the important part of that debate. It is no surprise that I believe that independence will still be the best way forward to tackle inequality in Scotland, but that is not for today's debate. That is for another day. The referendum reinvigorated the public with a new interest and hope for the future in our politics, and that is an important part that we have to take forward. We have to ensure that the debates—the many debates that we had during that process with regard to what type of Scotland we wanted, how we wanted to make it—we agreed them so much. There was so much that we actually agreed, and we have to remember that part and ensure that we work towards facing those many challenges, much was said during the debate about the areas of multiple deprivation. The need for more powers to deal with those issues and challenges, those are the debates with the things that we need to have the powers for now so that we can actually make that difference. In many of those debates, I found it a lot more in common with many Labour members. It is just how we got about it and got to the end goal that was the difference, but financial and democratic accountability must be enhanced. The ability to deal with that inequality must be secured, and access to Scotland's own resources must be a priority. Welfare and benefits responsibility should be fully devolved to this Parliament. It is clear that a Government in Scotland should not be using its own resources in order to combat regressive policies from Westminster such as the bedroom tax. I listened to Alex Rowley and disagreed regarding his ideas with job-creating powers. The economic levers must be at hand to create jobs. It is just not sensible that employment in Scotland cannot be controlled by this Parliament because the powers are held elsewhere. The economic environment in Scotland is best examined and understood by those here in Scotland. I also welcome, like some of my other colleagues, the release from Scotland's airports when they say that APD should be devolved to Scotland. Amanda McMillan, managing director of Glasgow airport, said that, if Scotland is to attract the substantial sustained routes that will enable to completely, effectively in a global marketplace, there is imperative that the issue of APD is addressed, a significant barrier to growth and it makes it extremely challenging to maintain our existing routes. That is an example of some power that we must get, and businesses in that area, particularly in my constituency, want us to go down that route. When you look at APD, there was a report recently by Scotland's airports where they said that 2 million passengers per annum APD was costing Scotland's airports. A two-stage report commissioned by them said that by 2016 APD will cost the Scottish economy up to £210 million lost per annum. That is an important part of our economy and is something that we have to ensure. In fact, Scotland's airports have gone on to say that we therefore are of the opinion that the Scottish Government, directed by the Scottish Parliament, is the best place to manage this tax in a way that benefits Scotland. When we enter this debate, we have to do what is best for Scotland and for the people of Scotland, because they believed that we needed extra powers to ensure that they wanted change and that they wanted extra powers so that we could make such changes. Other tax powers say that current proposals are for 85 per cent of tax revenues in Scotland to remain reserved. I can reveal that I have not come across one person who says that that is right, George. 15 per cent is enough. We do not want any more. We just want to keep it as that. Everyone else in Scotland is far too ambitious to make the type of change that we want to make. Why would they say that? That is just ludicrous. The problems that we have are the decisions that have been made by individuals. Some people in this chamber would call prehistoric at Westminster, determined to cling on to their jobs and their influence. The priorities of this parliament should be the priorities of the people of Scotland. I think that that has been one of the things that has come across mostly in this debate here today. The Scottish public has faith in that institution. The Scottish social attitudes survey has shown that only 22 per cent of Scots want welfare decisions to be handled by Westminster and only 32 per cent want Westminster to have control over taxation. They know that the Scottish Parliament is more likely to get a better deal for them when it comes to job creation, the NHS, welfare taxation and social justice. It is about time that the Scottish branch of the London Labour Party realised that as well. Also, a recent panel-based poll has shown overwhelming support for the Scottish Parliament to control welfare benefits—75 per cent of them, control of pensions—65 per cent, control of oil and gas revenues—68 per cent and control of broadcasts—54 per cent. People in Scotland will not be content with arbitrary bits of this and that being handed down from Westminster. Scotland has changed dramatically since September in our referendum debate. The unionist parties have shown that they are still determined to cling on to the type of politics that has gone on before. We cannot allow that to happen, regardless of party colour. Any politician who does not embrace this need for change, the fact that Scotland has changed forever, will find themselves facing the wrath of the Scottish people. I now turn to the closing speeches. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I have to say that, if nothing else in her opening contribution, Nicola Sturgeon undoubtedly robustly underlined her credentials as the First Minister in waiting when she steadfastly and deftly refused to answer murder phrases—a pretty simple question—on whether, once in a lifetime, it meant what it said. She clearly served her apprenticeship well, although it does not give me a lot of comfort that we are going to achieve much more clarity at future First Minister's questions than we have done in the past. Nonetheless, I am just about to become gallant, Mr Swinney. Nonetheless, I wish her well when she takes on that role. I am genuinely delighted to be winding up this debate this evening for the Scottish Conservatives, because the subject of enhanced powers for this Parliament is one in which I have long held a keen interest. From the very outset of this Parliament in 1999, it has seemed to me that we have suffered from what I can only call an accountability deficit in terms of how we spend our budget. A process that the late and very much lamented David McLeach used to point out regularly was more of a redistribution exercise than a genuine budget, especially when the allocation for the vast majority of the available funding is predetermined anyway. That accountability deficit is what has allowed successive Scottish Governments to pick the low-hanging fruit, if you like, of free prescriptions, free bus transport for the over-60s, free this, free that, while simultaneously being able to point the finger of blame at the Westminster whenever they have come under financial pressure. That system, expedient though it undoubtedly is for those in government, does nothing at all to make me or any other member of this Parliament truly accountable to our electorate. That, surely, is one of the basic principles of democracy. Without embracing that principle wholeheartedly, we are not, in my view, really a properly functioning Parliament. I look forward eagerly to the day that that accountability deficit is finally addressed, as I hope it will be. I had the great pleasure of working with both Tavish Scott and Duncan McNeill on the Devo Plus group. I was always keen to be involved in that initiative, because as soon as it became clear that we were indeed to have a referendum on Scotland's constitutional future, I was convinced that the electorate would demand, and indeed deserved, to know what I can only call the consequences of a no vote—the consequences of a yes vote being pretty obvious. I felt that the Devo Plus proposals provided a pretty good starting point, a basis, if you like, for a long-term sustainable constitution settlement that could take us many decades into the future. Not for a minute did I agree with every last detail of Devo Plus, and I don't believe my two parliamentary colleagues did either, but it was a carefully costed and fully appraised proposal that did indeed provide a possible way forward following a no vote in the referendum. Now we've had that no vote. Despite the full resources of the Government being thrown into the campaign for independence to convince the Scottish Government to convince the people of Scotland to vote for independence, those same people have decisively rejected that option, preferring instead to secure Scotland's place within the United Kingdom for the foreseeable future. There is no mistake about that. It is clear, and that has to be our starting point in this debate. Indeed, the consequences of that no vote are now also clear, in that the process is now underway with commendable speed, as Murdo Fraser noted, to try to secure that long-term sustainable constitutional future, and it falls to Lord Smith and his commission to bring that about. Now that is an onerous responsibility, and it surely falls on every participant in the commission to work with equal passion and vigor to bring about a successful outcome. As a member of the Strathclyde commission, I naturally commend its recommendations as a astound starting point in the process. However, I don't think that this debate should have been about the minutiae of what should and shouldn't be devolved, or about individual parties' proposals, much as some members might have liked it to be. In fact, I regret that that has been the case, because it is, as some members have pointed out, the work of the Smith commission, not of this Parliament. Rather, I think that this debate should have been about the broad principles and the desire to work together towards a genuinely positive outcome that will deliver what the majority of the Scottish people have robustly voted for. Like Richard Simpson, in what I thought was an exceptionally good speech this afternoon, I was enormously heartened by the statement issued by Lord Smith at the end of the commission's first meeting last week. There were three points in particular that caught my attention, and they were firstly that the eventual outcome would strengthen the Scottish Parliament within the UK, and secondly that it would bring about a durable but responsive constitutional settlement that maintained Scotland's place within the UK, and thirdly that it would not cause detriment to the UK as a whole or its constituent parts. I think that those three principles, Presiding Officer, are hugely important because they signal an end to the we was robbed rhetoric that has, in my view, received far too much publicity of late. If all those sitting round Lord Smith's table really have signed up to and committed to those principles, then we can all be truly optimistic of a positive outcome and an infinitely better and more accountable devolutionary settlement than the one that we currently operate under. I hope that I misunderstood the Deputy First Minister when she seemed to suggest in her opening contribution that, unless her definition of divo max was delivered by Lord Smith, then she would find his recommendations unacceptable. I hope that you will allow me a little time to talk about that. First Minister, this is an intervention that is meant in good faith. I am sure that the member would also have heard me saying that I accept not just that independence will be the outcome of that but that we will not get everything that we ask for. We are in this in good faith. I am simply asking everybody to do likewise. Alex Ferguson, I will reimburse your time. Thank you very much indeed, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I appreciate that because I was going to go on to say that I would give it the benefit of the doubt because the Deputy First Minister did go on to agree that the process will require give and take. It will require a willingness to compromise, as Alex Rowley said, and accept that no single participant will walk away from this with all of their preferred options having been met. That is inevitable, but the prize at the end of the day, Presiding Officer, is simply massive. Smith is not Kalman Mark II. This is not a cross-party response to an electoral outcome. This is Scotland's future that we are all talking about. It is a future in which we all have an equal interest and about which I hope that you would all agree that we are all equally passionate. That future rests in the hands of Lord Smith, and I am sure that I am not alone in wishing him well as he goes about his work. If he gets it right, then I believe that the Government's still-preferred option of independence can be put to bed, not just for Nicola Sturgeon's lifetime, but for several lifetimes after that. The Deputy Presiding Officer There is, I think, a certain discomfort in taking part in this debate for those of us who are members of the Smith commission. I think that Mr Scott alluded to that as well, and colleagues from other parties have chosen not to take part in the debate, and I think that that is an entirely reasonable position as well. Let me say a couple of words about it. We had our first meeting of the commission last week, and it was followed indeed by some fun at our expense by the media, who were laughing about the fact that all of us emerged all saying that the meeting had been positive and constructive. Indeed, such impressive message disciplined across five parties when some of us sometimes struggled with that among our comrades and friends. It was impressive, but that was simply the shared truth of the beginning of this sincere and serious process. In that meeting, we did agree that we should not hold our discussions in public across this chamber or in TV studios night after night, so I did want to close the debate, but I restrict myself really to some reflections on the contributions to the debate, the starting point for Smith's deliberations, and indeed to the principles agreed by all in that first meeting because they have already been made public. Those principles of the Smith commission are, of course, quite important. Many SNP speakers, I would argue, have tried to rather misrepresent the promises that were made by various illustrious personages from Gordon Brown to Nick Clegg to David Cameron to Ed Miliband. Indeed, Christina McKelvie made an entire speech on the basis of a promise that exists only in her own febrile imagination and not anywhere in the real world, but Annabelle Ewing made the fatal mistake of reading out the promises that were made. Those promises were that there will be substantial new powers for this Parliament, extensive new powers, as if there was any doubt that that is going to happen. The Smith commission itself is the guarantee that more powers and greater fiscal responsibility will come to this Parliament. You would have to be the greatest cynic in the world to believe that that was not the case. The principles agreed by all of us on the Smith commission are the promise that those powers will be substantial and significant and durable, extensive new powers, as promised. To your credit, the Deputy First Minister in her opening remarks accepted that the whole context of the Smith commission is the decisive endorsement by the Scottish people of devolution and a rejection in the referendum of independence. Indeed, the arguments for independence were made, elaborated, examined and debated for three long years. The weight of the entire Scottish Government at civil servants and the taxpayer's resources were thrown behind those arguments, and they were rejected, not by one or two per cent but by more than 10 per cent. Any turnout universally acknowledged as remarkably high, some 25 per cent more Scots said no than said yes, and it is from this result that the Smith commission springs. The Deputy First Minister's creditable tone was rather undermined, I thought, by some of her colleagues when they spoke, colleagues such as Christine Grahame, who it seemed to me is now engaged in the old Brechtian tradition of electing a new people because they did not give her the result that she wanted in the vote. I realised that. Christine Grahame, I wanted to intervene earlier because she talked about one of the principles of the Smith commission being to form a substantial set of powers, but you missed another part out. It is a substantial and cohesive set of powers, so if one is dealing with tax, it would seem to me that one would have to deal completely with the benefits system at the same time. With that point a little later on, because I want to talk a bit about employability in particular and make a similar point in fact. Anyway, I realised that the SNP still believes that they were in our right about independence, and I can even see why the Scottish Government's starting position regarding Smith had to be the maximalist position task for everything. Murdo Fraser was right when he said that to argue for devolution of all powers that set defence and foreign affairs is to argue for de facto independence. It is to open us up to exactly the risks that were so exhaustively debated over recent years and so clearly rejected by the Scottish people only weeks ago. The Scottish Government's proposals, just to give one example, would leave the Scottish economy disproportionately dependent on volatile and declining oil revenues even in the few weeks since the referendum. Oil prices have fallen as low as $84, a barrel and less. The OBR estimates of oil revenues, reviled by the Scottish Government for their pessimism, now look wildly over-optimistic and the Scottish Government's own figures now look laughably dangerously wrong. All the calculations from independent bodies that an independent Scotland would face, cuts in austerity of a greater order than the UK, apply just as clearly to the independence-like proposals that they have presented to Smith as they did to independence. Perhaps more importantly, for where we are now, the Scottish Government proposals would also, in our view, breach not one but at least four of the Smith principles. It would not protect Scotland's place in the United Kingdom. Indeed, they are designed to do quite the opposite. Those proposals would certainly cause detriment to Scotland and, indeed, to the rest of the UK. In truth, if SNP colleagues feel differently, they will need to come up with a more substantial rigorous argument than a panel-based poll from the Sunday Herald one Sunday. The Deputy First Minister made some interesting comments on Barnett when she revealed that those proposals are the only proposals that would leave Barnett redundant after a transitional period. As for our own proposals on tax, they are the product of almost two years of consideration by the devolution commission. They hold fast to the principle that we believe in redistribution and fiscal balancing, we believe in a shared tax and benefit system, and we believe that that works better for the benefit of our people when it operates across the United Kingdom. That is why, for example, we have argued that income tax should be significantly more devolved to this Parliament, but it should remain a shared tax. I understand that others on the Smith commission have struck that balance differently, and we will listen to the arguments that they make, but they do have to convince us that their proposals are consistent with the agreed principles of Smith and in the best interests of Scotland. However, we remain open-minded to those arguments. We should not, though, see Smith solely in terms of tax. We want to see a rounded package of proposals that enhances this Parliament's ability to make things better for Scotland's people. We called our own commission report, Powers for a Purpose, a title that I see in the highest form of flattery almost every SNP speaker has hijacked for themselves. We want to see enhanced powers to get more people into work and, as Alex Rowley said, to get more people not just into jobs, but into better jobs, too. For example, through the devolution and improvement of the work programme, we want to add to the already extensive powers and responsibilities in housing by devolving housing benefit, allowing a new powerful approach to turning that resource to increasing housing supply rather than simply propping up a private rented sector that needs reform. Housing benefit is the second-largest benefit after pensions, so that is no small proposal but a significant and bold change for a purpose, exactly about delivering for those who most need it in the way Ms Sturgeon referred to in her opening. The story of devolution has always been about change and growing responsibility. We can spend the next 12 weeks refreshing, restructuring and reinvigorating this Parliament as the electorate of charged us with doing, or we can spend the next 18 months refighting the referendum, rehashing the arguments that we have had for so long and trying to rewrite the result. We, on this side of the chamber, certainly will do the former, seize the opportunity of Smith in good faith with open minds and with the best interests of Scotland at heart. Cabinet Secretary, you have until 5.30pm. Politics is always about the unexpected, but it is also the art of the possible. A no vote happened, that is unavoidable, no ifs, no buts, but let's understand that some other things happened too and have happened since the referendum. The first of those important things is the massive engagement in politics. We saw not only the largest turnout ever, but Scotland has been energised and politicised by the experience of the referendum. If you wanted proof of that, it would be the membership of what I suppose you would call the yes alliance parties up massively. In my constituency, it is up almost fivefold from when I was selected four years ago, and that influence is being seen already. Politics is changing. I don't want to call in evidence all the experiences in Argyll, but the open north and lawn by-election last week, the no parties couldn't prevail in a seat in which they won by a massive increase in their vote just on 17 July. I congratulate the new councillor, Ian McLean, but the real issue here is the work that was done by the yes forces in that ward. There is an energy in politics that there wasn't two years ago. We have an understanding of what happened during the referendum, and that is vitally important. Ashcroft polling has been referred to, but a quarter of no voters made their decision based on the promise of more powers, based on the so-called vow that Murdo Fraser referred to, and based on the clunking interventions of Gordon Brown in words that may come to haunt him as close to a federal state as you can be. The public—this is important, particularly for those who tried to reserve the issue—understood what extensive new powers mean. They mean just that, not just the powers that the existing Westminster parties might get away with. Let me call in evidence no one other than the former First Minister, Jack McConnell. Writing just last week said that, I believe very strongly that expectations have been raised in Scotland by the slightly panicked reaction by the pro-union parties in the last 10 days of the referendum campaign. He went on to say that the current proposals from all three UK-wide parties do not meet that expectation. That needs to be reflected upon by all the Westminster parties. What you have offered up until now isn't good enough. I am grateful to Mr Russell for giving me an example of any federal country in the world, as he has used that word, that operates the system of dival max as proposed by the Scottish Government. Can you give him an example of a federal country in the world, for example, that shares responsibility for immigration? That is Canada. There are many federal countries that have substantial powers that are not available to this Parliament. The reality is that the problem that Mr Fraser is trying to get away from is a problem that is made by the Westminster parties. It is a problem of their making, it is a price that they paid for the panic vow, it is a price of their victory in the referendum and it is a price that is going to be demanded by the Scottish people. There is no doubt about it. To be fair, that is why the Smith process is under way. It is a choice of the Prime Minister to do it that way. He said that he would not, as the other leaders said in June and in August, but his hand was forced by events, so things have changed. I am personally very supportive of Robert Smith, I think that we all are. He was a good university chancellor, he was a great Commonwealth Games chairman, he had a distinguished career, he was influential as a BBC governor, perhaps we could do with him again. I was pleased to work with him on the governance review in higher education, he is even a brandane by marriage and a big shinty supporter. He will have the support of this Government and he will have the support of the party of which I am a member, but the issue here is that we must avoid the failures of the past in their twofold. The first of which is that we must avoid the failure of 1979, promises made, Alec Douglas-Hugham, better devolution will be along in a moment, 20 years it took before there was any change, that must not happen again. I am very glad that Alec Ferguson referred to the Kalman as well, because we must not have the mistakes of the Kalman process. I will never forget the launch of the Kalman report in June 2009. I was Minister for the Constitution, I went for the launch over at Dynamic Earth and I watched Kent Kalman totally failing to explain his own taxation proposals and he eventually had to call members of his own commission to explain them and upstepped that man who was never shy but never any great friend of constitutional progress Ian McMillan and he couldn't explain them either and then hovering the background was Jim Gallagher trying to argue for further change. Kalman was a process, a reaction to the SNP victory. It was not about making change, it was trying to get away with as little change as possible. It was not responding to what Scotland actually needed, Mr Gray. Will the cabinet secretary accept that one of the failures of the Kalman process was the failure of his party and government to support, participate or take part in any way in that process to develop new powers for this Parliament until, in a panic reaction at the last minute, he changed sides? I shall come to that point just a minute, because I am about to make the point about what has changed. Of course, Kalman unraveled, not just at the time, it unraveled when those two great heroes of Scottish power, Jim Murphy and Gordon Brown, who were in government at the time, reacted to Kalman. The reality of Kalman is, out of all the proposals, 18 happened and 17 didn't. That is rather an interesting balance. Of course, when the Tories and Liberals were elected, they managed to produce a bill that had no reference to what Scotland actually wanted and no reference to the Scottish Government, they just did it. Now, we don't want another Kalman process. What we need to have is an inclusive process that is positive about change. The big difference is the one that Ian Gray has referred to. The big difference is that this Government and this party will take part and is taking part in an exercise about powers—and I use the phrase powers with a purpose—because it is a process with a purpose, too. The difference is that, in taking part in this matter, we can in actual fact reflect what the people of Scotland are saying. Alec Rowley was extremely interested in that, and I want to comment on that. He used a word timid about Labour's proposal. He also made a gesture towards the Tories, towards the Strathclyde Commission, as Gordon Brown has done, in talking about VAT and the powers of VAT. There is the beginning of some movement, away from timidity, towards some recognition of where Scotland actually is. Unfortunately, Tavis Scott did not do the same. He carped about the Crown Estates. The reality is that the Liberals offered change in the Crown Estates in their manifesto. They failed to deliver in government at Westminster. We have already made proposals that have vastly in excess of what the Liberals' proposals are. I think that there is a little sign of sense settling in some Labour benches. There is none at all as far as I can see from the Lib Dems. I want to concentrate on three contributions that are important. Richard Simpson's contribution was very important because he did make absolutely essential point the financial benefits and the risks of policy decisions made by this Parliament have to be experienced by this Parliament. That was, for example, what underlaid the issue of transformational childcare. That is a principle, and I entirely agree with Richard Simpson that needs to be observed. Siobhan MacMahon talked about devolution of equalities. I absolutely agree. I am glad that she recognised the difficulties that the current Scottish Government has had. I want to have quotas in FE and HE, but that power is not devolved to this Parliament, so we need to get hold of those powers. I want to refer to what Jamie Hepburn said, because his critique of Drew Smith was absolutely correct. The words settled will are not a statement of a finality about a particular constitutional settlement. They are about the settled will of transforming power to Scotland. That was John Smith's settled will, but there is no settled will about the nature of that. Donald Dewar recognised in his very first speech in his chamber that it was a process, not an event. The reality of the situation is that the range, depth and scope of the desire for change is there and continues. There is, in actual fact, a rising tide in Scotland in terms of a desire for change. It cannot be constrained, it cannot be reduced, it must be acknowledged, respected and acted on. It is the job of the Smith commission to do that, and that will have the whole heart of support of the SNP and the Scottish Government. However, it has to react to the reality of that situation, not to put it in a straight jacket of proposals made before the referendum, before the vow, before the promises that were made in panic, as Jack McConnell says. In 75 years ago, Louis McNeese asked a question in the autumn journal, which requires to be answered. What is it that we want really? For what end and how? Scotland won't be content with evasions, half-answers and sophistry failure to deliver. It wants a comprehensive response to the question that it has asked delivered without delay. The referendum is over, but the promise was made. We will be part of answering that question, willingly part of it, but there will have to be a significant step forward. It is not those benches that are asking for it, it is the people of Scotland. That concludes debate on Scotland's devolution commission, as the Smith commission is now time to move the next item of business, which is consideration of motion number 11314, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on the criminal justice and courts bill, UK legislation. I call on Kenny MacAskill to move the motion, cabinet secretary. The motion will put a decision time to which we now come. There are three questions to be put as a result of today's business. The first question is at amendment number 11301.1, in the name of Ewing Gray, which seeks to amend motion number 11301, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on the Scotland Devolution Commission, the Smith commission will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The amendment is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 11301, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, as amended. On Scotland Devolution Commission, the Smith Commission will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. The next question is at motion number 11314, in the name of Kenny MacAskill, on the criminal justice and courts bill, UK legislation, will be agreed to. Are we all agreed? The motion is therefore agreed to. That concludes decision time. We now move to members' business. Members who are leaving the chamber should do so quickly and quietly.