Seòmar agus comataidhean

I said to your colleague in my contribution at stage 2—

I know that, like the corporate body, Pam Gosal values the impact on people when they come into this building and experience the Parliament. Indeed, I am aware that she has raised the question previously with the corporate body.

For many people and schools, coming to Edinburgh is not realistic, given the distance and barriers that are linked to that. In our research, teachers told of the struggle to take pupils out of school because of lost learning time or because the teachers were needed to cover other lessons. For some, it is simply impractical to get local transport to Edinburgh and back within the school day, and they cannot afford residentials. Due to barriers such as those, our staff travel to schools throughout the year and provide online sessions for those who want them. Last year, they delivered sessions to almost 350 school classes across Scotland.

I am not quite sure of the argument that Stephen Kerr is making. I am not quite sure whether it is an argument about the bill being emergency legislation, which is a question of process. I objected previously to certain legislation being treated as emergency legislation when I was convener of the Justice Committee.

I am also not sure whether his argument is about the bill’s retrospectivity, which is rare but has happened in the Parliament before. Again, it is for committees and the Parliament to object to that.

I am concerned about the wording of Stephen Kerr’s amendment, which says:

“The Scottish Ministers must, within 2 months of Royal Assent, publish and lay before the Scottish Parliament a statement setting out whether, in their opinion”—

that is, the Government’s opinion—

“this Act is compatible with the Scotland Act 1998.”

It is my understanding, convener—you are in that role just now rather than that of Presiding Officer—that it is for the Presiding Officer to determine whether a bill is within the legislative competence of the Parliament by issuing a certificate as to its competence or otherwise under section 31 of the 1998 act. That is not a guarantee—as we know, it is not always guaranteed that even the best legislation in the world will not be open to challenge at some point—but it means that, when it is introduced, the bill already has a certificate from the Presiding Officer.

The member must not become more confused by talking about post-legislative scrutiny. That is not what this is about. This is about whether something is legislatively competent.

Let me take the member right back. When a bill is lodged, the certificate of competence comes from the Presiding Officer, and of course the bill can be amended at stage 2 and at stage 3. However, at stage 3, it is, again, up to the Presiding Officer to decide whether any proposed amendments are within the ambit of the bill. If they are not, they are not competent, so they are not lodged. When an amendment is lodged at stage 3, we are in the hands of the Presiding Officer and not a political Government, thankfully.

I do not have details of what those costs might have been for the school in Ardrossan and for Loretto in Edinburgh, or why they did not have other means of getting here. I know that other schools come here on buses from their local authorities. I do not know about those things but I can have a look at the issue.

You mentioned the UK Parliament—we looked into that scheme. The UK Parliament offers to pay up to 85 per cent of the travel costs, to the value of £2,400. However, even then, it welcomes a very small number of Scottish schools, because the travel costs are only part of the problem. I do not dismiss that part, but the main issue is the disruption to class activities, particularly at secondary level, and the cost if a class has to stay overnight on a residential trip.

We are continuing to look at that, but I must advise the member that it is a pretty tricky area. It is more complex than whether we can get a bus to get pupils to the Parliament and back. So far, if we cannot do that, we have parliamentary staff going out to schools in the likes of Shetland and Orkney to deliver contact and tell them all about the Parliament. Of course, that can be done online, too. We will continue to see what can be done.

It would be churlish not to welcome the about-turn on the two-child benefit cap—it is better late than never. That, of course, benefits children and their families, but it also puts money into the local economy, because that money helps people to pay inflationary food and energy bills. It is a good thing all round.

I thank the member—that was not so much a question as giving me advice. I will take that advice. It is certainly good if one can do those things, and I might even try it myself.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I thought that the member was speaking against the business motion. I am not quite clear what he is addressing. I ask for clarification, please.

It was respectful.

I congratulate the member on bringing the debate to the chamber, just days before St Andrew’s day itself.

I, too recognise the role of my former colleague Dennis Canavan, who, with tenacity, drove through the bill that became the St Andrew’s Day Bank Holiday (Scotland) Act 2007. It was passed unanimously on 29 November 2006—I ken, cos I was there.

As Dennis Canavan said in speaking to the bill,

“At one time, St Andrew’s day was a popular day of festivities throughout Scotland, but unfortunately domestic celebrations have dwindled over the years.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2006; c 29861.]

That was 16 years ago and, despite the day being a bank holiday in Scotland, I think that that remains the case. I searched for St Andrew’s celebrations in my constituency, but although I have no doubt that there will be some, they are not large-scale events.

I wondered why, but perhaps it is because Burns night on 25 January has captured the idea of a celebration of Scotland. After all, Burns was the man who wrote in Scots, internationally, and whose lyrics ring out as one year turns to another. However, I think that there is room for them both. For me, one celebrates the essence of our culture—of “We’re aw Jock Tamson’s bairns”, expressed by Burns as “A Man’s a Man for a’ That”—while the other celebrates our affection for, and protection of, Scotland as a nation. It need not be either/or. St Andrew’s day celebrates this most ancient of nations, said to have been founded in 843 AD by Kenneth MacAlpin when he united the Gaelic kingdom of Dál Riata with the Picts and established the kingdom of Alba, which is often considered to be the birth of modern Scotland.

Our boundary with our near neighbour has remained relatively fixed, apart from the to-ing and fro-ing of Berwick—a Scottish town, if ever I saw one—some 13 times, with it eventually landing on the English side in 1482, where it has remained ever since.

To coin a phrase, what did the Romans ever do for us? Well, they failed to conquer Scotland in their successful invasion of Britain in 43 AD. In less than 40 years, they had reached and subdued what we now know as northern England and Wales. Before them lay the wilds of Caledonia, and by 79 AD they were pushing northwards into southern Scotland. Here, at the place of the three hills—or Trimontium, in Latin—near Melrose, in my constituency, they began to construct a fort that was to be used as a complex in Scotland. Some 17,000 people were occupied there at one time, and the same site was used several times over the next 100 years or more. However, Scotland was to remain defiantly intact to this day—perhaps that is what the Romans did for us.

It took the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots, then her son, with the union of the crowns, acceding to the English throne, and later the treaty of union, for Scotland to be united with England, but it was, and remains, an uneasy union. Unlike the English, for whom Parliament is sovereign, we, the Scottish people, are sovereign. That is embedded in the declaration of Arbroath, and it is why any UK monarch is king or queen of Scots, not Scotland.

In the past, attempts were made to kill our culture—bagpipes were banned after the 1745 rebellion, the Dress Act 1746 banned the wearing of the kilt and Scots were demeaned for speaking in our native tongue, not the Queen’s English. “I went and seen” is not slang but Scots dialect. However, here we are, as a nation, wearing the kilt, with the skirl of the pipes all in fashion, from weddings and funerals to football and rugby—I was tempted to say “to infinity and beyond”, because the saltire is recognised worldwide as Scotland’s flag. I ken, cos I seen it.

Let us celebrate St Andrew’s day and demonstrate that—despite all those centuries during which there have been so many attempts to diminish, if not erase, our Scottishness—here we are, as Scottish as ever. I say that proudly as one born in England to an English mother.