Seòmar agus comataidhean

What is the rationale behind defining peatland as having a depth that is greater than 40cm? What objective is that definition meant to achieve?

Scotland’s written constitution, as set out in the new paper, would safeguard people in Scotland from having their human rights and workers’ rights swept away following a simple parliamentary majority. We are watching that happen before our very eyes in relation to the United Kingdom Government. Will the minister explain how a written constitution would better protect the rights of citizens in an independent Scotland?

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the publication of the latest paper in the “Building a New Scotland” series, for what reasons it considers that an independent Scotland would need a written constitution. (S6O-02425)

In preparation for the debate, I have been reading the words of James Madison, who was the father of the constitution of the United States of America. One quote in particular really struck me. I will share it with the chamber. It is this:

“The people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived.”

For centuries, sovereignty here, in Scotland, was said to lie with the people, so it should come as no surprise that such an absolute should have been instilled within James Madison, because he was educated by a Scottish tutor, Donald Robertson.

When the United States of America declared independence from the United Kingdom, one of the first lines of the declaration of independence said:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”

When Scotland regains her independence, we too should put equality—although not only for men—in the opening lines of our written constitution.

The declaration of independence goes on to say:

“let Facts be submitted to a candid world”.

In that list of facts, the document outlines why independence is needed. It says, of the then leader of the United Kingdom:

“He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good ... He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly ... He has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature”

and the king is condemned

“For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world ... For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments”.

Does that sound familiar to anyone?

Since 1939, 62 countries have become independent from the United Kingdom and, to date, none has asked to return. Almost all those countries have codified a constitution. It took three centuries for Scotland to regain her Parliament but just a few short decades for the UK Government to overrule and undermine it.

Without a written constitution, the UK is an outlier, and, although the Scottish Government is enshrining rights, the UK Government is trying to take them away. The first line of Scotland’s interim constitution should make it clear that Scotland is an independent country in which the people are sovereign. Never again should powers that are so far away—both geographically and democratically—from the people of Scotland be able to undermine our sovereign will.

The publication “Creating a modern constitution for an independent Scotland” lays out a vision for our constitutional future—one that embraces the principles of democracy, human rights and the sovereignty of the people. It is a document that reflects the aspirations and values of our nation.

In recent years, we have witnessed the UK Government, and the Conservative Party as a whole, persistently restricting the democratic will of the Scottish people. Time and again, our voices have been undermined and our choices disregarded. The power imbalance is evident, with decisions that directly affect Scotland being made without our consent or our consideration.

Here are just a few ideas that are close to my heart. The constitution could protect workers’ rights and could protect the NHS, which would be free at the point of use.

I will finish my remarks with a plea to Scots across the country to dwell on, and to articulate, our vision for Scotland. We do not have to imagine a better country. This is not a fantasy—we can build it and should not let anyone think that we cannot. A written constitution is absolutely the opportunity to create the foundation of a society in which every citizen is valued, rights are protected and the interests of the people take precedence over narrow political considerations. [Interruption.]

—but I am fed up of the wolves at the door. Let us stop the wolves of Westminster coming to Scotland, and let us become independent.

I heard a voice from across the chamber say, “Aren’t we looking to the wolves at the door?” We absolutely are, and I do not know about anyone else—

Alan Miller, who was the founding chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission has said:

“Scotland’s human rights journey has ... been marked by an increasing ambition and internationalism ... as evidenced in the unanimous vote in the Parliament for the ... UNCRC ... Bill.”

Scotland’s progressive agenda, however, has been stifled by a hostile Tory Government at Westminster.

Will the cabinet secretary outline what discussions she has had with the UK Government to amend the devolution settlement in any way in order to allow us to incorporate the UNCRC better in Scotland?

I was just asking about the specific issue of whether the licensing fee is proportionate. It might be appropriate to bring in Max Wiszniewski, as he touched on the issue earlier.

Stakeholders have suggested the need for adaptive management as new science becomes available. How will NatureScot ensure that that new information is reflected in decision making and in new guidance on licensing?

I want to clarify that: there would have to be evidence of criminality before an official investigation was launched.