Scottish Parliament, 20 November 2013

377 contributions from 55 members. The official report.

Time for Reflection

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

Good afternoon. The first item of business this afternoon is time for reflection. Our time for reflection leader today is Peter Kelly, the director of the Poverty Alliance.

Peter Kelly (The Poverty Alliance)

Thank you for the invitation to address the Parliament today.

As many members know, one of the main aims of the Poverty Alliance is to raise awareness and improve public understanding about poverty and inequality in Scotland. In doing that, we are often called on to give talks and presentations about the issues, and over the years we have spoken to thousands of people across Scotland, from school pupils to trade unionists, front-line workers, campaigners and, of course, politicians.

We are asked to talk about the impact on individuals and communities, or to highlight the root causes of poverty. Of course, we are always asked to identify the solutions. In our talks we often focus on trends and statistics. Members will be familiar with many of the numbers: the 200,000 children in Scotland who live in low-income households; the almost 1 million homes that are affected by fuel poverty; the 400,000 workers who are paid less than a living wage.

However, we know that what makes an impact is talking about the real lives behind the numbers—the people and not the statistics. People like the young woman I know in Fife. She is a lone parent who sometimes struggles to feed her family or heat her home. She is at college now and, in the long term, she will get her degree and continue to make a contribution to her community. Or the man from Glasgow we worked with, whose life had been scarred by drugs and crime but who is now clean and in recovery. He spends much of his time volunteering and helping others to make the journey that he has made.

There are hundreds and thousands of lives like that in Scotland, which confound our expectations of poverty and highlight that real change is possible for individuals and that people are not passive victims. Such stories remind us that labels such as skiver, scrounger or cheat just do not fit.

When it comes to what we do about poverty, we have choices to make. As our elected representatives, you have more say than most over those choices. You will rightly debate how we use our resources and focus our energies. However, in those debates, never forget the people behind the statistics, because if we treat people who live in poverty with dignity, as we expect to be treated, rather than as mere numbers or problems, we will increase the chances of finding the lasting solutions to poverty that I know that we all seek.

Thank you very much. [Applause.]

Motion of Condolence

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

The next item of business is a debate that I know that we would prefer not to be holding. It is a motion of condolence, in the name of Johann Lamont, on the death of Helen Eadie.

This is another sad day for our Parliament as we pay our tribute to Helen Eadie, our friend and our colleague. In doing so, I welcome to the Parliament Helen’s husband Bob, her daughters Fiona and Jemma, and their family and friends.

Helen had already announced that she would not stand at the next election. She wanted to spend more time with her family—more particularly with her grandsons, who brought her such joy. Sadly, that was not to be, as she was taken from them, and from us, much too soon.

I knew Helen for at least 25 years, from the time when she was a Fife councillor. We were both delighted to be elected as MSPs in 1999. Helen was quite unique. She was kind, caring and compassionate, not just to her constituents but to her colleagues. Many of us can tell of her personal kindness to us in times of illness or difficulty.

During her time as a parliamentarian, Helen served on many committees of the Parliament, including the Public Petitions Committee, the Equal Opportunities Committee and, latterly, the European and External Relations Committee and the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee, where she served as deputy convener. She worked tirelessly for her constituents and the communities that she served.

Helen was never afraid to be different or to be true to her own beliefs, even if that meant disagreeing with the prevailing view. She always argued her case with passion and conviction. We will all miss her.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Presiding Officer,

I move,

That the Parliament expresses its deep regret and sadness at the death of Helen Eadie MSP; offers its sympathy and condolences to Helen’s family; recognises her proud record in Scottish politics as a parliamentarian, a campaigner and a constituency MSP, and acknowledges her as a true champion for the Fife communities that she represented for 14 years.

I rise to move the motion of condolence with a heavy heart and a sadness at the loss of Helen Eadie that I know is shared across the chamber and far beyond, and still shocked at the suddenness of her illness and her passing.

I know that Helen’s family, who are here today, have been touched and moved by the warmth of the tributes to Helen and the support to them at this terrible, rawest time of loss, when they will so keenly feel the gap left by the passing of Helen.

I thank the party leaders, the Presiding Officers, members of the Scottish Parliament past and present, members of Parliament, councillors and folk from all airts and pairts—Fife and elsewhere in Scotland—who joined us at her funeral to mark her passing and celebrate the life of a woman who defied simple definition.

Helen was one of the class of 1999. She was part of that group who came together as the Scottish Parliament was created. She was marked out from the beginning as a woman of deep passion for a politics that was inclusive, and as a woman who was driven by a desire to create a better, fairer Scotland. She was spurred by a deep conviction that injustice, whether social, political or economic, could be tackled—it did not have to be this way.

From the start, it was evident that Helen, as a socialist and co-operator, did not simply talk about what she cared about; she campaigned, she championed and she got things done.

Born in Stenhousemuir, Helen had a lifelong commitment to the values of the Labour and co-operative movement. Leaving school at 15, she quickly became involved in trade union activity—and I understand that, equally quickly, she was sacked for that trade union activity. She went on to work for the GMB in London for many years and she influenced the Labour Party at its very heart and centre throughout the 1970s, an achievement that she was so modest about that most of us were not properly aware of what she had done.

When Helen and her family returned to Scotland in the mid-1980s, she was appointed to the post of manager of West Fife Enterprise, starting her new job on the first day of the miners strike in 1984. Her evident love for all of Fife’s communities and her passion in support of the ex-mining communities in particular, working with the Coalfields Regeneration Trust among others, was shaped by the impact of that strike on the families and communities whom she tried hard to support through those times.

Helen’s CV is a rich one of great achievement from a time when women were far less visible in political life than they should have been. She was a pioneer for women and a lifelong commitment to equality shaped her every action.

Helen was far more than her list of achievements. She was a woman of great warmth and compassion and I was struck by the fact that the new members of our group after the 2011 elections all gave testimony to her warmth and her welcome to them when they first came to the Parliament at what was a very difficult time for the Labour Party. She could inspire great loyalty and affection, and that is no more evident than among her constituents. That, I believe, was because of her focus on making things happen. Not only did she talk about what she could do; she actually delivered. I understand that her commitment to childcare brought her to establish a co-operative nursery in London many years ago that is still going strong.

Watching Helen champion the cause of disabled workers at Remploy or speaking out on behalf of families without the proper care and support that they needed, I was always struck by the almost physical impact on her—the emotional drain on her of the desire to give them a voice. She did not simply represent people; she stood with them. Going beyond simple empathy, she felt their troubles and that gave her an even steelier resolve to get the help or action required. When, on occasion, she incurred the wrath of the Presiding Officer, it was always her overwhelming sense of injustice and her desire to make the case for action that led her to ignore the warnings from the chair to draw her remarks to a conclusion.

There is no doubt that some people underestimated Helen’s capacities and abilities. She did not fit the stereotype of a politician. It is equally true to say that it was her unique, non-stereotypical approach to politics that engendered such love and affection from her constituents and all those who needed her to work as effectively as she did in the cross-party groups on which she served.

Helen was an unlikely rebel—and we all know how much party leaders love rebels. But rebel she did on occasion, always driven not by a desire to be noticed but by her absolute conviction of the right or wrong of an issue, which led her to act.

Helen was a fine parliamentarian, taking her role on committees seriously and tirelessly looking at legislation and interrogating ministers to ensure that they were held to account. She was an internationalist, proudly and fiercely pro-Europe when being so was not always in fashion in the Labour Party, and until her death championed the interests of people across eastern Europe, most recently Bulgaria.

Her constituents’ love and admiration translated into political support at elections, not least in 2011 when many of us suffered electoral defeat and difficult times. I believe that that support was a harvest that she earned for the work that she did, but that harvest was not the purpose of her work. Her work, her motives and her campaigning were not about securing votes but about making a difference in people’s lives and I believe that that is one of the many lessons that we can take from Helen Eadie about how to do politics.

Helen was a woman with a twinkle in her eye and a woman of modesty, loyalty, great warmth and deep compassion, and I count myself privileged to have been for many years a recipient of her kindness and generous praise. Above all, however, she was a woman who knew love in her long and happy marriage to Bob and who in equal measure loved and was loved by her daughters, her son-in-law, her beloved grandchildren and her family. Those who attended yesterday’s funeral and saw all those wonderful photographs of Helen’s life must, like me, have been struck by how happy she always seemed, how warm and enriched her family life was and how much more bitter it now makes the loss that her family is to be denied her planned retirement, when she was going to be able to spend even more time with her precious boys.

I was asked what Helen Eadie’s legacy would be. I think that it is this: that politics can be honest; that political action can be part of, not separate from, communities; that politicians doing their job can make the world a better place; that as a society we can co-operate, not compete; that it is possible to do things in a different way; and that injustice in all its forms should be refused. Above all, her legacy to her beloved family is to know and understand the values of equality, justice and community and to know what love really is.

We salute Helen in all her many facets; thank her for all she did; and mark the passing of a wife, mother, mother-in-law, sister and grandmother, whose loss to those who loved her most is beyond words.

Farewell, Helen. We shall miss you. [Applause.]

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Aberdeenshire East)

On behalf of the Scottish National Party and the Scottish Government, I join in supporting Johann Lamont’s motion, paying tribute to Helen Eadie and, of course, expressing our condolences to her family, her husband Bob and her daughters Fiona and Jemma.

This is the third motion of condolence that we have had in this chamber in the past few months. We have had motions for Brian Adam, David McLetchie and now Helen Eadie, all three of whom were lost to cancer and all three of whom were members of this Parliament from its beginning in 1999. All three combined a deep sense of public service with a high level of personal popularity and, as part of this Parliament’s founding generation, they helped to establish it as a positive force in Scottish public life. They remind us that the many successes of this chamber—and there have been many—are due to members of all political parties.

Helen was committed to politics and the trade union movement from a young age. However, her greater service to public life came after her return to Scotland, first as a councillor and then as an MSP for Dunfermline East and, more recently, Cowdenbeath. She was a dedicated parliamentarian and a tireless constituency MSP who never shrank from championing her constituents and the causes they believed in. Those of us who were fortunate enough to be at yesterday’s funeral service—and I say fortunate because of the wonderful insight that it gave us into Helen’s life—were not surprised to hear that she worked on constituency business even from her hospital bed for as long as she possibly could.

As Johann Lamont has rightly said, that commitment was reflected in her popularity with her constituents. At the last election, she not only retained her seat but increased her share of the vote. In some ways, the ultimate test of any politician’s connection with their constituents is whether they can do that against a prevailing tide or wind, and Helen succeeded marvellously in that at the last election. I did not necessarily think that at the time; nevertheless, she succeeded marvellously against the prevailing wind.

Helen’s motivation for entering politics was her passion for social justice and desire to see everyone get a decent shout and a fair chance. She fed her commitment to the European cause and, in particular, her concern for the integration of eastern Europeans into Scottish society. Tam Dalyell, who is no mean judge of these things, defined Helen as

“the best kind of honourable and tolerant issue politician”

when he described how, in her 20s, she helped the Polish population of Fife to integrate into the local community. That interest endured throughout her political career and was underlined by her role as the honorary patron of the Scottish Bulgarian Association.

We were reminded yesterday at the funeral service that Helen could be stinging in her put-downs of political opponents. Who could forget that, in 2007, when she resigned two of her committee posts in protest at the appointment of a Conservative MSP as convener of the Equal Opportunities Committee, she described the move as putting Attila the Hun in charge of community care?

Helen’s commitment to social justice did not ignore party boundaries, but transcended them. I will give two examples. Helen convened the cross-party group on industrial communities, reflecting her concern for the people and communities who were most seriously affected by mining closures and industrial decline. It was an issue on which she had real authority, given her experience as a research assistant for her late father-in-law, Alex Eadie. I shared an upper committee corridor in the House of Commons with Alex Eadie and remember him coming in one day and telling us that we were breathing dead air. It turned out that the air conditioning system was attempting to suffocate the upper committee corridor and Alex, with his practical experience of mining, recognised the problem straight away. Helen came from a family background that gave her an insight that few had into the coal industry and industrial communities. Therefore, it was entirely fitting that her last speech in the chamber, in September, was on the harm that is caused by unrestored opencast mine sites.

Earlier this year, Helen served on the working group that Fergus Ewing chaired, the aim of which was to provide and share information on the support service for Remploy employees. Party affiliations were not an issue—Helen was committed to doing the right thing and finding solutions for people who needed help. Fergus Ewing testifies to Helen’s exemplary approach to that cross-party group.

Most of all, the compassion that was apparent in Helen’s politics was part of her personality. That was the insight that Johann Lamont correctly said that we got from the wonderful photographs that were displayed at the funeral yesterday. Helen was a caring, dedicated and warm-hearted individual, which is why she was held in genuine affection across the political divide and why the tributes of the past week have been so numerous and heartfelt. I hope that it is of some comfort to her loved ones to know the high regard in which Helen was held by all members of the chamber. She will be sadly missed by every member. [Applause.]

Ruth Davidson (Conservative, Glasgow)

The shocking suddenness of Helen’s illness and loss has deprived Fife of one of its most dedicated servants in the chamber and of one of its most principled parliamentarians. Although we in this place are rightly talking about Helen’s contribution to politics and public life, I recognise that it is undoubtedly as a wife, a mother, a grandmother and a friend that her loss will be most keenly felt. I extend the thoughts and prayers of myself and my party to Helen’s family in supporting the motion of condolence.

In all the tributes to Helen Eadie over the past few days, two themes have emerged. The first of those is Helen’s fundamental care for people. Although I did not know her as well as other members did, it was evident to me that she was driven by a deep concern for others, be they her constituents, her colleagues or her family. That care for people and desire to help others shaped much of her career and many of her views. She was a vocal opponent of the local government reorganisation that introduced multimember wards largely because her experience as a councillor in Fife taught her that smaller wards allowed her to represent the interests of her constituents more effectively. Whether she was campaigning to improve the care of pensioners in Fife or working on behalf of the Polish and Bulgarian communities, Helen’s priority was always her constituents rather than her career or status as a politician.

I was telling Johann Lamont that, when I first arrived here as an MSP, I was a little intimidated by Helen, which seems strange in retrospect. I knew that she had resigned from several committees in protest that a Conservative could take any sort of leadership role in equal opportunities. I had watched as Helen would raise herself in the chamber, trembling in paroxysms of anti-Tory ire on—well, actually, on almost any given subject that one cares to mention.

Helen caught me in the corridor a few weeks after I became leader and I have to say that I thought that I was for it. However, I was not, because in private Helen was both warm and kind hearted. She had stopped me to ask whether I would pass on a letter to a United Kingdom Cabinet colleague, because she needed help to help others in her constituency and wanted to know whether I would oblige.

That was not the only time that Helen asked me to help intervene on one issue or another on behalf of her constituents. I always did help, because her requests were so modest and her wish to help was so heartfelt. They almost became personal missions to her and she was always on the side of the weak and the poor—the people who just needed a big sister to wrap an arm around them and tell them, “Let’s see if we can’t make this better.”

Neither the letters exchanged nor the back-door channels ever made it into the press, even when the situation was not resolved to Helen’s liking. She was much keener to do whatever it took to help than to grandstand or gain credit just for trying. Not everyone in the chamber can say the same thing.

It has been said in newspaper tributes, at yesterday’s funeral service and here again today that, even when Helen was confined to her hospice bed, she insisted on carrying on her duties as a local MSP, replying to correspondence and sending instructions to her colleagues—I hope that members have all done what she asked. That sort of dedication is remarkable, but I did not think that it surprised anyone who knew Helen, as they would not be able to imagine anything else. Her life and career were characterised by absolute honesty, decency and integrity.

We have lost too many of our class of 99 this year. With every Scottish election, new people have the privilege of taking their seats in the chamber. Helen was an example to all who came after of what a people’s representative should be and of how to put your constituents first. She showed that, although one can put one’s argument with force and passion in the chamber, one can work with others as colleagues—no matter what party—to make a difference.

The story of Helen’s indignation and subsequent resignations at my colleague Margaret Mitchell taking on the convenership of the Equal Opportunities Committee is legend and, as the First Minister mentioned, it came with a withering comment about Attila the Hun. Less well known is that under Margaret’s guidance, that same committee produced an in-depth report on women in prison and their rights and treatment. Helen sought out Margaret especially to tell her what a fine and important piece of work that was. That was Helen’s other side: completely supportive and generous with her praise when she saw someone else standing up for the overlooked, the oppressed and the vulnerable.

Helen had unshakeable political convictions and passion for expressing her beliefs with full force. One would be hard pushed to find a more decent, honest or principled parliamentarian than Helen Eadie. For me, her most abiding quality was to care: to care for her constituents, to care for the difference that she could make and to show care and respect for her opponents as well as her friends.

As our thoughts and prayers go out to Bob, Jemma, Fiona and the wider family at this time, we remember with affection one of Holyrood’s most honourable members.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Yesterday at the service at Dalgety Bay we sang the hymn “Will Your Anchor Hold”. The refrain was particularly apt. It talked about anchors that keep the soul

“Steadfast and sure while the billows roll,

Fastened to the rock which cannot move,

Grounded firm”.

That summed up Helen Eadie extremely well. She was very firm. No matter what happened around her, she was determined to carry on and achieve what she had set out to achieve.

I shared a constituency with Helen for four years, and I saw at first hand the quality of service that she provided to her constituents. It was therefore no surprise when I turned up—early, I thought—at the service at Dalgety Bay and found that the hall was already packed. There were several rooms to go into, and people were standing outside. To me, that showed the respect that people in the constituency and in the Labour Party had for her. She attracted the great and good of the Labour Party, with a former Prime Minister making a tribute and her friend Baroness Ramsay making such a personal contribution to the service. We also had Cathy Peattie singing a beautiful song and members of her family doing a reading during the service. That showed that she had so many dimensions to her life, and there was clear affection from her constituents.

Like Ruth Davidson and many others, I feared Helen Eadie. It was not a secret that she did not really like Liberal Democrats. She did not like Jim Tolson—[Laughter.] Now, now. I do not think that she liked me too often, or certainly not my views on proportional representation, and I do not think that she was the greatest fan of the coalition between the Liberal Democrats and Labour, and she certainly let me know it. In what I think was her last speech in the Parliament, she accused me of several things, but the very next day she was out being kind and warm and smiling, with that huge grin that immediately put people at ease. She was able to separate the personal from the political. Some of us find that hard, because we have great passion for our politics, but not Helen—she could separate the two.

I remember once campaigning in Cardenden in the Glenrothes by-election when it was bucketing with rain. A car screeched to a halt, and I saw Bob Eadie in the driving seat, then Helen bounced out to berate me about my latest misdemeanour in the constituency. However, the very next day, she had a big smile and a kind heart—she recognised that we were politicians together and we had a battle together.

Helen was colourful. I have laughed many times and so fondly at some of her enterprises, such as her demand about the Equal Opportunities Committee and her escapade in Cowdenbeath when she challenged young people on an estate, managed to escape and then called for a curfew in Cowdenbeath. She had a one-woman campaign to ban the amber traffic light to bring Scotland in line with Bulgaria, which she loved so much. She was not afraid of sticking out, saying different things and being colourful. We need colourful politicians like Helen, as they contribute so much.

Helen was clearly a socialist. I am not a socialist, but her commitment to socialism inspired me. She was never cynical at all, and she always believed and was optimistic. She was driven, passionate and optimistic and she cared for her constituents. I saw that at first hand as an MP in the constituency that we shared—she was often there before me on issues. She cared and she delivered results. She was a warm personality, with that huge big grin of hers.

Helen, today, we are celebrating your life. This is about you and, if you are watching, I hope that you appreciate it.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothian)

The paths of my family and Helen Eadie’s family crossed a long time ago, when Alex Eadie was a candidate in Ayr and my husband, Jim, was his election agent—that is a team, if members can imagine it. When Jim was elected to Westminster, he went to live with Helen, which is something that not everybody knows. He was there with a clutch of young members of Parliament, and she was the landlady. He says that, even then, her characteristics were kindness and consideration, which everybody has spoken about today.

I am glad that people have spoken about the fact that she could do one. When she heard some of the things that I said about Europe and the European Free Trade Association, she did one. However, I appreciated her, because she was that rare animal—she was loyal to her party, yet she walked to the beat of her own drum, which is a difficult feat to pull off.

Helen was a very admirable woman; she was a serious woman. A lot of people did not realise just how serious she was, but she was a mine of information on Europe, for example, because she took the research seriously and did not only read the first pages the way that most of us do.

We will miss Helen in the Parliament; she was so obviously a good person. She sought nothing more than to pursue what she saw as righteousness and people getting a fair deal. In that, I admired her, because she was never knocked off that course. Her intention in politics was to do good; she succeeded.

Tricia Marwick (None, Mid Fife and Glenrothes)

I advise members that a book of condolence is available for members to sign in the black and white corridor. We will make sure that the book is passed on to the family as soon as practicable.

I now allow a short suspension before we move to this afternoon’s business. The Parliament will resume at 14:45.

14:30 Meeting suspended.

14:45 On resuming—

Defence Industry

Elaine Smith (Labour, Coatbridge and Chryston)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S4M-08348, in the name of Johann Lamont, on the future of the defence industry in Scotland. I advise members that we are tight for time in all this afternoon’s debates.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I am proud to speak in the debate.

In 2011, as a consequence of the reorganisation of the boundaries for Scottish Parliament elections, I was elected to represent the area that covers the Govan shipyard, which is a privilege that I know my predecessors Nicola Sturgeon and Gordon Jackson took very seriously. Across the water, Bill Kidd was given the honour of representing the area that includes the Scotstoun yard. On the opening of the Parliament, one of his predecessors—the late Donald Dewar—said:

“In the quiet moments today, we might hear some echoes from the past: the shout of the welder in the din of the great Clyde shipyards”.

The twin centres of Clyde shipbuilding, and their sister yard in Rosyth, are a source of great pride, not just to those of us who are lucky enough to represent them, but to all of us who have a sense of Scottish history, an interest in our country’s industrial heritage and the desire to create and retain high-skilled, well-paid jobs for our fellow Scots.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

I much appreciate Johann Lamont giving me the opportunity to intervene.

Does Johann Lamont think that democracy is an urgent issue for everyone in the world? Would she like to comment on the fact that the United Kingdom Parliament’s representative for Govan has threatened the workers there by saying that if they exercise their democratic right to vote for independence, they will lose their jobs and livelihoods?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Ian Davidson stands second to none in championing the interests of shipyard workers. He has fought to secure jobs in the face of the threat that the commitment of Gil Paterson and his party to separate Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom poses for those workers. Perhaps Gil Paterson and his party should be a little more honest about what their prospectus is.

Those black and white pictures of armies of working-class men flooding in and out of the shipyard gates, bending steel and metal against a backdrop of cranes and docks, and building floating marvels, are iconic images that are integral to the history of Glasgow and Scotland.

Jimmy Reid famously said:

“We don’t only build ships, we build men.”

We only have to listen to two of those great men—Sir Alex Ferguson and Billy Connolly—to get a sense of the pride that was felt about those workplaces and the special people who made up the workforce. The fact that we in Scotland possess those amazing skills and expertise, which were once the envy of the world, is a source of great pride to all of us.

Sadly, our competitors in other countries did not just sit back and admire what we did in Scotland and across the UK; they, too, learned how to build such amazing ships. They invested in their industries and found any competitive edge that they could to take us on at that game.

At one point in the early 1900s, the Clyde built one fifth of the world’s ships and, at its peak, shipbuilding in Scotland employed 100,000 people. Scotland still has a proud shipbuilding industry, but it is not what it once was—we know that. The days of thousands of young men leaving school and walking into an apprenticeship in the shipyards the very next day have gone, yet the industry is still a key one for Scotland. It provides not just thousands of jobs but, with them, good wages and high skills to boot.

The decision to go ahead with the aircraft carriers, ordered by a Labour Prime Minister from Fife, may have been viewed as controversial in some quarters, but it was not viewed as such by the thousands of men and women who set about that mammoth project in the knowledge that it would provide for their families in the coming years. It was a lifeline for those workers, but it was a project that had a clear end date and, sadly, that end date is close. There will no longer be enough work on the Clyde to sustain the workforce at its present capacity. The fact that the 800 workers affected knew that this day would come makes it no less of a blow to them and to our shipbuilding industry.

In responding to the news from the Secretary of State for Defence earlier this month, the Deputy First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, said much that I agree with. Yes, we are all saddened for the proud shipbuilders in Portsmouth, and we remember the solidarity that exists across the workforce, wherever it is based. It is beyond argument that there has been a steady decline in our shipbuilding industry over a long number of years, which should worry us all. I, too, am concerned about our reliance on naval contracts and the uncertainty that comes from the gaps in those order books.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

In the context of that last point about the decline in shipbuilding jobs, does Johann Lamont believe the promises to make the peace dividend pay for jobs in Scotland through the ending of the cold war, that Trident is useful Government expenditure and that both are missed opportunities in terms of safeguarding shipbuilding jobs?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I am not clear what point the minister is making.

We must recognise something about which the Government has done nothing. It spoke about diversification only last week, after the crisis emerged, rather than doing the work of Government in the long period beforehand.

Nicola Sturgeon has my full support in exploring any diversification routes that we can explore to move on from dependence on the Ministry of Defence for thousands of jobs, although it appears that BAE Systems is an obstacle to that. It does a particular kind of job and wants to continue doing it.

Perhaps we could have done more. We all knew that this day would come. Perhaps we should have come together across parties and Governments long before now and attempted to map a long-term future for our shipbuilding industry. However, it is not too late. We stand ready to engage in that debate, to learn from our neighbours the way that they once learned from us, to help to manage any change and to exploit future opportunities for the world-class skills and facilities that we have on the Clyde, at Rosyth and in our defence industries.

If Germany and our other neighbours in Europe can compete at the high end with Korea and China, let us understand what we have to do. Let us get round the table with the United Kingdom Government, the management and the trade unions and work together to save our shipyards. We can call it a summit, a commission, a task force or whatever, but it will have my full support and that of the Scottish Labour Party.

However, we must recognise that any change cannot and will not happen overnight. A diversification plan will take many years and much investment to implement. Scotland will not become a world leader in shipbuilding by sheer will alone or because the Scottish National Party says so.

If we are to have a future in shipbuilding, it will be possible only if we retain the skills and capacity that we currently have in Scotland. If the workers leave the shipyard gate with no prospect of returning anytime soon, the skills that have been passed down the generations will be lost with them. There will be no one to teach the next generation how Scots built ships. The one thing that we have—our skills—will be lost.

If we are to retain those skills, we need to keep the jobs on the Clyde and, no matter how inconvenient it is for some, there is only one game in town: our only option for bridging the gap between the carrier project that kept Govan and Scotstoun open and any future plans for shipbuilding is naval contracts. Members should make no mistake: if naval contracts dry up, the skills and capacity on the Clyde will go with them and the shipbuilding industry will be lost to Scotland. No one in the chamber would welcome that prospect.

There is a serious prospect of more naval contracts coming to the Clyde. Philip Hammond has announced three ocean patrol vehicles and, of course, the big prize—type 26 frigates. Despite the conspiracy theorists, he has also insisted that the Clyde is the best place in the United Kingdom to build those ships. On commercial grounds, there is no contest.

There is now only one barrier to the future of Scottish shipbuilding: the referendum on Scottish independence. Let us be absolutely clear: complex warships such as the type 26 frigates will not be built in an independent Scotland. Common sense tells us that Governments of any stripe will ensure that high-end defence projects are built within their own territories.

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Is Johann Lamont saying that BAE has taken a commercial decision—which she has recognised—to invest more than £300 million on the basis of whatever constitutional arrangement there might be? It has never said that.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The exemption applies precisely because we are inside the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] Members cannot wish that away. The Clyde is the best place inside the United Kingdom but, if we are not in the United Kingdom, the contract will not be let to an independent Scotland. [Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Order.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

I have acknowledged Nicola Sturgeon’s work with, and commitment to, the shipyards for which she once acted and I accept that she has a good understanding of the challenges that the industry faces, so I am at a loss to understand some of the wild misrepresentations that she has offered over the past few weeks.

Nicola Sturgeon has said that the Clyde is the only place where we can build these ships now. Let us put aside the fact that she argued her case even when Portsmouth was still open, but she knows that the UK Government has made it clear that the recent decision is reversible and that Portsmouth could be fired up in plenty of time to take on the work if Scotland were to leave the United Kingdom.

Nicola Sturgeon has said that the UK Government currently orders warships from Korea and collaborates with Australia on defence projects. The UK Government ordered a tanker from Korea and worked with the Australians on design work. That lack of candour and honesty has been the hallmark of the SNP’s approach to the referendum. The SNP tells us that there are no consequences and no downside to a yes vote, even when it comes to people’s jobs.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Will the member give way?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

For the avoidance of doubt, let us be clear that if Scotland votes yes next year, it will be the death knell of a proud industry. [Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Order, please.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

That is not defeatism but the real world. If SNP members do not believe me, they should come and join the people in the real world who work in the industry. John Dolan of Scotstoun said:

“It is quite clear if Scotland votes yes, we will not be building ships for the UK Government”—

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Will the member give way?

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Listen to the men who work in the industry. We know what you think. You should understand what the people in the shipyards think.

Raymond Duguid of Rosyth said:

“If Scotland was independent, no one in Scotland could bid to build type 26. So that would, yes, decimate the industry”—

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

But he works for you.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Paterson, order, please.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Duncan McPhee of Scotstoun said:

“we would be greatly reduced or completely finished as a shipbuilding industry”.

John Wall of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions has said that, to his mind, there is no way on God’s earth that under an independent Scotland we will any longer be in the fight. Eric McLeod, GMB convener at Babcock Marine Rosyth, said:

“No UK Ministry of Defence means no more shipbuilding jobs in Scotland.”

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Will the member give way?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr McDonald, please sit down.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

As Donald Dewar foretold, we have heard the shout of the welder in the din of the great Clyde shipyards, and it is time that the Scottish Government listened. The shipyard workers have spoken out to protect their industry. SNP members may condemn me, but they ought to listen to what these men have to say about the consequences of next year’s vote.

When people come to vote on 18 September next year, they will do so for many reasons and this may be a factor. I suspect that there are people on the Government benches who care about the shipbuilding industry but privately accept that the closure of the shipyards would happen and is a price worth paying in order for Scotland to be independent. However, the least that they can and should do is to be honest with the people whom they represent about the consequences of such a decision.

Jobs on the Clyde are not the reason why I support the United Kingdom. I believe that our argument is far deeper and richer. However, I have to say in all seriousness that, had I been a nationalist over these past few weeks, I am sure that I would have at least paused for reflection on whether my commitment to my political project would come at the cost of people’s jobs. At least be honest and tell them, “You may lose these shipbuilding jobs, but it is a price worth paying for Scotland to be separate”—

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Clydebank and Milngavie)

You are a disgrace to Scotland.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Order.

Ms Lamont, you are in your final minute.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

The fact of the matter is that, in this debate, the people within the industry tell us the consequences and the people who support independence tell us that we should not listen to those voices in the industry. That is unacceptable. If people cannot speak truth to power, what is the point of this Parliament and what is the point of trade unionists who are committed to their industry saying what they believe to be the consequences?

Of course, there may be good things about independence and people are entitled to their view—although I am certain that there is a downside—but how can we have a real debate about our country’s future in this climate when we are not even permitted to give voice to those who understand the industry, who understand the consequences and who are asking those who support independence to explain what they would do instead? The people of Scotland deserve honesty. The people who earn their living in the shipyards deserve honesty about their future. Let us hope that we can have some honesty from the Government today.

I move,

That the Parliament regrets BAE System’s announcement that it intends to cut 1,775 jobs across its UK shipyards and supports all efforts to minimise compulsory redundancies and to redeploy people where possible; welcomes, however, the confirmation by BAE Systems that the Clyde is its preferred UK location for the construction of the future Type 26 global combat ship; notes that Scotland plays a significant role in the UK, European and worldwide defence industries, including hosting the largest defence electronics manufacturing site in the UK in addition to its shipbuilding but notes the benefit to this industry of UK defence contracts, and therefore considers that the best way to safeguard the future of Scotland’s defence manufacturing industry is to remain in the UK.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Before I call the minister to speak, I remind the chamber that although debates can be robust and members can have opinions on all sides of them, they must be conducted with respect and members must respect each other across the chamber. I hope that the debate will continue now in that fashion—[Interruption.] Order, please.

I hope that the debate will continue in that fashion for the rest of the afternoon.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I wonder whether it is in order for a member to shout,

“You are a disgrace to Scotland”,

to a member who is defending her constituency interests and who has a long record of doing so. Will you rule on that?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I have just made the point to the chamber that members must be respectful of each other. That is what it says in the standing orders, so we should all reflect on that for the rest of the debate.

Neil Findlay (Labour, Lothian)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I wonder whether you would allow the opportunity for the member to withdraw that disgraceful comment. [Applause.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Order, please. I have made the point that members should be respectful of each other, which is what it says in the standing orders. I now expect the debate to continue in that fashion.

We have now lost time from the debate, so I will be extremely strict with time for all members. I call Keith Brown to speak to and move amendment S4M-08348.3.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

It is perhaps worth remembering that this debate takes place against the background of the anxiety and insecurity of 835 people who are set to lose their jobs and livelihoods at Govan, Scotstoun, Rosyth and Filton, and of the 1,110 workers, including 170 agency workers, who do not feature in Johann Lamont’s motion, whose jobs are to be lost at Portsmouth.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

No, I will not.

Our thoughts are with all those workers; it is worth taking time to think about that. Many of those workers and, indeed, their trade unions have asked—some have even pleaded—that their plight not be used as a political football. However, only a fortnight later we have this motion from Johann Lamont.

It is also worth saying that Johann Lamont’s deputy leader said:

“Let’s not make this a constitutional issue.”

Worse still, on the very day that the announcement was made, Johann Lamont rushed on to the radio to blurt out:

“It’s self-evident this decision is part of the union dividend.”

She thinks that the 1,110 jobs and the 835 jobs that are being lost are part of the union dividend. It is Johann Lamont’s obsession with Westminster control over these affairs and her proposition that everything is better under Westminster that I seek to challenge today.

Johann Lamont saw the job loss news as her latest opportunity to bang the drum for Westminster control over such decisions, but we should contrast that with the approach that has been taken by the Scottish Government. The focus of John Swinney, Nicola Sturgeon and the First Minister has been on working with the trade unions, the workforce and the management to safeguard as many jobs as possible, to help place those who need them into new jobs and to support the workforce. So, is Johann Lamont right that the UK is good for defence jobs?

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Minister, will you resume your seat? I have a point of order from Mr Drew Smith.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

Thank you, Presiding Officer. The minister draws attention to the efforts of the Scottish Government to protect employment. Can he indicate to the chamber why there is no employment minister, never mind any of the ministers that he mentioned, even present in the chamber for the debate? Why is the transport minister responding to this debate about employment in my region?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

That is not a point of order.

Over recent weeks I have noticed that when members from all sides of the chamber have not been able to get interventions on speeches, they have been making points of order in the middle of speeches. That is not particularly respectful of their fellow members.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

So, is Johann Lamont right that the UK is good for defence jobs? To test that proposition, I will look at three particular projects. First, on the two aircraft carriers that Johann Lamont mentioned, only one will be operational and that will be nearly a decade after the UK last had aircraft carriers; the other will be held on what is called extended readiness but most of us would call being mothballed. The taxpayer was told by the Labour Party that the budget for both aircraft carriers was £3.6 billion. In the technical language that is common to Philip Hammond, that figure has been rebaselined; to the rest of us that means that the budget has been blown out the water, because it is now £6.2 billion for the two aircraft carriers.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Will the member take an intervention?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

No, I will not. I think that I have been delayed enough already.

UK defence procurement is a shambles.

Let us look at the Nimrod MRA4 project, costing up to £3.6 billion. The money paid was taken over by a £0.5 million commission. Therefore, there was £3.6 billion for the cost of the Nimrods and £0.5 million for a commission to scrap the Nimrods, and for that we got scrap value of £1 million. So there was a cost of £3.6 billion, but we have no Nimrod aircraft to show for it. We also had 100 civilian job losses in relation to that project. UK defence procurement is a mess and is losing us jobs.

In relation to that second project, Johann Lamont quoted a number of trade union leaders. I would quote Bernie Hamilton, a national trade union leader, who said of the Nimrod project:

“The lunatics have taken over the asylum ... The decision ... is a betrayal of the workers”.

UK defence procurement is not good for workers in Scotland.

Let us take the Labour Party’s £150 million award of a contract for two ships at Swan Hunter in 2000. They finally cost more than twice as much as they were intended to cost—£342 million—were years late and had to be moved from Swan Hunter to the Clyde. One of the ships, the RFA Largs Bay, was then sold to Australia for £65 million after only four years in service. UK defence procurement is a shambles and it is costing jobs.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Nicola Sturgeon and I agreed that sustaining jobs on the Clyde was a good thing. This minister seems to be suggesting that it was a bad thing and that, if we lose the jobs in a year’s time, the decision was a bad thing anyway. Will he clarify whether he thinks that the decision on the Clyde was a good thing, notwithstanding—I have talked about this on many occasions—the direct consequences and impact on those people who have lost their jobs?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Inventing things that I have said is probably not the best way for the member to advance her argument. I have never said that it was a bad thing in relation to the job losses on the Clyde.

Our vision for the defence industry and, within that, the shipbuilding industry in Scotland, stands in stark contrast to the UK’s record of massive cost overruns, projects delivered years late—and sometimes not delivered at all—and the badly managed decline of jobs.

To come back to Johann Lamont’s point, in less than 20 years the UK has seen Scotland’s shipbuilding workforce decline by 35 per cent. That is some union dividend, supported by the Labour Party.

For our part, we would take the missed opportunities to diversify. Johann Lamont says that she does not understand the point about diversification. She may remember the commitments that her own party gave at the end of the cold war to diversify defence jobs. That never happened.

The cost of Trident, at £100 billion, could much more properly be spent on traditional defence procurement to the benefit of jobs in Scotland.

An independent Scotland will not require £6.2 billion aircraft carriers. However, we will need to address the fact that not a single major Royal Navy surface vessel is in Scotland at this time. We have a coastline longer than India’s, and the UK has left Scotland very poorly protected.

BAE has recognised the unique skills of the workforce on the Clyde and at Scotstoun, and we will work with the company to safeguard and build upon that expertise. Babcock is already diversifying into renewables. Thales, another company in Johann Lamont’s constituency, is already working with the Scottish Government on transport projects. We can do better than the UK Government has done.

The Scottish Government is working hard to support the industry in identifying new markets and capitalising on our real strengths in highly advanced, complex warship design and fabrication. We are currently determining our defence procurement needs. Decisions on those, alongside support for international trade, will support the long-term future of the yards.

I know that hundreds of BAE staff are working with Babcock at Rosyth to complete the assembly programme for the aircraft carriers. Those companies are hugely important to the Scottish economy.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Will the minister give way?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I have lost a lot of time already.

As well as diversification, we need to see a change in defence technologies, driven by new forms of combat that have led to changes in product design and manufacture across the defence industry. I have mentioned Thales; I could also mention Selex ES.

We in the Government have faith in the ingenuity and expertise of defence workers in Scotland. Johann Lamont says that the big threat to that is the referendum. On that point, we perhaps agree: the referendum to take the UK out of the European Union is a far greater threat to defence jobs in Scotland than any referendum on Scotland’s independence. The uncertainty of the EU referendum is surely a concern, especially for companies such as Thales and Selex ES, which are headquartered in Europe. We have had no mention of that from the Labour Party.

In relation to the type 26 contract, the approach of the no campaign seems to be totally different from the approach of the Scottish Government.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

The no campaign wants to put the brakes on the type 26 contract coming to the Clyde in the event of a yes vote, but they are not ABS—anti-lock braking system—brakes, although it does want to put an ABS twist on this: for it, ABS means anywhere but Scotland, and it is happy for the UK to consider working collaboratively with Australia, India, Canada Turkey and the United States.

Willie Rennie rose—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Order. Mr Rennie, the minister is not giving way.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

Johann Lamont now supports the most sensitive and dangerous piece of defence equipment—Clyde nuclear weapons—being procured from, leased from and owned by a foreign power. She will not trust the same workers who are working on these contracts now to work on them after Scotland votes for independence. Scottish workers are currently building these UK warships. They have shown their ability over many years. Despite what Johann Lamont says, according to Philip Dunne, the UK defence minister, the decision was taken on business grounds and had nothing to do with the referendum. That is why the business came to Scotland in the first place.

What we have now seen, of course, is Johann Lamont’s local MP, Ian Davidson, dreaming up and advocating a break clause to deny the yards in his own constituency the type 26 contracts should Scotland decide to vote for independence in what Jamie Webster calls a “democratic vote”.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the minister give way?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

No, I cannot.

Willie Rennie is trying to speak, but these are the words of Alistair Carmichael:

“If Scotland were to vote Yes ... you would think Portsmouth would be well placed in that circumstance.”

Therefore, the Secretary of State for Scotland is promoting Portsmouth as the place that should get the type 26 contracts. I know that Alistair Carmichael got his job in a hurry, but surely he should have checked his job description first. His job is to promote Scotland in the Cabinet, not promote the Cabinet in Scotland. He should defend those Scottish jobs, and it is a disgrace that he has not done so.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Can the minister tell me how many British warships have been built outside Britain since the second world war, and can he name each and every one of them?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I will reimburse the minister with 30 seconds.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I have already answered that point, and I do not intend to go back to it. [Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Order, please.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

At one stage, Johann Lamont said that we should get round the table and work together. I wrote to her on 25 June to ask her to work with me to provide the reassurances that are required to ensure that the type 26 contract came to Govan, but she never even bothered to respond. That shows her commitment to those jobs.

I will conclude with a quote about the type 26 contract from the union convener of the Govan yard, Jamie Webster. He said that what will happen will be the result of a “democratic vote” and that, in that context, everybody in Scotland,

“every ... politician of every section”

should work “to hell and back” to safeguard the jobs at Govan and on the Clyde. I am one politician who will, after a yes vote, work to ensure that those jobs stay on the Clyde, and I think that every other politician in the Scottish Parliament should do the same.

I move amendment S4M-08348.3, to leave out from “but notes” to end and insert:

“; notes that independence will bring new opportunities for this industry, as for others, with naval procurement a key part of the future of Scotland’s shipyards, and further notes that freeing Scotland’s share of the estimated £100 billion lifetime cost of the Trident replacement programme would widen the choices that could be made to support increased diversification and take action to boost exports.”

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I welcome the opportunity to debate the defence industry in Scotland.

The Scottish defence industry is one of our highest-value industry sectors. It employs nearly 40,000 people and is underpinned by the world’s fourth-largest defence budget—that of the Ministry of Defence. In my region of Mid Scotland and Fife, we have great companies such as Raytheon Systems in Glenrothes, which employs more than 500 people, and Rolls-Royce, which has a presence in Dunfermline. Elsewhere in Scotland, Vector Aerospace is in Perth, there is Babcock in Rosyth, which works on aircraft carriers, and there are great companies such as Selex ES, Thales, QinetiQ and, of course, BAE Systems on the Clyde. All those companies rely on exporting, of course, but they are underpinned by UK domestic contracts from the Ministry of Defence, and they are key components of the Scottish economy. The jobs that they support are often well paid, highly skilled and much sought after, and we should be very concerned about anything that threatens them.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothian)

Is the member concerned in any way that we should be concentrating on defence work for the Clyde when we know that the Ministry of Defence will cut back the size of the navy even more?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Margo MacDonald makes a perfectly fair point about the long-term future prospects for the Clyde, and Johann Lamont touched very effectively on that in her speech in talking about the need to diversify in the long term. However, we need to deal with what is happening in the next two, five and 10 years, of course, which is why the type 26 frigate contracts will be so important.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No. I need to make some progress, if I can.

The new development that the debate touches on is BAE’s announcement of job cuts. Keith Brown was entirely right to concentrate on the fact that that is very bad news for people in Portsmouth, and it is bad news for many of those who are employed in Govan, but it means that Govan will have a future, and we should welcome that. We should also welcome the fact that the UK Government has proactively brought forward three new offshore patrol vessels to fill the gap in work between the completion of the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers and the new frigates. That point is covered in my amendment.

The key issue in the debate is what will happen if there is a yes vote in the referendum. The simple fact is that, since the second world war, no UK Government has ever had a complex warship built in any foreign country. That is the answer to Willie Rennie’s question, which the minister could not bring himself to answer. If Scotland votes yes, post the referendum Scotland will be a foreign country, and we know that the contracts for those frigates will not be signed until after September next year.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

Will the member give way?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I will give way briefly.

Maureen Watt (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen South and North Kincardine)

Does the member accept that it was not the Government but BAE Systems that made the decision, and that it will have taken the future of Scotland, whatever it will be, into account?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Of course it was BAE Systems that made the decision, but the UK Government will make the final decision on where the contracts are placed. Why would the UK Government break with convention and place the contracts anywhere outwith its own home country?

Let me pose a question to members on the SNP benches. If we imagine what would happen in an independent country, would the Government of an independent Scotland with a shipbuilding capacity ever place a warship contract outwith Scotland? No—it is utterly inconceivable that that would ever happen.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Will the member give way?

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I have given way twice already. [Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Order, please.

If Keith Brown was the minister for defence procurement, can we imagine him coming to this chamber and announcing that a warship was to be built somewhere other than Scotland and that Scottish jobs would be lost? That would never happen in a million years, so why would it happen in the rest of the UK post-independence?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Will the member give way?

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am not giving way. I have made that clear.

Can members imagine the political reaction in the House of Commons if the Secretary of State for Defence got up and said, “We’re going to place these contracts in a foreign country”? Can members imagine the reaction from the representatives of Portsmouth and elsewhere? It is utterly inconceivable. [Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Order, please.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

Will the member give way on that point?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

No. I have given way twice already. Mr Hepburn will have his chance to speak.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The member has said that he is not giving way.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am sure that, in this debate, we will hear about the situation in Norway. We heard about it from the Deputy First Minister the other week. The most advanced frigate in the Norwegian navy is the Nansen-class frigate, which is currently being built in Spain under a €2.4 billion contract. It is true that Norway builds ships for the offshore oil industry, but globally new ship orders in 2012 were at their lowest level since 1998 and it is a difficult, competitive market.

We should be looking to diversify, but we should not underestimate how difficult that will be when we see commercial vessels that are required in Scotland today being built in the far east and elsewhere. Of course, if we are interested in diversification, the real question is why we did not start before now. Why did the Scottish Government not make efforts before today to start this very important work with a task force?

It is telling that, in his speech and his amendment to the motion, Mr Brown fell back on that old stalwart that is used whenever the SNP is in trouble and referenced Trident. Trident money is being spent again. According to my calculations, it has already been spent 20 times, but today we have it being spent for the 21st time, this time on defence procurement. What Mr Brown forgets is that Trident already supports jobs in Scotland and, if he scrapped that programme, those jobs would be lost.

Despite the protestations from the SNP benches, it is absolutely clear that the future of Govan is threatened by independence. Those jobs will be under threat if people vote yes in the referendum in September next year. That is why I support the Labour motion and my amendment.

I move amendment S4M-08348.1, to insert after “Type 26 global combat ship”:

“; welcomes the announcement by the UK Government that three new offshore patrol vessels will be built in Scotland, sustaining the workforce between the completion of the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers and the new generation of frigates, securing the vital skills needed to build the UK’s future warships”.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

We turn to the open debate. Speeches should be a maximum of six minutes.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

My heart goes out to all those workers who have lost their jobs—I am thinking particularly of those in Govan, Scotstoun, Rosyth and of course Portsmouth—and notwithstanding that we are currently part of the United Kingdom it is right and proper that the Scottish Government’s first priority will be the workers who face redundancy in Scotland. There will therefore be a focus on the support of the partnership action for continuing employment programme in helping those skilled workers to find alternative employment.

Turning to the Labour motion, I find it encouraging that there is recognition that Scotland’s defence industry already plays a significant role not just at the UK level but further afield at the European level and indeed globally. To what can we ascribe that success? I submit that it is due to the skills of the workforce on the Clyde, at Rosyth and in our many electronic and high-tech defence companies, many of which Murdo Fraser listed. That has ensured that our industries have had an important role to play and will continue to have an important role to play furth of our borders.

As far as the Clyde yards are concerned, the terms of the BAE press release of 6 November are worth noting. I quote:

“BAE Systems has agreed with the UK Ministry of Defence that Glasgow would be the most effective location for the manufacture of the future Type 26 ships.”

The press release went on to say:

“the Company proposes to consolidate its shipbuilding operations in Glasgow with investments in facilities to create a world-class capability, positioning it to deliver an affordable Type 26 programme for the Royal Navy.”

That vote of confidence in the Clyde was based not on sentiment but on hard commercial considerations, which reflect the excellence and significant experience of the workforce and the principal location of the key design team of naval architects and naval engineers. It is clear that such a rationale will determine where the type 26 ships are built.

On “The Andrew Marr Show” on Sunday 10 November, no less an authority than the chief of the defence staff, General Sir Nicholas Houghton, confirmed that the Westminster Government

“will go and get our ships in the place where it makes the most sense”.

He went on to say that the BAE decision was

“very much a matter of a business rationalisation. In terms of raw business sense, it makes sense that the place where they have the greatest capacity and the best depth of skills, which is on the Clyde, that’s driven by a business decision.”

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Will the member explain why she quotes so extensively from that person but chooses to ignore the words of the conveners in Scotstoun, Govan and Rosyth, who are telling her that the vote next year will have consequences for jobs on the Clyde? Why does not the member listen to the conveners? She is prepared to quote a man who happens to agree with her.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

What the chief of the defence staff said is not irrelevant in the context of the debate. However, I remind the member that Jamie Webster said:

“If the situation is that Scottish people by democratic vote, vote Yes, I would expect, no sorry, demand, that every single politician of every section supports us to hell and back”.

I do not think that it could be made any clearer than the convener of the Govan shipyard union made it.

We should also consider what the UK Secretary of State for Defence did not say. When he announced the closure of the Portsmouth shipbuilding facility, he refused to contemplate the cancellation of the type 26 orders in the Clyde in the event of a yes vote next year, although he was repeatedly asked to do so.

There we have it. The ships will be built where it makes the most sense to do so. That is the key political message that is coming from the UK Secretary of State for Defence and the chief of the defence staff, and it is the only conclusion that makes commercial sense. Moreover, the Clyde will be the only place in these isles that has the capacity to build large warships.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am sorry, I must make progress.

On the procurement rules, article 346 is quite clear in providing that

“any Member State may take such measures as it considers necessary for the protection of the essential interests of its security”,

in the context of military procurement, as defined. Therefore, if the UK Government considered it necessary for the protection of its essential security interests to award a contract to BAE, and BAE in turn could complete the contract where it was most economically advantageous to do so, there would be absolutely no restriction in European Union law in that regard. That has been confirmed by Andrew Murrison, the Westminster Minister for International Security Strategy.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The member is in her final minute.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

On the basis of the evidence that is before us, we must conclude that decisions are made on the basis of hard commercial facts and what is in the interests of the rest of the UK. Where is the expertise? It is on the Clyde. This is a no-brainer. It is clear from an examination of the facts that naval procurement in Scotland will continue and that the type 26 ships will indeed be built on the Clyde.

What are the Scots to believe? Should they believe logical argument or the Labour Party’s project fear? I know where I put my faith—in the good sense of the people of Scotland.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The announcement was no surprise. People who are aware of the ebbs and flows of the defence sector and the warship sector were aware that the day was coming. The type 26 ships and the offshore patrol vessels were never going to make up for the huge activity that there was at the height of construction of the aircraft carriers and type 45 destroyers. However, although the announcement was not a surprise it has been hard for the workers involved.

The real question is why it has taken such an event for the Government to wake up to the need to diversify. My constituency covers the Rosyth dockyard, as did my previous Westminster seat, and I have been asking questions about diversification for years. Why has the Scottish Government not done that for the Clyde? A crisis seems to be required before this Government takes any action at all.

SNP members are making a brave attempt today, but sovereign capability has been an established principle in the Ministry of Defence and the UK Government—

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Not just now.

That has been the case since the second world war, and we have not built any warships outside the UK. The vessels that went to Korea were fuel tankers, not warships, and they were built on a commercial contract.

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Will the member take an intervention?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Not just now.

We have protected land-war vehicles, warships, and network-enabled capability and fixed-wing aircraft. That is regarded as sovereign capability. Why do we think that the SNP will, just because it says so, change decades of UK Government policy?

The yards in Portsmouth will not be closed—

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Not just now.

The yards in Portsmouth will not be closed until after the referendum, and that is no coincidence.

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

Will the member give way?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Brodie, please sit down.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The orders for the type 26 frigates will not be placed until after the referendum. The UK Government is defending its—our—own defence interest. That is the reality.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I refer Willie Rennie to the comments from the Liberal Democrat leader of Portsmouth City Council, who said in March 2012 that if a decision was not taken within the next year the skills would have gone.

The jobs cannot go to Portsmouth—your own Lib Dem leader is saying that. Do you not have faith in the Scottish workers on the Clyde to take on the job, or do you think that we should pay an expensive premium to go elsewhere?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I ask all members to speak through the chair, please.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I think that I know Gerald Vernon-Jackson a little bit better than Keith Brown does, and I know that he is standing up for Portsmouth.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

That is what he said.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am sure that the minister has read the statement in detail and discussed it with Philip Hammond. He will know that the orders for the type 26 frigates will not be placed, and the Portsmouth yard will not close, until after the referendum. That is the reality.

Members should look at Barrow, where the keep Barrow afloat campaign has been established. It is arguing that, in addition to the submarines, a shipyard capability should be constructed in Barrow. It has the ability to do so, but everybody else seems to ignore that reality.

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

We are hearing about localisation and where ships will or will not be built. Willie Rennie says that there is an inconsistency between the SNP’s demands to build British warships at the same time as endorsing the Scottish Global Forum’s report “Securing the Nation—Defending an Independent Scotland”, which he says

“recommends buying anything but British”.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I must hurry you along, Mr Brodie.

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

However, we now have a letter that says:

“It is ... important to observe the conclusions that you appear to have drawn from our work are not an accurate reflection of our findings.”

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank Chic Brodie for taking up half of my speech time.

If Mr Brodie looks at the report in detail, he will see that it refers to Danish, New Zealand, Irish and German vessels, and the Norwegian navy. The report talks about anything but British warships, and it has been endorsed by the SNP. One week the SNP is saying, “Let’s buy British”, and the next it says, “Let’s buy anything but British.” Chic Brodie should read the report more carefully.

What we have here is a range of contradictions. The SNP condemns British foreign policy on numerous occasions but demands to build the British Government’s warships and all its vehicles, just as it campaigned for the Trident refit facility to be constructed in Rosyth in my constituency. The SNP wants those weapons of mass destruction—as it would call them—to be in tip-top condition, ready for war at any time, because it is prepared to put its principles to one side in such cases. That is the contradiction that we face with the SNP. It says, “We could be like Norway”, but it opposes Norway’s policy on the EU, which subjects Britain to the EU competition rules.

In 2005, Nicola Sturgeon told us that the fisheries protection vessels should be reclassed as warships so that they can be built in this country, but the SNP expects the UK Government to do the exact opposite. Is the SNP suggesting that the type 45 destroyers or the type 26 combat ships should be reclassed as fishing vessels in the future? Is that the kind of contorted logic and the kind of ministry of defence that we could expect in an independent Scotland?

The reality is that the SNP has been found wanting on the shipyards. It does not understand how British foreign policy and defence policy have been developed over decades.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You must close, please.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The threat is to the shipyards on the Clyde and on the Forth, and the SNP needs to wake up to that.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I remind members that they have a tight six minutes for speeches.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Uddingston and Bellshill)

Although it is undoubtedly welcome that BAE Systems has chosen the Clyde for the construction of the future type 26 combat ships, we should be in no doubt that that work will materialise in Govan and Scotstoun only if they, like the rest of Scotland, remain part of the UK or if the white paper tells us next week that an independent Scotland will see massive investment on a similar scale to the UK’s future naval procurement for the newly created Scottish navy.

Somehow I doubt that we can expect that, so the reality we face is that Scottish independence will put at risk the Scottish defence industry and with it, the wider Scottish manufacturing sector. Before the scaremongering klaxon sounds, let me explain why the defence sector is so important to the wider manufacturing sector.

When I was a welder during the 1980s and 1990s, engineering in Scotland was going through a very difficult period. If we were not losing whole companies such as Caterpillar, Cummings, Findlay’s and many others, we were seeing downsizing on a massive scale. Skilled tradesmen in Lanarkshire had to travel further afield to the oil-rig manufacturing yards or to defence contractors on the Clyde or at Rosyth in order not simply to find work but to retain their skills.

Recently, I was in discussion with union representatives at a major manufacturing company in my constituency, which has undergone a very difficult period of rationalisation, redundancy and short-time working. The unions expressed concern that many tradesmen had left that company rather than trying to continue to eke out a living under the financial constraints that were inflicted on them by the firm’s circumstances. Those welders, platers and electricians were looking for some stability and they saw it in the shipyards, where defence work is being carried out at present and could be carried out in the future. Why then, when up to 90 per cent of the orders that are received by Scotland’s shipbuilding industry are from the MOD, would the SNP want to introduce a barrier to that trade and put at risk the job prospects of so many highly skilled workers?

Lodging an amendment that raises the issue of Trident, while making the SNP back benchers happy, does nothing to address the reality facing workers in the defence industry in Scotland. Academics have clearly said that as many as 16,000 defence jobs would be affected by independence, including those on the Clyde and at Rosyth, and yet the Government seeks to deflect attention away from that by throwing in an issue on which even it cannot agree any longer but which suits its purposes this afternoon.

Also, the SNP blithely promotes the idea that Scottish shipyards could be used to build submarines but rather than provide a well-considered answer to diversification, that idea merely illustrates the SNP’s lack of knowledge about the defence sector and shipbuilding. Although Motherwell Bridge benefited from large contracts in the 1980s to build submarine hulls, not only has that work gone but the factory itself is now a housing estate. That company had the highest level of coded welders in Scotland at that time, as the skills that were required to build submarine hulls were so extensive. The shipbuilding workforce in Scotland does not currently have the specialist skills that are needed to build submarines. That is a sad reflection—it is an indictment—but it is a fact. In the longer term, such work could lead to the creation of good jobs, but acquiring those skills would be a lengthy and costly process; it would not be a short-term solution to the adverse impact of losing major defence contracts due to Scotland becoming independent.

That is why people who know a bit about these things, such as John Dolan, the GMB convener at Scotstoun, are not just sceptical about the SNP’s defence contracting plans, but scathing about them. As John Dolan rightly points out:

“if Scotland votes yes, we will not be building ships for the UK Government”.

That is simply a fact, and yet, according to Nicola Sturgeon, as John Dolan went on to point out,

“we're the only shipbuilders capable of doing the work.”

Clearly, Nicola Sturgeon has never heard of an organisation called the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions, which brings together the workforces of all the shipbuilding sites across the UK. It has 1.2 million members. That hardly suggests that there is no other place in the United Kingdom that can build ships. The very existence of those shipyards means that Nicola Sturgeon’s claim that there is nowhere else for the work to go is either ill informed or deliberately misleading. The SNP needs to stop playing with people’s livelihoods in that way. It is far too important.

Next week, we expect the much-heralded white paper from the Scottish Government. Obviously, that will be after the media get hold of it first, as it will not be for the Parliament to have its place recognised. However, we will supposedly learn what we can expect in an independent Scotland. We will be expected to believe in what the white paper contains, because the Government says it is so. They are the Government’s policies, and the white paper will tell us how things will be. When the UK Government and the UK-wide political parties state their policies, they are simply dismissed and denied if they do not sit with the SNP’s view of the world. When Whitehall states that, post-independence, the rest of the UK would not award certain defence contracts to Scotland, just as it will not presently give them to foreign countries, we are told not to believe that. Not only will the white paper tell us what Scotland will do; it seems that it will also tell us what Scotland will tell other countries to do. That is not good enough for the workers on the Clyde. It is not good enough for the defence industry in Scotland. That is why we should support the Labour motion.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

Members might be rather sceptical about the idea, but there has been substantial consensus on some important things in the debate. The Labour motion mentions the skills of people in Scotland who are employed in the defence industries, and that aspect has attracted unanimity across the chamber. We have spoken about the need to consider diversification, and a recognition has been shared in speeches from across the chamber that relying simply and forever on defence alone is unlikely to be good enough.

Many of the issues that we are debating today are very far from new. I refer in particular to a decision that the UK Cabinet made on 19 May 1920 in relation to diversification in the defence industry. The Cabinet gave the Government’s own Woolwich arsenal permission to take on private work, because the defence industry was no longer sufficient to keep employment there at its previous level. The Government paid off 1,500 workers—which might sound familiar—and it sought to diversify the factories concerned.

We have heard references to sovereign capability, specifically by Willie Rennie and indirectly, albeit without using those words, by Murdo Fraser, as well as by Michael McMahon. Let us examine the reality of the record. I start with the Fairey Rotodyne, which was an innovative UK project to build new vertical take-off bulk-carrying transport. Ultimately, that project was cancelled in 1962 by the UK Government. What did it buy instead? It bought Boeing Chinooks.

Willie Rennie rose—

I have lots more. I might come to Willie Rennie later.

Those Chinooks were to be deployed on the front line. Willie Rennie spoke about fixed-wing aircraft, and I will come to those as well, so he need not worry.

The Blue Streak missile was to be the missile to carry the independent nuclear deterrent for the UK. That proved to be unsupported by the Government of the day, and we now buy the missiles—rather, we lease them—from the United States, and we are not allowed to launch them against anyone without getting the codes enabling us to do so on each specific occasion. Sovereign capability? I doubt it.

Let me also mention the TSR-2, a fixed-wing aircraft that led the way in technology and capability. Once again, it was cancelled in the 1960s by the UK Government, which sought to buy American F-111s instead—although ultimately, of course, that is not what it bought. Incidentally, until it fell out of use 10 years ago, the F-111 had the unenviable nickname of “The Widowmaker”, which it had been given by the Luftwaffe and the United States air force. That was the aircraft that the UK Government wished to operate.

Finally, of course, there is the Harrier jump-jet, which was a gem and a piece of leading-edge technology. It is no longer manufactured here but is bought from elsewhere by the UK Government.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mr Stevenson might be educating us about various items of equipment, but I have to point out that no one has ever said that all equipment must be bought in-country. The Labour Government’s defence industry strategy and the defence and security policy that has been developed under the current UK Government have determined what the sovereign capability is, and it is the four areas that I identified in my speech.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I must hurry you, Mr Rennie.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Does the member not recognise that no British complex warships have been built outside the UK since the second world war?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

I invite the member to examine the Official Report after the debate because he will find that he very specifically linked sovereign capability to fixed-wing aircraft such as the TSR-2, the Harrier GR5A and so on. It is absolutely clear that sovereign capability does not determine the purchasing decisions of the MOD and the UK Government; it all comes down to the best place to get the best equipment, and Scotland will remain the best place to get much of the equipment that the UK Government and indeed Scotland will require in future.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You are in your final minute, Mr Stevenson.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

The Scottish defence industry is a feisty industry full of feisty people. We have heard quotes from a wide range of them, including the MOD itself and the workers whose voices must be heard in this debate. Those people have skills; indeed, I find it interesting that Michael McMahon chose to talk about Motherwell Bridge and how in a short space of time after it was closed down the same skills dissipated and could not be reconstituted. My friends in Portsmouth know that all too well in advance of the same fate being visited upon them. They certainly will not be in the same place that Scotland will be, whether under independence or not, to support the orders that there are.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Uddingston and Bellshill)

Will the member give way?

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I am afraid that the member is finishing now.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

Whatever the result of the referendum, I will support everyone on the Clyde—and everyone else must do likewise.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

I welcome this opportunity to take part in a real debate on matters that affect people on the ground in Scotland. The motion notes with regret the job losses on the Clyde, mentions the importance of the sustainability of the shipbuilding industry and rightly points out the dangers of independence.

This is the kind of debate that the Parliament should be having, but the reality is that in recent times the SNP Government has not been interested in bringing forward proper debates. We had a two-and-a-half-hour debate looking forward to a golf tournament at a time when it was exposed that £30 million had been lost on the abandoned Glasgow airport rail link project. Next week, more public money will be wasted when a white paper is published in Glasgow instead of being introduced in its rightful place in this Parliament. This is an important debate, because it deals with real issues.

We must look at the benefits to Scotland’s shipbuilding industry of operating in the UK market. After all, a third of the UK’s shipbuilding jobs, including 3,000 on the Clyde and 2,000 at Rosyth, have been allocated to Scotland, and Scotland benefits from having 50,000 jobs in the defence industry. It is therefore naive to think that voting for independence will not undermine those jobs and industries.

The reality is that we would be moving from a market of 63 million customers to a market of 5 million customers, which would undermine not only the shipbuilding industry but our ability to trade as a country. We need only look at the figures. Trade with England, Wales and Northern Ireland is currently worth £45 billion, compared with our £22 billion in trade with the rest of the world. The dangers of independence to that trading are absolutely clear.

The minister talks about promoting Scotland, but perhaps he could start with the contracts that the Government is responsible for. In the initial allocation of contracts for the Forth replacement crossing, only £72 million of the first £230 million was allocated to Scottish companies.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banffshire and Buchan Coast)

The debate is about defence.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

This is about Scottish companies. More than 70 per cent of the contracts were allocated to non-Scottish companies.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothian)

Let us get back to shipbuilding on the Clyde. Can the member explain why it should still be in the same perilous state that it was in 40 years ago, when I represented the constituency? It has been hanging on by its fingernails for 40 years. Does the member agree that it would be a good idea to try something else?

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

Members across the chamber have expressed regret at the decline of shipbuilding and, in her opening speech, Johann Lamont agreed that we should work towards a sustainable shipbuilding industry going forward.

We should not lose sight of the decision that we will take next year on independence. Annabelle Ewing spoke about the exemption under article 346 of the EU treaty, which allowed £3 billion of business to be allocated to Scotland between 2007 and 2011. If Scotland were independent, that exemption would not apply any more. We need to be alive to that type of exposure.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

No, I am sorry but I am running out of time.

The wider issue is how we support workers across the United Kingdom. The words of Mick McGahey’s speech to the 1968 Scottish Trades Union Congress are still relevant today. He argued against independence on the basis that he was not prepared to leave the mill workers of Manchester or the dockers of Liverpool on their own.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You are in your final minute, Mr Kelly. I would be grateful if you would speak on the defence industry.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

On the issue of looking after workers in the defence industry and all industries throughout the United Kingdom, I and my Labour colleagues will not support independence, unlike the SNP, who would be quite happy to abandon people in Sunderland, Ipswich and Portsmouth to perpetual Tory Government. [Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Order, please, Ms Ewing.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

We will not do that. In summing up—[Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Order, please. The member is closing.

James Kelly (Labour, Rutherglen)

I support the Labour motion, which recognises the contribution to shipbuilding that the UK market makes in Scotland, the benefit of Scotland being in the UK and the fact that independence would be a liability to the future of the shipbuilding industry in Scotland.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Stuart McMillan, to be followed by Jamie Hepburn. I ask members to adhere to the terms of the motion and amendments.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

This is an important issue not just for the future of the defence industry in Scotland but for all Scotland. It is therefore unfortunate that it has been turned into a constitutional issue by members of the no campaign. Some issues can be above the constitutional debate that is taking place. Unfortunately, in this instance, some members of the no campaign cannot rise above that. [Interruption.]

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Order on the front benches, please.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

Johann Lamont listed a number of individuals from the yards who have said that, if Scotland were to vote yes, shipbuilding on the Clyde would be lost. The men to whom I have been speaking over the past 10 days or so—men who work in the shipbuilding industry in Glasgow—understand that what the Labour Party has said up to now has been nothing short of scaremongering. They also know that the reason why work is going to Glasgow is the first-class workmanship, the excellent record and the better business case. If Scotland was to vote yes next year, type 26 orders could still come to Scotland.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Am I right in understanding that Stuart McMillan is saying that the trade union conveners whom Johann Lamont quoted are not representing the views of the workforce? If that is what he is saying, he should say it explicitly.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

I am saying that I have been talking to people who work in the industry—no doubt Iain Gray has done so, too. I can only inform the chamber of the discussions that I have had with individuals who work in the industry, which is the case for Mr Gray and Johann Lamont as well. The people that I have been speaking to know that what is coming from the Labour benches is scaremongering.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothian)

I hope that Stuart McMillan thinks that it strengthens his argument to recall that Jimmy Reid decided that independence was the way forward.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

I could not agree more with Margo MacDonald.

I want to focus on two issues. First is the role of the defence industry in Scotland today, with a focus on shipbuilding. Second is the potential that awaits shipbuilding and the rest of the defence industry in an independent Scotland. I will also touch on Faslane and its future.

The motion before us raises some basic issues. We all believe that the defence industry is an important element of Scotland’s economy, but, although we on the SNP benches are prepared to stand by the workforce in the Glasgow yards to protect jobs, other parties qualify their support for the workforce, dependent on how it votes in the referendum. Ian Davidson, the local Labour MP for the area, even wants to take the jobs away from his own constituents, as he is calling for a break clause to remove the work if Scotland votes yes next year.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member take an intervention?

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

No; I am sorry—I have taken two already.

The defence industry is important to Scotland’s economy and it provides many highly skilled jobs. Many of the companies involved are leaders in their field and rely on their well-qualified and well-trained workforce. Shipbuilding is a key aspect of the industry, and it is one that has a long history in Scotland.

At one time, Clyde shipyards produced around one third of the world’s shipping tonnage. From its peak in the 1920s until as recently as the 1950s there were around 100,000 shipbuilding jobs in Scotland. After years of mismanagement of the economy and the industrial sector by successive UK Governments of varying political colour, by 2011 there were only around 6,000 shipbuilding jobs in Scotland. With the recent job losses announced by BAE, the numbers in the Clyde yards were reduced by a further 800 or so, leaving only around 2,300 jobs. The Guardian leader comment on Wednesday 6 November stated:

“That’s what happens when a whole political generation fails to develop an industrial strategy. It’s another blow to the coalition promise to rebalance the economy.”

Famous shipyards have been consigned to the history books. All that potential and all those jobs have been lost. The jobs went; all those shipyards are gone; all that industry has gone. The one yard that is left building ships on the lower Clyde is Ferguson Shipbuilders in Port Glasgow, and Garvel Clyde Ltd does ship repair in Greenock. The Scottish Government’s award of a £20 million order has allowed Ferguson’s to build ships again for the first time in five years, and that is very much a welcome addition.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Will the member give way?

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

No, I have taken two interventions already. Sorry.

Incompetent UK Government ministers who had no industrial policy and politicians with a focus on the service sector—all of them have left us where we are now.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You are in your final minute, Mr McMillan.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

The Clyde yards are being retained by BAE for one reason: they are the best place to build warships in the UK. The workforce’s skills, abilities and experience have ensured that BAE sees a future for those yards.

Politicians are still trying to undermine the contracts for the Clyde yards, despite the evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee—evidence that it refused to publish in its reports—that there are no barriers to the MOD ordering ships from Scotland. When Vice Admiral Andrew Mathews, chief of material (fleet), was asked whether type 26 frigates could be built on the Clyde if Scotland was outside the UK, he said:

“That’s absolutely the case, it depends on the outcome of the referendum and the timing of the 26 order ... That is one of the options open to us.”

I have another quick point, Presiding Officer.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

It will have to be quick.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

The GMB union, in a letter of 5 March 2012, described the fact that the contract for the MARS—military afloat reach and sustainability—tankers went to South Korea as

“an Exocet to UK shipbuilding”.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You must finish.

Stuart McMillan (Scottish National Party, West Scotland)

I whole-heartedly support the amendment in the name of Keith Brown, and I certainly support shipbuilding in Scotland.

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

I welcome the debate, although I regret some of its terms.

I recognise the importance of shipbuilding to our country. It would be an exaggeration to say that I grew up in the shadow of the yards, but it was not a million miles away—within earshot of the horn rather than in the shadow of the yards—so I know the importance of the industry to Glasgow and Clydeside. It is an important part of our country’s industrial heritage and it has to be an important part of our country’s industrial future. Like Stewart Stevenson, who made this point very well, I hope that that perspective is shared by all members.

I regret the conclusion of the motion, which seeks to make the debate a constitutional bun fight. We hear consistently from Labour members that the SNP has a constitutional obsession, but the motion is just another example of the inconsistency of that argument. I find that, actually, it is the Labour Party that most frequently brings up the constitution in the Parliament. Frankly, when a number of members state directly that yards will close and jobs will go in the context of independence, that can only be described as naked scaremongering.

Iain Gray (Labour, East Lothian)

Will the member give way?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

No, thank you, Mr Gray.

Anas Sarwar, deputy leader of the Labour Party in Scotland, has made the point that the issue does not need to be a constitutional one and we do not need a constitutional rammy. That point should have been heeded, but we are where we are, and I am happy to debate the issue in that context.

Johann Lamont said that she is keen to ensure that trade union voices are heard, and I am, too. Jamie Webster’s words have been quoted already, but his comment on “Newsnight Scotland” on the type 26 contract is worth hearing again:

“What I will say, and declare publicly: If the situation is that Scottish people by democratic vote, vote Yes, I would expect, no sorry, demand, that every single politician of every section supports us to hell and back”.

He is absolutely right to make that demand.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the member give way?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

No, thank you, Mr Smith.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

No, thank you, Mr Rennie.

It is extraordinary that the local member of the UK Parliament called for a “break clause” in the contracts so that the MOD could withdraw work from Scottish yards in the event of a yes vote. Johann Lamont suggested that Mr Davidson is “second to none” in his defence of shipbuilding, but that is a peculiar form of defending the industry and his constituents. It is one of the most cynical calls that I have ever seen and it actively works against his constituents’ interests.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way on that particular point?

Jamie Hepburn (Scottish National Party, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)

No, thank you, Mr Rennie.

On the day of the UK Government’s statement on shipyards in the House of Commons, Mr Davidson made a quite extraordinary comment. He said:

“This has been an excellent day for shipbuilding and industry on the Clyde”.

That comment is still on his website. Of course, we all welcome the greater certainty for the future of the Clyde yards, but what Mr Davidson called an excellent day was a day on which more than 800 people in the yards lost their jobs. How excellent a day would they have felt it to be?

It is sad to reflect on the point that, as Johann Lamont and Willie Rennie said, we knew that this day was coming. To me, that speaks of the point that the issue is a long-standing one, as Margo MacDonald said. Under UK control, we have seen the managed decline of the shipbuilding industry in Scotland. Johann Lamont referred to the fact that 100,000 people worked in shipbuilding at the industry’s peak. More recently, in 1998, 10,100 people worked in shipbuilding in Scotland, and, in 2011, the figure was down to 6,600, which is a decline of one third in 13 years. The number will fall by a further 15 per cent as a result of the recent announcement.

The point about BAE Systems recognising the expertise of the Clyde yards has been well made. The Clyde yards are the place to build the type 26 frigates, which can and will be built there when we are independent. We should reflect on the fact that Scottish shipyards already build ships for countries outside the UK. Whatever the circumstances might be, they already do that. They were involved in £1.5 billion-worth of export contracts with BAE, including eight ships for Malaysia, Brunei and Brazil and the reactivation of five frigates for Romania and Chile.

The most important question is what the future for the yards is once the type 26 frigates are built. On the current trajectory, will we be looking at another day that we all knew was coming? Independence, far from threatening the yards, can help to secure their future.

I will compare our situation with that of Norway, which other members have mentioned. In Norway in 2011, 22,210 people were employed in the building of ships, boats and oil platforms. In 2012, 42 shipyards built more than 100 ships. Murdo Fraser set out how we have a competitive market, which is absolutely the case—I cannot disagree—but I have set out the reality of shipbuilding in Norway compared with the reality in Scotland.

When we are independent we will need the expertise of Scotland’s shipbuilding sector. Murdo Fraser inadvertently made that point when he said that he cannot conceive of the circumstances in which a Scottish Government would not award contracts to Scottish yards. He is saying that there will be work for the industry in an independent Scotland. He is absolutely right. Indeed, I have a copy of the Scottish Global Forum’s letter to Willie Rennie—incidentally, I think that he misrepresented its report; the forum certainly thinks that—which talks about the number of vessels that could be procured from the Scottish yards in an independent Scotland.

We should all get behind Clydeside and Rosyth no matter what our constitutional future is, but let us hear no more about independence threatening Scotland’s industries.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

The announcement two weeks ago of significant job losses was not unexpected, but it remains a major blow, and it is not possible to talk about the issues raised in the motion without thinking of those who are at risk of losing their jobs.

The Clyde unions and management are to be commended for the constructive way in which they are negotiating with each other in the best interests not just of the current workforce but of those who we hope will work there in the future.

There is no better or more forceful advocate for the Clyde than those who work in the yards, and they should be listened to. I appreciate that Government back benchers have been handed their copy of Jamie Webster’s quote, which they have stuck to and dutifully read out during the debate. I do not disagree with Jamie Webster. In the event of a yes vote, of course we would have to get behind the Clyde yards. The problem is that I do not want to get behind them just when they are arguing for something when they are put in a difficult position; I want us to have influence over such things. That is the point that all the other union conveners have made.

Others have said that the crucial issue for the success of the Clyde yards is a healthy order book. In fact, there are two issues: orders and skills. The unions will be making the case for apprentices, who have been a major source of pride for everyone who knows the Clyde yards. It is vital that training continues and that the yards continue to be seen as an attractive career choice for young people from Glasgow and far beyond, because only by maintaining skills and training new apprentices will the yards be able to take advantage of the UK’s policy of procuring UK defence ships within our borders and to build the new orders that I wish to see, among which the most crucial is the order for the type 26 global combat ship.

The extra work on the Queen Elizabeth class, which is to be transferred from Portsmouth, is, as Murdo Fraser said, very welcome, as is the order for offshore patrol vessels. That work can bridge the gap in the period up to an order for the type 26.

The order for the type 26 is the next major order that could and should be placed with the Clyde yards, following those for the aircraft carriers and, before them, the type 45 destroyers. Those ships, the Daring class, are in British service now, and no one who has any interest in Clyde shipbuilding will have failed to have noticed HMS Daring arriving in the Philippines this week, bringing with it much-needed UK aid for the country.

I want to see HMS Daring, HMS Dauntless, HMS Diamond, HMS Dragon, HMS Defender and HMS Duncan, which were all commissioned by the previous Labour Government, joined by a new class of Clyde-built frigates that can play their role in the defence of the United Kingdom and in projecting British influence at sea—ships that Glasgow would be proud of.

BAE Systems has made clear that its preference is to build those UK defence ships in Glasgow. Therefore, the single biggest threat to that order coming to Scotstoun and Govan is the loss of the yards’ status as domestic UK shipbuilders. As others have mentioned, UK yards are able to compete for the work under article 346 rules, which assist the UK to place orders for UK defence ships in the UK.

I listened with interest to what Annabelle Ewing said about article 346. The provision exists so that Governments can make decisions in their own interests as member states. She rightly said that a country must be a member state to benefit from the article.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

I can anticipate what Annabelle Ewing is about to say, so I do not think that I need to hear it, other than to say—[Interruption.] Okay, I give way.

Annabelle Ewing (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

It is kind of Drew Smith to let me intervene. Does he disagree with the MOD minister who, when asked the very question whether a Clyde yard could receive work from the rest of the UK after Scotland has voted yes, said:

“I think the answer is technically yes, if it was in our national interests to do so”?

That is very clear.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

I successfully anticipated what Annabelle Ewing would say. It might be technically possible for something to happen, but that does not make it likely that any Government would make a decision that was against the interests of workers in the member state, as she put it. We need a bit of realpolitik in the debate.

The nationalists have tried, with little success, to convince the workers at the yards that all this will somehow not matter. It has been suggested that the Clyde yards could simply—and apparently immediately—diversify into other kinds of shipbuilding. Like Johann Lamont, I would support any intelligent ideas for new work. However, glib statements ignore the highly specialised nature of the yards as defence shipbuilders and forget that BAE Systems bought the Govan business from a Norwegian owner—Kvaerner—that tried to make exactly such a diversified business work on the Clyde.

I am not clear about whether the Scottish Government has urged BAE Systems to build commercial ships such as car ferries or tankers on the Clyde, but I would be interested to know BAE’s response, given that it is a defence contractor.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothian)

Will the member give way?

John Scott (Conservative, Ayr)

Drew Smith is in his last minute.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

If the response was not positive, can we presume that the Scottish Government believes that BAE should sell the Clyde yards to someone who might be prepared to make such a business work? The workforce is only too aware of the uncertainty that that would bring.

The only other suggestion—apart from the idea that the UK should buy Scottish, regardless of whether Scotland is in the UK—is that the yards will be kept busy building a Scottish navy. The SNP amendment seeks shamelessly to divert the debate from jobs in the defence industries to Faslane. That is probably the only case of a Government trying to distract attention from significant job losses by promising even more for a different group of workers.

We are told that the £163 million annual saving from Trident can be spent on building boats.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

You must draw to a close, please.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

However, we are not told how many boats would be built or how they would be procured, and we already know that that money is to be spent on resurrecting the historic regiments, international development, renewable energy, higher welfare benefits, earlier pensions, tuition fees and skills and training.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Mr Smith, you must close, please.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

I could go on, Presiding Officer—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Do not.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

I will respect your entreaty not to do so.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

Thank you.

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I share Annabelle Ewing’s view on the proposed loss of jobs in the fine city of Portsmouth.

I will start by drawing a couple of pictures. In picture 1, the Labour motion

“notes the benefit to this industry of UK defence contracts, and ... considers that the best way to safeguard the future of Scotland’s defence manufacturing industry is to remain in the UK.”

I will help Labour members with some numbers. In 1921, there were 100,000 shipbuilding jobs in Scotland. In 1955, the figure was almost 100,000. In 1998—there was no SNP Government yet—the figure was 10,100. That was pure decimation. In 2011, the number was 6,600. In 2015, it will be 1,500. How can the SNP Government possibly be blamed for such decimation and destruction of an industry?

Here is picture 2. I have spent the past two and a half years researching why Westminster Governments had, as we suspected, denied in the early 1980s the opportunity that existed in the Firth of Clyde for oil and gas production. The Secretary of State for Scotland at the time, who was a local Ayr MP, said that resources were there in exploitable quantities. I have the confidential ministerial papers that show that the Ministry of Defence refused to allow drilling in specific areas because of “special circumstances”, which we know means nuclear submarines.

Over 30 years, we have lost thousands of jobs—not just in shipbuilding—because of the cover-up. Can members imagine the jobs in oil-rig production and maintenance and in the supply chain in Govan if we had been allowed to go ahead with such drilling? Thousands of long-term jobs have been lost, and for what?

Our amendment refers to

“the choices that could be made to support increased diversification”—

that could have happened—

“and ... action to boost exports.”

That is absolutely right.

Because of Westminster’s obsequiousness, that £100 billion spend on nuclear submarines and now Trident means that we have lost that added value. Yet still Labour continues to attach itself to the seekers of the lost empire. That is what it is about. It is not just about UK defence contracts but about years of missed opportunity, a lack of vision and a lack of planning and strategy.

As Charles Harrity, a senior GMB organiser—and a real person—said last week:

“I would say it’s more a case of no planning, no strategy ... This is really about whether a British government ... has any kind of industrial strategy at all and the evidence of today shows that they haven’t”.

They never have. Still the Labour Party wishes to hitch itself to a Con-Dem boat that is steadily sinking.

Worse is the politicisation of what was clearly a commercial decision. The Government contracts with BAE Systems, not with another country. Surely the business and financial heads of BAE Systems are not going to invest hundreds of millions of pounds in upgrading a shipbuilding facility because of the constitutional situation; they will do so because of the skills, quality and rate of return on that investment that they will get for their shareholders. That understandable commercial judgment will now and in the future cross country boundaries. Joint procurement of defence contracts will allow the Clyde to compete and to work with the MOD in the UK; the Clyde will also be able to work with many other countries on many marine products. That should be our aspiration for the people on the Clyde. As part of a diversified industry in Scotland, there is no reason on earth why the Clyde should not be able to compete for business on a commercial basis and to work with other countries to do just that.

Drew Smith (Labour, Glasgow)

Will the member take an intervention?

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

No. I am almost finished.

Collaboration and the development of specialisms are the secret to success. As the MOD said in January this year:

“In times of budget pressures for all nations, it makes sense to maximise economies of scale and work with our friends to get the best value for money on all sides.”

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothian)

Will the member give way?

Chic Brodie (Scottish National Party, South Scotland)

I cannot; I am in my last paragraph.

Many years ago, I was international production, procurement and distribution manager for NCR, and it never crossed my mind that collaborating and working in partnership with our sister companies in France, Switzerland and the United States of America to harness the best skills, quality and performance to meet our customers’ needs was not the best way to build and sell a complete computer system or some of our security systems. The same will apply to the absolute protection for security modules on the Clyde. With product diversification, that is what the Clyde can do, and that is what the Clyde will do.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

I express my solidarity with the workers in Glasgow, Filton and Portsmouth who have been affected by the announcement. I know only too well how important such jobs are, and I will go on to explain why.

It is a well-known fact among SNP members—I am sure that the Labour Party also has a memory—-that every single time there is a general election, the Labour Party comes out with the scaremongering story that we will lose our shipyards. That has happened at every general election during the 30 years that I have been involved in politics, but it did not work in 2007, it did not work in 2011, and it will not work in 2014. The people have seen through that ploy.

During last week’s debate, I said that I was angry and sad about the announcement, and I still am. Labour members should take a look at themselves, because their mantra, which constantly belittles the people of Scotland, the people of Glasgow, the people of Govan and the people in my constituency, is wearing very thin.

Johann Lamont (Labour, Glasgow Pollok)

Is Sandra White saying that John Dolan from the shipyards is belittling Glasgow and the people of Scotland when he expresses his concerns? What about the convener at Thales UK, who told me that it has moved from uncertainty to vulnerability? Is he belittling the industry that he cares deeply about?

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

I did not mention any of the names that Johann Lamont has mentioned. [Interruption.] Excuse me a minute, but Mr Smith should know that a lot of my constituents and family are affected by the announcement. If he would stop sniping from the sidelines, I could finish what I was saying.

I do not speak for the trade unions, but I speak for people in my constituency and people outwith it. They are not the only ones who talk to me and others. The Labour Party is not the only party that people go to to express their concerns. On Saturday, I was at a conference at Glasgow Caledonian University at which a debate on independence was held. Out of all the people at the conference, only two—one of whom was a member of the panel—said that they would not vote yes in the referendum. All the rest of them said that they would vote yes. Afterwards, we spoke to people individually about the shipyards. A person who works in one of the yards, whom I will meet next week—I will not give their name, just in case Johann Lamont happens to speak to others—does not think that it will close. It is not the case that everyone in the yard says that it will close if people vote yes in the referendum. Johann Lamont should not tell me that the Labour Party speaks for every worker in the Clyde shipyards. It does not, and I am sure that others—both inside and outside the chamber—will agree with me.

I was born in Govan and my family—my father, my brothers and my uncles—worked in the shipyards. They were vital to the livelihoods of people in the area. Many other families worked in the yards, from Kvaerner to Harland and Wolff to Stephen and Sons to Fairfields, so I know only too well about the heritage of the Govan shipyards. I also know only too well that, as members such as Chic Brodie have said, they have been run down for many years. We should be diversifying and looking to the future. That is what the shipyard workers are telling us.

When we talk about the here and now, what gets to everyone is the fact that Labour is decrying the skills of the shipyard workers. Instead of supporting those workers, as the Opposition should, Labour is using a red herring and saying to them that if they do not stick by the union or by what Labour tells them, they will lose their jobs. Labour is not saying that they have great skills, that they are fantastic workers and that, if the defence jobs do not come to the Clyde yards, it will do everything that it can to ensure that their skills are used elsewhere. That is what we should be doing. That is why I repeat what I said to Opposition members last week: you should be ashamed of yourselves for constantly scaremongering. It is a disgrace.

I want to pick up on something that Chic Brodie mentioned: the suggestion that, if we vote for independence, defence work will never come to Scotland. The fact that the MOD is working with Australia on the type 26 frigates has been mentioned. The MOD press release that Chic Brodie cited says:

“Areas of potential co-operation include future frigates, with the Royal Navy’s Type 26 design ... the first of many opportunities for future collaboration.”

On 7 November, Jim Murphy, who is a member of Johann Lamont’s party, said:

“Co-operation on defence procurement is critical, enabling us to maximise our ability”

to go forward. That is the view of someone in Johann Lamont’s party, yet she argues against that.

Let us be grown up about this. Are all those on the unionist side really saying that a future UK Government would be so small-minded that if its nearest neighbour, an independent Scotland, had the best workforce, it would snub us by going elsewhere and having something much more expensive built?

Iain Gray rose—

The Deputy Presiding Officer

The member is in her final 15 seconds.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

Thank you, Presiding Officer.

I say to those members: for goodness’ sake, grow up and stop scaremongering. You have done it for long enough. As I said, it did not work in 2007, it did not work in 2011, and it will not work in 2014 either.

The Deputy Presiding Officer

I call Duncan McNeil, to be followed by Mark McDonald. I remind members to speak through the chair.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Johann Lamont said that she has the Govan shipyard in her constituency, and I am proud to say that I have constituents who work for BAE Systems in the Govan shipyard and at Rosyth.

The road has been long and it has not been an easy one. There are many reasons why we are in a situation in which so little shipbuilding is done in Scotland. There is no doubt that it has been a difficult journey. The issues that have brought about the situation do not change. EU competition laws do not change—and will not change, whether people vote yes or no in the referendum. That means that it will be difficult.

It is a long time since we have won and built a merchant ship. We cannot even win the competition to build boats for CalMac Ferries. That is the scale of the challenge, and we cannot ignore it.

All the other countries that have been mentioned have gone over the years. They came and we taught them. They built up their own capacity and then they decided, as independent nations, that they would rather build the ships themselves.

We heard from the Deputy First Minister that we could overcome the issue and that, under independence, we could build Australian ships. I found that most offensive. I hope that it was not deliberately misleading and that she was badly advised when she read out that statement. We have not built an Australian ship for 35 years. That is the reality, and we cannot overstate the scale of the issue.

About 15 years ago, when a Labour Government was in power, we got to a stage that was welcomed by all the trade unions and, I think, all the political parties. The shipbuilding industry was not the industry that we knew. It did not employ the tens of thousands of people that it had employed in the past, due to some of the things I have referred to: we could not compete effectively and we never invested effectively. We used to build out in the rain, whereas others built inside. Shipyards across Europe and in other countries now import the steel hulls. There are no steelworkers working in the shipyards in Germany. They import from Poland and exploit the cheap labour there. We have missed those chances to keep up, so we have a small number of people building ships.

We used to call it the rent book on the Clyde. The grey ships were the backbone—they were what we were guaranteed. I concede to the minister that they have been seen as a rent book and a subsidy for shipbuilding ever since. Those are the only orders that we can win, and that is why it is vital that we do not risk them. Regrettably, we do not have a plan in place that will carry the workforce, so we cannot risk having a situation in which the UK Government will not sign off the ships.

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow Kelvin)

Will Duncan McNeil give way?

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

No, thank you.

We have not diversified, but the threat is imminent. It is only a year until the ships will be signed off—or not.

Somebody mentioned Ferguson Shipbuilders, which was promised a ship in 2007. The Scottish Government and the previous Scottish Executive worked hard to get ships into Ferguson Shipbuilders. I am grateful for that, because the yard is in my constituency. However, we cancelled a ship in between. We promised Ferguson a ship and cancelled it. Do members know why we cancelled it? I suspect that we cancelled it because we came to the conclusion that we would be expending precious Scottish Government budgets to build in a shipyard that was not in Scotland. We had to wait two or three years until we finally got further contracts.

It is right that, if we have Government budgets to build smaller ships, we should take every advantage and pull every string to ensure that the orders go to Scottish shipyards. Every Government would do that and I argue that the Scottish Government, whatever its shape, would do it in future. That is what the UK Government will do.

The really depressing factor that hits me as we discuss the matter today is that we knew that this was coming. We have talked about the gap in the orders. What have we done about diversification since then? What has Scottish Enterprise done to ensure that we build on the skills of the 800 ship designers who have designed a world-class product that people want to build?

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party, Clackmannanshire and Dunblane)

I am happy to lay out in my closing speech the work that we have done to help apprenticeships and training on the Clyde through Scottish Enterprise grants. However, does Duncan McNeil not think that the UK Government, which is in charge of defence, should have taken the lead on diversification? When has he criticised it for not doing so?

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

I think that both Governments need to get together to discuss diversification in shipbuilding, with the defence contracts being used as a core or backbone.

We need to keep the First Minister, Mr Salmond, to his promise about the reindustrialisation of the Clyde. We need to deliver on renewable jobs. We need to re-equip the North Sea. We need to do all those things. There is no point in pointing to history and saying that it was all someone else’s fault when in our time we are not doing any better. Where is our manufacturing strategy? That is the challenge to us today and in the future. Let us develop our manufacturing strategy, irrespective of whether people vote for independence or to remain within the union. That is our responsibility. Let us face up to it.

Mark McDonald (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen Donside)

Next week, as members have alluded to, we will see the Scottish Government’s white paper. Unfortunately, this afternoon we appear to have seen Scottish Labour’s white flag. Today, Labour members have made it clear that their support for the Clyde shipyards is conditional on the constitutional arrangement. I wonder what those Clyde workers watching the debate at home are thinking today as Labour politicians queue up to write out the post-independence redundancy notices for the workers on the Clyde. Here today, Labour members have declared that, unless Scotland votes no, the Labour Party sees no future for the Clyde shipyards. What an utterly depressing way for the Labour Party to conduct itself in Scotland.

During the debate, some have argued—Willie Rennie majored on this—that no UK warship has been built elsewhere. In what I thought was an excellent speech, Stewart Stevenson took Willie Rennie to task on the issue of sovereign capability, particularly in respect of fixed-wing aircraft. According to Hansard, speaking about the issue of the type 26 contract, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, Mr Gerald Howarth, said:

“My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just returned from an extremely profitable visit to Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand and Turkey. All those countries have expressed interest in joining the United Kingdom in a collaborative programme”.—[Official Report, House of Commons, 31 January 2011; Vol 522, c 575.]

That collaborative programme was to develop the type 26, so it is entirely conceivable that warships could be constructed outside the United Kingdom. The fact that it has not happened yet does not preclude such an opportunity in the future, as the under-secretary of state outlined.

Willie Rennie (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Will the member give way?