Scotland: Constitutional Settlement

Debate between Lord Stephen and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 10th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord’s commitment on behalf of his party. It is important to say that all three United Kingdom parties have undertaken to make that commitment in their respective manifestoes. I also share the noble Lord’s view that devolution should not stop at Edinburgh, not least because in the constituency which I used to represent, there is a very strong view that there should be devolution within Scotland. Most of the powers to do that rest with the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, but in public debate we should be making that point very clearly because we have had considerable centralisation under the present SNP Administration.

[Lord Stephen (LD)]

My Lords, does my noble and learned friend not agree that these are radical proposals, which represent a major step forward in the government of Scotland and which have been widely welcomed by most people in Scotland, except the SNP? It must always be remembered that the SNP was part of the Smith commission that signed up to these proposals and agreed them unanimously, then started to rubbish them as soon as they were announced. Does he not agree that this represents a far better, safer, more secure future for Scotland than independence based on an oil price of $110 a barrel, when today the price is less than $60 and sliding further?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My noble friend is right to remind us of what we might have been facing if Scotland had voted yes and of the black hole which would have emerged. It is also important that we continue that engagement; certainly, at the stakeholder event which I attended in Aberdeen there was considerable enthusiasm for the proposals that have been put forward. People very much welcomed the fact that the United Kingdom Government were engaging but it is important that the Scottish Government engage as well.

Scotland: Draft Legislation

Debate between Lord Stephen and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important point about the other recommendations in the Smith commission report on better intergovernmental and interparliamentary relationships. This is something which the Calman commission looked at although, regrettably, nothing much seemed to come of it. At the meeting of the joint ministerial committee which took place in December, the Prime Minister and the First Minister discussed these matters and there was an agreement, as a start, on looking at how to improve the current memorandums of understanding to address that issue. On parliamentary matters, there was a recommendation that the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament should have an early meeting, after these clauses were produced, with Mr Speaker. I am not sure whether that is in place but I endorse the view that there ought to be better parliamentary relationships, at least for better understanding and for less of the misunderstanding that can sometimes arise.

In answer to the second part of the question, this is an enduring settlement. As was reflected in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, from the Opposition Front Bench, 60% of government spending in Scotland will be the responsibility of the Parliament and 40% of the tax raised in Scotland will contribute to that spending. In each case, that is twice the OECD average for devolved administrations. We are building and creating an enduring settlement, but the noble Lord is right to say that it will require a lot of work and engagement between the respective Governments in terms of both the fiscal framework and the welfare provisions.

[Lord Stephen (LD)]

My Lords, despite the low-key nature of the title of today’s Statement, does my noble and learned friend agree that these detailed clauses are of crucial importance to the future constitutional arrangements for the whole of the United Kingdom? They not only deliver on the vow of the party leaders, but they deliver, for Scotland, the most radical home rule measures ever seen in this country. These measures are now supported, quite remarkably, by the leaders—and the vast majority of the membership—of the major parties in all the Parliaments of the United Kingdom. Does he agree that it is vital that these measures must now be delivered, not only in the Queen’s Speech in May of this year but also in an Act of this Parliament in a new Scotland Act that should be delivered, if at all possible, by the end of 2015? I wonder whether my noble and learned friend can comment on the timetable for the shortest possible time for delivery of these proposals into legislation. Finally, does my noble and learned friend accept that, after home rule for Scotland, the next challenge is to deliver real devolution of powers, right across our regions and nations, in a federal United Kingdom?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am sure my noble friend would expect me to agree and I do, as my own party aspires to a federal United Kingdom. He rightly used the words “home rule”. This has been a campaigning issue for our party for more than 100 years. I am sure that Mr Gladstone would be very proud of what we have delivered today. He is right that we need to move on from here. There is a lot of work still to be done and we will ensure that today is not the end of the process. At official and ministerial level there is recognition of what more must be done so that a Bill is in preparation and ready to be brought forward after the Queen’s Speech following the election. The legislative timetable is not entirely in my hands, but it must be feasible to deliver this by the end of this year or, if not, in the early months of 2016. Having done it, I think all of us would want the issue to be about how the Scottish Parliament is going to use these powers. For so long we have had debates about what the powers are, whereas many people are asking how the powers can be used to improve the lot, and the social and economic well-being, of the people of Scotland.

Finally, I agree that the devolution of power is something which my noble friend and I in our party aspire to. But, as I have already said, the comments coming from some leading members of the Scottish National Party MSPs in recent weeks about centralising power and the attacks that there have been on local government in Scotland are very alarming. We have seen too much centralisation in the last two or three years in Scotland. I very much hope that a fresh wind of decentralisation will sweep through Scotland.

Scotland: Independence

Debate between Lord Stephen and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has previously said, the current arrangements of a full monetary, fiscal and political union bring benefits to all parts of the United Kingdom. I certainly have noted that the Governor of the Bank of England today has highlighted the principal difficulties of entering into a currency union—losing national sovereignty, the practical risks of financial instability and having to provide fiscal support to bail out a foreign country. That is why we have consistently said that, in the event of independence, a currency union is highly unlikely to be agreed so the Scottish Government need a plan B. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, that people who, from experience, have an important contribution to make should make it. Indeed, this month, Better Together has published a very good pamphlet which quotes many people showing how untenable the position of the Scottish Government is on the issue of the currency.

[Lord Stephen (LD)]

My Lords, is it not vital that we all spend the time between now and the referendum in September working together and positively campaigning in favour of Scotland staying part of Great Britain and part of the United Kingdom? Speculating on the constitutional detail of what will happen if there is a yes vote in the referendum does not necessarily help in that united campaign.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. It is vital that our focus is on ensuring that there is a substantial no vote in the referendum in September and that we set out the benefits. Ahead of the debate in your Lordships’ House tomorrow morning, I hope later this afternoon to send out to noble Lords the 20 positive reasons—there are many more—that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland set out earlier this month together with links to the 10 analysis papers published so far in Scotland, which make a very compelling case for the integrity of the United Kingdom and for Scotland remaining part of it.

Scotland: Independence

Debate between Lord Stephen and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Thursday 28th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, other than those staff who are involved in the diplomatic corps I cannot think of any precedent for that. The noble Baroness makes a very important point. I repeat that we are not contingency planning, nor are we, indeed, complacent. However, the parts of the White Paper on current Civil Service jobs located in Scotland that I have seen come to some very glib conclusions on what would happen and do not seem to take account of what those civil servants themselves would wish to do.

[Lord Stephen (LD)]

My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that the White Paper contains 670 pages of assertion and fudge on some very big issues indeed rather than frankness and fact? Does he also agree that the people of Scotland deserve a fair and honest debate, not one where vital facts are massaged and manipulated? Ignoring for today, at least, the big issues of the currency and NATO membership, and drilling down on to this issue of EU membership, will my noble and learned friend consider the topical and very recent comments of the Spanish Prime Minister on Scotland’s EU membership? He has made it very clear that the EU does not intend to dance to the tune of the president of Scotland—that was his description of Alex Salmond, not mine. Does my noble and learned friend agree that these are very serious comments which deserve the most serious consideration by the people of Scotland on the issue of fact rather than speculation?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, clearly, membership of the European Union, in the event of independence, is a very important issue. The novel proposal made by the Scottish Government is one which we will look at but we do not think that it accords with how any other member state has interpreted Article 48 of the TFEU. In any event, even under the Scottish Government’s analysis, it would require other member states to sign up. We certainly note the comments of the Spanish Prime Minister with considerable interest.

Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2013

Debate between Lord Stephen and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 16th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stephen]

My Lords, I start by agreeing with the noble Lord on that issue of service men and women of the United Kingdom, and of Scotland, who should have the opportunity to vote in this referendum. The issue was raised yesterday in the other place in many good speeches on this Section 30 Motion. I listened to a great deal of that debate yesterday, and although there was full cross-party consensus on the approval of the Motion, there was also, outside the nationalists, cross-party concern. That concern is shared by me and by my noble friend Lord Forsyth, as reflected forcefully in his remarks this afternoon, and clearly in the terms of his two amendments. Before focusing on that concern, we should recognise the good points of what has been achieved and of this Motion.

Michael Moore, as Secretary of State for Scotland, and the Prime Minister deserve great credit for delivering the Edinburgh agreement. Michael Moore skilfully negotiated, no doubt with the support of my noble and learned friend the Advocate-General for Scotland, an agreement that all sides agree is a good start, and a good way forward. It has been agreed by the Prime Minister, the Scottish Secretary, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that it is central to the principles underpinning this referendum that it should be legal, decisive and fair.

Let us take those tests in turn. First, it will now be legal, by the securing today of this Section 30 Motion and its approval under the terms of the Scotland Act 1998. In my view it was pretty clear, but some would say that it was a matter of doubt whether the Scottish Parliament had the legal powers to hold a referendum on independence. It is clear that those powers had not been devolved to the Scottish Parliament and that doubt will be removed today by the passing of this order. That is good. Secondly, as has been mentioned by others, it will now be a decisive referendum. There will be one question only. Despite the views, interestingly, of his party, which wanted one question, the First Minister wanted two questions. Clearly, he wanted an escape route. He wanted the cover and protection of a second question on more powers for the Scottish Parliament, but that emergency exit is now being removed. There will be a simple yes/no question, which means that the decision will be clear cut. That is also good news.

We then come to the third issue about fairness, on which I want to spend a little time. It has been covered pretty fully already, but it is vital that the referendum is fair if it is to command respect. We already know the SNP-preferred referendum question. We know the question that the Government in Scotland want to ask and it is not fair; it is a biased question. My noble friend Lord Forsyth helpfully quotes it in his amendment, which asks:

“Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?”.

That is a rigged question on at least two grounds. I am not a great expert on these psephological matters but those who are explain that if you ask people to agree with you—do you like my tie, do you like my new haircut, do you like whatever principle—they will tend to agree in response.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

They do not think about it for two and a half years.

[Lord Stephen]

Indeed. Those who know about these matters say that is the first element of rigging of the question. Secondly, and on this I am more familiar because it is surely a matter of law, and of international law at that, is the issue of whether you want Scotland to be an independent country. The correct question, I am told, is whether it should be an independent or a separate state. That is not the wording that the SNP proposes. Scotland is already a country; some people in this Chamber who are fierce unionists have already said they believe it is an independent country.

I am very pleased that the Edinburgh agreement sets out that the conduct of the referendum is to be overseen by the UK Electoral Commission—not a separate Scottish body—which is seen to be fair and objective and neutral. That is wholly good news. I was also greatly encouraged when I saw John McCormick, who many people in this Chamber will know is the Electoral Commissioner for Scotland, being interviewed on this issue by the BBC. He said that it was crucial that the question put to voters was clear, simple and neutral and went on to say, very importantly, that in his view the question was the foundation—the bedrock —on which this referendum would be built. If it was flawed or biased, the whole process would be flawed and biased. I agree with him completely. I do not agree with those who say the question does not really matter and that by voting day everyone will be pretty much clear on what the referendum is about—being in or out of the United Kingdom. It is important that the question is fair and commands respect on all sides from the start.

Some say it would make only a small difference, of maybe 2% or 3% either way. My noble friend Lord Forsyth has referred to the situation in Quebec. Some are saying it would be more than that, some less. Percentages are a curious thing, are they not? If British Airways downgraded its expectations of successful landings at Heathrow by 2% or 3%, international air travel would be killed overnight. If a casino said that a roulette wheel had a built-in bias in its favour of 2% or 3%, I dare say that many gamblers might still take the chance. We should not be gambling, however, with our nation’s future.

Finally, there is the issue of who decides in all of this. Is it the Electoral Commission? No, it is quite clearly the SNP, the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament that will decide the question. Can we trust the SNP on this issue? Well, no, because although it is both the player and the referee, it has made clear that the recommendations of the Electoral Commission are not binding on the Scottish Government and Parliament. Angus Robertson, in the House of Commons yesterday, and Alex Salmond, the First Minister, on Radio 4 this morning, have been given ample opportunity to make it clear, as the other leaders in the Scottish Parliament have done, that they would accept the views of the Electoral Commission on this crucial issue of bias and of avoiding anything other than an objective, neutral and fair question.

They have a mantra now, to get them out of the difficult question. The Electoral Commission will advise, says the First Minister. The Scottish Government will recommend and the Scottish Parliament will decide. Of course, as has been said, they have form on these issues of fairness, honesty and integrity—the very recent form that has been referred to, when the First Minister failed to tell Andrew Neil of the BBC the truth about whether he had taken legal advice on Scotland’s EU membership and the Scottish Government then used taxpayers’ money in the courts to resist revealing legal advice that the Scottish Government had never taken. That is the sort of “Alex in Wonderland”, topsy-turvy situation that we are dealing with. There is no honesty, integrity and consistency in a position such as that.

However, there is a deeply serious and worrying point. If this referendum is not based on a neutral question, it will be biased; if it is biased, it will not be fair; and if it is not fair, that will be a breach of the Edinburgh agreement to be “legal”, “fair” and “decisive”. In my view, we will then have a serious constitutional crisis. I trust that can be avoided and that the First Minister can rise above narrow partisanship and set a tone for this referendum that will command all-party respect right across the whole of Scotland and of the United Kingdom. On that basis, we should pass the Motion today, but remain fiercely, ferociously and for ever vigilant about the dangers that lie ahead, which could have such profound implications for both Scotland and the whole of the United Kingdom if some of the fears mentioned today come to pass.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lord Stephen and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Thursday 26th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, it has been amply demonstrated by the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd, that, as things currently stand, whole Bills can be delayed—possibly for months—should only a single provision be referred to the Supreme Court to determine whether it was within legislative competence. Section 33 of the Scotland Act 1998 contains a power to allow the law officers to refer Bills passed by the Scottish Parliament to the Supreme Court to determine whether they are within legislative competence prior to Royal Assent to the legislation.

The Scotland Bill provides the Government with an opportunity to re-examine this power. Indeed, as the noble and learned Lord indicated, the Calman recommendations encouraged a general sweep-up, and so within the Scotland Office and the Office of the Advocate-General we looked at all the different matters that had arisen and at where there were opportunities to amend, and some of these are reflected in other parts of the Bill.

It is very helpful that the Committee has been informed by the noble and learned Lord, from his many distinguished years of experience as Lord Advocate, as to how the process works. I should put on record from the UK Government’s side that officials in my department talk day in and day out to officials in the Scottish Government’s legal department on proposed Bills and orders to ensure that they come within competence. They discuss particular issues, and sometimes, when it is found not possible to get a solution under the legislation to be passed by the Scottish Parliament, orders under Section 104 of the Scotland Act can be brought forward to give effect to certain provisions. One sometimes sees headlines about the more controversial issues. We should not lose sight of the regular and valuable work done by officials in respective Governments to try and resolve many of these issues.

Likewise, officials within my department monitor Bills as they go through the Scottish Parliament. In a similar way to when the noble and learned Lord was Lord Advocate and during the 28-day period, these matters were looked at in my own department and ultimately referred to me to decide whether to refer them to the Supreme Court under Section 33. I share this thought with the noble and learned Lord. I recall from being a Minister when he was Lord Advocate the thoroughness with which that was done. Yet shortly after I took up office as Advocate-General, a case came before the High Court of Justiciary involving the competence of an order of lifelong restriction when someone had been convicted of an offence solely under the Firearms Act. That is of course a reserved matter. The question was whether the order was competent. The general view was that it was not, and ultimately the Crown did not defend the appeal. One of my officials said, “Who was the Minister who signed the original Bill as being competent?”. I had to hold my hand up, but I will not say who the law officer was who gave me that advice. It is fair to say that the other parts of the Bill stand with regard to the order of lifelong restriction and to offences that were either common law or related to devolved matters. That underlines the fact that a considerable amount of effort and work go into this.

With this clause, we sought to prevent unnecessary delays to Bills the majority of provisions of which are considered to be within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. In these circumstances, the affected Bill would be submitted for Royal Assent by the Presiding Officer, while the disputed provisions would not come into force until the Supreme Court had reached a decision and Scottish Ministers had made the appropriate commencement order.

As the noble and learned Lord indicated, this power has not been used to date. As I have indicated, that is testament to the engagement between the UK and Scottish Governments, both under the current Administrations and previous ones. We do not really need to be reminded of how much both Parliaments enjoy, particularly in the field of criminal justice, so-called Christmas tree Bills to which bits are added here, there and everywhere. No doubt there is a need to address some recent development, or some official remembers a particular problem that needs sorting out. It would be regrettable if a Bill whose provisions for the most part were well within competence had one particular clause thought to be outwith competence and that had to be referred to the Supreme Court for a determination that held up the whole Bill. We wish to address that issue.

The limited procedure that we propose seeks to do that. I will deal with some of the amendments before addressing some of the points raised by the noble and learned Lord.

[Lord Stephen]

Before moving on, might the noble and learned Lord at this stage or later in his remarks take the opportunity to refer to an issue relating to the SNP Government’s proposed referendum Bill, on which he will be aware of very clear legal advice to the UK Government? Given the current procedures and how they might be affected by the proposals in this Bill, what is his understanding of the position within the Scottish Parliament on involving the law officers in Scotland if the referendum Bill moved forward?

If law officers were to advise the Presiding Officer that the Bill, or any other piece of legislation—the noble Lord, Lord Steel, will have much experience in this regard—was not legislatively competent, would that advice become apparent at any stage? Need that advice become public in any way? This is a matter of huge interest at the moment in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I express the view of the United Kingdom Government; I shall leave it at that. There is good reason why the convention is there, and it has been quite rigidly adhered to by law officers of all Administrations, in Scotland and the United Kingdom generally.

The noble Lord, Lord Stephen, also asked about the legal advice given to a Presiding Officer. The Ministerial Code arrangements for that are clearly not the same. Off the top of my head, I could not say whether that legal advice would be made available or not, or what the response would be if someone wanted to FoI it. It might well be that it is advice given by a lawyer and that there are categories of exemptions for legal advice. It might be a matter that would end up in the courts—I am not going to express a view on it.

[Lord Stephen]

My point is that when my noble and learned friend and I were in government, I recall that we went to quite extreme lengths to make sure that a piece of legislation was within legislative competence. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd, has already referred to those matters. Part of the hard work that was done was to ensure that a piece of legislation would get the approval of the Presiding Officer. My understanding was always that if there was a conflict with the Presiding Officer, we would work on the legislation and make sure that it was within legal competence, as defined by the Presiding Officer. From what has been said this afternoon, a Government can, as I understand it, in effect defy the ruling of the Presiding Officer and push forward with the legislation, and no one in the Scottish Parliament—indeed, no one in Scotland—would be aware that the Presiding Officer had been overridden. That is my understanding of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Boyd, and my noble and learned friend indicated. I suppose the question is: in what way would it be known that, for example, the referendum Bill had been laid before the Scottish Parliament even though the Presiding Officer had not approved it as being within legislative competence?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Perhaps I can clarify for my noble friend that Section 31 of the Scotland Act 1998 is relevant in this regard. It states:

“A member of the Scottish Executive in charge of a Bill shall, on or before introduction of the Bill in the Parliament, state that in his view the provisions of the Bill would be within the legislative competence of the Parliament”.

Subsection (2) says:

“The Presiding Officer shall, on or before the introduction of a Bill in the Parliament, decide whether or not in his view”—

or in the case now, in her view—

“the provisions of the Bill would be within the legislative competence of the Parliament and state his decision”,

so the Presiding Officer has to state their decision as to whether it is within competence.

Let us take this away from the question of the referendum Bill, because our ambition here is not to get into that position; it is to reach an agreement, preferably on a Section 30 order. However, in general, the Presiding Officer has to decide whether the provisions of the Bill would, in their view, be within the legislative competence of the Parliament, and has to make that decision public. It is still the case that the Parliament could proceed to debate and process the Bill notwithstanding that, but there are obviously political ramifications. I could imagine some pretty lively debates if that was to be the case.

Scotland: Constitutional Future

Debate between Lord Stephen and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 10th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, all I can say is that there has been ongoing discussion between Ministers of this Government and the Scottish Government since May of last year on a whole range of issues, including those relating to the Scotland Bill and UK Ministers trying to ensure that they can get some information from the Scottish Government about the referendum. I do not think that the details of this specific consultation document were discussed in detail but we have certainly been challenging the Scottish Government to indicate to us how they think that they could deliver on their manifesto commitment.

On the boycott, I very much hope that that will not happen and that people will realise in Scotland that what is being proposed here is a way forward. My noble friend Lord Forsyth expressed it absolutely succinctly: what is happening is a way forward for them to have their policy delivered in a legal way without it being challenged in the courts, which would be in no one's interest. That would lead to uncertainties and bad feelings, and perhaps be an indecisive outcome. That would be in no one's interests. Perhaps, in the cold light of day, it will be seen that what is proposed here is a sensible and very reasonable way forward. I hope that sense and reason will prevail.

[Lord Stephen]

My Lords, I would like to probe further the fury of the SNP on this issue. Will the Minister confirm that these proposals merely aim to create a fair, appropriate and legal framework that will allow a referendum on independence to take place—a referendum that will in fact be organised by the Scottish Government on terms fixed by the Scottish Parliament, all as promised by the SNP? Will he confirm that Alex Salmond and his Ministers will be able to set the wording of the referendum question, provided that the Electoral Commission agrees that it is not biased, rigged or gerrymandered in any way?

What is the SNP moaning about? As the consultation document makes clear, the most recent Scottish Government document on all this said that they wanted to have a referendum as soon as possible—and a referendum on independence, not on devo-max or on anything else. That is not, I remind the House, SNP policy. Is it not the truth that Alex Salmond is now desperate to have a second question to give him and his party an emergency escape route from the political meltdown that he will face when he loses a vote on independence? We should not give him that lifeline.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The simple answer to that is that we want a decisive referendum, and one of the key means of delivering that is to have one question. That is why the draft order that we propose makes provision for just one question. It would allow for provisions in relation to the UK Parliament for UK-run referendums to be applied to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government, but we believe that that one question will resolve matters and we should not be muddying the water with devo-max—whatever that means. No one has a clue what it means; it was not in the SNP manifesto. What was in that party’s manifesto was a question about Scottish independence, and that is what we believe we are assisting the Scottish Parliament to deliver. I hope that the SNP will recognise that this Government are being very fair and reasonable in trying to achieve that end.

UK: Union

Debate between Lord Stephen and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stephen]

Does my noble and learned friend agree that rather than being for the UK Government it should be for Alex Salmond and the SNP to spend some of their own time and money explaining what full independence really means? For example, is it not time that Alex Salmond told us how many military bases would remain in Scotland? How would he split the Scottish pension system from the UK system? Would he create an entirely new tax and benefits system for Scotland; and if, as he says, he wishes to retain sterling as Scotland’s currency, would EU membership allow this? If it would, what powers would he intend to have to instruct Mervyn King and the Bank of England on monetary issues, or would he just leave that to George Osborne?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

By asking that question, my noble friend makes it very clear that the First Minister of Scotland and his party have a host of questions to answer, not least on the currency because there are even those who think that if Scotland wished to join the European Union it would be obliged to adopt the euro. Andrew Hughes Hallett, who is on the First Minister’s Council of Economic Advisers, indicated that, as was reported earlier this week. It would be rather odd. Some countries, but not many, adopt the currency of a foreign country but have no powers. It just underlines what a weak position Scotland would be in.