THE Minister for Independence has defended Holyrood’s debate on a written Scottish constitution as “necessary” as the Tories took the opportunity to attack the First Minister's General Election strategy.
Jamie Hepburn said it was “nonsense” to suggest that the Scottish Government were not focusing on the priorities of the people as MSPs debated the publication of the latest independence white paper.
Earlier, Tory MSP Donald Cameron had claimed that the SNP’s independence strategy ahead of the next General Election was a “turbo-charged” version of Nicola Sturgeon’s de facto referendum plan.
READ MORE: Date set for Scotland's highest court to hear gender reform case
We previously told how First Minister Humza Yousaf set out his stall to SNP members in Dundee on Saturday, and said that the party would state that a vote for them is a vote for Scottish independence on the first line of their manifesto.
The Tories suggested that this meant a vote for them was a vote to remain in the Union.
Cameron described this as a “desperate barrel scraping strategy” amid the debate.
Constitution Secretary Angus Robertson opened the debate by stating that “normal countries have constitutions” and that Westminster, which relies on parliamentary sovereignty, is an outlier.
Cameron told MSPs that the SNP’s new strategy is to treat a General Election victory as a “mandate for independence”.
Intervening, Hepburn (above) said: “I wonder if Mr Cameron would recognise that we are perfectly entitled as a party, just as he is in his party, to lay out what our manifesto should say and then we put that to people, just as they will put their manifesto to the people, and in them we trust and they will decide?”
“I don't deny that for a second,” Cameron replied. “But the point I make is that you have said, Jamie Hepburn has said, every vote for the SNP in that election will be taken as a vote for separation.
“Just as every vote for the Scottish Conservatives will be taken as a vote to remain in the United Kingdom.
“That's why what was announced in Dundee is so serious.”
READ MORE: Tory MP Brendan Clarke-Smith doubles down on Samaritans tweet
Cameron later described Yousaf’s announcement as “a turbocharged version of Nicola Sturgeon’s de facto referendum”.
“Except this time it seems SNP has set the bar even lower by saying we don't need to win a majority of votes or even the majority of seats,” he added.
“They say they just need to win more seats than any other party.
“It's a nonsense. The SNP know that a majority of people in Scotland don't want another referendum in the next few years and that's why they've come up with this desperate barrel scraping strategy which plays to a narrow audience of nationalists and ignores the wishes of the majority of Scots.”
Intervening, Robertson asked Cameron to set out the Tories position on how Scotland can “determine its own future” and what they have to do to have a referendum.
Cameron replied that the people of Scotland had a referendum in 2014.
In his closing arguments, Hepburn tore apart Cameron’s arguments. “The first critique was that we shouldn't be having it [the debate] at all, that this isn't somehow important,” Hepburn said.
“Well, I would remind members that the Scottish Government has secured the mandate through the 2021 election.
“We stood in that election on the basis of seeking to advance the independence case, we won that election, and Mr Cameron suggested that we should read the room in the context of the debate.
READ MORE: SNP furious as Robert Jenrick says party doesn't house refugees
“I would rather suggest he should look around this room and look who constitutes the members of this chamber - his party is in the minority.
“This party is in government and has every right to advance this case.
“The second point is that it's perfectly legitimate, I think it's necessary, that we should have brought forward this debate.”
Hepburn responded to accusations made by Cameron that he had not informed the Parliament of the subject of the latest white paper in the Building a New Scotland series, and insisted he did through a Government Initiated Question (GIQ).
Cameron (above) revealed himself as a listener of The National’s Holyrood Weekly podcast during the exchange.
“It is a nonsense to suggest that we are not focused on the people’s needs,” Hepburn fired back.
He later argued that it was "perfectly normal" for countries to have a written constitution, and that the UK was one of 10 in the world who do not have guaranteed rights for their citizens.
Moving the motion in his name at the start of the debate, Robertson said: "Normal countries have constitutions, and they have constitutions for very good reasons.
READ MORE: Protest against Orange Order march past Glasgow Catholic church
"These include, of course, for constituting a state, setting out its institutions, giving them power, saying what they can and cannot do.
"But it's much more than just that - a constitution is about ambition.
"It's about imagination, about setting out the sort of country that you aspire to be, about identifying and making real your values as a country, and about protecting and promoting people's rights."
It was agreed with 64 votes for Yes, 47 for No, and no abstentions.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel