Seòmar agus comataidhean

What the minister says is absolutely correct. I confirmed to the committee at stage 1 that I was content to remove part 2 of the bill. It is pretty onerous and a bit clunky, and it could be financially onerous at this time.

That said, as the committee is aware, I am very interested in having a UK-based microchipping database. That would make more sense because, ancillary to that, we could put in it dog control notices and everything else that is relevant to dogs in Scotland. I have no concerns about the deletion of part 2—given that I agreed to it earlier, I could hardly change my mind now—on the basis that we will continue to look at microchipping. We will have a debate on that later, so I will save what I want to say for then.

Indeed. I know that it is hard for ministers, so I am going to be sympathetic here. They have heavy-duty portfolios, but if you do not set yourself a timescale, in tandem with the UK Government, the long grass will just get even longer. I am not saying that the minister can do this on his own; I know that he cannot. What he can do, in his discussions with the UK Government—after all, this is a good egg thing—is to say to the new UK minister, whoever they might be, “Let us get on with this, get our officials together and move towards establishing a UK dog microchipping database.” If people move their animals about the UK, that is probably the best that we could do.

In the meantime, Edward Mountain’s position represents a good first step. We should review what we have just now and see whether it is working and people update it—I am sure that they do not. As I said, I do not have a vote on the matter, but I am pleased that there is momentum behind the proposal for a microchipping database, which I have been pushing for for a long time.

Excuse me for finishing on a frivolous note, but I take it that where a single chicken is kept, as in Edward Mountain’s example, its name does not go into the database and it is simply given a number. However, if it has a name, I would love to hear it. Do not tell me that its name is Hen.

That is me concluded, convener.

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Despite having a trio of helpers behind me, I was not able to get reconnected. I would have voted no.

There is a famous play, “Look Back in Anger”, by John Osborne. I look back at the result of the 2014 referendum not in anger, but with sadness at the lost opportunities for this talented nation.

Until the declaration at Dalkeith, I had no idea whether we would win, and neither did the Tories and Labour at that count. When I saw that we had lost, I put a brave face on it, but I felt sick to the pit of my stomach.

The debate and the rallies leading up to that moment had been invigorating. Scotland was alive to the possibilities, or otherwise, of being an independent nation again. The 84 per cent turnout was ballot-proof evidence of that engagement. We can compare it to the 60 per cent turnout at the recent election. We should remember that Labour is in power with 34 per cent of the UK vote on a 60 per cent turnout. That is hardly an endorsement of either Labour or the voting system.

In 2014, much the same as now, the majority of the press were rooting for the union. Gordon Brown, like a dark sorcerer, produced, from his back pocket, the vow: greater powers if you vote no. Now, we know where that went—sorcerer that he was, it was smoke and mirrors. There were scare stories by project fear that pensioners would lose their pensions, the pound in people’s pockets would be worthless and so on. That, together with the threat of being turfed out of the European Union, did the trick.

Here we are now, 10 years on. In Scotland, we voted 62 per cent to remain in the EU—every single part of Scotland, every constituency and every council area did so—but we are out. Pensioners have one of the lowest pensions in Europe, and the removal of their winter fuel payment is the first—though probably not the last—body blow to the most vulnerable. Heating costs in Scotland are the highest in the UK, yet we are fuel-rich in green energy.

We were told that we needed the skills and economic talents of UK plc and that we could not hack it alone. We were told that having an independent economy would sink us, so instead we had Boris “oven-ready” Johnson—all bluster and no substance—and a Brexit that has cost the UK economy dear. He took us out of the EU in the middle of a pandemic. How many now regret that they voted to be out? Never a penny was seen of that £350 million per week that was promised on the side of a bus.

We were then gifted Liz Truss, who—with the stroke of a pen, or a tap at the keyboard—plunged the markets into chaos, panicked the banks and sent inflation into orbit. Pre-election, the First Minister and the Office for Budget Responsibility warned of an £18 billion black hole in the Treasury. Up stepped Labour, which finds that it is £22 billion—what a surprise! Pull the other one. In 2008, the banks collapsed. We in Scotland have known only austerity and Westminster economic incompetence. We were promised more of both by Sir Keir Starmer, and that has already begun.

What could we have had? At the top of the agenda is control of our own economy, the opportunity to invest in our natural assets, green energy, food and drink, research and development, tourism and so on. We could have been like other small European nations—members of the EU in partnership. We could have been in partnership with our nearest neighbour—my place of birth—England, in a similar way to the situation of the Scandic countries. We could have had a decent pension for our elderly. Of course, independence would not automatically have brought about a land of milk and honey, but it certainly would not be facing the grim landscape of a broken, bankrupt Britain.

I think that the Scottish people have seen the fraud that was the better together campaign. Successive UK Governments must have feared a referendum—why else would they block it? Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. The Scottish people will not be fooled again. Look back, not in anger but to learn from the past.

In the spirit of the debate, I say to Mr Kerr that I am in agreement with almost everything that he says.

I, too, congratulate Audrey Nicoll on securing the debate and, most important, I congratulate the FSB on its 50th anniversary. As members can imagine, the vast majority of businesses in my constituency of Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale are small and medium-sized enterprises, which reflects the situation throughout Scotland. Such businesses are, indeed, the backbone of our economy. They are embedded in the communities and employ people locally, their employees often spend in the local economy, and their commitment is local.

I celebrate small businesses, from the local Galashiels painter and decorator who painted my office and the glazier who installed the windows to the many other businesses and shops in the area. I suppose that I am also a small business in Gala, where I have been since 1999.

Austerity made the situation hard for all those businesses before Covid. Covid was dreadful but, thankfully, with help from the UK and Scottish Governments, many managed to stagger on. The Central Bar in the Northgate in Peebles—a free house—received no support, as the premises are too small to accommodate the hot food provision that was required to qualify for the support scheme. However, Roddy MacKay, the owner of that wee, friendly gem, buckled down, redecorated and smartened up the pub frontage—indeed, he recently won an award for the floral display. That demonstrates the resilience of a small business that is embedded in the community.

However, we still have austerity and the fallout from Covid, and many people’s shopping habits have changed. Further, businesses’ work patterns have changed—home working was an exception, but now it can be the norm. That impacts on how businesses operate, while they still have the same outlays in rental, heating and so on. Indeed, we know how retail has changed, with shopping online no longer an occasional or marginal activity—Covid changed that for good.

I will raise the impact of the small business bonus scheme, which Murdo Fraser and others referred to. I was here in 2007 when it was brought in, in agreement with the Conservatives, who supported the SNP’s budget. It was a good idea at the time, and I support it today. Figures from 2023 show that, in Midlothian, 1,060 businesses benefited from 100 per cent relief—they paid nothing—and another 870 had a measure of relief. In the Borders, 5,170 paid no rates under the scheme in that year, and 5,280 had a measure of relief.

The FSB provides support in the form of financial expertise and by speaking up for small businesses to the Governments here and at UK level. It also speaks up on their behalf to the local MSP, if required—my door is always open.

Local people can also do their bit. I note that Pam Gosal referred to Scotland Loves Local week, which began on 26 August. I shop locally anyway, so that was no challenge for me.

Among the local shops in my constituency, there is AilaBells, in the Penicuik precinct, which has a wonderful array of upmarket Scottish goods. The precinct has footfall, but I laid down the gauntlet to Shelley, the owner, about going online, where I am sure that she could increase sales. I told her that I would be checking on her progress. I also directed her to Business Gateway for assistance in setting up her website. That is the problem for sole owners—they are so busy that they sometimes cannot do the stuff that they need to do to expand. She needs help with that, because it would make a world of difference.

Then there is—wait for this name—Fifi La Bonk! at School Brae in Peebles. What a name, and it is apposite; exotic and idiosyncratic—that is just the owner—are the clothes that she makes and designs individually. Websites help with such esoteric and—if I may say so—even for me, offbeat designs; they are staggeringly interesting.

In both those shops, I made lovely purchases; I might wear them in here at some point. By the way, I pay for the items myself—just to put that on the record. I encourage communities to be mindful, even in these tough times, of supporting local businesses and shops as best they can. As others have said, the serious point is that they are the lifeblood of our communities. They are embedded in and feel indebted and responsible to their communities. We should keep our high streets and town centres, which are under such pressure today, alive and kicking.

Again, I congratulate the FSB on its special anniversary, my colleague on securing the debate and, if I may say so, all the small and medium-sized enterprises in my constituency.

Well, if gongs were being handed out for brass necks, everyone on the Opposition benches would be wearing them—and proudly, no doubt.

Before the recent general election, the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Institute for Fiscal Studies warned that there was an £18 billion hole in the UK Government’s finances. True to form, when Labour opened the books, it feigned shock that, in fact, the hole was £22 billion—but what is a billion or so between Governments?

Before the election, Anas “Read my lips” Sarwar proclaimed no austerity under Labour. Now, the Starmer mantra is, “Things will get worse.” Pensioners already know what that means.

Against that economic climate, the Tories—in this debate and in the previous one on free school meals—are demanding more money for services. On what planet do they live? Ditto for Labour. The ruin of the UK economy is simple. In 2008, under Gordon Brown, the banks crashed, although he at least admitted that he had made a “big mistake”. Boris pursued Brexit slap bang in the middle of a global pandemic—so much for Brexit being “oven ready” and for the side-of-a-bus promise of £350 million a week for the NHS.

As if things were not bad enough, along came 49-day Truss, who, with a stroke of her quill, crashed the economy, pushing inflation up to 11 per cent. We would have been better off with a lettuce—at least that is good for your health. Yet the Scottish Government, although it depends for the majority of its funding on Westminster, somehow has a very large sofa, with coins just waiting to be liberated, to provide £40 million a year to subsidise on-peak fares. Even with all that, I repeat that this was a pilot scheme to move people back on to trains, especially after Covid, when trains were all pretty well cut back out of necessity and the need for compliance in public transport. There was to be a specific return in passenger numbers for that money. That return was not reached—end of pilot.

I will make a further comment—work practices have radically changed since Covid. We moved to Teams, WhatsApp and Zoom, and we still use those either fully or in a hybrid way. Commuting to work for five days a week is, for many, in the past. The new balance of home working and office working is here to stay. There are offices across Scotland—Borders Council headquarters is one such—where, on weekdays, it feels like the Mary Celeste. This place is another such example: some MSPs are delivering speeches from their homes, and Mr Eagle has actually delivered a speech from his lambing shed.

Some time ago, I discussed that change in working practices with Alex Hynes, who was ScotRail’s chief executive. He advised that ScotRail’s business model had to adapt and that ScotRail would look to increasing train usage through pleasure journeys, because commuting had completely changed.

As always, I wish to be consensual, so I look forward to the Opposition parties specifying in their closing speeches—because I know that they have done their homework—where the £40 million for the recurring annual cost is to come from. Is it from health or education, or should we just scrap the millions that we give every year to mitigate the effect of UK austerity? That would do it, because I have news for them—there is no coin-laden sofa.

Will the member take an intervention?

At last, I have been called courteous. I think that the member has just walked into a bear trap: the great big promise from Anas Sarwar was that there would be no austerity under Labour. How is that for a broken promise?

Will the member give way?