Seòmar agus comataidhean

If we accept—and I hope that I am right about this—that we can continue to rely on the principle that Scotland has the right to decide, or that the people of Scotland have the right to do so, we are still left in the situation where, although we have the right to decide, we may not exercise it. That is the quandary that we find ourselves in.

I want to ask about an issue that I have explored with previous panels—to a mixed reaction, I have to say. If the Scottish Parliament’s ability to make a decision is not accepted and the UK Parliament or Government is unwilling to make a decision, is there some other way in which the will of the people of Scotland—not necessarily to decide yes or no to independence, but to make it clear that they are ready to decide on the question of independence—can be expressed, whether through some formal deliberative or participative mechanism or in some informal way that is not directed by, or under the control of, formal political processes? Do any of you see any potential in that space for some form of expression of the will, or the readiness, of the people of Scotland, other than through decisions in one Parliament that is being told that it cannot decide and another Parliament that is unwilling to decide?

I am unclear about Jamie Halcro Johnston’s thinking with regard to street traders being moved from one site to another, and how we can disaggregate the losses from the benefits and develop a compensation scheme that could not be taken advantage of pretty ruthlessly.

It is perhaps a bit out of character for me to say that an amendment in Stephen Kerr’s name seems reasonable but, on first reading, I did not see anything in amendment 8 that appeared particularly harmful. However, having thought about it a little more, the rights that it sets out could, in some circumstances, be problematic. For example, the right to observe searches might cause unnecessary disputes in situations in which an individual is being disruptive or posing a threat to others around them. The minister referred to the point about reporting entry to Glasgow City Council, and I am a bit worried that that would raise expectations that the council would always have the ability to do something about that. I am not entirely clear how that would be helpful, so I do not feel that amendment 8 should be supported.

For the reasons that the minister set out, I have problems with amendment 9 because of the risk of the opportunity that could be taken to destroy evidence.

I can understand why Jamie Halcro Johnston thinks that, in specific instances where traders have made a loss, that loss might be compensated, but I point out that there will also be significant circumstances in which traders gain additional opportunities. They might well be in other places, but there will be opportunities that would not have been there if the tournament had not been happening. Can he say, either in an intervention now or in his closing comments, whether it is his view that the Government ought to try to establish a situation in which there are no losses and no benefits—and if so, tell us how he intends to recoup the additional benefits that will be gained—or is he trying to suggest that losses should be compensated and benefits pocketed?

I welcome the fact that there is clear agreement across the committee and the Government on the need to draw a distinction between commercial activity and social or political expression. I welcome George Adam’s amendments and the Government’s support for them.

Good morning. In previous sessions in our inquiry, we have ended up in a conversation about whether particular ideas, such as the referendum being “once in a generation” and the settled will of the Scottish people, are merely political rhetoric or whether they have any substance as principles that can be relied on.

I want to explore that question in relation to the point that several of the witnesses today have made, that everyone accepts that it is the right of the people of Scotland to make a decision about their future. Several witnesses have mentioned that there is consensus on that, and that consensus was written down as recently as the Smith commission, when all five political parties that were involved, and both Governments, accepted that. Well, the commission phrased it by saying,

“nothing in this report prevents Scotland becoming an independent country in the future should the people of Scotland so choose”,

which is a little more nuanced, but it clearly frames that right as sitting with the people of Scotland and not with anybody else.

Is that simply a piece of political rhetoric that just happens not to have been contested by the political parties that are prominent at the moment? Alternatively, does it have any status as a principle in the UK’s unwritten constitution? Is it something that can be relied on in any sense? I am aware that I am asking that at a time when there is a genuine threat that a UK Government could be led by a far-right party, which we should be afraid of for many reasons, including because it was not involved in that process and would presumably argue that it cannot be bound by a principle that was agreed by other political parties.

Is there any sense in which the UK Government’s acceptance of that principle has status and can be relied on, or is it as much rhetoric as talking about “once in a generation” is?

Do any other witnesses want to comment on the extent to which the principle that Scotland has the right to make the decision could be relied on in circumstances in which a political party that disagrees with it comes to power in the UK?

I do not want to step on their toes.

Thank you.

I think that other members will come on to enforcement and compliance later.