Scottish Parliament, 6 October 2005

483 contributions from 91 members. The official report.

Official Report 6 October 2005

Scottish Economy

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Good morning. The first item of business is a debate on motion S2M-3377, in the name of Jim Mather, on the Scottish economy.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

This is the first economic debate since the publication of the 1974 McCrone report and the pace of political evolution continues apace. This week, 90 per cent of the members of the Catalan Parliament supported a new statute of autonomy, which is in effect a claim of right to the nationhood of Catalonia and a demand for tax powers and for the creation of a Catalan inland revenue. Meanwhile, the Tories have tabled their so-called "plans" for what they deem "fiscal autonomy". That is a matter to which I will return.

On Monday night, the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning admitted on BBC radio that there are significant problems in business growth and other aspects of our economy and he called for consensus. Well, for the record, John Swinney and I made a similar call on 3 September 2003 and Wendy Alexander did the same in her book, "Chasing the Tartan Tiger", which was published the next day. Yet such consensus looks a long way off—we are well short of the 90 per cent support that was achieved in Barcelona. We must ask ourselves why that is. Although I accept that many people in other parties genuinely want the best for Scotland, views remain polarised.

Public opinion has been solidly in favour of more powers for the Parliament since 1999, but the parties in power have failed to heed that mood. I recognise that several leading Liberal Democrat MSPs and some Labour politicians have appeared open to the idea of more powers for the Parliament, but none of them has been forceful or courageous enough to progress that. It looks as though Lib Dem members have been motivated by their desire to stay in government and to avoid giving sustenance to a Scottish National Party argument. Labour politicians in that category—by and large the bright ones who are not in ministerial office—have been inhibited by old loyalties and the rigours of reselection.

The greatest obstacle to achieving political consensus on a workable basis is the fact that for many it would mean admitting that the SNP has been right all along. Nevertheless, the signs are there that the process is under way. The Catalan statute of autonomy helps. The 1974 McCrone report helps. Nicol Stephen's call for consensus helps. Even this week's call by the Tories for more fiscal autonomy helps, although I can see little sign that the Tory measures would improve Scottish competitiveness. Like many of my generation, I am cynical about Tory promises. We remember the turbo-devolution promised by Alec Douglas-Home and John Major's "taking stock".

Most of us will never buy the false hope of a better future from those who are willing only to tinker with a failed model. The people of Scotland are already forming an orderly queue to reject the Tories' proposals, with their uncertain timeframe, their desire for the long grass of consultation, the lack of detail and the bland acceptance that nothing can be done on corporation tax.

The view that the model on which Scotland's economy has been run is a failure is bolstered and highlighted by a piece of counter-history that SNP researchers have carried out since the publication of the McCrone report. They have calculated what the outcome would have been if the Scottish economy had grown at the Norwegian rate for the past 30 years. The result is astounding. Instead of bumping along the bottom with the lowest growth rate in Europe for that entire period, gross domestic product would have been £46 billion—or 59 per cent—higher than the current level and average incomes would have been £11,779 per annum higher.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Is Jim Mather prepared to accept that that is not what the McCrone report says? Indeed, the report appears to say that Scotland's economy would have overheated and possibly collapsed under those circumstances.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

It is intriguing how McCrone and the Tories can take a godsend and make it a curse.

Given that an extra £18 billion of income per annum would have been generated, it is easy to see how, over those 30 years, we could have accumulated the £100 billion that the Norwegians have in their oil fund for future generations. In addition, that economic climate would have created greater life expectancy, a higher population, a better demographic structure, a better ratio of private to public sector employment and a quality of service and infrastructure that would have boosted our competitiveness.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

How would the SNP create that oil fund given that there has been a deficit for the past 15 years? Would it take out an overdraft to fund the surplus?

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I hear George Lyon, in his new ministerial role, talking Scotland down at an early opportunity. It is absolutely incredible. He is also talking down the business of the Royal Bank of Scotland, HBOS and Standard Life, because statistics put our national viability at 55 th out of 60 developed and developing countries. George Lyon is undermining the key component of our economy. It is a black stain on his record.

We have a second chance, because oil, renewable energy and the dynamics of the global economy suit small, capable countries such as ours. We have plenty role models. Even Catalonia—the location of cheap holidays when I was a lad—has a GDP per capita per annum £4,000 higher than ours. Negotiations are under way for Catalonia to move even further forward. The Finns, under the shadow of the Soviet Union for so long—that big neighbour that inhibited its growth—now tops the world competitiveness league table.

The people continue to want more powers and our opponents are blinking. We are about to have a majority of party leaders in the chamber wanting more power for the Parliament. Three of the past four enterprise ministers want more powers for the Parliament. The previous two chief executives of Scottish Enterprise want more powers for the Parliament. That is what convinces me that we will get the consensus that we want and that that consensus will be based largely on the SNP's proposition.

The challenge is to convince the majority of people. If the foregoing words are not enough, I ask members to ponder on this. W Edwards Deming, one of the world's foremost quality gurus and the guy who turned round the economy of Japan, developed a theory called the 85:15 rule. The rule is that 85 per cent of organisational problems are caused by system failures, poor plans or procedures, a lack of measurable performance criteria and poor processes, whereas only 15 per cent are caused by people. Deming and others established that the potential for eliminating problems lies primarily in improving the system, not in blaming employees.

However, current research indicates that that 85 per cent may be fallacious; the proportion might be 95 per cent or 97 per cent. The poor people of Scotland, therefore, who are struggling to make ends meet, struggling to get a job and struggling to move forward, and who blame themselves and suffer low self-esteem, need to consider the Government and the failed system, the proof of which is staring us in the face day in, day out. If that proof does not constitute a sufficient basis to generate consensus, it will deliver a working majority for the SNP.

I move,

That the Parliament accepts that it is the duty of government to create conditions that foster meaningful levels of economic growth and result in rising living standards, increased life expectancy and a growing demographically balanced population; regrets the fact that the policies of the last 30 years have failed to meet this test, and believes that the time is now right for the Scottish Parliament to exercise full competitive control of the Scottish economy in order to achieve these objectives.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

What part of the 85:15 theory would account for the SNP's absolute failure to excite the population over its economic strategy? Mr Mather says that the people of Scotland are queueing up to endorse his position. He could have fooled me. As members will appreciate, I do not have much sympathy for the nationalists or their current plight. They are languishing behind even our Liberal Democrat partners in the popularity stakes and are completely incapable of securing the trust or confidence of the people of Scotland. With all due respect, we have just seen one of the reasons why. It is a largely self-inflicted phenomenon, which is down the absolute failure of the nationalists to articulate a credible or even vaguely plausible economic policy to challenge our management of Scotland's resources.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Let me develop the point first.

The most recent attempt was Nicola Sturgeon's bizarre—indeed, economically illiterate—call for economic patriotism, whatever that may be. Equally bizarre, it must be said, was the resurrection of the 1970s slogan, "It's oor oil," or words to that effect. That will not substitute for a complete lack of a monetary, fiscal or exchange rate policy and the absence of any strategy for combating inflation, securing full employment and growing the economy more generally. The SNP instead adopted the one policy that for years in the chamber did not dare speak its name: so-called independence. Its members have substituted slogans for strategy.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Having heard everything that the minister has to say, may I suggest to him that he be courageous enough to join me in debating the Scottish economy in front of an audience of real businesspeople and that he have the patriotism to do the right thing by Scottish Power?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I strove for a Scottish Parliament so that we could debate these matters in a forum of public opinion. People such as Jim Mather stood on the sidelines, refused to join the constitutional convention and did nothing. I remember the SNP's leader across the water accusing the Scottish Labour Party of being incapable of delivering a pizza. Instead, we delivered the Parliament, where we properly debate the issues that matter to our nation.

I am happy to talk about Scotland's oil anytime, anywhere. Interestingly enough, "It's our oil" does not even make it into the motion. Perhaps that is an early indication that that slogan is going the way of its predecessor. The McCrone report is 30 years old. It is an interesting period piece. However, figures from "Government Expenditure and Revenue in Scotland 2002-03" show categorically that, as my colleague George Lyon pointed out—Mr Mather steadfastly refused to answer his point—even if oil revenues were apportioned to Scotland, our position would remain one of net borrowing compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. The oil fund that the SNP boasts about would be, as George Lyon said, an oil overdraft.

GERS also includes an analysis of longer-term developments and provides evidence of a long-term structural net fiscal deficit in Scotland. I notice that oil only becomes "our oil" when the price is high. The economic illiteracy of tying our economy to the fluctuating price of one world commodity is ludicrous. The effect on our currency and exchange rate, measured against a basket of other international currencies, would be disastrous for this country's manufacturing exports. The whisky industry, on which so many Scots rely for employment, springs to mind. To face the challenges of a globalising world—

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

rose—

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Perhaps Mr Swinney will let me explain my point; this is a debate and I have already given way to his front-bench colleague. If Mr Swinney had stayed on the front bench, I might have given way to him.

Our commitment to securing sustainable economic growth includes working to ensure that all parts of Scotland benefit from our policies to improve transport connections, to reform the planning system and to secure a smart, successful Scotland. We are committed to securing economic and social regeneration throughout Scotland. We have made good progress under devolution, but we have more to do in growing our cities and urban communities and in regenerating our former coalfield and deindustrialised areas. That is a challenge in which all our agencies have a major role to play in working together to build a better Scotland.

People could choose SNP instability over stability; they could choose unemployment over employment; they could choose perpetual constitutional navel-gazing and the infamous, never-ending referendum over the settled will of the Scottish people; and they could choose a flight of capital, inward or indigenous, from these shores over investor confidence. However, I have confidence that the people of Scotland will not choose those options. We in the Executive are with the grain of the Scottish people; the nationalists are not and never will be.

I move amendment S2M-3377.2, to leave out from "create conditions" to end and insert:

"help create the conditions that foster a sustainable economy, rising living standards and an improving quality of life and welcomes the commitment of the Scottish Executive to sustainable economic growth, record levels of investment in public infrastructure and transport connections, its support for competitive business, skills development, training and education, and its promotion of Scotland as a vibrant place to live, work and do business."

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I thank the SNP for allocating some of its business time to the economy. There is no more important subject that the Parliament could discuss today. If any members are sceptical about that, I simply remind them that, without a strong, stable, wealth-generating economy, we could not deliver the quality public services that we all want.

Economic debates in the Parliament are sometimes surreal. Although the primary duty of virtually all Parliaments is to manage the national wealth through the raising and allocation of revenue, our Parliament has no such duty. On the contrary, the Executive is merely an agent of the Treasury—it has been assigned the task of spending money that it has not earned. That means that the Executive has little or no accountability for the money that it spends. It also means that it has presided over a growth in the public sector that is starting to damage our economy, a point that was acknowledged as recently as yesterday by the chairman of Scottish Enterprise, Sir John Ward.

I welcome much of the spending that was outlined in the Executive's budget—indeed, I would like to see more spending on areas such as road building. However, the overriding conclusion from any study of the Executive's spending plans is that vast sums of money are being squandered on waste and bureaucracy. That is damaging our economic health, because the public sector has become so large that it is crowding out the private investment that we need.

The proof is in the figures: zero growth in the first quarter of this year; significantly lower levels of entrepreneurship and business start-ups than in the rest of the UK; 100,000 manufacturing jobs lost since 1997, with figures that came out yesterday showing a further fall to a 10-year low; and a fall of four places in the UK regional competitiveness index from fourth in 1997—under a Conservative Government—to eighth in 2005.

Those are not just statistics; they are figures that matter in the lives of ordinary Scots. They tell us that the small businessmen and businesswomen and entrepreneurs in our constituencies are struggling to cope and that the Executive has failed, in the words of the SNP motion,

"to create conditions that foster meaningful levels of economic growth".

What should the Parliament be doing? The SNP's solution, as outlined in Mr Mather's motion, is that the Parliament should have

"full competitive control of the Scottish economy"—

or, in normal speak, independence. That would be a disaster not only for the economy, but for Scotland as a whole. We Conservatives believe that there is a debate to be had about the fiscal powers of the Parliament. However, we understand that the massive constitutional upheaval that tearing Scotland from the United Kingdom would entail would be a futile distraction from the action that we can take here and now to help our businesspeople and entrepreneurs.

Worse than that, the SNP's approach lets the Executive off the hook. By talking about the need for constitutional change, the SNP suggests that nothing can be done now to turn around our economic underperformance. There is much that the Executive could and should be doing today with the powers that it already has.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

What level of increase in economic growth does the member anticipate that the measures outlined in his amendment would generate?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am not going to set a target for them. However, it is entirely possible that growth in the Scottish economy could at least match that of the other parts of the United Kingdom; indeed, it should exceed that if we gave Scotland a competitive advantage. The important point is that the Executive already has the necessary powers. We do not need constitutional change to bring about improvements. That is the difference between our view and the SNP's. We are happy to look at the whole question of the powers of the Parliament and how we might use them to deliver competitive advantage for Scotland, but we believe that the Executive should be using the powers that it already has—it could use them today without waiting for that process of constitutional change.

What would we do? First, we would bring forward the cut in business rates. Later today, the Parliament will hear an announcement of the timing of the cut. It has been too long since there was uniform poundage and it is time that something was done.

The Executive needs to tackle the problems of excess regulation and red tape. Every Executive department should be tasked with scouring the statute book for every regulation that is of no proven worth or is in need of abolition. That would allow small businessmen and businesswomen to spend more time on their work and less time on Government forms.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Example?

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mr Rumbles asks for an example; I will give him one. The Executive is consulting on proposals to introduce regulations that will require small businesses to undergo an annual inspection of private water supplies. That will put a substantial burden on small businesses in rural areas; it is completely unnecessary and exactly the sort of burden that we should be scrapping. I see that Mr Rumbles is nodding.

We can go further. We should privatise Scottish Water and help to bring down the costs, making the situation more competitive for business. We should also invest in our roads network.

We must reject the SNP's failed tonic because we can take action today, within the devolved settlement, to help our businesses and to revive economic growth.

I move amendment S2M-3377.1, to leave out from "regrets" to end and insert:

"notes, however, that under the stewardship of the Scottish Executive economic growth has consistently trailed that of the United Kingdom; believes that independence would be a costly and unwelcome distraction from the concrete action that can be taken within the devolved framework to boost economic growth, and therefore urges the Executive to cut red tape, privatise Scottish Water, increase investment in transport and cut business rates at the earliest possible opportunity."

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I offer my apologies to the chamber for being slightly late this morning.

I read the SNP publication "Scotland in Surplus: The Economic Platform for Independence" with great interest. Believe it or not, for some years of my life I served as a private soldier in the Territorial Army—not with particular distinction, but I wore the Queen's uniform. The issue of defence in the SNP paper is particularly interesting and we have to pose some questions to the SNP about it.

However, I will first quote from the paper "Our policies for defence", on SNP.org.uk. It says:

"The priority of the Scottish Defence Services (SDS), in partnership with Scotland's neighbours and allies, will be to safeguard our land, sea and air space."

That means an army, a navy and an air force. The document expresses other laudable sentiments. For example, it says:

"Defence policy should be made in Scotland's national parliament."

That is fair enough, if we support the Scottish National Party, and I look forward to hearing its comments on that in its summing up. The document goes on to say:

"Scotland's armed services should be well-remunerated, equipped and trained."

That might mean that they should be remunerated, equipped and trained better than they are at the moment—I do not know. We are then told:

"Military facilities, including strategic airforce stations should not be downsized at the present time."

That poses a very interesting question. We also hear Margaret Ewing saying, quite rightly, that the bases in her constituency should be kept open. However, what does that mean? I will return to that.

When I served in the second 51st Highland Volunteers, it was an infantry regiment. When the SNP talks about saving the regiments—something that my party also talks about—we have to remember that we are not just talking about one regiment or six regiments; we are also talking about all the back-up functions for those regiments.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I will give way to Mr Neil in a moment.

We cannot have an army that consists merely of infantry, because it needs other functions to back it up. I am thinking of engineers, light armour, heavy armour, artillery, intelligence—

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Mr Stone, I assume that you are talking about the impact on a local economy.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I am. We are debating the SNP's economic policy and I argue that the economics of an independent Scotland are greatly governed and dictated by what will be spent on defence.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way now?

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I will, but perhaps Mr Neil would like to tell us a little bit about the other functions that are necessary for defence.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does the member agree that, if Scotland was independent, we would not have been part of the illegal and immoral war in Iraq? An independent Scotland would have saved £1 billion, which could have been made available for peacekeeping and getting rid of hunger in the world, instead of for butchering people in Iraq.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I congratulate Mr Neil on quoting my party's policy.

We need clear answers on what the SNP means by defence—perhaps Mr Stevenson could give us them. What about bases such as Rosyth and Kinloss? Are they to be paid for out of the Scottish exchequer or budget, or will an English air force, army and navy take up temporary residence in an independent Scotland?

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

I never resist temptation. Will the member tell us what share of the United Kingdom's defence expenditure is spent in Scotland? We already have an army, navy and air force. We already pay for them, but we get little benefit.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Not through the block grant.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Not through the block grant—I quote my Tory colleague. I have the SNP's figures on defence.

The issue is pertinent to the debate and the SNP has to come clean and give some serious answers. If I say nothing else in this debate, I will say that. The SNP has to think carefully about the issue because, until it answers such questions, it will have a major credibility gap. I support the amendment in the minister's name.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

These short debates constrain argument, but I have to ask members to stick to four minutes in the open debate.

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

I quote from John Horgan who, when writing about Sean Lemass, said:

"History is always to some extent what we make it, an attempt by the present generation to take possession of the past and to use it as a route map to the future."

This is the first opportunity that we have had to debate in the chamber the revelations in the McCrone document. Notwithstanding what Mr Johnstone seems to think, the paper did not appear to indicate that independence would be a disaster for Scotland, and it shows how our economy could be transformed. We can look back and compare the 30 years that we have wasted with what other nations have done. Some of those nations, such as Norway, have been blessed with oil, and others have succeeded without the benefit of oil, but all have put us to shame, and we have the opportunity now to decide where we go. We have wasted 30 years and there is no reason why we should waste another 30 years.

It is no wonder that the McCrone document was marked as secret when it contains quotations such as:

"This paper has shown that the advent of North Sea oil has completely overturned the traditional economic arguments used against Scottish nationalism. An independent Scotland could now expect to have massive surplus both on its budget and on its balance of payments and with the proper husbanding of resources this situation could last for a very long time into the future."

It goes on to the killer quote, which is:

"Thus, for the first time since the Act of Union was passed, it can now be credibly argued that Scotland's economic advantage lies in its repeal. When this situation comes to be fully appreciated in the years ahead, it is likely to have a major impact on Scottish politics."

No wonder they tried to keep the document secret. However, we had to go through unmitigated Thatcherism and the devastation that it wreaked upon our communities.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Will the member take an intervention?

Kenny MacAskill (Scottish National Party, Lothians)

The minister has had his opportunity. When the First Minister said that he was waffling, at least he had the good grace to sit down; the minister should learn from that.

Mr Johnstone should note what the document says about the only thing that the SNP got wrong:

"Thus, all that is wrong now with the SNP estimate is that it is far too low; there is a prospect of Government oil revenues in 1980 that could greatly exceed the present Government revenue in Scotland from all sources and could even be comparable in size to the whole of the Scottish national income in 1970."

All of that was kept from us and what we got from Mr Wilson's colleagues and, indeed, from other political parties was the prediction first that all the oil and gas would be gone by the 1980s, then that it would all be gone by the 1990s and then that it would all be gone by the start of the new millennium. Now we know that there are 30, 40 or 50 years of oil and gas left.

We now have further revelations—it is not oilgate but mediagate. The Government was so frightened and intimidated by a television programme that it decided to interfere. When a Government starts to interfere with and distort the media, it fundamentally subverts the democratic process. Harry Ewing MP, from the Labour Government, is quoted as saying that the programme that the BBC proposed to transmit before the 1977 district elections was

"serious enough indeed, to warrant intervention by the Government at the most Senior Level."

Ewing described the proposed timing of the programmes as

"absolutely devastating in that they will be screened just prior to the District Council elections in Scotland. There can be absolutely no doubt that their effect on the outcome of the District Council elections will be to say the least quite disastrous, not only for the Labour Party but for other political parties in Scotland as well."

No wonder that there was Labour and Tory unity to do down the SNP, as the headline in today's edition of The Herald suggests. Had that been done at Westminster by a Labour Government to a Tory Opposition or by a Tory Government to a Labour Opposition, there would have been outrage. It would have been viewed as Sovietesque tactics—something fit for a banana republic. We now know that our oil wealth has been hidden from us and that those in the pan-unionist coalition that has acted against the interests of Scotland colluded not just to do down the SNP but to subvert the democratic process in Scotland. Thankfully, we still have oil left. When we form the Administration, we will ensure that it is used for the benefit of the people of Scotland, not for Thatcherite policies and to subsidise mass unemployment.

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

This is an instance of the old songs not necessarily being the best ones. Last week's election results underlined the political ineptitude of the SNP. This morning's debate highlights the extent to which it is completely out of touch with the interests and aspirations of the people of Scotland. People are not interested in what happened 30 years ago. They are interested in what happens now and what should happen in the future—how their economic prospects and personal interests can be advanced.

Let us be absolutely clear: for 18 of the past 20 years, oil revenues would not have covered the level of public expenditure in Scotland, even on the most optimistic assumption. Public expenditure in Scotland is 20 to 25 per cent higher than that south of the border. Unlike the SNP and the Conservatives, I believe that that is a good thing. Ever since my election, I have worked hard to overcome the barriers that have held back the people of Clydebank from participating fully in the tremendous economic success that the UK and Scotland as part of that dynamic economy have enjoyed. I have campaigned for regeneration of the site of the former John Brown shipyard, to bring new life, better housing and more jobs to the centre of the town that I represent. I have campaigned for measures to be taken to improve health, bearing in mind the legacy of poor diet and unhealthy lifestyles that is at the root of the mortality and morbidity statistics that affect so much of the west of Scotland. I have campaigned to improve educational standards, given the low proportion of people from West Dunbartonshire who go on to higher education.

In each of the areas that I have mentioned, we have made tremendous progress. The regeneration of the Clydebank waterfront is going on apace, generating real confidence and commitment among the people of the town. The unused private hospital that was built under the Tories has been brought into the national health service, making a terrific contribution to the reduction of waiting lists. It is now to become the flagship centre in Scotland for cardiac care. Clydebank is to have new secondary schools and a new college, so that its young people can have the best facilities available to build on the fact that this year West Dunbartonshire showed the most improvement in exam performance of any local authority in Scotland. All those developments depend on public expenditure, which both the SNP and the Tories seem in general to regard as a bad thing.

Most people in Scotland want to ensure that they get the investment in their area and community that will drive the economy forward and make things better for them. It is crucial that public expenditure is well spent and well used. It must focus on the interests of ordinary people, so that they get the chance to participate. That is what an opportunity society is all about, and the Labour Party is determined to deliver that for people. We are not interested in highfalutin economic theories that do not mean anything, debates that may have taken place 30 years ago or conspiracies of the past. We are interested in what happens now, what is good for the people of Scotland and what is good for the people in the communities that we represent. That is what is crucial in politics.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

When the chairman of Scottish Enterprise says that the economy of parts of the west of Scotland is like that of eastern Europe, does that make him proud of the Executive's record?

Des McNulty (Labour, Clydebank and Milngavie)

It raises questions about what Scottish Enterprise should be doing for the towns and cities of the west of Scotland and how its work can be advanced. I hope that ministers will take up that issue steadily. However, I ask Murdo Fraser what Tory chancellor in England would create a situation in which the Conservatives could argue that there should be tax cuts paid for by tax transfers. The Tories are ending up in a fundamentally implausible position.

The question that we must ask is how, collectively, we can advance the interests of the people of Scotland and of economic growth and social conditions in Scotland, because the two are intertwined. The Parliament must focus particularly on the interests of west-central Scotland—not just Clydebank and Ayrshire, which the minister represents, but Glasgow and the towns around it. That is where we need to work to unlock the opportunities and potential of our people. I am fed up with SNP and Conservative members arguing against the advancement of the west of Scotland because they have pet schemes elsewhere. We must argue for the whole of Scotland, but we must argue particularly for those areas in which the people are, the deprivation is and the growth potential is the greatest. The west of Scotland must be the top priority for the future.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

It is clear that the publication of Gavin McCrone's report has given some in the SNP a chance to go into retro mode—to go back to the oil dreams of the 1970s. We must be clear about the fact that basing the future of Scotland's economy on North sea oil is like some imaginary SNP finance spokesperson of the 1850s proposing to base Scotland's economy on whale oil and finest blubber.

Stewart Maxwell (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Has the member ever heard of Norway? It is a country slightly to the north and east of us that has based its economy on the discovery of North sea oil and gas. Norway is now the most successful country in the world and the best place in which to live. It has been recognised as such for years. What is imaginary about that?

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

In the environment section of its manifesto, the SNP talks about how it will climate proof its policies. However, when it comes to the economic section, it talks as if oil is the future of Scotland's economy. That is the problem.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

I have already taken an intervention from an SNP member.

Future generations will boggle at the amount of oil and other precious hydrocarbons that we have and the amount of them that we have burned, given the huge variety of things that can be done with hydrocarbons. They will boggle at the impact of climate change. Hopefully, they will realise that we cannot base any economy on continuing to burn oil at the current rate and that we cannot base the economy of Scotland on continuing to pump oil over all else.

I agree with Jim Mather on the need for us to have more control over the Scottish economy. I was one of the MSPs who attended the Scottish Enterprise briefing yesterday morning. Unlike many MSPs, I listened to the litany of woe from Scottish Enterprise on the state of the Scottish economy. Labour members often criticise Jim Mather for being a doom monger on the Scottish economy, but what he says is nothing compared with what we heard from Scottish Enterprise. Scottish Enterprise representatives talked in airy terms about the fact that Scotland had lost its advantage in wind energy generation to Norway, as if Scottish Enterprise was not there when that happened. We may now lose our advantage in wave energy generation to Portugal, unless we get the proper investment in research and development to take forward that industry.

I share Des McNulty's concerns about the role of Scottish Enterprise in regenerating the deprived communities of Scotland. We need a Parliament with the powers to make a difference to the Scottish economy and to build a sustainable economy for Scotland.

I am pleased that Allan Wilson's amendment refers to the need to

"foster a sustainable economy, rising living standards and an improving quality of life",

but I would like to tempt the minister to explain what he means by "a sustainable economy". Does it simply mean that increases in GDP will be sustained year on year, without any reference to social or environmental sustainability, or does the Executive want a truly sustainable economy—a wider vision of the economy? Recently we heard that almost half of all Scots and almost a quarter of all Scottish households live on less than £10,000 a year. Is that socially sustainable?

Scotland emits 26 per cent more greenhouse gases per capita than do England and Wales. Is that a record of environmental sustainability of which to be proud? We need a sustainable economy, but that means a different kind of economy—one that has all three legs of sustainable development and that is not just based on increasing GDP.

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

The SNP motion talks about "competitive control"; as oxymorons go, that is right up there with leisure shopping. Recently, I have been spending all my time in Cathcart—members may have read about it in the sports pages. It was a difficult home game. I was called off the bench to play in goal and, although I was a wee bit short of match practice, I had to face a penalty kick that was taken by the Opposition striker Big Eck. He hit the corner flag from the penalty spot and I scored the winner direct from the resulting goal kick. It would be fair to say that Big Eck was as sick as a parrot, but he has resolved to take his team's next 20 penalty kicks.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

rose—

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

It is nice to see you, Bill.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

It is nice to see you, too.

Is the member not aware that, according to the rules of football, it is impossible to score a goal direct from a goal kick?

Charlie Gordon (Labour, Glasgow Cathcart)

Well, there may have been a slight deflection, but I am taking the credit.

Cathcart is prospering under Labour. Unemployment in the constituency is down 42 per cent since 1997 and, last year, youth employment went down 9.9 per cent, which compares well with the average national reduction of 6.5 per cent. Also since 1997, 1,800 people in the constituency have found new jobs under the new deal.

Glasgow, too, has been growing. Around 70,000 new jobs have been created in the city region over the past seven years; property investment is at record levels, at about £3.4 billion; and the regeneration of the River Clyde alone is worth £2.3 billion and counting—I played in goal for that team as well.

So Cathcart and Glasgow have had growth, as have Scotland and the UK. It does my heart good to know that we have a Chancellor of the Exchequer who is committed to low inflation and full employment. Labour is committed to growth, whether that is through more sensitive regulation such as we are seeing in planning reform; more infrastructure, such as the completion of the M74; or lifelong learning, which is here to stay.

The SNP is entering a period of introspection—it is a case not so much of "Hail Catalonia!" as of "Hail catatonia!" Cathcart makes that essential. The SNP should reflect on the fact that Labour is delivering growth, and is doing so—to borrow the words of that well-known football fan, Kenny MacAskill—

"By delivering on the economy, not being perceived as obsessed with the constitution."

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

The SNP motion says that the SNP wants to see

"meaningful levels of economic growth"

that

"result in rising living standards".

The Labour amendment does not say much that it is different: it says that Labour wants to

"help create the conditions that foster a sustainable economy"

and "rising living standards". Both parties claim that they want to grow the economy.

I accept that over the past decade or more there has been growth in the economy in Britain and in Scotland. I also accept that there has been wealth creation in Scotland, as there has been in the UK as a whole. Surely that must mean that we are living in a better-off society. Charlie Gordon has just claimed that we are, but that is not so. Whether someone is better off depends on the class that they come from. Over the past decade or more, some people have become much wealthier and are now better off than they could ever have imagined being in their wildest dreams. The top 10 per cent have more than doubled their wealth, but people in the lowest percentages are hardly better off. Although it is true that the shareholders and directors of the transnational corporations have done nicely through pension funds, bonuses and income, we still have enormous inequality in Scotland. Economic growth has not benefited the people of Scotland as a whole.

The biggest question in the debate concerns our reason for growing the economy. Are we doing it to line the pockets of the people in the boardrooms and of the shareholders—to increase the wealth of the top 10 per cent—or to raise living standards as a whole? If the reason for growing the economy is the latter, how do we address the enormous inequality in the country? Scotland has the greatest inequality of wealth distribution that we have seen for centuries. That is the issue that the SNP and the Labour Party should consider. The problem is that both parties talk a good game, but their policies only increase inequality.

Scotland has the lowest social mobility of any advanced capitalist country in the world with the exception of the United States of America. We are a wealthy country and yet people cannot pull themselves up by their bootstraps; they cannot, in a generation, move from the lowest 10 or 20 per cent of the population to the wealthiest.

The countries with the greatest social mobility are the Nordic countries: Norway, Denmark, Finland and Sweden. Those countries also have the least inequality. That is the issue that we need to address in the debate.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

The four countries that the member mentioned are models of social democratic capitalism and not of revolutionary Trotskyism.

Frances Curran (SSP, West of Scotland)

I think that they can be called social democratic countries. It is sad that Frank McAveety and others in the Labour Party abandoned that model in the neoliberal revolution of the 1980s and 1990s that dictates Labour's current economic policy.

As part of the mountain of evidence that Professor Richard Wilkinson assembled, he found the view that, no matter how rich a society,

"it will still be more dysfunctional, violent, sick and sad if the gap between social classes grows".

That is the situation in which we are today, and the neoliberal policies that the SNP and the Labour Party have accepted create an economic macro situation that gives neither party room to manoeuvre. Both parties have accepted the global laws that are set up for the multinational corporations.

If the SNP had independence, would it bow the knee to the World Trade Organisation? Would it privatise Caledonian MacBrayne? What would it do? Unless it took on organisations such as the WTO and the multinational corporations, the SNP's powers would be limited.

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I note with interest that Labour members who have spoken in the debate have said that every time the SNP discusses oil, we look back to the past. In the few minutes that are available to me, I want to talk about oil, Scotland's energy resources and the future for Scotland.

As other members have said—I am thinking in particular of Kenny MacAskill—Scotland has a second chance at its energy future, in particular in the case of the oil industry. I want to scotch some of the myths that are peddled by the unionist parties who sit in an unholy alliance on the other side of the chamber from the SNP. Their only interest is in protecting their future careers; they are not interested in doing what is best for Scotland.

The message from the McCrone report of the 1970s is just as relevant today as it was when McCrone outlined the booming economy that Scotland could have had if we had had control of our oil revenues. A few weeks ago, I attended the offshore Europe 2005 exhibition and conference in Aberdeen, for which 45,000 delegates from around the world descended on Aberdeen to discuss the future of the North sea. There was a spring in their step. The North sea—in Scotland's territorial waters—is moving into a new era that gives huge potential for Scotland's economic future.

The Labour Party always tells us that Scotland's oil industry is in decline, but British Petroleum has just announced that it is to build a brand new headquarters in Aberdeen. Cautious oil companies do not make multimillion-pound investments like that unless they have full confidence in the future of the oil industry.

Even the Department for Trade and Industry's official statistics—and the DTI is the most conservative body in Government—say that there are at least 30 more years of oil and gas in the North sea. Even the DTI is saying that for every barrel of oil that is extracted, another one remains to be extracted.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

The SNP manifesto says:

"An SNP government will climate change proof our policies".

Given that even Tony Blair argues that the UK needs to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, how will the SNP climate change proof oil extraction?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The simple fact that seems to escape Mark Ballard is that Scotland needs fossil fuels such as oil and gas if its economy is to keep going and not close down tomorrow. It will take 20, 30 or 40 years to switch to a low-carbon economy. Mark Ballard is telling the Scottish people that we cannot do anything about climate change unless we close down North sea production tomorrow and bring our economy—and, indeed, the economy of other countries—to a complete halt. That would lead to economic dislocation. The oil industry has to help Scotland's economy until we switch over to renewables. As I have said, that process will take decades. The difference between the SNP on the one hand and the Green party and the unionist parties on the other is that they want North sea oil revenues over the next few decades to go to London and not to Edinburgh, where they could be used to boost the country's economy.

On the future of North sea production and renewables, a couple of weeks ago, I met representatives of Talisman Energy, which is the biggest independent operator in the North sea. They told me that, under the company's stewardship, oil fields that BP was supposed to close in the 1990s will continue to produce oil until 2023 and that other oil fields will pump oil and gas until around 2050. The industry has a huge future. That is why when we talk about oil and Scotland's energy potential, we concentrate not on the past but on the future.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Does the member agree that an important component of the new exploration in the North sea is the Government's fallow field initiative?

Richard Lochhead (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Although I welcome many of the measures that have been taken, we need to take many more if we are to support the oil industry. Unfortunately, the UK Government in London sees the industry as a cash cow, not as a source of other skills and technologies that should be invested in.

We must learn lessons from Norway. For the fifth successive year, the United Nations has declared Norway to be the best place in the world to live. That is because the Norwegians use their natural and energy resources to boost their economy and to protect their people's interests. We should do the same in Scotland.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Is it not funny how the SNP wants to talk about independence only after an election, never during one? The sadly departed Ronnie Barker once brought us news of a strange happening during a performance of Elgar's "Sea Pictures" at a concert hall in Bermuda, when the man playing the triangle disappeared. Perhaps he went out looking for the SNP's commitment to independence in Cathcart and Livingston. In both campaigns, it was the dog that did not bark.

However, after yet another gubbing at the polls, the nationalists are safely back in the chamber, well away from the electorate. Now they can get on with doing what they do best: talking to each other—or to whoever is left in the chamber—or, more accurately, talking to their activists in a bid to top up the ballot for list seats. I suppose that that is one election that an SNP candidate might stand a chance of winning.

The SNP's double life extends beyond its embarrassment about independence. As far as the economy is concerned, I cannot believe that the nationalists have the cheek to try to lecture us about the virtues of enterprise. Is this the same SNP whose list of wild spending promises makes even our colleagues the Liberals look like iron-fisted skinflints? Is this the same SNP that demands more money for—to pick but a few examples—a Scotland-only honours system, the fishing industry, the arts and whatever the Fèisean movement is? I hope that it does not involve Highland farmers and their cattle. Before Mr Mather dismisses those pledges as the ramblings of a lunatic fringe, I should point out that he himself likes splashing the imaginary cash. He has demanded more funding for the Highlands and Islands, the creation of an independent office of national statistics, the waiving of fresh talent application fees and much, much more.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the member give way?

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

No.

Is this the same SNP whose ideological hatred of the private sector is such that it would leave the sick to suffer on waiting lists instead of using the capacity in private hospitals to get operations carried out quicker? Is this the same SNP that would have our kids educated in cold, crumbling classrooms because of its dogmatic opposition to public-private partnerships? Is this the same SNP that can hardly say the word "profit" without spitting? Is this the same SNP that promised money left, right and centre during the Cathcart and Livingston by-election campaigns?

Yes, it is the very same SNP. Now, a mere week later, the nationalists expect us to believe that they have suddenly turned into the party of fiscal prudence. No one needs to get the Windolene out to be able to see through that.

In short, if the SNP is to have any credibility as a serious political party—and I realise that that is a big if—it cannot continue to lead this double life. It cannot be a sober bank manager during the week and dress up as a showgirl at the weekend—or perhaps it is the showgirl who dresses up as a bank manager at the weekend. I am not sure which metaphor is more apt.

Until the SNP decides whether spreadsheets or sequins suit them best, the people of Scotland—as they did in Cathcart and Livingston—will keep sending them homeward to think again.

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I congratulate Charlie Gordon on making his maiden speech this morning. It was nice to see the new MSP for Glasgow Cathcart, who I am sure will represent his constituents extremely well, taking his part in the Labour Party's traditional battle against the running dogs of capitalism. I hope that those are the only running dogs that he, unlike his predecessor, will be concerned with.

We are here at the SNP's behest to discuss its economic policy. The debate has certainly raised many questions that need to be answered. However, as far as economic policy is concerned, the nationalists remain split down the middle. It does not matter how many responsible SNP front benchers set out in sensible terms how their party would run the country; look at the myriad individuals behind them, such as our dear friend Christine Grahame, who is notorious for spending half a billion pounds every time she gets to her feet. There is an inconsistency in a party that seeks to be responsible but calls for expenditure at every opportunity.

That said, we must address the issue of the McCrone paper, which has now been made public and which, before its publication, formed the mainstay of Alex Salmond's speech to the SNP conference a few weeks ago. The publication of the paper has led to some great revelations, but the SNP has once again taken all the good points out of a particular idea while ignoring its more difficult aspects.

Although the paper, written all those years ago, highlighted some positive aspects for Scottish nationalism, I want to provide some balance. For example, it says:

"Scottish banks could expect to find themselves inundated with a speculative inflow of foreign funds."

R G L McCrone also points out that any Scottish currency could inflate in value by 20 per cent in the first two years of independence, which could have disastrous effects on industry and export; that Scotland would be too expensive for tourists; that Scottish farmers would find European Union subsidies worth a lot less; and that there was a

"grave risk that the economy would be driven more and more to depend on the oil industry and other activities would tend to wither"

on the vine.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will the member give way?

Alex Johnstone (Conservative, North East Scotland)

No, I will carry on with my quotations.

Although Scotland would have "a good income" from oil—which I am prepared to admit—McCrone then says that

"it could never be an adequate source of employment with the rest of the economy in decline."

Although Scotland could be rich, a higher proportion of the workforce would be on the dole and the population would begin to fall.

Norway has been mentioned many times this morning. I speak to Norwegians quite often—many live in the north-east because of their involvement in the oil industry—and I see some of the things that they have told me about present-day Norway reflected in the picture that McCrone painted all those years ago. For example, although Norway is wealthy, it is not necessarily the kind of country that we would want Scotland to be. Our relationship with our UK partners has benefited us greatly, and over the past 30 years oil moneys have flowed through the Exchequer back into this country.

The SNP talks a good game, but it fails to understand the rigours of true international capitalism. There is no better example of that than the attempt by Nicola Sturgeon to encourage revulsion at the idea that Scottish Power could be taken over by a German company. In recent years, the most successful Scottish companies have grown through acquisition. Scotland is part of a world economy and it cannot exist in isolation. In that world economy, Scotland is already doing a very good job.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

We move to winding-up speeches. I must ask members to stick to their allotted times.

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

The SNP has lost this morning's debate on the economy, just as it loses every debate that we have on the economy. It has lost the debate on the motion because my colleagues have successfully shown that, when it comes to promoting economic growth and rising living standards and addressing demographic trends, it is the Executive rather than the SNP that has the right strategy. We are building on eight years of economic success, record employment and consistent growth, thanks to our being part of a strong UK economy under the stewardship of Gordon Brown.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

The fact is that the gap between growth in Scotland and growth in the rest of the UK continues to increase. In the first quarter of this year, growth was 0 per cent. Where is the success in that?

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

Scotland has had consistent growth at a time when other parts of Europe have gone in and out of recession. That consistent growth has been a great reward for Scotland.

It is the SNP's lack of a coherent strategy that is based on growing the economy, rather than the frailty of its arguments on the economy, that has been the overriding factor in the failure of the people of Scotland to trust the nationalists with their prosperity. The emphasis of Kenny MacAskill's speech was rather different, but Charlie Gordon was right to say that, instead of being perceived as being obsessed with the constitution, the SNP should aim to deliver on the economy. Alas, that was a forlorn hope, given that the SNP motion again focuses on the powers of the Parliament.

Alex Neil closed a debate on the economy that we had earlier in the year with the words, "freedom, freedom, freedom." That was rousing stuff, I am sure, but it is because the SNP tries to bend its economic strategy to the goal of what it mistakenly calls freedom that it ends up with no real strategy at all. We initiated and refreshed the smart, successful Scotland strategy with the goal of economic development in mind; that is why it is working for Scotland.

What the SNP proffers as its strategy is hopelessly confused. I do not doubt for a second that Jim Mather wants Scotland to perform effectively in the global marketplace, but the concept of economic patriotism that his deputy leader came out with implies that we could have a new policy of protectionism, when that would cut us off from the rest of the global marketplace. We cannot adopt such a policy under devolution and we could not do so under independence; to pretend that we could is to deceive the Scottish Power workers. Other Scottish companies that are succeeding abroad would find it a costly policy.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Richard Baker (Labour, North East Scotland)

I am sorry, but I cannot.

We now know the SNP's policy on oil as the oil overdraft. The nationalists revel in high prices one day, as they say that they would mean that an independent Scotland would be economically viable after all, but the next day they say that high prices are bad for Scottish business. That is a policy of confusion and hypocrisy.

The SNP's favourite game is to pick a single aspect of an independent small nation's economy and to hold it up as a beacon, but that approach is flawed, too. We have heard a huge amount about Norway and its oil fund from Mr Maxwell and others, but The Economist—which I am sure that Mr Mather must read—writes:

"many of Norway's 3.4m-odd voters do not share the view that they live in nirvana. With all that oil wealth, they cannot understand why the welfare system has so many defects. There is a shortage of kindergartens, hospitals are understaffed, taxes are high, petrol costs as much as in non-oil countries and pensioners have problems making ends meet."

It is no wonder that the Labour Party won the election in Norway, that Scotland beat Norway 2-1 in the football or that, with such an obviously flawed economic policy, the SNP performed so pitifully in the election that Charlie Gordon—who gave an excellent maiden speech earlier this morning—won for Labour in Cathcart.

The SNP has lost the argument on the economy this morning, just as it lost that argument in Cathcart. It is clear that, when it presents its woeful excuse for an economic strategy to the rest of the people of Scotland in 2007, it will be roundly rejected again.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I join other members in welcoming Charlie Gordon to the Parliament. I congratulate him both on his maiden speech and on taking over my mantle as the new boy. I wish him well.

The debate is important. The Scottish economy is crucial to everything that the Parliament does and to everything that it aspires to do. We need a successful economy to fund the public services on which we all rely. As Bill Clinton famously reminded his campaign team, "It's the economy, stupid." Perhaps all of us should reflect on that daily; we might or might not wish to drop the "stupid".

The SNP motion talks about Government having a duty to create

"meaningful levels of economic growth".

I agree, but I would go further than that. It ought to be the duty of Government to foster the conditions in which we can deliver the highest levels of sustainable economic growth. Perhaps that is what Jim Mather was driving at. The motion refers to the failed policies of the past 30 years. Some policies have failed—in some cases, fairly spectacularly—and Governments of all parties have made mistakes. What is important is that we learn from those mistakes.

It is not surprising that the SNP constantly brings the debate back to independence—which is what I assume it means by the phrase "full competitive control" that is used in the motion. If the SNP does not stand for independence, it does not really stand for anything. However, I wonder whether independence is a meaningful concept when we talk about the economy, because the impact of international trade and the development of the global economy mean that although Scotland could well be independent in name, it could never be independent in practice.

As Murdo Fraser pointed out, it is the policy that is important. Independence would certainly provide a different framework in which to implement economic policy, but it would not necessarily provide a better economic policy. It is true that the Parliament does not have the powers over the Scottish economy that some members of all parties would like it to have. There is a proper debate to be had on that, but if we do not use the powers that we have responsibly and effectively, we will struggle to convince a sceptical public if or, indeed, when we ask for greater powers. I disagree with Jim Mather that there is a public appetite for greater powers at the moment.

John Swinburne (SSCUP, Central Scotland)

Does the member agree that the people of Clydebank—who were mentioned earlier—would have been delighted if the order to build three aircraft carriers had gone to the Clyde rather than to France and if the Ferguson yard in Duncan McNeil's constituency had been awarded the contract for building a fishery protection vessel? That could have happened if the contract for that vessel had been put under a Ministry of Defence mantle.

Derek Brownlee (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I am sure that people in Clydebank would look forward to any form of regeneration. It is certainly true that there are parts of Scotland that have lagged behind the rest of the country.

This afternoon we will hear an interesting statement on business rates. In all probability, the announcement that is made will be welcome, even if it is long overdue. As we prepare for that statement, it is worth reflecting on the policy on business rates that has operated over the past five years. Has the higher level of business rates increased economic growth, made our businesses more competitive and created jobs? I think that we all know the answer to that question. Perhaps the minister will give us his response this afternoon.

The economy is a hugely important subject and I am glad that the SNP has used some of its time to focus on what the Parliament can do to improve matters, even if—this will come as no surprise—I do not agree with every aspect of what it said. It is important that we explore what we can do within the current boundaries of devolution. There is no reason why we should be pessimistic about what we can achieve for the Scottish economy, unless we lack the political will to change direction when our policies are seen to fail. That is the real test for the Executive.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I, too, begin by congratulating Charlie Gordon on his maiden speech. He was right to say that, in Cathcart, there was an open goal, but I disagree that when Big Eck took the penalty it hit the corner flag; I think that Big Eck fell on his face in the run-up and did not manage to kick the ball at all. Although Mr Gordon is a new boy, someone should point out to him that, unlike Glasgow City Council, the Executive is a two-party coalition and not a one-party state.

The debate has been a bit like "Groundhog Day" in that, as usual, the SNP has portrayed Scotland as the victim—the big, bad English boy beat us up and ran off with our oil money. Kenny MacAskill came up with his conspiracy theories and his good old chip-on-the-shoulder rhetoric. Poor helpless Scotland was mugged and robbed of its oil cash—if only. That is complete and utter nonsense, as the facts clearly demonstrate.

In 1974, when McCrone's paper was produced, the price of oil was at an all-time high as the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries hiked up the price and economies round the world were hit with the first of the two oil shocks. McCrone could not have foreseen then that the price of oil would collapse to $10 a barrel, which is what it was through much of the 1980s and the early 1990s—in fact, right through to recent times.

The facts are that, even if all the oil revenues from North sea oil had been apportioned to Scotland, we would still have been in overall deficit to the UK over the past 30 years. The real question is how well the oil money was invested during that time. We got the answer from Mr Brownlee in his wind-up speech, because he admitted that the Tories had made huge numbers of mistakes during their stewardship of the economy at that time.

Murdo Fraser (Conservative, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Not huge numbers.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

Mr Brownlee was certainly more than willing to admit that a substantial number of mistakes had been made.

As I said, the real question is how well the oil money was invested. The answer is that it was wasted on unemployment benefit and on throwing people on to the scrapheap.

Jim Mather (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Does the minister really believe that the Scottish people are incapable of learning and taking messages from other countries and converging on best outcomes? Does he think that we would go for a disastrous outcome and stick with it?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

No, the Scottish people are extremely wise and they can see through the rhetoric that the SNP keeps putting before them. In the past three elections, they have rejected the SNP's view of the world in favour of the real world. As Charlie Gordon said, it is a day of catatonia for the SNP, and the real question that confronts the SNP is what its fiscal and monetary policy would be if it was ever fortunate enough to persuade Scotland to vote for independence. Would the SNP adopt the high tax, high public expenditure Scandinavian model? Norway and Finland are the only two small countries that have been mentioned in the debate; there has been no mention of Ireland, which is the other alternative, of course—the low taxation, low public spending Irish model. Alternatively, would it adopt the Alice in Wonderland economic model that combines the Irish taxation level and the Scandinavian spending level? That is the position that is so often articulated by SNP spokespeople in debates in the Parliament. The electorate rightly sees that for what it is: economic illiteracy. That is why it has rejected the SNP so many times over the past three to four years.

The Executive is investing in education, skills, support for research and development and entrepreneurial dynamism. From next year, we will be spending £22 million a year in our schools to promote enterprise and risk taking to our young people. We are also investing record amounts in improving our transport infrastructure. Later this afternoon, the Minister for Finance and Public Service Reform will confirm that we will cut Scotland's business rate poundage and bring it into line with that of England. Currently, rateable values in Scotland are lower on average than those in England and combining that with a business rate poundage that is equal to England's will mean that we will have taken a major step towards delivering a key competitive advantage for Scottish firms.

I believe that the Executive has created a great environment in which to do business. Those words are not just mine; they are also the words of Tony Froggatt, the chief executive of Scottish and Newcastle plc, who last night was designated Cable and Wireless businessman of the year. He stated that Scotland is a great environment in which to do business, and I ask colleagues to support that notion.

10:29:

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I, too, congratulate Charlie Gordon on his maiden speech. I am sure that the First Minister, with gritted teeth, would have been watching it closely on a monitor. I first met Charlie when he was campaigning for independence for Scotland as a member of the breakaway Scottish Labour Party. I hope that he has not changed his mind, even though he has changed his party. I disagree with him on one issue, which is his claim that Glasgow is booming under Labour. Glasgow has a real unemployment rate of about 28 per cent. With that level of unemployment, to claim that the city is booming makes Charlie look a Charlie—a real Charlie.

Let us start with the facts about the Scottish economy.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

Will the member take an intervention?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I will take it later.

After eight years of a Labour Government and six years of a Lib-Lab pact in Holyrood, let us look at the facts. Fact one is about unemployment. The real level of unemployment in Scotland is about 250,000 people. About 90,000 unemployed claim benefit, but another 50,000 or 60,000 officially unemployed do not claim benefit. Thirty-five thousand 16 to 19-year-olds are not in employment, education or training, which is the highest percentage in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, according to the Executive. In addition, there are many thousands on incapacity benefit who can and want to work and tens of thousands in part-time employment who want to be in full-time employment.

Let us be clear: the idea that Gordon Brown has solved unemployment in Scotland is total nonsense. We continue to have very high, very concentrated levels of unemployment in Scotland, most noticeably in the constituencies of Des McNulty, Duncan McNeil and Charlie Gordon, as well as in many other Labour representatives' constituencies.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

On that point, in this horrible country that Mr Neil describes, why did the voters in the desperate constituency of Cathcart singularly fail, only last Thursday, to accept the SNP's arguments as a positive statement for Scotland?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am sure that they will reverse that decision in 2007. They will recognise that 300 years of the Union has been a disaster for Scotland and for Glasgow.

Let us look at facts and the investment record. Our competitors invest about 20 per cent of their GDP in their economies; in Scotland, we invest less than 10 per cent. The figures on manufacturing exports that we got yesterday are some of the worst ever produced. Two weeks ago, we got the new figure on research and development expenditure. It is not going up; it is going down, although it is already one of the lowest in the OECD.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

Can Mr Neil explain to us how an independent Scottish pound tied to the price of a barrel of oil would help to improve Scottish manufacturing exports?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

It would improve them enormously, because of exchange and interest rates. For example, our industry would not face an interest rate that is twice the real rate in countries in the euro zone or North America. A lower interest rate would be a massive boost to industry and manufacturing jobs in Scotland.

Let us deal with oil, not by looking at the past, but by looking into the future.

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

rose—

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I will not give way again.

The reality is that we now have a second chance with oil. All the lies that were told about oil 30 years ago, as Gavin McCrone pointed out, are now being retold today. However, the reality is that we are in for a long, sustained period of high oil prices. As Lord Oxburgh, the chairman of Shell UK, has pointed out, we are in a situation in which, no matter what scenario we paint, oil will remain at $60, $70 or perhaps $80 a barrel. We are also in a situation in which Gordon Brown is depending on oil revenue this year to bail him out of his economic black hole. I find it amazing that the unionists argue that we could not be independent because Scotland would have a small deficit. Gordon Brown is running up record deficits. Does that mean that the UK cannot function as an independent country?

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

The real question is what the SNP's fiscal and monetary policy would be if Scotland was independent. Would the SNP adopt the Irish or the Scandinavian model? We have not heard clarity on that from Mr Neil.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

George Lyon has heard clarity; he just does not want to listen.

If we had control over not only oil but all our financial and economic policy, we would be able to do something that I would have thought every Liberal and Labour member would want to do—we would be able to use the natural resources of Scotland, and the resultant revenue and downstream jobs, to solve the problems of unemployment, deprivation and poverty. Instead, we have nothing but a litany of complacency from the two coalition parties about the state of Scotland today.

Our message is very simple: put Scotland's wealth to work for the people of Scotland. The only way in which we will be able to do that is by freeing ourselves from the controls of London through an independent Scotland.

Scottish Olympic Team

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

The next item of business is a debate on motion S2M-3381, in the name of Michael Matheson, on the Scottish Olympic team.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Anyone who is ambitious for sport in Scotland wants to see our competitors competing at the highest possible level on the international stage. That is why I believe that Scotland should have its own Olympic team, competing in the Olympic games alongside the other Olympic nations.

A range of members across this chamber will be riddled with self-doubt over whether Scotland can have its own Olympic team and whether we have the talent to have our own Olympic team. Others will think, "Well, Scotland really shouldn't get above its station." In fact, there is nothing to stop Scotland forming its own national Olympic committee. Of the 202 national Olympic committees in the world, 13 do not have national status at the United Nations. They include two teams from the Virgin Islands, and teams from the Cayman Islands, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Andorra, to name just a few. Despite not being represented at the UN, they are ambitious for their sportsmen and women and want them to participate every four years in the biggest sporting event in the world.

In the unionist alliance, there are those who would doubt those facts. Let me refer them to a quotation from the International Olympic Committee:

"Although most National Olympic Committees are from nations, the IOC also recognises independent territories, commonwealths, protectorates and geographical areas."

I concede that Scotland is not an independent nation—yet—but the last time that I looked at a map we were certainly a geographical area. The Olympic charter makes it clear that Scotland can have its own national Olympic committee. The criteria that are set down make that possible. There is no technical or legal reason why we should not have our own team.

There are those in the chamber who would say that Scottish athletes are better off training and competing alongside the Great Britain squad for the Olympics. That is what Jamie McGrigor is trying to say in his rambling amendment, in which—despite being a die-hard unionist—he shows that he does not know the difference between a union jack and a union flag.

Some say that we would be better off competing under the GB system, but that strikes me as an argument for abolishing any form of independent representation for Scotland on the international field. Let us get rid of the Scottish football team, the Scottish rugby team, and the Scottish Commonwealth games team. If we believe the argument, those teams would all do better under the GB flag.

However, I know that even the Executive is not persuaded by that argument. The Executive wants to encourage Scottish athletes to train and compete here in Scotland. Target 7 of sport 21, the Executive's sports policy, wants to make

"sport experience so attractive and successful that all Scottish athletes will want to live, train, compete, work and study in Scotland".

I support that view and I am sure that many others in the chamber support it too. To argue that our athletes would be better off under the GB system is contrary to the Executive's own policy.

The Olympics are coming to London in 2012. I believe that that will provide Scotland with an excellent opportunity to join the Olympic family by having its own team. We have talented athletes who can compete on the international stage. At the previous two Olympic games, Scottish sportsmen and women succeeded in securing 13 medals. What we need to do, with our own Olympic team, is to build on that success and ensure that we achieve even greater success in the future.

The Olympic games are not just about winning; they are about participating. A benefit of having our own Olympic team is that it would increase the opportunity for Scottish sportsmen and women to participate in the biggest sporting event in the world. At the most recent Olympic games, only 24 Scots made it into the GB team, whereas New Zealand, with only 4 million people, was able to send a team of 150. If more of our athletes can compete at the pinnacle of sporting events, that will encourage them to strive further and act as a catalyst for young people to get much more involved in sport.

The key objectives in sport 21 are to ensure that we widen participation, increase physical activity and ensure that Scotland has greater representation on the international stage. Those are all Executive objectives in its existing policy, but surely they would be much more achievable if we had our own Olympic team. That would increase and widen participation, give us greater representation on the international stage, and enthuse our young people to participate in sport.

Last week, an ambitious campaign was launched to establish a Scottish Olympic team. The campaign has the support of some 78 per cent of the Scottish public. They are ambitious for Scotland's athletes. There is no technical reason why Scotland cannot have its own Olympic team. What we need is the political will to ensure that it happens. What we need is for Scotland's politicians to demonstrate that they are as ambitious as the Scottish people for our athletes to compete at the highest level. I hope that members across the chamber—even unionists—will join us in supporting the campaign to ensure that Scotland establishes its own Olympic team. By doing that, we will ensure that Scottish athletes will participate in the biggest sporting event in the world.

I move,

That the Parliament congratulates London on securing the 2012 Olympic Games, which will encourage many young Scots to become involved in sport; welcomes the recent launch of a campaign to establish a Scottish Olympic team; notes that 78 per cent of Scots support the establishment of such a team; recognises that the creation of a Scottish Olympic team will inspire many young Scots to achieve sporting excellence in order to represent their nation in the Olympic arena, and calls on politicians from across the political spectrum to rise up to the challenge set by the people of Scotland and work to establish a Scottish Olympic team.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I warmly congratulate London on winning the right to stage the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games. I was pleased to note the unequivocal support in the Scottish National Party motion for the London games. It might be said, however, that Michael Matheson doth protest too much. He must surely forgive the rest of us a little confusion, given some of the support that his party has given London over the past 12 months.

Here is Pete Wishart showing support on 13 October 2004:

"It is now clear to the Scottish people that this is another example of Scotland pays and London gains."

Then we had Alex Neil saying on 17 January 2005:

"This is Dome Mark 2."

Even better, on 27 June we had Mr Neil writing to the IOC to suggest that Scotland would lose out if London won the games. He stated:

"I hope that the IOC will bear Scotland in mind when making their decision."

Within days of the IOC making its positive decision to host the games in London, the SNP was still desperately trying to undermine the UK's case.

I do not dispute that the SNP is expressing support for the London games, but it has an odd way of showing its support. That takes us to the heart of the matter: in the world of the SNP, the term "London" is a metonym for England. The SNP speaks of London politicians, the London Treasury and the London Government; it avoids the word "England", but no one is fooled. The real reason for the SNP's equivocation on the London games is the fear that strikes in nationalist hearts that a great British event will cement the unity in diversity and the collective national spirit of the nations that make up the United Kingdom.

For the SNP, the issue is not a separate Olympic team per se. That is merely the vehicle to reduce the debate to a vain attempt to undermine the constitutional settlement, as the SNP does with every debate, from that on our evening news to the famed Sewel motion on the carriage of guide dogs for the blind in private hire taxis. The party that wants a separate state finds itself praying in aid the constitutional status of the British Virgin Islands and Guam in its quest to have fewer Scottish medallists in 2012. The London games are an opportunity for Britain and Scotland to enjoy on our doorstep the biggest and greatest sporting event. The games will allow athletes from throughout Britain to fulfil a lifetime ambition, not only of winning an Olympic medal as part of team GB but of doing so on home turf.

The fact that Scotland is part of a British team does not mean that we do not have ambitions of our own. The Scottish Government wants Scotland to be a successful sporting nation that competes on the world stage with pride, honour and distinction. We recognise the role that sport plays, internationally as well as at home, in promoting understanding and co-operation, breaking down barriers and celebrating diversity. We have ambitions for our athletes—we want them to realise their potential and to attain success at the highest level, be that European, world, Commonwealth or Olympic competitions. However, we must be realistic about how and where those ambitions can be realised.

There are many reasons why the Executive does not support the call to create a Scottish Olympic team, but none of them is to do with lack of ambition. Our ambition is demonstrated by our determination to bring the 2014 Commonwealth games to Glasgow. A combination of the strengths of all parts of Great Britain offers a greater chance of international success and the opportunity for athletes to train with a larger pool of world-class competitors. Scottish athletes with the talent to attain GB squad membership gain from competing with and against athletes of a similar calibre—it is good for their development. We certainly have exceptionally talented Scots who have given truly great performances on the Olympic stage.

We come to the downside of the SNP's proposal. When Scots cheered for Kelly Holmes, they were sharing in the delight at the success of a compatriot. Are they to be denied that? The majority of Scots' medal successes on the Olympic stage have come when they have been part of a team of athletes from the home countries. For example, Shirley Robertson's gold medal in Athens was won in a team event with two non-Scots and Chris Hoy's silver in Sydney was won in a team with another Scot, Craig MacLean, and Jason Queally of England.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Does the minister accept that SNP members and the 78 per cent of people in Scotland who would like a Scottish team in the Olympics will continue to cheer on outstanding individuals such as Kelly Holmes? However, that is nothing whatever to do with the desire to have a Scottish team. Why should we have a Scottish football team, but not a Scottish Olympic team?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I had a funny feeling that we might get to that issue at the end of the day. Scotland's sporting participation is rather like the devolution settlement: just as we determine health and education matters in Scotland and social security and defence matters in Britain, so we can participate in football and the Commonwealth games as Scotland, but in the Davis cup and the Olympic games as Britain. Just as with the devolution settlement, the only people who find that to be a problem are nationalist ideologues—the issue is not what is theoretically possible, but what is best for Scotland.

Mr Ewing has said implicitly that he wants to deny Scottish members of teams the opportunity to contribute to the GB medal tally. Scottish athletes will contribute to strong GB teams in 2012 and in the future. Is the SNP really saying that we should deny Shirley Robertson the chance to win gold as part of one of those teams? I sincerely hope that it is not. Scots have done well through being part of strong GB teams at the Olympics and the Paralympics. Selection for a GB team means that athletes are of a certain standard—they are the best in Britain, not just in Scotland. Arguably, Scotland enjoys the best of both worlds, by competing as Scotland in the Commonwealth games and as part of the GB or UK set-up for the Olympics, certain world championships and other events.

For all those reasons, the Executive does not support the move to create a separate Scottish Olympic team. However, the Scottish Parliament can rest assured that we and sportscotland will continue to work with our partners to ensure that as many Scots as possible are selected as part of a successful GB Olympic team. Mr Matheson was keen to quote from the IOC charter. However, we must not ignore the founding principles of the Olympic games. The point is that people of all races come together to observe the ancient concept of the Olympic truce. The Olympic games are about pulling together, not about pulling apart.

I move amendment S2M-3381.2, to leave out from "recent launch" to end and insert:

"Scottish bid to secure the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow in 2014; recognises that these two events would provide an unparalleled opportunity within the United Kingdom for Scots to perform at the highest level, and notes that both events would provide a major impetus to participation and performance in sport at all levels, with all the health and other benefits that brings."

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The Conservatives appreciate very much the enormous effort of Sebastian Coe and his team to secure the Olympic games for the United Kingdom, unlike the SNP, which said that the bid was a waste of money. The success was achieved against all the odds. Sebastian Coe came to the Scottish Parliament to lobby for our support and I am sure that the support that he gained here played no small part in that great victory. Had the bid been seen just as an English bid, I doubt whether it would have won. Once again, the strength of the United Kingdom proved its worth.

The Olympic charter, which was established by Pierre de Coubertin, states:

"The goal of the Olympic Movement is to contribute to building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sport".

That is particularly important during the turbulent and violent times in which we live. The Olympic goal of achieving excellence in a sporting and friendly atmosphere in which competitors strive to give their best and to be the best is thrilling. I do not like the SNP's politically motivated call for a separate Scottish Olympic team, as it questions the loyalty of past Scottish Olympic heroes who fought valiantly to win medals for the Great Britain team, as did their Welsh, English and Irish counterparts.

Michael Matheson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

No, I want to make progress.

Different loyalties to national identity do not have to be divided loyalties. Many sports have traditionally been played at GB level, a structure that has served the United Kingdom, athletes and Scottish sport well since the modern Olympic games started in 1896. Why change something that works well? I am afraid that the SNP motion is sour grapes from the party that would sacrifice Scotland's position as a big fish in a successful British union to become a far less significant player on the European or world stage.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the member take an intervention?

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

Not at the moment.

The United Kingdom has greater influence in Europe and the rest of the world than an independent Scotland would have. In the same way, team GB is far more powerful in the Olympic games than a Scottish team on its own would be. Chris Hoy, a gold medallist in cycling, in commenting on Linda Fabiani's suggestion for a Scottish Olympic team, said:

"I think if we do that it would dilute the resources and the expertise we've got in the British team."

He went on to say that he is a very proud Scot. The SNP does not have a monopoly on patriotism and it should not try to make the Olympics a political issue.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Mr McGrigor, you have one minute left.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The SNP has been consistent only in its blatant opportunism. First, Alex Neil called the UK's bid for the 2012 Olympics a waste of public money. Then, the SNP supported Glasgow's 2014 bid for the Commonwealth games, which we also support. However, the SNP called on the Scottish Executive to ask Westminster for lottery funding for the Commonwealth games, even though it had said that the Olympic games are a waste of money. By doing that, the SNP has shown a talent for muddling that has more to do with promoting its nationalist agenda than with promoting Scottish sport effectively in the UK, Europe and the world beyond.

Successful Scottish athletes have enjoyed the best training facilities and coaching that the UK has to offer. Ask Shirley Robertson, the sailing gold medallist, or Katherine Grainger, the rowing silver medallist, where they trained. If Scotland were to go it alone, as the SNP would like it to do, our athletes would have reduced resources in terms of facilities and coaching expertise.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does Mr McGrigor accept that talented athletes from all over the world train in different places all over the world? Does he also accept that the facilities in the UK are owned as much by Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as they are by England?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

If you take an intervention after your time is up, Mr McGrigor, you must answer very quickly.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

A Scottish team on its own would probably not get the English facilities, because in an independent Scotland those facilities would have to be paid for.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Mr McGrigor, you must stop now.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I ask the Scottish Executive to use the power and influence that it holds for the time being to promote areas of Scotland—

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Mr McGrigor, you seem to be utterly oblivious to the warnings I gave you that you had one minute left, that you were over your time and that you must stop now. For the avoidance of doubt, you have stopped now.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I move amendment S2M-3381.1, to leave out from "London" to end and insert:

"the Great British effort, led by Sebastian Coe, which secured the 2012 Olympic Games for London; recognises that this will greatly encourage young people from Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England to participate in sport and in the quest for Olympic glory for individuals and Team GB; acknowledges the pride of the many Scots who have competed successfully for Team GB; notes that different loyalties do not have to be divided loyalties and that many sports have traditionally been played at GB level, a structure which has served the United Kingdom, athletes and Scottish sport well since the first modern Olympic Games in Athens in 1896; welcomes the news that Hampden Park will host the Olympic football and urges the Scottish Executive to promote other venues in Scotland, such as mountain biking at Fort William, rowing at Strathclyde Park and equestrianism at Gleneagles; further notes that Scottish athletes who compete for Great Britain under the Union Jack do not cease to be Scottish, and believes that, by pooling resources and expertise, Great Britain can compete successfully against much larger nations, providing invaluable experience for the athletes and a source of great national pride for sports fans."

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

Michael Matheson made an exceptionally good speech; he put forward the best possible case for his point of view, which holds some attractions, but I do not share it. On balance, and for the following reasons, I am content to support Patricia Ferguson's amendment.

First, there is a variety of bases for international teams. One of the most successful recent ones has been the change from a UK to a European golf team, which functions extremely successfully. The basis for teams is historical. Scotland was a prime mover in starting international football and rugby, so it has a team in those sports. Other areas, such as the Olympic games and the Davis cup, work in a different way. That is how history is.

The argument that all sorts of countries that are not nation states are members of the Olympic movement sounds good, but I am interested in any examples that Michael Matheson or anyone else can give me of existing nation states that have been disassembled only for Olympic purposes and not for any other purposes. There is a difference. With all due respect, Scotland is a bit different from the British Virgin Islands.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

No. We do not have long enough for our speeches.

In 1956, I was arguably the runner-up and failed to get into the British Olympic team for the 800m. If there had been a Scottish team, I would probably have got into it, so there is an attraction in having a Scottish team. However, it is better to stay as we are and accept that we do our best within a United Kingdom team; many benefits arise from that set-up, as Patricia Ferguson said.

I fully support the London bid, which will benefit the United Kingdom as a whole, but it will reduce the amount of lottery money that is available to support sporting and other causes in Scotland. The Executive must ensure that that reduction is made up, either by Government funds or in some other way. The key is to have the strongest possible grass-roots sport. All parties accept that, although we might disagree on how to achieve it. If we provide more financial and personal support, more influence and better facilities for grass-roots sport, we will have more good sportspeople—it will not matter if they perform in some sports for the United Kingdom and in some sports for Scotland. We need to have as many good, young sportspeople as possible. I am sure that the minister will attend to that. We must all ensure that she does.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

I commend Michael Matheson for the way in which he moved the motion. He put the case, clearly and comprehensively, for Scotland to send its own Olympic team to London in 2012. None of his major arguments have been tackled by the speakers thus far. The minister refused to say why Scotland can have her own football team but not her own Olympic team. Interestingly, she did not respond to Mr Matheson's argument that there is no technical or legal barrier to Scotland having her own team, although at one time those who espouse the British-team-only cause argued that because Scotland is not an independent nation state, she would be barred. Of course, that is absolutely not the case.

We learned from this debate that Donald Gorrie could not get into the British Olympic team, although he could have participated in a Scottish Olympic team, but that is not enough to put us off pursuing the motion. I would have loved to see Donald Gorrie take part in the Olympics, had I been of the right age.

No one has addressed the fact that, from testing the opinions of more than 1,000 people, we know that nearly four out of five people in Scotland want Scotland to have her own team. I accept Jamie McGrigor's point that no one has a monopoly on patriotism, but that is not our argument: we argue that everybody should have the chance to compete for our own country of Scotland. The snide and disparaging remarks that were made by the minister and, uncharacteristically, by Jamie McGrigor do us a disservice. Those who have led the grass-roots campaign are disappointed that the comments appear to be based on a partisan agenda. They argue that the debate should be about not politics, but what is best for Scotland, which is why we believe that Scotland should have her own team.

I will dwell on my experience of promoting aspiring athletes at grass-roots level. I agree with Donald Gorrie that that is where we should direct our attention. A great many talented athletes in places such as Badenoch and Strathspey in my constituency aspire to compete in the winter Olympics in Turin next year in, for example, skiing and snowboarding. They tell me that there are opportunities at grass-roots level and at the very top level, where the cream get support, but that in the middle we have no rungs on the ladder. That is a serious problem. The minister, who is shaking her head, does not seem to accept that that problem exists.

I am proud and delighted that we are moving the motion. Outwith this chamber, there will be none of the petty personal attacks or the professional fouls that we have seen this morning, with the minister as usual playing the man, not the ball. There will simply be a recognition that the idea's time has come. Scotland should take her place on the international stage, not as part of Donald Gorrie's euroland team, but as part of the Scottish team in the Olympic games, with our athletes doing their best, taking part and winning medals for our own country.

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

If I were in a political party that aspired to Government, but which had just lost two by-elections, I would have hoped that my party had learned some lessons and that it would focus on the issues that matter to the people of Scotland. The fact that we are debating more of the nonsense for which the SNP is renowned shows that it has learned nothing and that it has no policies beyond the hyperbolic ravings of Alex Salmond.

Make no mistake: this debate is not about a vision of a better Scotland. Even worse, it has nothing to do with the interests of Scotland's athletes. Just ask Olympic cycling champion Chris Hoy, who warned us that dividing the United Kingdom into its constituent nations would weaken the chances of British cyclists competing at the highest level.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Does the member agree that, although Chris Hoy is such a talented athlete, we have no training facility in Scotland to encourage others to follow in his footsteps?

Michael McMahon (Labour, Hamilton North and Bellshill)

Yes, which is why we should concentrate on providing those facilities, not on breaking up the GB team.

The fact is that, rather than supporting London's games, which the Scottish National Party claims in its motion to do, the SNP has consistently tried to find fault with them. In doing so, it has done nothing more than expose its enmity towards Britain and England. That attitude is, simply, at odds with that of the majority of Scots. Not only is 2012 a genuine opportunity for our home-grown talent to shine, but it presents Scotland with the opportunity for massive economic benefits and gives us a chance to showcase Scottish sports facilities ahead of Glasgow's bid to host the Commonwealth games in 2014.

I fear that all that is a bigger vision than the SNP can contend with so, while our focus for 2012 should be on ensuring that as many Scots as possible are selected for team GB and have the best possible support available, the SNP looks inwards and throws a tartan tantrum.

When Colin Montgomery sank the winning putt in the Ryder cup, he was subsequently and rightly hailed as a Scottish sporting hero. How proud was Scotland last week when Andrew Murray led Britain in the Davis cup? However, why was there no outcry from the SNP to try to stop our Scottish golfers taking part in a European team and sharing glory with the Irish, the French and the other nationalities? Why were there no pleas for a Scottish tennis team in the Davis cup? The one difference is that those events were not associated with the Olympic games in London.

I look forward to seeing the Scottish successors to Wells, Wilkie and Hoy in 2012. I will be cheering them, along with the successors to Linford Christie, Daley Thompson, Kelly Holmes and Steve Redgrave. Those are the type of athletes who have made me proud when they competed as British athletes in the past.

Scots can win in London in 2012, but they will have a genuine chance to do so only if they are part of a well-resourced and properly supported British team. This morning, the SNP has said quite clearly that it would rather have the mediocrity of 100 than the excellence of 25. We should be focusing on that excellence, not on petty nationalism. It might be good enough for the SNP merely to have Scots participate in a Scottish team in 2012, but I want those who are good enough to compete with the best and to bring home medals to do so as Scots, for Scotland and Britain.

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

Presiding Officer, I have been away too long, as any fair-minded person would agree. I thank members and members of staff for the warm welcome back that we have been given after our month away.

I will always remember how I heard the news that London had secured the 2012 Olympic bid. I was walking up the main street in Auchterarder when a woman opened her door and shouted, "Have you heard the news?" I asked whether the police had gone on the radio to say that the G8 demonstration would be going ahead rather than being cancelled, which they had said in their previous announcement. "No," she said, "London's won the Olympics." As someone who lived in London for eight years, I was overjoyed. I share London's joy not least because a big part of the Olympic stadium will be built in Hackney in east London, which definitely needs such investment. Having been there again recently, for a stop the war demonstration, I know that people in the east end of London are looking forward to the Olympics coming to their part of the world.

I suspect that this debate about establishing a Scottish Olympic team is linked to the case for independence for Scotland and I also suspect that we will not get the Olympic team until we have independence.

Michael Matheson made a fair point when he said that we already have a Scottish football team in a truly worldwide organisation. That point is fairer than the one about our rugby and Commonwealth games teams because few countries are involved in those events compared with the number that are involved in the Olympics. However, the logic of the Executive's argument seems flawed. If the minister's logic were followed, we would not have a Scottish football team but a single team comprising Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England—a Great Britain football team. To be fair to the minister and the Labour members, I accept that they are not arguing for that. Nonetheless, that is the logic of their case.

I agree that the spirit of the motion is about encouraging young Scots to become involved in sport and to fulfil their potential. That means ensuring that those youngsters get access to the best coaches and facilities that we can provide. When I was in the Strathclyde University athletics team, I had the benefit of having the coaching expertise of Frank Dick at my disposal. The coaching was great. It did not do my athletics career much good, but you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will Colin Fox give us his views on the talented athletes scholarship scheme and the fact that, of the 107 athletes on the scholars programme for 2012, only one is based in Scotland?

Colin Fox (SSP, Lothians)

It often seems to be the case that when Scottish athletes reach a certain level of ability, they have to go to America or elsewhere to further their career and ensure that they reach higher standards. That is to be regretted and I hope that, in the not too distant future, they will be able to reach their full potential in Scotland.

However, regardless of whether our athletes are in a GB team or a Scottish team, the Scottish Parliament has to make a commitment to them that we will ensure that those coaching facilities are available.

Baron de Coubertin's idea of the Olympic spirit is completely at odds with a spirit that is all too prevalent in the world today and which can be seen in the spirit of the G8. The Olympic spirit is a democratic spirit. Yes, it is a competitive spirit, but it holds uppermost the idea that we can all take part at the highest level and that medals are meaningless unless everyone competes. That is exactly at odds with the spirit of the G8, which is undemocratic and elitist.

Bruce McFee (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

The London Olympics in 2012 provide the ideal circumstances for the first Scottish Olympic team. We have already heard that there is no legal impediment to a Scottish Olympic team. However, there is a political—or rather a unionist—obstacle. Unionist politicians have today objected to a Scottish Olympic team in a way that displays an absolute poverty of ambition and is an attempt to dampen the aspirations of the Scottish people and their athletes.

Of course, the minister says that she has aspirations for Scottish athletes and for Scotland—as long as those aspirations are not too high, because we do not want to get above our station.

I agree with her on one point, however, which might surprise her. We should not let nationalist ideology determine our sporting future. On that point we are agreed. That is why we in the SNP reject the narrow British nationalism that is advanced in the Labour and Tory amendments today.

The SNP supports Glasgow's bid for the 2014 Commonwealth games. However, by deleting all references to a Scottish Olympic team, the Labour amendment has the effect of suggesting that having a Scottish Olympic team and bidding for the 2014 Commonwealth games would be mutually exclusive and that, somehow, it is possible for Scottish athletes to perform at the highest level in a Scottish Commonwealth games team but not in a Scottish Olympic games team.

The Tory amendment displays the same old unionist cringe as the Labour amendment, with the addition of the strains of "Rule Britannia" reverberating through it—"It's team GB versus the world, we'll take them all on." The Tory amendment says that

"by pooling resources and expertise, Great Britain can compete successfully against much larger nations".

The implication of that statement is that smaller nations cannot so compete.

That is nonsense, particularly when we consider the most recent winter Olympics. Team GB, competing against the world, came 19th with two medals. Norway, which has a similar population to Scotland, came second with 24 medals; Finland came seventh with seven medals; and Estonia, with 1.5 million people, came 17th with three medals. The fact is that those smaller nations have the opportunity to bring forward a higher number of athletes to participate in the Olympics than is currently the case for Scotland.

I turn my attention to football. Sepp Blatter, the FIFA president, appears to have decreed that there will be a GB football team for the 2012 London Olympics. As we all know, there has always been a group within football that questions the right of the home nations to compete independently on the international stage. Given the comments that we have heard today, I have no doubt that that view will find some favour among the British nationalists in the Parliament. However, members should be in no doubt that a GB Olympic football team will put us on a slippery slope to a permanent GB international squad. That is why Scottish football supporters should—for once, at least—back the SFA, resist the attempts to strengthen our Britishness, which Jack Straw would advocate, and reject the idea of a GB football team.

If members believe that Scotland should retain its own football team and that Scottish athletes should be able to compete fully at all levels, they should back the only sensible option, which is a Scottish Olympic team.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

In how many directions can the SNP face at one time? On international sport, the answer is clear. Before I get to the guts of my speech I will comment on Bruce McFee's point about the previous winter Olympics. It is no surprise that countries such as Estonia and Norway do better than much larger countries. That is obvious, given that the winter Olympics was designed for the Nordic countries and the sports in which they compete. It is no surprise that Estonia and Norway will probably do better than even the United States of America, given the sports that comprise the winter Olympics.

We are debating the summer Olympics in 2012. Let us be honest. The SNP did not want the UK to host the games because—shock, horror—the bid was from London. After two failed bids by Manchester, it was quite clear that the United Kingdom would attract the Olympic games for the third time only if the bid was anchored by London. Those of us who supported that bid should be congratulated and those who did not support it should be condemned; they gave it no support at the time and they are giving it only grudging support now.

It would be useful if, instead of just going on about the 2012 summer Olympics, we got behind Glasgow's bid for the 2014 Commonwealth games. However, the SNP cannot get fully behind even that bid. In The Press and Journal last month, Fergus Ewing complained that, yet again, it was the central belt that would get investment and not his particular region. Presumably, some people in the SNP would have preferred the Commonwealth games bid to have come from Inverness. Their approach is, "If it ain't coming from Inverness, we will not get behind Glasgow." That sums up not just the petty nationalism but the petty regionalism that the SNP displays in some aspects of this debate.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

This is all very amusing, but will the member answer a serious point that Janette Anderson made recently in the chamber? She said that the decision may be extremely damaging to the Scottish economy because, to meet the huge transport projects for the London Olympics, capacity will be sucked out of Scotland. Does Scott Barrie think, as the First Minister does, that Janette Anderson—the chief executive of First Engineering, which is one of Scotland's leading companies—was, and I quote, "an idiot"?

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

I thank Fergus Ewing for illustrating my point. He is paying only lip service to London's successful bid for the 2012 Olympics and he does not want Glasgow to get the 2014 Commonwealth games.

International sport is a complex issue and there is an interesting question about whether people should compete—as we want them to—for the joy of competing in sport at all levels or whether they want to compete at the highest level. That question is sewn up in the Olympic games, given that in some sports some people are clearly head and shoulders above the rest.

Tennis is a sport that is only tenuously linked to the Olympics. It is clear that our number 1 tennis player in Scotland will soon be the number 1 tennis player in the United Kingdom. He competed in his first Davis cup last month, although unfortunately he did not play to his best. However, the only way in which he will ever be able to compete at international level is through a GB team. That goes not just for tennis but for a load of other sports, because we require a critical mass—

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I apologise for being late, Presiding Officer.

As a point of information, in the Davis cup the GB team is now relegated to second or third ranking. I ask the member not to be a narrow nationalist when he talks about sport. He should talk about whether a Scottish team would engender a greater sporting performance in Scotland.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Mr Barrie, you should be finishing now.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

I do not wish to correct Margo MacDonald, but she will realise that Britain failed to get promoted in the Davis cup. It is not that we were relegated. There is a slight difference. [ Laughter. ]

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Order.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

People are laughing, but if they knew anything about the Davis cup they would know that we were competing to get promoted into the world league, not to get relegated from it.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, West of Scotland)

Mr Barrie, you should be finishing now.

Scott Barrie (Labour, Dunfermline West)

The point is that the SNP is not fully behind the London bid and is not even fully behind the Glasgow bid.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

Not only do we support the Executive's amendment, but we seek to avoid generalisations. I say that because, over the years, everything is changing. For example, tug-of-war, in which parliamentarians would excel, has been given up as an Olympic sport, as have cricket and that great Scottish game, golf; not to mention rugby, rink hockey and rackets. In the ancient Olympic games, married women were not allowed to participate or to watch but unmarried women could attend the competition and Demeter, goddess of fertility, was given a privileged position next to the stadium altar. I am reassured that we live in more modern times and that those ancient practices have disappeared into oblivion.

This morning, we should place our wholehearted support behind Scottish sportsmen and women, recognising the supreme value of sport in promoting good health, improving self-esteem and fostering a strong sense of community and teamwork. My conviction is that Hampden park could play host to Olympic football; Fort William, which hosted the world mountain biking championships, seems ideal for an Olympic mountain biking competition; Gleneagles could be suited to equestrian pursuits; and many Scottish rivers could host the canoeing and kayaking events.

Many sports have traditionally been played at British level and I see nothing wrong with Scottish athletes succeeding at that level. Just because Scottish athletes compete for the United Kingdom under the union jack does not mean that they cease to be Scots or that Scotland can no longer claim them for our own. We can be proud of the successes of Kelly Holmes on the athletics track and of Matthew Pinsent, who powered his way to victory on the water.

We need to encourage participation in sport at all levels and to provide support for elite athletes to fulfil their potential. We should welcome the outstanding successes of Scots Shirley Robertson and Chris Hoy with their gold medals in sailing and cycling, and Katherine Grainger and Campbell Walsh with their silver medals in rowing and kayaking.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I will give way, but only briefly, because I have a lot to say.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Does Lord James agree that, if there is logic guiding us towards an all-Britain Olympic team, that same logic should lead to an all-Britain Commonwealth games team?

James (Conservative, Lothians)

At the outset of my remarks I said that we should avoid generalisations. The scene is changing all the time and many sports have been given up. I would look at each case on its specific merits. Traditionally, there has been United Kingdom participation in the Olympics and I see nothing wrong with Scots succeeding at British level.

As Jamie McGrigor suggested, the fear is that if we were to go it alone, we could in some sports face reduced resources for facilities and coaching expertise. Michael Matheson does not intend it, but that could mean that we sent fewer athletes to the games and that fewer athletes qualified. Participation on a more modest scale might weaken enthusiasm for and interest in Scotland's participation, whereas we want to provide the best possible support through resources, facilities and coaching.

Jamie McGrigor made an unanswerable argument by quoting Chris Hoy, the cycling gold medallist, who said:

"I think if we do that it would dilute the resources and the expertise we've got in the British team."

Jamie McGrigor did not mention another quotation from Chris Hoy:

"I'm a very proud Scot, but I'm also proud to be British and I think they don't have to be mutually exclusive."

We want an outward-looking patriotism, to which we strongly subscribe. The Executive should give sports top priority and encourage all efforts to ensure that competitive sport is available to all children in Scotland. For those reasons, we support the Executive's amendment. We wish our athletes every good fortune.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

My colleague George Lyon said that the previous debate was rather like groundhog day. I assure him that this debate was not like groundhog day; instead, the SNP has made a political volte-face and has suddenly decided that, for its own ends only, it will support the London 2012 Olympics.

The debate has been interesting. Executive members and some Opposition members have taken the motion and the amendments seriously and have spoken to them, but the SNP—other than Michael Matheson—has given us more of the same. In that respect, perhaps George Lyon had a point.

Jamie McGrigor is right: the debate was politically motivated. The SNP has made a cynical attempt to fill a policy gap with an idea that it thought would attract quick and easy headlines. I say to Jamie McGrigor and Lord James Douglas-Hamilton that the Executive's ambition does not stop at the Olympics or the Commonwealth games. We constantly work hard to bring major sporting events to the country. We want to and have spread the benefit of those events around the country—into the constituencies of Mr Ewing and others. Our ambition is for the whole of Scotland. It is that everyone in Scotland should enjoy watching and participating in games and that our young people should be motivated.

Rob Gibson (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

Will the minister give way?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I will not as I am short of time.

It is all very well for Mr Ewing to say that I should play the ball and not the man. I am sorry, but that will not do as a smokescreen for his trying to cover up the fact that the portion of my speech to which he referred simply quoted his comments and those of his colleagues back at him. He cannot say one thing in The Press and Journal at one time of year and try in the chamber to portray his ideas, policies and principles differently.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Will the minister give way?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I will not; the member has had his opportunity.

Our challenge is to increase the number of Scots who participate and win in the Olympic games. Just having our own team to represent Scotland would not necessarily mean that the number of participants increased. The IOC sets a challenging qualifying mark in every event and it is up to athletes to qualify. In all cases, no matter for whom participants compete, they must still achieve that mark. We are conscious of that. We try to ensure that as many as possible of our athletes reach that mark. I am explaining to the SNP why its theory is redundant.

I take issue with Colin Fox's point that perhaps rugby and the Commonwealth games did not have the mass participation of football or the Olympic games. However, if he considers that more than 70 nations compete in the Commonwealth games, he will realise that what he said does not apply to that.

Bruce McFee and others have failed to understand the point about football and other sports. My colleague Scott Barrie made the point clearly and well in his speech. Of course we will compete whenever competitions take place. As I said in my opening speech, the fact that the devolution settlement means that we are responsible for some aspects of policy and that the Westminster Government is responsible for others is an analogy for how we can work in the same way throughout sport in competition. The two arrangements are not mutually exclusive. It is entirely possible for Scotland to compete on its own in the Commonwealth games and in football.

Stewart Stevenson (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

All sport is devolved.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

All sport is of course devolved, which is why our commitment is to all sport and why we want our athletes and those who play our sports to compete at the highest level whenever they can.

The important point about the debate is that we will not be deflected by a narrow nationalist argument from our aim of more people participating in sport and more of our athletes competing internationally at every level. We will support our athletes, who have said that they want to compete in team GB, in their aspiration. We will also support them when they stand on podiums and win medals, whether they are for Scotland, for their region or for GB. We will support them all. I look forward very much to seeing several of our athletes on podiums to receive medals in 2006 at the winter Olympics in Turin and at the Commonwealth games in Melbourne.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

When I close a debate, I normally respond to arguments that I have heard. However, it is more important today to lay out some of the facts. Fact number 1 is from the International Olympic Committee. It says:

"Although most"

national Olympic committees

"are from nations, the IOC also recognises independent territories, commonwealths, protectorates and geographical areas. There are currently 202 NOCs, ranging from Albania to Zimbabwe."

Of those 202, 13 represent states that the UN does not yet recognise. They include American Samoa, Aruba, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Cook Islands, Guam, Hong Kong, Netherlands Antilles, which is a devolved Netherlands region, Puerto Rico and Taiwan.

The Olympic charter requires a national Olympic committee to have a jurisdiction that covers the country that it is in. Fact: the Commonwealth Games Council for Scotland already covers Scotland and provides the structure for teams to compete in the Commonwealth games, so there is no reason why it cannot co-ordinate an Olympic team. We need at least five national sports federations that are affiliated to their international counterparts to be members of our national Olympic committee. We can count them off easily; I counted 25 without an awful lot of bother.

When the idea was suggested in the summer, the Executive said that the decision was up to the International Olympic Committee—but we must ask it first. The committee will not run to Scotland and say, "Please form a national Olympic committee because we want to give your country funds to promote sport and to involve young people more." It is sad that the Executive has not even approached the committee with a view to considering the options for Scotland.

The minister who is responsible for sport stressed yet again the need for young people to be involved in sport and for Scotland to aspire to medal winning and excellence. I will look back at the 2004 Olympic games. Slovakia, with a population of 5.4 million, had 35 competitors. Ireland, with a population of 4 million, had 48 competitors. Finland's population is 5.2 million and it had 53 competitors. Denmark's population is 5.4 million and it had 92 competitors. Scotland's population is 5 million and it had 22 competitors. Ireland had more than double the number of competitors that we had, although its population is 1 million lower than ours. How on earth does that encourage our young Scottish athletes to aspire to greatness?

I still fail to understand why even to consider the option is such a problem. People from all parties in Scotland could get behind the idea.

Jamie McGrigor (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

What is wrong with a Scottish athlete winning a medal for a British team?

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

There is nothing wrong with that, but it would be so much better if Scottish athletes could win medals for Scotland in the Olympics as they can in the Commonwealth games.

Even the First Minister realises the importance of standing for one's own country. Following the 2002 Commonwealth games, Jack McConnell said:

"I know that flying the flag for Scotland is a particularly special moment for our sporting stars.

These winners can become role models for young Scots to participate more in sport".

Prior to that, the First Minister had said:

"By raising the profile of sport and showing just what Scotland can achieve on a world stage, these athletes will also provide inspiration for our sporting stars of tomorrow."

Think of the inspiration that might be provided if our athletes could win Olympic medals on the world stage. Think of the encouragement that young Scots could be given if their schools and local sports clubs could tell them that they have the chance to march into Wembley in 2012 under the Scottish flag as part of the Scotland team. That is the kind of aspiration that we could aim at. I am at a loss to understand why that is seen as such a problem.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Cannot Ms Fabiani understand that children in Scotland can be just as inspired by Kelly Holmes as they might be by Shirley Robertson? We do not need to pick and choose in the nationalistic way that Ms Fabiani has described; we can support our athletes already. Indeed, we can support and be inspired by successful athletes from any country.

Linda Fabiani (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I am absolutely certain that, if there were separate Olympic teams for Wales—there is a move for a Welsh team, too—and Scotland, all the teams on the islands that form the UK would support each other. I see no problem with that. However, the healthy competition that would ensue from Scotland, England and Wales having their own Olympic teams would be good for everyone on these islands.

I also find it sad that sportscotland, which is supposed to nurture sporting talent and promote sport in Scotland, has taken the view that it has taken. Despite stating that

"Scots should have the opportunity to aspire to the highest standard of participation that they desire",

sportscotland seems to be unwilling to live up to the ideals of participation that it espouses.

I ask the Executive to give our proposal serious consideration rather than to dismiss it out of hand as some kind of SNP political plot. Some 78 per cent of respondents to a recent survey, which was carried out by the campaign that is now up and running, agreed that Scotland should field its own Olympic team. In every radio programme that I have heard discuss the issue, the overwhelming majority of contributors have agreed on the need for a Scottish team. Therefore, the Executive should at least discuss the option as a possibility rather than reject it out of hand.

Let us consider seriously whether this country could aspire to compete on its own, in partnership with the other countries of the UK, as we move forward to the 2012 Olympics.

Question Time — Scottish Executive — General Questions

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

To ask the Scottish Executive what action it is taking to address the so-called "booze and blade" culture in Scotland. (S2O-7780)

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Violent crime of any kind is unacceptable and the levels of violence in Scotland are a blight on our civilised country. We will tackle the problem through tough new laws to deal with knife crime, including tighter control of sales and tougher sentencing for offences; licensing reforms to place more onus on licensed premises for responsible drinking; supporting the work of Strathclyde police's violence reduction unit; and supporting community safety partnerships and antisocial behaviour teams in addressing alcohol problems and violence at a local level.

Frank McAveety (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I thank the minister for her comprehensive response, which reflects the genuine concern felt by many neighbourhoods and communities throughout Scotland about knife crime and the use of alcohol. Does she agree that too many lives, and too many young lives in particular, are being damaged by the lethal concoction of drink and weapons? Does she recognise that we need real powers, such as those that she outlined, to tackle the problem? Will she assure me that, once legislation is introduced, it will be kept under review over the next few years and that any further action and initiatives that may be required will not be ruled out?

Cathy Jamieson (Labour, Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I absolutely agree that too many young lives are lost through crime. We also have too many young perpetrators of crime who end up in our young offenders institutions and prisons. I assure the member that we will continue to consider what legislative solutions are required.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

To ask the Scottish Executive how it is encouraging the use of biofuels in light of the level of oil prices. (S2O-7749)

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

The Scottish Executive supported the construction of Scotland's first large-scale biodiesel production plant through a £1.2 million regional selective assistance grant. The plant is now fully operational. The United Kingdom Government currently applies a 20p per litre fuel duty incentive for biofuels. The Executive is working closely with the UK Government on consideration of potential additional measures to promote biofuels.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Given that transport is recognised as a major source of carbon emissions, does the minister agree that encouraging farmers and industry to increase the production of biofuel alternatives would greatly benefit the environment as well as help agriculture in the uncertain times that it faces? Will the new measures to which he referred include a reduction in fuel duty for such fuels? Will he at least consider such a reduction and discuss it with colleagues in Westminster?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

As I said, we are in discussion with UK Government colleagues. I agree that promoting biofuels would produce environmental benefit by reducing the use of fuels that generate carbon emissions. We are considering more generally the impact of fuel duty on climate change. As the member may know, fuel duty rates are lower today than they were in 1999.

Andrew Welsh (Scottish National Party, Angus)

Does the minister agree that Scottish agricultural crops such as soft wheat are ideally suited for the production of biofuels and that it is therefore crucial that the biofuel projects that are encouraged are as informed as possible? Given that the plant belonging to Argent Energy Ltd has received £1.2 million of Scottish Executive money and could be a model for future biofuel projects, will he encourage the company to co-operate in sharing non-confidential information and experience?

Allan Wilson (Labour, Cunninghame North)

I agree with the member's basic premise, but I am unaware of any difficulty over the sharing of information. Biofuels have not been mainstreamed in the UK as they have been in other parts of the globe. Given that production is carried out on a small scale in the UK, higher production levels would decrease storage, distribution and other costs and make biofuels more competitive with conventional fuels. In that respect, I agree fundamentally with the point that the member has made.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it considers that health spending should be focused on the communities with the poorest health. (S2O-7783)

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Those with the poorest health are generally found in the most deprived parts of Scotland. The formula used for allocating resources to national health service boards takes into account relative levels of deprivation. Health improvement policy aims at improving health for all, with a focus on tackling inequalities. The recent report from Professor David Kerr highlighted the differences in life expectancy between the most affluent and least affluent communities. I will provide my full response to Professor Kerr's recommendations on 27 October.

Duncan McNeil (Labour, Greenock and Inverclyde)

Professor Graham Watt of the University of Glasgow has pointed out that good medical care tends to be most available to those who need it least and Professor David Kerr told the Health Committee that current arrangements lead to a widening in health inequalities. Does the minister therefore agree that it is time that we looked again at how funds are distributed so that we stop pouring money into making the healthiest healthier while my constituents are dying in their 50s and 60s?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Relative deprivation levels are reflected in the Arbuthnott formula and the national resource allocation committee is currently reviewing that issue. I agree with the member that it is simply unacceptable that life expectancy in some communities is drastically less than in the rest of Scotland. I draw members' attention to the work that we are doing—for which our efforts are recognised by the World Health Organisation and throughout the world—around inequality, access to services and making the healthy choice the easy choice, as well as through interventions in schools, including hungry for success and other such initiatives.

I accept Mr McNeil's point, but my response to the Kerr review will take what he says a bit further in relation to how we access those communities. At the moment, there are unmet needs pilots all round Scotland, which are working away to establish why needs are not being met. In Glasgow, the centre for population health is focused on the very issue of why those who need the health service most do not access it. We seek to respond to those individual pieces of information.

Brian Adam (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North)

Is the minister satisfied that the current health funding formula is addressing health inequalities? How does he measure success or otherwise with that formula? Does he remain convinced that the use of indirect criteria such as deprivation and rurality is appropriate in seeking to change health inequalities?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Poor health has many underlying causes, including access to transport, geography, rurality, housing, well-being and employment expectation. All those matters, including damp houses and transport planning, contribute to the problem. What we seek to do, and what the Arbuthnott formula does well, is to try to rank population profile, health profile, age groups of local communities and the well-being of those communities. However, that will never be a perfect science.

As a forward-looking Executive, we are undertaking projects such as the unmet needs pilots, looking to those communities that should be using the services but are not using them. What Kerr tells us is that we need to transfer from the centre of the health service the services that will make a difference to those communities. We should consider our campaigns on breastfeeding and on supervised toothbrushing in nurseries, the hungry for success initiative in primary schools and the work that we are doing on well-being in secondary schools. All those projects are making a real difference for the long term in those communities.

Nanette Milne (Conservative, North East Scotland)

Does the minister recognise that there are pockets of deprivation and poor health in what are considered to be prosperous urban areas as well as in rural areas? Will he assure me that those areas will not be neglected in considerations of the allocation of future health spending?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

When Margaret Curran was Minister for Communities, she launched an initiative to provide smaller-area statistics, to allow us to address issues of relative well-being and prosperity, to identify pockets of deprivation throughout Scotland and to focus on areas of hardship and areas that are less well-off. We have those data and that information and we continue to work our services around a knowledge-based policy that will deliver for those communities. That information is available and I am happy to correspond with Nanette Milne on that point.

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will support the reopening of small stations on the west coast main line following the Atkins report supporting the case for a new local service to operate between Carlisle and both Glasgow and Edinburgh if possible. (S2O-7803)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The Scottish Executive has already responded to Dumfries and Galloway Council on the west coast main line local services report.

Chris Ballance (Green, South of Scotland)

I understand the Scottish Executive's position, but does the minister accept the report's conclusion that a local service would bring significant wider benefit, would be strongly integrated with local policy across a number of transport areas, would provide a significant benefit in wider economic terms and is particularly relevant for an area with significant access issues? Does the Executive accept those findings?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

If Mr Ballance is familiar with the issues relating to the report, the way in which it was presented and its findings, he will know that it was appraised using the Scottish transport appraisal guidance. That appraisal, as I am sure he is aware, illustrated that there were a number of deficiencies in the report that needed to be addressed. The inaccuracies related particularly to the economic analysis and to the fact that certain risks and uncertainties had not been taken into account. To ensure that the report is full, comprehensive and complete, Dumfries and Galloway Council must consider those issues. We reported those matters to the council on 30 June and we still await a response to those specific aspects. Once those matters are cleared up, I would be content to consider the wider issues that Mr Ballance has raised in relation to developing rail strategy projects generally.

Karen Gillon (Labour, Clydesdale)

The minister will be aware of my on-going concerns about the apparent secrecy that has surrounded the whole process. I share some of his concerns about the report. I seek clarification and assurance that the inadequacy of the report does not confer any inadequacy on the case for those rail services. I would welcome an opportunity to discuss with him how we can move the issue forward and bring in other local authorities and—just as important—the public, who have been the missing component in the survey. The figures and information that appear in the report certainly do not add up to the information that I have on the ground.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I would be happy to discuss those matters with Karen Gillon. She raises some important points about the wider implications and how best to develop the issues. I am sure that she would expect me to ensure that the analysis is robust and complete. I will be happy to examine the specific issues that she has raised with regard to the report and to consider how best to progress, through putting the project in the overall context of public investment in our public transport systems.

Alasdair Morgan (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Does the minister agree that one of the constraints on introducing local services on the west coast line is the difficulty, due to capacity constraints, of running slower local services along with faster intercity services? Does he also agree that that constraint is increasingly affecting freight traffic, both on the west coast main line and on the diversionary line through the Nith valley? Does he share my long-term objective of increasing the capacity on both those major trunk routes?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

Mr Morgan makes an eminently sensible point about the basic contradiction between three different desires that I am sure we all share in relation to freight, fast point-to-point passenger links and the inevitably slower commuter links. The route utilisation assessment that is currently under way is considering how best we can use the track that is available to meet those at times conflicting requirements of our rail infrastructure system. I would be happy to consider the specific issues that he has raised on the overall capacity of the routes, but one of the important aspects of the current route utilisation assessment is that it will seek to point up where the constraints are and consider how to address those issues.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

To ask the Scottish Executive what social and environmental benefits it anticipates from land management contracts. (S2O-7806)

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

The type of social benefits that will be delivered by the LMC menu scheme will include increased public enjoyment of the countryside from the provision of better access, a more skilled workforce that benefits from training, and increased public understanding of land management issues. It will also deliver a broad range of environmental benefits, such as enhanced biodiversity, better water quality and landscape improvements.

Eleanor Scott (Green, Highlands and Islands)

I am sure that the minister will agree—and that he will have reaffirmed in the revised organic action plan—that organic farming's holistic approach delivers many of the benefits that land management contracts are looking for. However, the rules are written in such a way that some organic farmers find it difficult to tick the boxes. Does he agree that organic status conferred by a recognised certification body should give automatic entry to tier 2, and probably to tier 3, of land management contracts?

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I am not sure about automatic entry, but I certainly think that the rules should enable organic farmers to gain equal access to those schemes. I certainly do not wish to anticipate the outcome of any consultation on the precise formula for tier 3, as that would be inappropriate. However, I am convinced that all those menu schemes were well designed. As Eleanor Scott will be aware, 11 of the 17 current options are environmental and we continue to discuss with stakeholders, including organic stakeholders, how we can finesse and refine what has been a groundbreaking scheme.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

Does the minister agree that the land management schemes do not give people sufficient encouragement to plant woodland? As we are concerned about climate change, we should be using the land management contracts to plant woodland and to grow biomass.

Ross Finnie (Liberal Democrat, West of Scotland)

I can think of at least two schemes that are specifically designed to encourage afforestation. The LMC menu scheme is groundbreaking. There will be a minor review this year and there will have to be a further review before we start the rural development programme in 2007. The member has in the past mentioned the increased importance of short-rotation coppices, which I am open to including in the review. However, the current scheme does not exclude encouragement for forestry.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

To ask the Scottish Executive whether it will consider carrying out an up-to-date environmental impact assessment of the A68 Dalkeith bypass, in light of other infrastructure changes that have been implemented or planned in the Lothians since 1996. (S2O-7739)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The statutory processes for the road are complete. However, the department is currently updating the baseline environmental information. The mitigation measures previously developed for the scheme will therefore be updated and incorporated into the design.

James (Conservative, Lothians)

I warmly welcome what the minister says, but does he agree that the Borders rail link proposal and other developments will substantially alter the transport infrastructure? Would a more up-to-date environmental impact assessment be advisable in view of the incredibly lengthy delay?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The incredibly lengthy delay started when Lord James Douglas-Hamilton was the transport minister. I welcome the Conservatives' support for the Borders rail project, which will provide considerable benefits to Midlothian as well as to the Borders. I repeat the central point on the baseline environmental information. It is important that we get that right and ensure that it is properly assessed. I assure Lord James that, when that is done, I will make him aware of the contents.

Mark Ballard (Green, Lothians)

The minister will be aware that the strategic roads review in 1999 said of the A68 Dalkeith bypass that there were

"generally negative ratings on ... environmental factors, including global air quality, water, ecology, visual impacts, heritage and landscape character."

The review recommended that a multimodal appraisal be carried out to compare the benefits of the A68 Dalkeith bypass with other ways of tackling congestion and pollution in Dalkeith town centre. Why has that multimodal review not been carried out to compare the benefits of the bypass with other transport alternatives to meet the needs of the people of Dalkeith, as was envisaged in the 1999 strategic roads review from the Executive, of which the minister is a member?

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

I am disappointed that Mr Ballard has got it wrong at two question times—he tried to suggest that course of action previously. The Greens appear to be against a measure that would dramatically improve congestion in Dalkeith. They cannot have it both ways. Mr Ballard needs to be clear that the economics presented during the strategic roads review showed that the scheme provides value for money within a net present value of £14.5 million and a benefit to cost ratio of 2.25. It is important to recognise that, because it includes assessments of environmental considerations. In addition, as I said to Lord James a moment ago, the environmental baseline information is being updated. Those matters are important, but the crucial aspect is the ability to tackle congestion in Dalkeith, which is exactly what the bypass will do.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

To ask the Scottish Executive what its current estimate is for the cost of the M74 motorway extension. (S2O-7804)

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The cost of the scheme is expected to lie within the range £375 million to £500 million.

Patrick Harvie (Green, Glasgow)

At the risk of hearing the minister again defend the Executive's obsession with road building, may I ask him whether the current cost of the project—which has never been subject to a multimodal study—includes additional security elements resulting from any direct action that may take place? Does it account for inflation since the cost estimate was originally made? Does it take account of any problems arising from construction capacity moving south because of the London Olympics? If not, the M74 extension is looking increasingly as if it offers poor value for money compared with other Glasgow projects, such as Glasgow crossrail, which have never had the same kind of political momentum behind them.

Tavish Scott (Liberal Democrat, Shetland Islands)

The devolved Government is proud of spending more on public transport projects than has ever been spent before. That is important to us and we have moved our policy forward in a progressive way to tackle Scotland's rail and public transport needs and to strike a balance between road and rail. Mr Harvie is, not for the first time, completely wrong in his assessment of our transport plans. In answer to his ridiculous question about direct action, I can tell him that those are operational matters for the police. It would be extraordinary to be drawn into a we're-all-doomed analysis. It is important to keep a sense of perspective on the matter, which is what we are doing.

First Minister's Question Time

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Do you insist on it being taken now?

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I would prefer it to be taken now.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Please be brief.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I do not want to interrupt First Minister's question time, but members will notice that question 2, which was to be put by the leader of the second Opposition party, the Conservatives, has been withdrawn. Standing order 13.7.4 is inadequate for such contingencies. The question was not to be asked by an individual member; it was reserved for the leader of one of the Opposition parties.

I understand that Mr McLetchie is, sadly, attending to a family matter. However, in this instance, I would like to claim the spot. As independents, we never get the chance.

George Reid (None, Ochil)

Order. The important fact is that Mr McLetchie has had to attend to a close family bereavement. You are quite right: under standing order 13.7.4, the question cannot be substituted. What I intend to do today is take in a supplementary slot and give Annabel Goldie two questions. As for the independents, Ms MacDonald, you will find that they get more than their fair share across the course.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Scottish Executive's Cabinet. (S2F-1851)

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

At the next meeting of the Cabinet we will discuss our progress in implementing our partnership agreement.

On a lighter note, Presiding Officer, can I welcome—"note" might be the appropriate word—Stéphane Denève, the new resident director of the Royal Scottish National Orchestra, who is with us in the gallery today. He has come from Paris to live in Glasgow, and he is very welcome. He will, I am sure, entertain us in the years to come, just as he entertained us at the opening concert last Friday night. [Applause.]

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I echo that warm welcome.

I draw the First Minister's attention to remarks made in this week's Sunday Herald by the Minister for Health and Community Care. He said that when he took on his job a year ago he was "horrified" by the state of the Scottish Executive Health Department. Is the mess that Andy Kerr discovered in the Health Department down simply to the incompetence of the previous two Labour health ministers, or does the First Minister accept some of the responsibility?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I am afraid that, just as she likes to quote statistics out of context, Ms Sturgeon likes to quote words out of context. She ignores the considerable progress that has been made in the health service in Scotland, not just since 1997 or 1999 but, crucially, in the past 12 months—particularly with out-patients. Some day, at some point, Ms Sturgeon will stand in the chamber and congratulate the doctors, nurses and other staff in our health service for their considerable achievements. If she would do so just occasionally, she might perform better in by-elections.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I have no problem with congratulating doctors and nurses: it is with the incompetence of the Scottish Executive that I have a big problem.

I remind the First Minister that the Health Department that so horrified Andy Kerr had as one of its responsibilities that of setting up NHS 24. I remind him also of a report that was published yesterday on the problems at NHS 24. The report said that the service was overwhelmed by members of the public who, instead of using it just for emergencies, were phoning at any time, day or night, for any reason. However, is that not exactly the kind of service that the First Minister and his ministers told the public that NHS 24 was there to provide? Is it not the case that the real problem is not the high expectations of the public but the failure of the Executive to deliver on its promises?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

I find it hard to see how Ms Sturgeon can criticise the commissioning of an independent review into the performance of NHS 24, which was causing concern to all the parties in the chamber, as well as causing concern in the Health Department and to the Minister for Health and Community Care. The independent review has concluded with a proper report that contains a series of recommendation. The Minister for Health and Community Care has accepted every single recommendation and is ensuring that the Health Department and those responsible for NHS 24 start to work on those recommendations with as much speed as is physically and intellectually possible. At the end of the day, Ms Sturgeon feels that that is not an appropriate course of action, but it is the right way for us to behave.

NHS 24 is an important service. It facilitates use of the health services and it should give people the best possible advice in the quickest possible circumstances. It has not been doing that, but it will. As the recommendations have been accepted, they will be implemented.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

I am asking questions about the mismanagement of NHS 24 that made an inquiry and report necessary in the first place. I remind the First Minister how the service, which we are now told is for dire emergencies only, was described by the minister who launched it as an all-day, everyday service, not just for emergencies but for guidance, information, advice and reassurance. However, far from delivering what was promised, this lifeline service was, according to the report,

"not far short of chaos"

by last Christmas.

Is not NHS 24 a classic Labour mix of spin, hype and basic incompetence when it comes to delivery? Is it not the case that NHS 24 has been a major public policy disaster and that the First Minister should do the decent thing, accept responsibility and say that he is sorry?

Jack McConnell (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw)

Ms Sturgeon is about six months too late with her argument. We announced the review, which has now been concluded. Every single recommendation contained in the review has been accepted by the minister and speedy implementation of the recommendations is now underway. NHS 24 is not for dire emergencies only, but it should not be misused for run-of-the-mill requests that can be answered in other ways. It is important that, whatever the request from a member of the public, NHS 24 is able to give top-quality advice accurately and speedily and that the member of the public gets the best possible treatment from a hospital, general practitioner or other facility. That is the objective and it is what, in a large number of cases, NHS 24 has managed to provide during the past few years. However, in far too many cases, the service fell short. There are staffing problems and there have been real issues with the management, and those problems and issues have been addressed by the review. As I said, every single recommendation has been accepted and I back the Minister for Health and Community Care in making sure that they are now speedily implemented.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

It was not the staff who fell short; it was the Executive. I remind the First Minister that the last time that I raised the issue, he said that he had taken responsibility for it by setting up an inquiry. That has now concluded and one of its conclusions was that the Executive's Health Department did not have a grip on NHS 24. I agree that it is important to support the professionals in getting it right in future, but surely what is missing is an apology from the First Minister for getting it so wrong in the past.