 Pus wrth gwrs ellaw, cyffieis resultau teimlo yn sortond haffodol defnyddio gan y chmarwg a chweyletu moedd. Daiddann i нуath nesaf eich gwneud i gael arniwhyddiol fel Merhe Ofswiol flylli Hyeningen. Felly, mae'n gweithio eich gweithiodd yn cyflwy surgeryr honno i gael, eu chynigodd ei dangos gwnaetheaddweud mae'n bwysig wrth llawer nawr i sgwrs ohertyn hynny. Rwyf wedi myfyrdd blwyddo同 y debate â blyddäddiau hiюсь ei hearau yma hefyd. Siarad neu meddwl ar gwedi'i localolaeth ryeb bod mae hopedgwyddo'i g BBMI a gydaethau ei reddvo a bynnaen nhw hwnnw lle i gael ffaintrl talsu a chyf Birdsw九 because that ddechrau bod成if ymddangos uneddogion sy'n osupatig gyda ni hefyd aill a lsprwyr yn fwyaf hynny cael ei wneud ti'n gwlad. Mae'r hystyriedau i ddefnyddio gan blaenau allanodol i ddwy teimlo i draws a'u'r gweithio. Felly fod ni'n gwybod dweud, ddwy bawd, bwydden nhw i'r hunain, i'r cyflwn bwyd, dwi'i'n edrych o gydag y Llywodraeth pengrifennu a fyddai'n ddefnyddio i gael. Mae'n gwrdd iawn i gael benefynol yn cael ei gwasanaeth cyd-diwydig o'r holl gwerthwyr i ddorog, i gael ei fffortiaeth sy'n effodus prifoedd o'r cyfnodol. We are living in an extremely unequal society where the riches can enjoy a good life and the worst off are in dire poverty, more likely to experience serious health issues and require significant support needs. It's perhaps harder to see because those in the public eye, celebrities, high earners, MPs with fortunate backgrounds can seem to represent the UK in more than just TV interviews but they do not. Financial times analysis last year described the UK more accurately as a poor society with some very rich people in it. Another accurate description can be found in Dick Goughan's lyrics, they make the laws to serve them well and feed the rich while poor men starve. That is the hard truth. Half of the people in this country account for 9 per cent of the wealth and Conservative governments do their best to ensure that that gap keeps getting bigger. This is normal to us but it is not normal. The same Financial Times analysis found that the poorest Irish household has a standard of living almost 63 per cent higher than the poorest in the UK. Other younger nations like Slovenia are also likely to, from next year, have a higher average standard of living than us. The message that I want to get out there is that there are better ways forward than what we are used to. There are alternative economic ideologies to conservatism and we can redistribute wealth so that nobody has to experience extreme poverty. There are examples of alternatives across Europe and there is also a clear one presented in the Scottish Government's building of new Scotland papers. We could be more like European neighbours such as Sweden, Ireland, Finland and Denmark who use their full powers to achieve a fairer society as well as economic success. Being taken out of Europe against the wishes of the Scottish electorate has led my region of the Highlands and Islands to lose out on funding, we previously relied on for projects that improve the economy of rural and island communities as well as the lives of the people living in them. The replacement funding that we have seen so far has fallen far short of what we used to get and far short of what Whitehall promised. There is a big lie that we are taught that the huge gap between the richest and poorest in this society is a necessary side effect of having a healthy economy. Firstly, I would argue that that is not a worthwhile sacrifice in the first place, but secondly, it is not even true. Conservative capitalist policies have resulted in an unequal society and the UK being the only country in the G7 forecast to have negative growth, worse than Russia, which has been facing international sanctions for almost a year. I have always found that people will try to put those of us who did not grow up learning about stocks and shares and did not study PPI at Oxbridge off-debating financial policy using buzzwords and talking about the businesses that they run, investment funds, using frames of reference that are so far removed from what most of us will ever experience, that it seems like there is no room in the debate for those on the left. But there is, because even if you believe that a more socialist approach to public spending would crash the economy, I have to ask at this point what have you got to lose, because Conservative and neoliberal capitalist policies have just crashed the economy. Let's give something else a try. Successive Tory UK governments have historically fixed or miracurately covered up cash flow issues that they like to pretend don't exist under conservatism by selling off public services. However, the problem with that is that once you've sold off the Royal Mail, you can't sell it off again. All that's done is give future governments the issue of having to deal with private interests running roughshod over workers' rights with ministers no longer able to force changes to paying conditions and having nobody but its own institution to blame. People deserve a government that will do better than that, that will acknowledge issues and tackle them rather than pretend it's not happening. Most people, whether they are personally managing or not, do not want to live in a country where kids grow up hungry and in poverty when there's no need for it. Most want public services to be run in the interests of the public, not private shareholders. Most are happy to pay their share to make sure that they don't live in that kind of country. That's what we have to remember when we are making decisions here on things like taxes, like the Scottish Government has done this year by asking those on the highest incomes to pay one pay more on their top rate of tax. Taxes are not like giving to charity. Living in a civilised society where opportunity is available to everyone isn't or certainly shouldn't be a charity case. I don't want to go out and ask rich folk to consider giving money to the cause of people not being left destitute because they needed to access what should be a public service free at the point of need. That's why taxes are not optional. They are the price of living in a country that provides you with security and public services. I'm personally happy to pay a lot more in tax than someone earning what I used to earn three years ago for the sake of the Scottish Government being able to pay money to kids growing up in poverty. The Scottish Government is doing more than any other administration in the UK to help those who need it most and reduce inequality, introducing measures like the Scottish child payment unique in the four nations and working on proposals for a minimum income guarantee. Imagine what more we could do with the powers of independence because we have everything it takes to become a successful, fair, internationalist nation, apart from not being tied to a Westminster that brings us Brexit, cost of living crises and austerity. The UK economy is not strong and stable. It hasn't got broad shoulders. It is failing the people of Scotland. The Opposition will continue to criticise us for highlighting these facts, but people need to know. People deserve to know why the promises of prosperity and opportunity never appear and they need to know how much fairer other countries, which are doing what the SNP wants to do, are. If other countries in Europe can tackle inequality through independence in Europe, why not Scotland? I would like to thank Emma Roddick for bringing this debate. I found it quite interesting a lot of what she was saying. The cost of living crisis that she has referred to is something that we all have to live with. We should be under no illusions that this cost of living crisis has been mainly driven by Russia's illegal invasion into Ukraine. It is them that have driven up the prices of electricity. It is them that has driven up the cost of power. It is them that has driven up the cost of fertiliser and the production of all the basic needs in food that we require. Can I just get a little bit further and then, of course, I will give way? I accept that there is more to do, which is why I believe that driving down inflation to half of where it is, why we need to grow the economy, why we need to reduce the national debt and why we need to build our public services is something that we should all be concentrating on. I would happily give way to Emma Roddick. I thank the member for giving way, and I totally appreciate the point that he is making around electricity costing more. Surely it should be the case that, if people are having to pay so much for electricity that they have no money left or are being pushed into debt, it is the job of the UK Government to step in and use its powers to regulate that market. The problem is that the UK regulating the UK market does not resolve the energy problems and the energy cost. It is a world market that drives it. We can help, and I will tell you some of the ways that the UK Government is helping. I was interested in the article that Emma Roddick quoted, and I think that the final paragraph, if I have it here, goes on to say—I can find it, because here I underlined it—our leaders are, of course, right to target economic growth. That's what we should be doing, growing the economy. We know that, but growing the economy, we can make everyone better and have a better standard of living. In my mind, you won't be surprised—no, not just at the moment, but I will in a moment—in my mind, that is not something that comes about with independence, where we are building walls, which will cut off 60 per cent of our markets. When we turn, as the member has suggested, about building a new Scotland, what I wanted to see in those papers, if there were really going to be anything more than fantasy economics, is discussion about who was paying the pensions, what the currency would be, what the borders barriers would be. We don't have those. In fact, what we do know is that, within those papers, we are not even doing some of the things that we've said that we were going to do, like benefits payments. We've asked the UK Government to continue to do that because the Scottish Government couldn't. One of the things that we aren't clear about is the cost of independence. In 2014, that was put down merely as a £200 million. We're probably talking about billions and billions of pounds, because we know that £200 million doesn't go far, and it doesn't even build two ferries. I'll give way to the member. You mentioned all the things that you think are causing the problems of the UK economy. Tory Prime Minister John Major told the Westminster Parliament that the UK's exit from the EU was a colossal mistake, and yet your party never accepted it. Through the chair, Mr Fairlie. Your party never accepts that point. What would you say about the damage that made to the UK? Through the chair, Mr Fairlie, Edward Mountain. Through the chair, I think that the Brexit decision was a decision that was taken in the referendum, and that decision was made as a vote, and it was a majority vote, and therefore we should respect the referendum. It's not something that I campaigned for, and it's not something that this Government really campaigned against. They actually spent more money campaigning in Orkney than they did against Brexit, and that is a fact. So let's look at the things, some of the things that we could do better. I think I'm running out of time, Presiding Officer, as I've taken in some interventions. Will you be a little bit... I can give you a bit of time to... Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Things that concentrate the minds of people in the highlands, as far as I can see, is the issues we've discussed this morning, the A9, when it's going to be dualled. You know, at the rate that they're going, Callum's Road on Rassie was a better investment than the A9, and fact would have been built quicker, because that was just one man who, in 10 years, built one and a half miles of road. So we're talking about the A96 still not built. The National Treatment Centre were all desperate to see 3,200 people in the highlands alone waiting for treatment, and they're being told that it could be a seven-year's way. We're waiting for ferries. They're six years late. We're waiting for HMP Highland. That's six years late. And we're waiting for broadband, while we would promise that in 2021. Now, these are the issues that concentrate the minds of the people in the highlands. These are what we should be talking about, not some of the points that Emmaudic is talking about, which frankly is all based around her belief that independence is the only solution. It isn't. There are problems we need to deal with. Let's get on with dealing them. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I thank Emmaudic for bringing the debate to the chamber. I want to start by welcoming Emma's introduction to her contribution. The words that stand out and has motivated me probably my entire life is that we live in a poor society with some very rich people. It is absolutely shocking the wealth divide across the UK, including in Scotland. Emmaudic is right to highlight the scale of income inequality in the UK relative to other countries in Europe. That has undoubtedly, in my view, been exacerbated by the Tory-made cost of living crisis, which has made the poorer, while multimillionaires record eye-watering profits. We cannot get away from that. There are eye-watering profits to be made. There is money in the system. We hear about it every day, and it is something that we must challenge. In my view, wealth can be redistributed. It should be redistributed. There are acknowledged ways of doing that in a fair, in just and, of course, in a green way. I thank the member for giving way, and I agree with her comments up to now. Earlier this morning, I attended a wellbeing economy alliance event. There was discussion about the gap between the richest and the poorest in Scotland and the opportunities that Scotland has to nurture a purposeful business that makes a positive difference to, among other things, our wellbeing rather than just putting profits in the pockets of shareholders. Does the member agree that that is a good thing for Scotland, and we should embrace that? Of course, you might know that I attended the same meeting, which gave us some really excellent food for thought in terms of how we move forward with the economy and the way in which we encourage people and communities to be part of what we would describe as business, but community wealth-building, letting them be in charge of their areas, people will know that I am extremely positive about. The example that the member gave in North Ayrshire, Joe Cullinane, was the council leader who took bold steps in my view, but in his view he was just being fair about how we run our economies for communities. Where Emma Roddick and I will disagree is that to reduce income inequality, in my view, the step of leaving the UK is not the answer. I would suggest that, by delivering a Labour Government at Westminster, it would repeal anti-trad union legislation, invest in services in communities and offer fairer jobs to people. I think that that would be a better solidarity in terms of looking at how we run the community in the UK. Well-paid jobs where workers, unlike under the current Scottish and UK Governments, are treated with the respect that they deserve. Indeed, before the cost of living Christ, the cost of living in more rural communities was already substantially higher than their urban counterparts, yet the Scottish Government has continued to do little for those communities. It was highlighted yesterday by Emma Roddick and Fergus Ewing that the Highlands have been deprived of transport links in terms of connectivity around the A9, something that they were promised. In my view, the Scottish Government has not shown the determination that we have had delays in land reform, poor industrial relations with teachers, lack of movement on regressive taxations such as the council tax. We know that 20 families in Scotland own as much wealth as 30 per cent of the rest of the population, and it is unacceptable. I do not believe that the Scottish Government has shown enough will that it has done things around the edges, and that is what we talk about in this Parliament. I hope that I can get some solidarity in terms of the work that we need to do to make sure that in the Scottish Parliament we do everything that we can do. Emma Roddick and others will know that that is my point. In the Scottish Parliament, if we believe that that gap is so unjust, we must, at this point in time, do everything that we can and, of course, fight to get a better economic structure out there in the wider UK and world. I now call Paul MacLennan to be followed by Maggie Chapman for around four minutes. I thank Emma Roddick for bringing forward this important debate this afternoon. Where would you rather live, a society where the rich are extraordinarily rich and the poor are very poor or one where the rich are merely very well off, but even those in the lost incomes also enjoy a decent standard of living? That is the opening line from the Financial Times report entitled Britain and the US are poor societies with some very rich people. Research has consistently shown that, although most people express their desire for some distance between top and bottom, they would rather live in a considerably more equal society than they do at present. Edward Mountain talked about issues in the here and now and some valid points that he talked about, obviously, the invasion of Ukraine, but that is about the structural, long-term decline of the UK financial model. Let's look at the position that the UK finds itself on present trends. As Emma Roddick mentioned, the average living in household would be better off than its British counterpart by 2024. The average Polish family will move ahead before the end of the decade. The analysis also found that the poorest Irish household had a standard of living almost 63 per cent, 63 per cent higher than the poorest in the UK. In the most developed countries, such as neighbouring north-western European states, the distribution of income is relatively equal, with the top 10 per cent earning about three times as much as the bottom 10 per cent. However, the income distribution in the UK, like the US, is much less equal by the top 10 per cent earning almost five times those at the bottom. That is about long-term structural decline. That does not happen overnight. It is policy choices by the UK Government, the cost of the union that fails Scotland. On Wednesday, we heard that Scottish Tories criticised the Scottish Government on social security. Whilst the Scottish Government were introducing the ground-baking Scottish child payment, the Tories were cutting universal credit. Not one Scottish Tory MSP spoke up against that. Not one. They all sat in silence. So what about our European neighbours? Let's hear, of course. Again, as I hope the member understands, we agree on a lot of points. I wonder if the member would accept that sometimes we have to have some of the back benches in this place stand up to the Government if we really want to get the full benefit of the things that we can do in the Scottish Parliament. I think that most of the work that we do in this place is sometimes in committees, and we all raise important issues at that point. I think that is what we continue to do in SNP members. I know that we will do that. I want to come back and talk about our European neighbours. Let's look at Norway. For Norway, it is consistently a rosy picture. The top 10 per cent ranks second for all living standards among the top 10 cells in all countries. The median Norwegian household ranks second among stall national averages. All by down at the other end, Norway's poorest 5 per cent are the most prosperous bottom 5 per cent in the world. Norway is a good place to live, whether you are rich or poor. Relative to its European peers, UK economic model is increasingly outmoded. Despite our wealth, too many households continue to live in poverty because of UK structural inequalities. Healthy life expectancy is too low in most deprived areas of our country. Tackling the net underlying causes of inequality in our society and providing economic opportunity is vital to improve life chances. The clear fact is that Scotland's policy options—this is where Carol Moke and I are diverse—remain constrained by the current devolution settlement and embed features of the prevailing UK market model. That is again through the policy decisions taken by successive UK Governments, which have a significant extent on where we can take our own economic development. Brexit has exacerbated the UK's long-standing structural problems. Jim Fairlie talked about that on Mr Major's impact on thoughts on that. Countries of Scotland's size have consistently outperformed the UK across a range of economic measures. They have the ability to thrive in a globalised economy because they have agility in moving and directing their own policy choices that are better suited to their own circumstances. Scotland is well-positioned to learn from the experience of other nations and use the powers through independence to improve economic, social and environmental outcomes. Significantly, we have strong business sectors in food and drink, financial services, energy and, of course, in low-carbon. We have top world-class universities. Scotland has more universities per million people in the top 200 when compared to the rest of the UK and its ranks third globally by in Switzerland and the Netherlands. Full control of our tax and benefits would help to accelerate progress towards ambitious targets that have been set by the Scottish Parliament for reducing child poverty. The UK inequality gap will grow. It is structurally in-built in the UK financial model. If there is another way, we do not have to accept UK mediocrity. I am grateful to Emerotic for securing this debate. When we have seen global energy corporations record obscene profits, we must discuss the inequalities that ravage our communities. Income distribution in Scotland is our glass-shaped. Most people earn the minimum wage or their abouts, with a small number of people earning fabulously high incomes. Most income is at the bottom and the top of the distribution, with a narrow or narrower than it should be middle. The motion points to the reality that the average UK household will be caught by Slovenian households in terms of how well off they are, but the situation is worse than that. In 2021, the lowest earning bracket of British households was 20 per cent weaker than the equivalent household in Slovenia. Let us think about where wealth comes from. It has two main sources—natural resources that we all should share and the labour of workers who add value to those natural resources. Natural resources such as oil and gas should have benefited all of us while we exploited them. We must now share the fruits of the renewable revolution. It must make us all richer, not just those rich enough to own energy companies. Wealth, including income for labour, must be shared as equally as possible so that we can share those endowments that we receive from nature with everyone. As I mentioned this afternoon, John Burn Murdoch calls the UK a poor country with some very rich people. The insight of Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson makes clear that unequal societies are worse for everyone. We have seen over the past 10 years how the interests of the super-rich have warped our politics. We had austerity, which cut vital spending on services. The bond purchases associated with quantitative easing increased the wealth of the asset holders. Those asset holders were, of course, already in the wealthiest desert. We are now seeing the disastrous impact of 12 years of austerity and under-investment in public services, but the UK Government is okay with that because their wealthy backers got richer. Not only did we have austerity but Brexit. Brexit owes much to the desire of the wealthy to prevent the UK being part of Europe-wide measures to reclaim wealth stemming from the labour of workers and the extraction of resources for the common good. That tax avoidance costs us all dear. The Brexit has compounded all the failings of the British economy of the past 15 years—low productivity, skewed wealth distribution and labour shortages. All this is set against the vast evidence from Wilkinson and Pickett that the simplest way to improve the lives of everyone in our country would be to equalise the distribution of wealth and income. The societies that prioritise more equal distribution perform better on all indicators from health to crime to education. We all want to improve the NHS and schools and make our society safer, but inequality means that we are pushing that stone up an ever-steeper hill. We know that wealth in the UK is under-taxed. By taxing wealth less, we end up taxing work more, and that is bad for everyone. It is a disincentive to work. It is a key driver of inequality. The UK Government, which controls most of the tax powers to tax wealth, must act, and we need to make the case that equality will be at the heart of an independent Scotland. We have to find a way to introduce a pay ratio. In 2022, the FTSE 100 executive pay increased by 23 per cent. At a time, we were told that most ordinary workers will need to take a real terms pay cut. We need to taper pay increases so that those on lower incomes catch up with our high earners, and we need genuine action on income in kind. We need to tax wealth effectively, tackling asset bubbles, radically reforming our local tax system and so much more. Some things should be done now by the UK Government to help us to deal with the cost of living crisis that we face today. However, most of all, we need to recognise that inequality is not necessary. It is not healthy, and it is at the root of many of our society's problems. Every step that we take to reduce inequality makes our job in creating a better society much easier. I think that I'm a spontaneous speaker here. I didn't intend to speak, but Edward Mountain really got to me. In talking about the cost of living crisis, yes, there is a contribution from Putin's war. There is a contribution from Covid, but why did Edward Mountain sidestep lose trust disasters economic policies and Brexit, where 62 per cent of Scotland sensibly voted Remain and no doubt that's higher now? Practically every economist tells us that Brexit exacerbated the current situation, including Mark Kearney, former governor of the Bank of England, hardly Scottish nationalists. I say to Carol Mawthyn, who I'm a socialist as well, but I've lived through too many Labour Governments starting out with Harold Wilson. That's how far I go back. Then James Callaghan, the winter of discontent, Tony Blair and the legal war that cost lives and millions. Then we go back to Gordon Brown and the black banks collapse. In each of these Governments, I can see no distinction between that and the Conservatives, because the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. Then I saw the light and I decided that Scotland could make a better fist of it itself. You may. I thank Christine Grahame for taking that intervention. I wonder if Christine Grahame might just mention some of the things that Labour Governments have done. I think that it is only fair to acknowledge in terms of the way in which we treat workers, the reason that we have good terms and conditions. All of those things were done by Labour Governments, and I think that it would only be fair for her to acknowledge that the SNP don't do everything that they commit to. I would like a bit of a… The big difference for us is that we don't have macroeconomic powers in here. We have a handout in the Barnett consequentials from the UK Government, and that limits us, but we mitigate, and we should be mitigating policies that we don't agree with. Why are we bringing the child payment? Is this an intervention, Mr Mountain? Well, I'm delighted. It's possible. Thank you very much. It's always nice to acknowledge that you've made mistakes. Do you want to address the ferries and the cost on that? Do you want to address the A9? Do you want to say a way by 30 steps? Would the member like to address the issue with the ferries? Would the member like to address the issues with the A9? Would the member like to address the issues with the A96? I'd love to hear them, that her Government's favour. Somehow that didn't actually relate to what I say about not having macroeconomic powers, but I'll let you bleat on about those again. Can I just say something else here about it? In my generation, post-war, there was more mobility, I say to Carol Moughlin, where my generation is now, and with that I agree with her. I started out in a prefab, then to a council household, this is five children, very working class. From that, I was the first in my street, the girl to stay in the school, beyond 15. We were supposed to leave school at 15 and get married early. Then after that, I was the first to go to university and so on. I don't see that mobility in those areas anymore. I think we now have silos where people are trapped by the system, the economic system and a warped taxation system that we have now. The people suffering now from inflation are ordinary people, whether we call them middle or working class. They are bearing the burden. They are not the millionaires who can put their money offshore and keep it safe somewhere. They can afford to eat their houses and still eat in posh places. You know the only growth industry that I see just now from UK Government? That's food banks. Even some Tory politicians, I know, have the temerity to attend and celebrate the opening of a food bank. Disgraceful, we shouldn't have food banks in Scotland. I now invite Tom Arthur to respond to the debate minister around seven minutes, please. Thank you very much. I begin by thanking Emma Roddick for bringing this important debate to the chamber. I thank everyone for their contribution. Emma Roddick was very eloquently highlighted it when we all recognised that we have immediate and pressing priorities, particularly as we face the cost crisis. It is important to lift our heads up and to consider the larger picture. I believe that sincerely for a number of reasons, not just because it is a responsibility, but ultimately so many of the social ills that we must confront are ultimately driven by and reflections of our underlying economic system. That was a point that was highlighted eloquently by Paul McClellan in his speech. He was absolutely correct to focus on the structure. When I consider our economic model that we have at the moment, I was struck and it was a reflection that I had listening to contributions. There is almost an analogy between our economic model and the actual nature of devolution. We have an economic model that leads to significant negative externalities to use the jargon, but there are consequences that are social and environmental. It is up to redistribution and mitigation to address those issues. In reality, what we would want is an economic system that redistributes and brings parity between economic, social and environmental factors, a genuine wellbeing economy. Just as we would want a constitutional arrangement whereby the role of the Scottish Parliament was not one whereby it had to mitigate and address the consequences of actions to the best of its ability that are ultimately driven by policy decisions taken at Westminster. It is important to reflect on that point. I am conscious that sometimes in arguments and debates concerning the Constitution, opponents of independence or constitutional change would wish to characterise constitutional debate as arcane, recondite, etoteric—something not grounded in reality and of practical relevance to the people of Scotland. People with longer memories and those who have read their history and people who were there, people such as Christine Grahame, will remember a time when that was a very charged and very criticism that levelled against the proponents of establishing this place, that this was not relevant to the priorities of the people of Scotland and that this was not focusing on the day-to-day bread-and-butter issues. Let us just consider the reality, Presiding Officer. Since 2017, the poorest 10 per cent of households in Scotland will see their incomes increased by £580 at £4.6 per year compared to the rest of the UK, where the richest 10 per cent will see their incomes fall by just over £2,500. Amongst the poorest 30 per cent, reforms in Scotland to the income tax and benefit system are set to raise the incomes of households with children by around £2,000 per year on average. That is the reality of what devolution has been able to bring—a material improvement to the economic circumstances of the individuals that we are charged and honoured to serve. My view is that we can go beyond that, and that is a point that Emmaudic highlighted in what we have sought to articulate through the building in New Scotland Serious. Not independence in and of itself offers a panacea or a silver bullet or an overnight fix, but it equips us with the tools to fundamentally change how our economy operates in a way that is pragmatic, focused, realistic and done partnership with public, private, third sector interests and communities. On that, we are taking action where we can. Last week, I launched a Government's consultation on community wealth building, and I welcome the reference to community wealth building in the chamber. That means to rewire how our local and regional economies operate. I want to commend the work that has taken place under multiple Administrations in North Ayrshire and the way in which the community wealth building model has been incorporated in the wider Ayrshire region. I also want to recognise the excellent work that has been done across the five pilot areas that the Scottish Government has been supporting. I encourage all members to engage with the community wealth building consultation process. The reality is that we do not have the powers in this Parliament to do everything that I would like to do to advance community wealth building, but that should not be a barrier or an impediment to our ambition. We should be bold, and I really want to encourage members to engage and members to have ideas about how we can take community wealth building forward to get in touch with me, because that has the means to effect real, lasting reform at the local level in which an aggregate can accumulate to change at the national level and has a practical means of delivering on the aspirations of the wellbeing economy. What we need is a situation in which we can make that change permanent and lasting as long as there is consent for it in Scotland. One of the enduring frustrations that I have had as a citizen, as an MSP and as a minister is the reality that political positions where there is consensus in Scotland cannot be achieved and affected because of the current constitutional arrangements. Carol Mawkin is correct to highlight that Labour Governments have delivered progressive policies that have been of benefit to people at our UK level, from Atley to Wilson and, indeed, from 1997 onwards. The reality is that, if we look at the legacy that Labour would seek to address in favour of the argument for a future Labour Government on investment in the NHS, on child poverty, think of what has taken place in the last 13 years since the coming to power of first a Conservative and Liberal Government and then a majority Conservative Government, a Government of which there has not been democratic consent for in Scotland. In Scotland, I recognise as part of the United Kingdom but it is also an ancient nation, it is a recognised polity. The reality is that there has not been the majority support for the Conservatives in my lifetime. The last time that the Conservatives won a majority of seats in a UK general election in Scotland was in 1955. The last time that they came close to that was in 1959 and that was with a Prime Minister, Harold MacMillan, who at one point was considering joining the Labour Party, a man who was a one nation Conservative of a very different variety. That does raise an interesting point that word, Conservative, Presiding Officer, because the reality is that there is much within the Conservative tradition about pragmatic and considered process to reform, about looking to preserve the best of what has come before us and be quiffitive in next generation that many would agree with. However, what we have had since 1979 is not a Conservative party in the tradition of MacMillan or in the tradition even of Churchill, who is also a Liberal, of course. It has been a party of the radical right, engrossed in transatlantic neoliberal politics which focus solely on the maximisation of profit and to hell with the consequences be these social or environmental. There may not be a consensus to address these issues at the UK Parliament. There may not be a consensus to address these issues in UK politics. We may find a situation where our Labour Party is seeking office in the United Kingdom constantly finding itself having to triangulate in the hope of attracting Tory voters, but we do not have that problem in Scotland. We have majority support for progressive social democratic politics. We have that broad consensus and with independence we can move on from having to mitigate to deliver in that better future and that wellbeing economy that we all want to see. Thank you. Thank you very much minister. That concludes the debate. I would encourage some members to spend their lunchtime refreshing their understanding of speaking through the chair, but for now and in the meantime I suspend the meeting until 2.30.