---

Scotland and the Union

I am delighted to have secured this debate, particularly at a time when the future of the United Kingdom is at stake because of the forthcoming elections in Scotland. It might be appropriate to remind colleagues that this Labour Government’s policy on Scotland and the Union delivered the settled will of the Scottish people through the devolution of a range of important issues to the newly constructed Scottish Parliament. I shall return to that issue later. That Parliament has delivered on its promises and introduced progressive policies that have enhanced the quality of life for the vast majority of its people. So successful has it been that even those who wish to break up the UK are reluctant to debate the issues that are relevant to that Parliament. Scotland is stronger because of the Union and the Union is stronger because of Scotland—not because of North sea oil, but because the Government believe that, by focusing on the future and not reliving old battles and prejudices, we can all make progress and, together, face up to the challenges of an ever competitive global economy. Today’s UK is a democratic country that is the envy of the world. That hard-fought tradition should not be destroyed by short-term separatism. That is a probability that even the London leader of the Scottish National party has acknowledged. He suggests that Scotland should vote in the forthcoming elections in the knowledge that, if it does not work out, we will just regroup and move on. Such deceitful politics is dangerous and irresponsible. It takes for granted the views of the other countries that make up the UK, surmising that they will just wait around for the self-indulgent activities of the SNP. The vast majority of the Scottish people—and the rest of the UK—do not want to break up Britain. I would liken such an act to a student sabbatical, but one where the student does not want to give up their room. The financial costs of breaking up the UK would soar into billions of pounds. Likewise, if we were to regroup—provided the rest of the UK wanted us—those billions of pounds could and should have been spent on improving the lives of all our constituents. Constitutional wrangling would sever the relationship between Holyrood and Westminster, which would generate a blame culture that would foster nothing but hostility and conflict. Exploiting people’s prejudices, especially anti-Englishness, lies at the heart of the SNP, despite its national leader’s attempt to downplay that. There are historic examples worldwide of similar nationalism that has led to unnecessary conflict and irreparable damage. Some would argue that that might be an exaggerated risk, but is it a risk worth taking? I turn now to the defence of the UK and, in particular, the valuable jobs associated with the defence industry. As an island, we are heavily dependent on securing our shores, whether from those who wish to harm our people, to enter the country illegally, to exploit our shores or to carry out organised crime involving drug or human trafficking. Our service personnel work tirelessly to protect us, coupled with the other agencies that work together to collect and share information and surveillance. We owe them all a great deal of gratitude. That would be put at risk if we were to break up the partnership. Investment could be affected and jobs could be lost. Paradoxically, some areas in Scotland are heavily dependent on a UK defence presence yet choose to elect people who would, if they come to power, put that investment at risk.