Seòmar agus comataidhean

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.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I am listening carefully to the member. I say to him with all due respect that he seems to be talking about the legislation that we just voted on rather than the business motion. I am still waiting to hear his opposition to the business motion.

As Rachael Hamilton knows, my constituency is adjacent to hers. As a former lawyer, I have to say that I am not too hot on legislation—it is not always the answer.

I refer the minister to the recently published three-year policy by Police Scotland, in collaboration with SPARC, which focuses on such things as the prevention of agricultural machinery theft using technology. There are now 100 specially trained officers, so I hope that the minister will agree that action might be more effective than legislation.

On holding to account and lessons learned, others will rightly focus on the human impact of the measures that were taken, but I want to focus on the £4.1 billion that was awarded in 28 failed contracts to those with connections to the Conservative Party. I do not know whether that is mentioned in the report—if it is not, it should be. The case of Michelle Mone is the most publicised—contracts that were worth £200 million went to Medpro, which made £60 million in profits on the back of that, for defective products.

I understand that, before the election, Labour undertook to introduce legislation to recover some of those moneys, which were fraudulently obtained. Can the Deputy First Minister advise whether Labour is pursuing that legal remedy?

You have my attention.

I think that I am correct in saying that you are not able to deal with that point yourself, cabinet secretary, as it is Mr Fairlie’s amendment that we are discussing. However, there is an opportunity to deal with any issues at stage 3. I, too, would be concerned if the matter was ultra vires.

I beg your pardon.

I have no interests that are relevant to the committee.

I am not persuaded that the proposed bill is the statute to put these provisions in. However, I assure the member that I have put in objections, as has the South of Scotland Golden Eagle Project in the Tweed valley, against the environmental impact of pylons and so on. So far as one can do so under devolved powers, I and communities are doing that.

Everything is on.

That would have dealt with the very serious issue that Douglas Lumsden raised. A patient can have a video call with their allocated consultant about an issue so they do not have had to make such a journey just for a consultation. That is operational in the Borders, using videos.