Oral Answers to Questions

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I absolutely agree. It is completely ridiculous to suggest that my constituents in Annan should use one currency to get the bus to Carlisle and another currency to get the bus back. This is a ridiculous proposal, and the people of Scotland already see through it.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

Two weeks tomorrow the people of Scotland go to the polls, and the Scottish National party will be fighting that election not just resisting the shambles of the Tory Brexit but demanding that the voice of Scotland be heard and the people of Scotland be given a choice over their own future. If my party wins that election, will the Secretary of State abandon his resistance to the Scottish Government being able to consult people on their own future?

[David Mundell]

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman’s definition of winning that election will be, but that election is to elect Members from Scotland to the European Parliament for as short a period as possible, and that should be the focus of that election.

[Tommy Sheppard]

That does not answer the question, and it certainly does not sound like the response of someone who believes in the Claim of Right. Is it not really the case that it does not matter how many elections we win and it does not matter how many times the people of Scotland demand a say in their own future, because the Secretary of State is part of a crumbling Government and his party, which has the support of one in five people in Scotland, will continue to deny them the opportunity to determine their own future?

[David Mundell]

The fundamental issue is that when the people of Scotland determined their own future in the 2014 referendum and voted decisively to remain in the United Kingdom, the hon. Gentleman and his friends did not like the answer, and their position is to keep going—to challenge that result until they get what they want. But I have been very clear: this Government will not agree to another independence referendum before 2021.

Claim of Right for Scotland

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I find it rather interesting that, in the course of a debate of almost three hours, we have not heard anyone speak against the notion of the claim of right. However, I caution colleagues against being deluded by any faux agreement on this matter, because I am confident that many Members who are not in the Chamber tonight would find it presumptuous that a group of citizens in one part of this island should assert the claim to be able to control their own destiny. They would do that because they regard this as a single nation, and they regard the people of Scotland, while important, as having no other rights than the people of the west midlands or East Anglia.

I am pleased that most contributors to the debate have realised that the basis of our constitution is different from that. We may have a single polity, but we have a multinational country that is based on serial Acts of Union that bring its component parts together. Once we understand that, the claim of right has to be the intellectual corollary of that position. A Union can be maintained only by consent, and if the people of Scotland do not give their consent to maintaining it, it will naturally fall.

The idea of popular sovereignty for the people of Scotland is quite old fashioned. In two years, we will celebrate the 700th anniversary of the declaration of Arbroath, and that document is worth looking at. It was in fact a letter from the nobles of Scotland to the then Pope to ask him to intervene. Much of the language is archaic, and much of it is reverential, but in that document is the grain of something that was never before expressed. It says clearly that if the King of Scotland does not represent the wishes of the people, the people will find themselves a King who will. It is the first expression in modern times of the notion of popular sovereignty.

That idea has ebbed and flowed over the seven centuries in between. Three hundred years ago, it inspired the dissenters who were resisting the fledgling Union because they felt it was a matter of being sold out by the Scottish aristocracy. Two hundred years ago, it fuelled the friendly societies and people such as Thomas Muir who were working for popular democracy and universal franchise. One hundred years ago, it motivated the Red Clydesiders and people such as John Maclean. The idea of Scottish popular sovereignty has been consistent throughout the centuries, but never more so than the present day, and never more so than 20 years ago, when the Scotland Act 1998, for the first time in all those centuries, actually asked the people what form of government they would like. A massive majority of them—three quarters—voted to establish the Scottish Parliament.

We are having this debate about the claim of right for Scotland because we believe that the devolution settlement is very much under threat, and we wish to alert the House and the country to what is going on. The Secretary of State for Scotland says that there is no power grab, but in fact a powers bonanza. In a previous debate, the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) listed a whole range of things that would become the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament after Brexit. However, we misunderstand if we think that responsibility is the same as power. At the same time as those areas of responsibility are being transferred to the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Parliament’s ability to do anything about them is being limited and constrained like never before. It is intended that so many areas—not just the ones transferring from Brussels, but those that are currently the exclusive competence of the Scottish Parliament—will in future be subject to UK-wide frameworks.

We do not yet have an idea—I see that today’s fisheries White Paper does not have an idea—of exactly how those frameworks will work. We have so far been talking about the principle, but it is the principle that is important. If we picture a UK-wide committee to talk about fishing policy, the interests of Scottish fishermen would be represented by the Scottish Government, and likewise for the Welsh and Northern Irish, but who will speak for the fishermen of England? That will be the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—a Department in Westminster. At the same time, if there is a divergence of opinion or a difference of view, DEFRA will determine what actually happens. That is not a partnership; it means that the devolved Administrations will be subject to and subservient to the will of the majority. The Secretary of State may say that Scotland is part of the UK, but I tell him that Scotland is not part of England, although that is in effect what such an arrangement would lead to.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

I would like to take issue with the hon. Gentleman’s statement about Scotland not being part of England, given that in fact Scotland has never been—certainly in the life of this Parliament—part of England, and that was not what the Secretary of State said.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I think that the hon. Gentleman might have prepared that better. The point I was making is that, in effect, such an arrangement will make Scotland—and Wales and Northern Ireland for that matter—subservient to the will of the Government in this place, which is contrary to the whole spirit of devolution.

Twenty years ago, when the architects of devolution—Donald Dewar in this place, and John Sewel in the other—were framing the proposals, they understood the need to try to make sure that the process was seen as a genuine commitment to the decentralisation of political power. They therefore enshrined a principle saying that if matters were devolved to the Scottish Parliament, this place would not interfere in those matters and would not determine anything about them without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. That principle has stood for 20 years and has not been challenged across the House. Yet, last week, we made history, because for the first time, a United Kingdom piece of legislation that required the consent of the Scottish Parliament was made law although that consent was not given. That is a problem for everyone and it will have to be addressed.

[Luke Graham]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tommy Sheppard]

I fear we are running out of time, so I will not take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

Many Members have talked about the 2014 referendum and the idea—my leader expressed this so well in his opening remarks—that for those 15 hours on 18 September 2014, sovereignty was genuinely in the hands of the people of Scotland. They had a choice to make between two alternative futures, and they chose one. I did not agree with the choice that they made, but I fully respect it—I respect it completely as a decision that they took. However, I tell the House that in the same way that a dog is not only for Christmas, sovereignty is not only for 18 September 2014. Sovereignty means having the ability to change your mind if circumstances change—the ability to adapt and take a new view.

The shadow Secretary of State asked us to imagine a situation—my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) commented on this—where a Scottish Parliament was elected in which a majority of its Members had stood on a manifesto suggesting that the people should be consulted in a referendum. She suggested that if the majority voted for that to become the policy of the Scottish Parliament, it would be inappropriate for this Parliament to stand in its way. That was the hon. Lady’s suggestion, and I agree with it. The problem is that this is not a matter of hypothesis for the future; this is real, because that was exactly what happened in the Scottish general election 26 months ago, when a mandate was sought and a mandate was given.

As others have said, that mandate is extant, but it will be for the judgment of the Scottish Parliament to determine, when the dust settles on this Brexit mess we are currently in, whether it believes that it is in the best interests of the people of Scotland that they be consulted again on their constitutional future and on whether they wish to remain part of an isolationist United Kingdom or to be part of opening up to the world and playing their role as an independent country. That day will come, and the claim of right for Scotland means that the people will have the right to exercise their decision on that matter when that time comes.

Glasgow School of Art

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I most certainly will do that. The effort to raise funds after the 2014 fire was tremendous. One way in which the Government can help is through Government funding, which can be a catalyst for other funding coming in. That was very much the case in 2014, and it is very much in my mind at this time.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

This was a cruel and gut-wrenching blow to the people of Glasgow, coming just as the refurbishment from last time was nearing completion. Last night in this House we demonstrated our ability to disagree with each other and have a vigorous debate, but I am pleased that this morning we are seeing all shades of political opinion in Scotland come together in solidarity with the people of Glasgow as they deal with this great tragedy. I want to ask a couple of specific questions. Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said that it was a matter for the owners of buildings to determine whether or not to install sprinklers. What action does the Secretary of State for Scotland think the Government should take to ensure that sprinklers are installed in such public buildings? He mentioned the need for a thorough investigation. Does he agree that erroneous press speculation on the cause of the fire before that investigation is complete is unhelpful and undesirable?

[David Mundell]

I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s last point: press speculation on the cause of the fire is very unhelpful. We need to let those people who are carrying out the professional investigation get on with it. I also agree that it is important that all levels of government—the city council, the Scottish Government and the UK Government—work together, and whatever our other differences, I absolutely commit to do that. The issue of sprinklers has been debated extensively in the House in recent times. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a sprinkler system was in the process of being installed in the building, but sadly that process had not been completed.

Sewel Convention

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

It is important in this debate that we distinguish between competences, which are a list of nominal responsibilities, and power, which is the ability to exercise change in those particular areas. I have no doubt in my mind that we are in the middle of a process that is seeing a major transfer of power from the devolved authorities of the United Kingdom to the centre. I caution the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) to look at the detail of what is happening, and not to be seduced by Conservative Members who say, “There is nothing to see here. Move on. Keep calm.”

The truth is that this is happening in two ways. First, a convention that has existed for 20 years is being torn up, which is extremely important because the genesis of the Sewel convention was to give assurance to those who wanted to believe that devolution actually meant something, that power would be exercised by the devolved authorities. The convention was there to say that it was not a matter of the Scottish Parliament making a decision that could be overridden. If we set the precedent where this is reversed, the situation is that it can be at any time in the future.

The second way in which power is being transferred is through the talk of joint arrangements. I am not against having joint arrangements—there are plenty of opportunities where we should be co-ordinating things—but the devil is in the detail and the principles that the Government are putting forward are not fit for purpose. Let me illustrate that with an example. Imagine you have a committee that is to discuss farming policy. On that committee, Scottish farmers will be represented by the Scottish Government and Welsh farmers will be represented by the Welsh Government, but who will represent the interests of English farmers? It will be the United Kingdom Department. I think English farmers should have a say, but I do not think it is fair that the body that advocates for them should also sit as judge and jury if there is a difference of opinion in that committee. That is what is being proposed. That means that every time there is a difference of opinion the smaller party will lose out to the larger one. So if the Scottish Government want to take a policy on genetically modified crops, they could be overridden. If they want to take a policy on weighting subsidies for a cold climate, they could be overridden. On and on there is the opportunity to do that. That is what we mean by a power grab.

I believe in devolution. I tell the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) that I was a member of the Scottish constitutional convention.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend rightly says that he believes in devolution. Are not the actions of the UK Government at the moment just the latest in a long pattern where the Conservatives have been against devolution? They have voted against it at every opportunity.

[Tommy Sheppard]

That is absolutely the case.

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I do believe in devolution. I was a member of the Scottish constitutional convention that drew up the proposals, but I, like many people involved at that time, also respect the right of the Scottish people to become a self-governing nation if they so wish. It is disingenuous to say that, just because we support independence, that means that we are not genuine in our desire to protect devolution.

Mr Speaker, I will take your admonishment and I will finish there, even though I have so much more to say.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure you do. It was not admonition; I just want to accommodate colleagues.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill: Sewel Convention

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

Obviously I agree with my hon. Friend. Some people have sought to interpret the Sewel convention as meaning “never” or “not at all” or “not in any circumstances,” when the wording of the convention is clear—it is “not normally.” As I have said in previous answers, no one would dispute that these are not normal times. Indeed, that was the reflection of Michael Russell when issues of this nature were being considered in the Scottish Parliament.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

Why is the Secretary of State misleading Members of this House and misrepresenting the views of the Scottish Parliament? He must surely know that the Scottish Government have no objection to common arrangements and that there has been no attempt to have a veto. In fact, the Scottish Government have sought to have a partnership, with a common agreed disputes procedure when differences might arise. Instead, his Government have insisted that common arrangements must make the devolved authorities subservient to the wishes of the United Kingdom Government. Given his misinterpretation of the facts, would it not be better for him to step aside and make way for someone who can better broker these discussions and seek agreement?

[David Mundell]

We have just heard from an expert in misinforming on the facts. His is not a fair or accurate interpretation of anything that has happened, but it belies the SNP’s fundamental view of the United Kingdom. Scotland is not a partner of the United Kingdom; Scotland is part of the United Kingdom.

Referendum on Scottish Independence

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

Sir Roger, you had the misfortune not to witness, although you will have heard about it, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) complain at the start of our debate that the mover of the debate from the Petitions Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), was subject to bias and seemed to favour one of the petitions over the other. Since then, two and a half hours have elapsed and, by my count, we have had two speeches in favour of one of the petitions, assuming we put the mover of the debate in that camp, and 15 in favour of the other. It is good to see such a balanced debate.

[Douglas Ross]

On a point of order, Sir Roger, could you clarify whether you have been unable to call a number of Scottish National party Members who hoped to contribute? Or is it the fact that we had only those two speeches because only two SNP Members put in to speak?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard]

Sir Roger, I none the less rest my case. Anyone looking at the transcript of the debate will see that it is far from open and is, indeed, one-sided. For the avoidance of doubt, I have a very short amount of time and a lot has been said so I will not take any interventions—Conservative Members should, therefore, be comfortable in their seats.

Before going on to talk about the referendum, I want to make two points about the nature of the campaign for Scottish independence. The first point is for the benefit of the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) and some others who have spoken. They would be doing a great disservice to themselves, and indeed to the movement for national autonomy in Scotland, if they were to reduce the campaign to the aspirations of the Scottish National party. Many people involved in the campaign for Scottish independence would not even describe themselves as nationalists—they view themselves as internationalists, as republicans, as social democrats, as liberals, as Greens. They see themselves pretty much as anyone who wants to see change in their country and has become frustrated and impatient with the ability and capacity of the British state to reform itself and achieve that change. It is a very diverse and multifaceted movement, and it would be wrong to dismiss it in the way Members have done today.

Secondly, I want to say to the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney), who otherwise made a very reasoned contribution, that this is not a question of identity. I speak as someone who was born and brought up in Northern Ireland and carries a British and an Irish passport. It is not a question of identity—far from it. If there was any nation that had a surfeit of icons for its identity it would be Scotland. We have the flags and emblems; what we lack is the ability to control our own lives, use our own natural resources and chart the destiny of our country. It is about empowerment and power, and people would do well to understand that that is the nature of the debate that is happening in Scotland.

The campaign against a second independence referendum is predicated pretty much on accusing people like me of disrespecting the result of the 2014 referendum. I want to say, as many people from my party have said so many times since then, that that is not true. We respect the result of the 2014 referendum. We acknowledge that a clear majority of our neighbours and citizens voted to remain in a political union of the United Kingdom. But we say that if circumstances were to change in a way that would invalidate the options presented in 2014 that should call for a rethink, in the same way as when someone gets back from the shop, opens the box and finds that what is inside is not as described on the cover, they have a right to get their money back. People would, in my view, have the right to get their vote back if what happened was not what they had voted for, turned out not to be what came about. That is why the question of a change in circumstances is so important.

This is obviously an abstract theory. We were asked to identify what we would mean by a change in circumstances so dramatic that it would occasion an early second referendum. We said, “For example, one thing might be Scotland being taken out of the European Union against its will”. That was stated as an example, by the way, before the Brexit vote and before we knew how Scotland would vote or, indeed, how people in the rest of the United Kingdom would vote. That change of circumstance came to pass.

We did not just outline those circumstances as some theoretical point of discussion. My view is that if circumstances changed in that way, there would be justification for a second independence referendum. I accept that people here will disagree with that, but it is a legitimate point of view. In order to test that point of view and see whether people agreed with it, we did what a normal political party would do: we wrote it into our manifesto for the 2016 Scottish general election—an election that we won. [Interruption.] It is on page 26, if Members want to go and check. We said clearly that circumstances such as Scotland being taken out of the European Union against its will would create an argument for a second independence referendum.

[Bill Grant]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tommy Sheppard]

The hon. Gentleman must have difficulty hearing; I said I was not taking any interventions. Please be seated. [Interruption.]

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Tommy Sheppard]

We put that commitment in the manifesto, and we won that election. A majority of the Members of the elected Scottish Parliament believe that if Scotland is taken out of the EU against its will, that would be justification for consulting people again on the question of Scottish independence.

That was the situation as it was then, but what happened after Britain voted to leave the European Union? Did Nicola Sturgeon suddenly run in and say, “That is it. We are going to execute this. We want a second referendum now”? No, far from it. [Interruption.] If the Tories stop braying for a moment, I will tell them what happened. A Scottish Government who believed in Scottish independence and the European Union produced a document that argued for neither. It argued for a compromise solution in Brexit that would allow differential arrangements in Scotland to respect Scottish public opinion and protect Scottish interests. That is what we put to the British Government in December 2016, and in the new year it was thrown back in our faces. By Easter this year, it was perfectly clear that whatever option came out of Brexit, it was not going to afford for any differential solution in Scotland. What changed things was the election on 8 June.

People have talked about reflection and modesty. I accept that 480,000 people who voted for the SNP in 2015 declined to do so in 2017. Most of them—the vast majority—stayed at home and did not vote for anyone else. I accept that the confusion around the second referendum was a large part of many of those people’s thinking. That uncertainty is clearly there in the minds of many people, and that gives us cause for reflection, but the main thing that changed on 8 June was that the Conservative Government lost their majority, so the range of options for Brexit changed. It is an irony that the Scottish Conservatives think that the pause button has been pressed on the second referendum timetable because they won their seats, when in truth it was paused because the Tories lost seats in England and we now have a hung Parliament and do not quite know what the outcome of Brexit will be. In fact, the level of confusion and uncertainty is greater than ever. We now say that we have to wait and see what Brexit delivers to be able to decide whether we go forward with a second independence referendum.

There are only two ways that things can go from here. One is that the United Kingdom Government come to an agreement with the Scottish Government and the Brexit process goes through with the consent of the Scottish Parliament. That is one possible outcome. The other option is that the United Kingdom Government ignore the representations of Scotland, overrule them and proceed regardless. In those latter circumstances, the mandate from 2016 is still there and will be executed, because we will give the people of Scotland the right to decide whether they want the isolationist economic chaos that Brexit represents or whether they want to revisit the decision taken in 2014 and this time decide they would be better off taking matters into their own hands, and taking back control to Scotland.