| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Dewar: I am genuinely curious, so may I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question? Can Westminster do those things? If the answer is yes, should we abolish Westminster as an unpleasant conspiracy?
Mr. Ancram: The right hon. Gentleman has made my case for me. He has now compared the powers of the Scottish Parliament with the powers available to this Parliament. This Parliament certainly has powers to raise various other forms of taxation, but we have been told that the Scottish Parliament's tax-varying powers would relate only to income tax. It is becoming clear that in the thickets of the White Paper, well hidden from the casual reader, is the potential for many more tartan taxes than just income tax. Where potential taxes exist, one can be sure that in due course they will happen.
Scotland would be the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom, with devastating effects on individuals, jobs, business and inward investment. The cost of collecting
and paying the taxes would be punitive. It would also create great internal unfairness. Pensioners would pay the increased income tax while those who have saved and invested would not. Someone who lives in Berwick and works in Kelso will not pay the tax; someone who lives in Coldstream and works in Kelso will. Someone spending 185 days a year in Scotland will pay the increased tax, whereas someone spending only 180 days in Scotland will not. What happens if one's job takes one backwards and forwards across the border on a daily basis? The situation is mind-boggling. We need answers to the questions arising from the can of tartan tax worms, and we need them before the Scots are asked to vote on 11 September.
One thing is clear: the Scots will be worse off. As I said last Thursday, Scots will pay through the nose for devolution. It will cost to be Scots.
Ms Rachel Squire (Dunfermline, West)
rose--
Mr. Ancram:
I am not giving way again. I have spoken for long enough, and I want to conclude.
Last week, I warned that the people of Scotland were facing a dark, cold night. Just how dark and cold is becoming daily more apparent, as the small print of the muddled proposals is examined. It is a matter not just of what is in the proposals, but of what is not--it is the failure to answer questions on Europe, on tax and on many other crucial issues; it is the rush to get the referendum through before the Scottish people wake up to what is being done to them; and it is the implicit dishonesty in implying that people can vote for the package to save the United Kingdom at the same time as voting for it to break up the United Kingdom.
But the dawn beyond the night is no less cold, for it would find Scotland, having left the wider stage which historically it has bestrode so famously, withdrawn into itself, and inevitably resentful. It would find the Scottish people worse off, and it would find the United Kingdom torn apart.
Mrs. Ray Michie (Argyll and Bute):
I find it sad to hear the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) talking about things ending in tears. I wish that he was more constructive and had a greater interest in putting forward ideas that would help to improve some aspects of the White Paper.
I shall start on a light-hearted note. The Secretary of State sometimes accuses me of being over-romantic and of looking back too often. I wonder who chose 11 September as the date for the referendum? Was it a tiny bit of romance in his heart? It is, of course, the anniversary of the battle of Stirling bridge.
Mrs. Michie:
We all know about the film "Braveheart" and how everybody enjoyed Mel Gibson. I certainly did.
Mrs. Michie:
They will be going to vote yes, yes.
Mr. Dalyell:
Am I doing the hon. Lady an injustice by suggesting that the implications of what she has said are profoundly anti-English?
Mrs. Michie:
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should think that. I never mentioned the English. I was merely saying that 11 September was a worthwhile date to have chosen for the referendum. Perhaps I shall hear from Ministers whether it was chosen by chance or whether the Secretary of State decided that it was a good date because of the historical background.
Mr. Salmond:
I have a helpful intervention. Does the hon. Lady recall, as I do, that, when the Conservatives were in government, they almost proposed a Trafalgar day? I thought that that was a pretty silly proposal, but I do not think that I attacked them for being anti-French.
Mrs. Michie:
That was a helpful intervention. I remember that suggestion. I reject what the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said.
I should like to follow up the questions that the Secretary of State was asked after his statement about the building that will house the Scottish Parliament. As the White Paper rightly states, it
I have two points to make about that. The first involves the funding of the building. No doubt we shall be accused of wasting money on a new building for the Parliament. It should be funded from three sources. Obviously, there should be some public funding, because it will be a building belonging to the people of Scotland. However, I see no reason why private money should not contribute to the project and I wonder whether it would be eligible for millennium funding. The dome is to cost between £500 million and £800 million.
Mrs. Michie:
Well, up, up, up the cost has gone. The title was changed from the millennium project to the millennium experience, which was fine. I know that various millennium projects are planned to come to fruition in various parts of Scotland, but there is no single big idea. I suggest that the new Parliament could be our big idea--the Scottish experience.
My second point is about the design. I welcome the prospect of an open competition for the design if we choose to have a new building. I have a specific request
for the Secretary of State and the Minister. The design should be chosen not just by an architectural hierarchy and politicians. It is important to try to involve the people of Scotland in choosing the building. Perhaps they could choose from a short list of six. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. Hon. Members are being extremely unfair to the hon. Lady. She is addressing the House and she should not be interrupted. [Hon. Members: "She is not addressing the issue."] Order. She should not be interrupted. That is the end of that.
Mrs. Michie:
I am not sure why Conservative Members are trying to interrupt. I am addressing what is in the White Paper and trying to make some constructive proposals, which I have not heard from any of them.
The Scottish people should be involved in choosing whatever building is put forward from the competition. How can we do that? [Hon. Members: "Have a referendum."] No. I was about to say that we have had enough proposals for referendums. We could involve the television companies, which would put the buildings on screen, with computer simulations of the inside. The Scottish people could then give their preferences in a phone-in. Similar exercises have been carried out before. This is not just my idea. Many people have told me that they do not want any carbuncles in Scotland. We want a building that we will like and appreciate. The choice of the people is not always the same as that of the architectural purists.
Mr. Godman:
One of the most recent international architectural competitions that we have had in Scotland was for the new museum in Chambers street, Edinburgh. Was the hon. Lady unhappy with the way in which the design for that building was chosen?
Mrs. Michie:
No, I was not. I would be happy if we consulted the people of Scotland. I do not know whether they would be interested in bothering to tell us what they would like, but we should at least try.
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire):
The hon. Lady has spoken for eight minutes about the building in which the Parliament will be housed. Does she not think that that devalues this debate on the constitutional future of our nation?
Mrs. Michie:
I do not want to argue with the hon. Gentleman. I have already said that I am trying to make constructive suggestions. There is a chapter in the White Paper about the housing of the Scottish Parliament. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt be able to raise other aspects later.
There are many aspects of the White Paper that we welcome, particularly the electoral arrangements as spelled out in chapter 8. Those arrangements are essential, as the Secretary of State has reiterated. We worked hard to persuade the Scottish Constitutional Convention to adopt a fair electoral system and we want to ensure that all parts of the country are properly represented.
"must be of such a quality, durability and civic importance as to reflect the Parliament's status and operational needs".
I am glad that the Secretary of State confirmed to me during Scottish Question Time that there were various options, including a new building, if a suitable site can be found.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |