Seòmar agus comataidhean

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 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?

That is okay, Christine.

I want to dig a bit more into the suspension of licences and what is behind that. We have heard that that may happen where there is a suspicion, but I understood that it happened only when an official investigation had started and not where it was just a suspicion. I should point out that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency can revoke or suspend a driver’s licence when an official investigation is under way.

When would NatureScot regard an official investigation as being under way and consider it appropriate to suspend a licence?

It is about the system of licensing. It is not unreasonable to ask people to pay for a licence—after all, that is what generally happens with licences.

Digging a little more into the definition of peat and peatland, what are witnesses’ thoughts on that for the purpose of muirburn licensing?

Thank you. Detective Sergeant Lynn, can you clarify what you deem to be an official investigation?

We have, indeed, touched on the question of whether there should be a fee for a licence. Do the witnesses agree with the bill’s approach to fees? How do you feel about the way in which the licensing scheme is to be resourced?

Yes, it will probably just take a little bit more exploration, because—excuse the puns—we have gone into quite a bit of depth here.