Seòmar agus comataidhean

That is correct.

There is a Westminster convention that no future Government can be bound by a current Government. That is the first thing to understand in terms of how the UK parliamentary and governmental system operates. To that extent, existing arrangements are not “locked in”—to use Mr Harvie’s term—in perpetuity. However, the intergovernmental relations that we now have are, as Mr Mackie said in evidence earlier, part of a process that involved devolved Administrations. So, yes, it rests on the good will of Governments working together.

There are agreements in place. However, notwithstanding the rhetoric, there is a range of examples, which I have given in evidence, that show that the agreements are not working. There are examples of areas where meetings have not taken place at all or where relations with the UK Government are, frankly, performative. There is a particularly bad example in relation to the recent UK child poverty strategy, which I would be happy to update the committee on if it wants another example of very bad practice. That is the difference between saying, “We are interested, theoretically, in working with one another and we will keep one another updated on things”, and us learning about those things either in newspapers the day before they are officially launched or on the day in a press release.

As I have shared with the committee before, I am sympathetic to the transparency point on wanting to ensure that you have enough information to do your work of holding the Government to account and—by extension in this context—being able to understand how the intergovernmental processes work. We discussed just a moment ago the fact that the Scottish Government publishes information about interministerial meetings. That exists and is public. It is perhaps not published in a format that lends itself to being able to see where things are not happening, which is an obvious area that you would wish to pursue.

As I have said before, I am keen for us to provide you with information so that you can interrogate what the Scottish Government is doing on European Union alignment. I will take away that point in relation to our processes, but I assure the committee that I am keen to discuss the issue with Welsh and Northern Irish colleagues, because what is true for here is true for there. Perhaps there are processes in Wales and Northern Ireland that we do not undertake; I would want to know what those are. Perhaps there are self-evident approaches that we might take that would help better inform colleagues in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd and the Northern Ireland Assembly in this respect.

It will make a difference only on the margins—I agree with Mr Brown on that—but having transparency will make it ever more difficult for people not to do what they are supposed to do. The Foreign Office provides an absolutely classic example of how the arrangements have not worked for me, because one needs only to look at how long I have been in office and ask how many times I have held an annual meeting with the Foreign Secretary—not a junior minister—and that will tell you that concordats or intergovernmental agreements, structures and processes are not working as they have been set out to operate.

As I said, it involves not just civil servants operating to the UK Government but civil servants who work to the Scottish Government. They are not independent of Government—of course not, because this is about intergovernmental relations—but the Scottish Government’s view is that it operates appropriately.

No. We are saying that there is a secretariat and that we are content with its functioning.

I will hand over to Mr Mackie to—

I would say that the organisation of the UK Government is for the UK Government.

I will first share my observation on Dunlop, and I will then ask Chris Mackie to come in—with your permission, convener.

The thing that I find most interesting about Dunlop relates to funding. I note that the UK Government did not follow the Dunlop recommendations on arrangements for spending in devolved areas. The Dunlop review recommended that there should be agreement between the UK Government’s departments and relevant devolved Governments on any funding bid to encourage cross-border collaboration or working. That does not happen. In fact, that is the opposite of what is being pursued on local growth funding. We might come back to that issue because, curiously, the current UK Government is taking a different approach in Wales from that which it is taking in Scotland, and we might wonder why.

Nonetheless, Mr Kerr asked about Dunlop, and that is one of the most interesting points.

He talked about a number of things. He said that there should be a senior Cabinet position with responsibility for constitution-related matters. In practice, that has happened. Under the last UK Government, Michael Gove was seen—

That is certainly the case. A majority of members in the Parliament have voted for there to be a referendum, and that counts for something. It should count for all democrats, and that should not be denied by any democrat. I do not think that votes for the Scottish Green Party, which is a party that has a manifesto commitment to hold a referendum, are worth any less than votes for the Scottish National Party or any other party when it comes to matters that are debated in the Scottish Parliament. That is why I believe that, if the Scottish Parliament votes for something, it should happen.

I agree with Mr Kerr and Mr Halcro Johnston that this question is deeply political. However, it is only political—with a capital P—because the parties that oppose independence have departed from the principled position on self-determination in Scotland that they used to have. Now, because they would rather not have a referendum at all, those parties are dancing around a number of rhetorical approaches to suggest that a referendum be held not now, but at some distant point in the future, with some imagined but not elucidated level of mandate that is different from now. The inference is that 50 per cent of the vote is not enough, and that is from a party that held the Brexit referendum after winning a percentage vote share in the 30s—and which, incidentally, has not won a national election in Scotland since the 1950s. To be lectured on democratic processes by that party is a bit rich.

I agree with the principle in Mr Harvie’s question that, if the majority of parliamentarians in this Parliament wish for there to be a referendum, that is what should happen. My point is simply that, given the politics of the issue, it may be a stronger case to exactly match the precedent and circumstances of 2011. That does not discount my views as a democrat, because this is a question of principles. My principle as a parliamentarian and a believer in parliamentary democracy is that, if a majority of members in the Parliament wish something to be so and were elected with a manifesto to do that, then that is what should happen.