CARBON CAPTURE FUNDING + VISIT ‘MAKE A MOCKERY’ OF PLANNING PROCESS
First Minister John Swinney will visit the site of an innovative carbon capture and storage (CCS) facility in Aberdeenshire today where he will unveil new Scottish Government funding for the project.
The Acorn project, based in St Fergus, would take captured CO2 emissions from industrial processes across the country and store it safely under the North Sea.
The First Minister will meet representatives of the project and undertake a short tour of the site, before meeting staff and apprentices.
While in Aberdeenshire the First Minister will also meet business leaders and members of the Scottish seafood sector at a roundtable discussion in Peterhead.
Speaking ahead of his visit to the North East, the First Minister said: “Carbon capture and storage will play a huge role in Scotland’s net zero future.
“The Scottish Government is wholly committed to supporting the Acorn Project, which will take advantage of our access to vast CO2 storage potential and our opportunities to repurpose existing oil and gas infrastructure.
“Scotland’s energy transition presents one of the greatest economic and social opportunities of our time. This landmark project will help to support a just transition for oil and gas workers in the North East and across the country, by drawing upon their world-leading skills and expertise to create many good, green jobs in the coming years.
“The North East is also a powerhouse of Scotland’s word-class seafood processing sector, which contributes massively to our economy. According to recent figures the region alone is home to more than 3,379 full time equivalent jobs.
“The Scottish Government will continue to engage and work closely with the sector, and communities, to ensure that Scotland’s fishing industry, the wider seafood sector, and our marine environment can thrive sustainably.”
Climate campaigners have responded to the First Minister’s plans to visit to the Aberdeenshire CCS project saying it ‘makes a mockery’ of the planning process and questioning why there was more public funding being pledged for fossil fuel infrastructure.
The visit was announced as news broke of an official complaint into the Scottish Government’s handling of the planning application for the Peterhead gas power station with carbon capture.
The FM’s visit raises a number of concerns including that the explicit endorsement of this project may undermine any future assessment of a planning application to build the Acorn Project.
Environmentalists are also alarmed that public money is being handed to a pet project of fossil fuel companies. Shell, who are a key partner in Acorn, have made £50 BILLION profit in the past two years.
The Acorn Project is not yet in the planning system, and no application has been made yet it appears the FM is gambling our energy future on this technology working. The Scottish Government’s over-reliance on faltering Negative Emissions Technologies created a huge gap in its calculations around emissions reductions for the 2030 climate targets.
CCS has never delivered the capture rates that its proponents claim and there is a growing body of evidence that all it is doing is capturing public money and providing greenwash for continued fossil fuel expansion.
Friends of the Earth Scotland climate and energy campaigner Caroline Rance said: “The Acorn carbon capture terminal does not exist and there hasn’t even been a planning application submitted to build it.
“However, with these fawning statements of support, the First Minister is in danger of making a mockery of the Scottish Government conducting a fair assessment of future planning applications.
“Vital public services are crying out for funding yet John Swinney has decided to give millions of pounds to a pet project of Shell, who made £50 billion profit in the last two years. The public must be starting to think the Scottish Government has been captured by the fossil fuel industry with hundreds of cosy meetings, huge handouts and the rolling back of positions on ending oil and gas.
“The Acorn Project is a pipe dream of polluters that will never live up to its hype.The purpose of CCS is to greenwash plans to keep burning oil and gas. Carbon capture has already had billions of pounds and decades of work to prove itself and it has failed on its promises everywhere it has been tried.
“Both the Scottish and UK Governments need to realise that public money would be far better invested in climate solutions that work today and can create decent green jobs such as home insulation, public transport and affordable renewable energy.”
Key questions for the First Minister:
• How can Ministers making future planning decisions be expected to judge the Acorn project on its merits when the First Minister is fawning over it and is funnelling public money towards it?
• Why is public money required to deliver this project when the oil companies who will benefit are making obscene profits?
• How will this project avoid the failures that have been seen in every other carbon capture project around the world?
YESTERDAY marked the 25th Anniversary of the Scottish Parliament, which took up it’s legal powers on 1st July 1999.
The Parliament was opened by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Scotland’s First Minister Donald Dewar replied to the Queen’s address with a speech thanking her for the Mace, the parliament’s symbol of authority.
FIRST MINISTER DONAL DEWAR’s SPEECH IN FULL:
“Your Majesty, on behalf of the people of Scotland I thank you for the gift of the Mace.
It is a symbol of the great democratic traditions from which we draw our inspiration and our strength.
At its head are inscribed the opening words of our founding statute: “There shall be a Scottish Parliament”.
Through long years, many long years in the case of many of us, those words were first a hope, then a belief, then a promise. Now they are a reality.
This is indeed a moment anchored in our history. Today we can reach back to the long haul to win this parliament, to the struggles of those who brought democracy to Scotland, to that other parliament dissolved in controversy over 300 years ago.
Today we can look forward to the time when this moment will be seen as a turning point – the day when democracy was renewed in Scotland when we revitalised our place in this, our United Kingdom.
This is about more than our politics and our laws. This is about who we are, how we carry ourselves.
And in the quiet moments of today – if there are any – we might hear some echoes from the past: the shout of the welder in the din of the great Clyde shipyards, the speak of the Mearns rooted in the land, the discourse of the enlightenment when Edinburgh and Glasgow were indeed a light held to the intellectual life of Europe, the wild cry of the great pipes and back to the distant noise of battles in the days of Bruce and Wallace.
The past is part of us, part of every one of us and we respect it. But today there is a new voice in the land, the voice of a democratic parliament, a voice to shape Scotland, a voice above all for the future.
Walter Scott wrote that only a man with soul so dead could have no sense, no feel for his native land.
For me – and I think in this I speak at least for any Scot today – this is a proud moment, a new stage in a journey begun long ago and which has no end. This is a proud day for all of us.
A Scottish Parliament, not an end but a means to greater ends and these too are part of our Mace. Woven into the symbolic thistles are these four words – wisdom, justice, compassion, integrity.
Burns would have understood that. We’ve just heard beautifully sung one of his most enduring works, and at the heart of that song is a very Scottish conviction that honesty and simple dignity are priceless virtues not imparted by rank or birth or privilege but part of the soul.
Burns believed that sense of worth ultimately prevail, he believed that was the core of politics and that without it our profession is inevitably impoverished.
Wisdom, justice, compassion, integrity – timeless values, honourable aspirations for this new forum of democracy born on the cusp of a new century.
We are fallible – we all know that. We will make mistakes but I hope and I believe we will never lose sight of what brought us here – the striving to do right by the people of Scotland, to respect their priorities, to better their lot and to contribute to the common weal.
I look forward to the days ahead and I know there will be many of them. This chamber will sound with debate, argument and passion, when men and women from all over Scotland will meet to work together for a future built on the first principles of social justice.
But today we pause and reflect.
It is a rare privilege in an old nation to open a new parliament. Today is and must be a celebration of the principles, the traditions, the democratic imperatives which have brought us to this point and which will sustain us in the future.
Your Majesty, we are proud that you are here today to hansel this parliament and here with us as we dedicate ourselves to the work that lies ahead.
Campaign for Real Ale invites John Swinney for a drink
The newly appointed Scottish First Minister, John Swinney, is invited to a pub of his choice to discuss the issues surrounding the Scottish pub and beer industry, such as pub business rates, alcohol advertising, planning laws and the Scottish Pubs Code.
The First Minister’s appointment arrives soon after Scottish Government’s decision to implement a new statutory Scottish Pubs Code and Adjudicator. CAMRA would hope to build on this long-awaited, but welcome, news in a meeting with Mr Swinney to make sure there is a robust Pubs Code to protect tied pub tenants and to secure pubs at the heart of Scottish communities.
CAMRA represents thousands of beer and cider consumers all across Scotland, who are worried about the future of their locals, unless action is taken in the near future.
CAMRA’s Scotland Director Stuart McMahon – representing Scotland’s CAMRA members – is inviting the First Minister for a chat at his local about the importance of fairer business rates on pubs in Scotland, in order help secure the future of community pubs and slow the rise of the price of a pint.
McMahon also wants the new First Minister to close a planning loophole that allows pubs to be demolished without planning permission.
Campaigners also want to see a commitment from the Scottish Government not to bring back draconian plans to ban all alcohol advertisement and sponsorship.
Commenting, CAMRA’s Scotland Director Stuart McMahon said: “We would like to congratulate John Swinney on becoming the First Minister of Scotland. While we are sure he has a lot on his plate, urgent discussions must be had to ensure a successful future for Scottish pubs.
“This is why we invite the First Minister to a pub of his choice to discuss the various ways in which pub, brewing and cider making industries can be improved to ameliorate the pub-going experience for beer and cider consumers.
“Our priorities for this meeting, and for the Scottish government, will be fairer business rates for pubs, confirmation of a decision to allow alcohol advertising in Scotland, a more secure planning law system and a muscular, robust Scottish Pubs Code.”
Letter to First Minister:
Dear John Swinney,
Join CAMRA to discuss the future of Scottish pubs
We are writing on behalf of CAMRA, the Campaign for Real Ale. We are a consumer organisation with thousands of members across Scotland. We campaign for great quality cask beer, real cider, and perry and thriving community pubs in all of our communities.
We would like to congratulate you on becoming the First Minister of Scotland. While we are sure you have a lot on your plate, urgent discussions must be had to ensure a successful future for Scottish pubs.
This is why we invite you to a pub of your choice to discuss the various ways in which the pub, brewing and cider making industry can be improved to ameliorate the pub-going experience for beer and cider consumers.
We know that you understand that beer and pubs are not only important to local economies, but also to our communities, culture and heritage. Our pubs are a vital part of our social fabric – playing a pivotal role in communities across the country, providing a space for local people to meet, helping to tackle loneliness, and having a positive impact on the personal wellbeing of pub-goers.
The pub-going experience, however, is changing with the prices of pints continually on the rise, potentially pricing out consumers, and the widespread closures of pubs becoming commonplace.
CAMRA members and pub-goers across Scotland are worried that this trend of pub closures will continue, and that their community local might be next.
Pub-goers up and down the country want to see a fairer business rates system for pubs, a sensible re-think on alcohol advertising and sponsorship plans, more secure planning laws to save community locals and a robust Scottish Pubs Code to protect tied pub tenants and consumer choice at the bar.
We would like to invite you to a pub of your choice to meet and have a drink (on us!) to discuss the issues facing consumers, licensees, pubs and breweries in Scotland, and how CAMRA members can work together with you to promote and protect great Scottish beer and pubs.
Noting that the Prime Minister did not agree to his call to end the license of arms exports to Israel, the First Minister has written to Lord Ahmad to warn that the UK Government is in danger of being complicit in the killing of innocent civilians.
Thank you for your letter of 8 April replying to mine to the Prime Minister of 23 February and 3 April.
I welcome the UK Government’s stated commitment to International Humanitarian Law, our diplomats’ contribution to finally achieving a UN Security Council Resolution, and the UK’s wider efforts to bring an end to the tragedy befalling the people of the Middle East.
I share with you the grief at the killing of three British aid workers, along with every other innocent man, woman and child killed in Gaza and Israel since Hamas’s terrorist attacks of 7 October and Israel’s response, which has gone far beyond any legitimate response.
In spite of everything contained in your comprehensive reply, I note that you have not agreed to my call to end the license of arms exports to Israel, which means that the UK will continue to arm Israel’s war in Gaza. A war that has left tens of thousands dead, the majority reported to be women and children.
As I said in my letter of 3 April, by continuing to arm Israel, the United Kingdom Government is in danger of being complicit in the killing of innocent civilians.
I find it difficult to comprehend that this continues to be the United Kingdom’s position against the backdrop of the ICJ ruling; UN Security Council, General Assembly and Human Rights Council Resolutions; countless UN officials’ statements about the catastrophic humanitarian situation in Gaza; and the recent open letter signed by over 600 legal professionals warning of potential UK complicity in grave breaches of international law, including violations of the Genocide Convention.
If this, alongside the killing of British nationals among at least 35,000 dead – the majority of whom are innocent women and children – is insufficient to change your policy, what more will it take?
Modelling shows vital impact of Scottish Government policies
First Minister Humzah Yousaf has welcomed analysis which estimates 100,000 children will be kept out of relative poverty in 2024-25 as a result of Scottish Government policies.
Updated modelling of the cumulative impact of policies such as the Scottish Child Payment indicates the relative child poverty rate will be 10 percentage points lower than it would otherwise have been.
Speaking after joining a Book Bug session at Drum Brae Library Hub in Edinburgh with the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Mr Yousaf highlighted estimates in the report of the impact the UK Government could have on child poverty, if it were to bring in selected welfare changes alongside the Scottish Government’s actions.
These show that removing the two-child limit and reinstating the family element in Universal Credit – worth £545 per family in 2017 – could lead to an estimated further 10,000 fewer children in Scotland living in poverty in 2024-25.
Meanwhile, introducing an Essentials Guarantee to ensure Universal Credit is always enough to meet people’s basic needs could lead to 30,000 fewer children experiencing poverty.
The First Minister said: “It is utterly unacceptable that, in 2024, children continue to live in poverty in Scotland. That is why we have very deliberately chosen to invest in our public services, and the social contract which binds the Scottish Government to the people we serve.
“From the introduction of the innovative and transformative Scottish Child Payment – described as ‘game-changing’ by frontline organisations and already improving the lives of so many children and families across Scotland in real and immediate ways – to investing £1 billion to tackle the poverty-related attainment gap, continuing delivery of the Whole Family Wellbeing programme, providing £50 million to develop and scale up holistic family support and investing around £1 billion every year in high quality early learning and childcare, ensuring Scotland delivers the most generous funded childcare offer in the UK.
“The economic modelling published today estimates that the actions we’re taking will mean the relative and absolute child poverty rates will be 10 and 7 percentage points lower than they would have otherwise been.
That’s 100,000 children kept out of relative poverty and 70,000 kept out of absolute poverty next year. These are the lives of children across Scotland, in every single community, being improved by the action we are taking.
“While we all know the challenging financial situation Scotland faces, the Scottish Budget continues to prioritise tackling and reducing child poverty. Against a backdrop of the UK Government’s two-child limit and continued austerity, we are taking real action to lift children out of poverty and improve their chances in life.
“We know that the UK Government could lift a further 40,000 children out of poverty in Scotland this year if they made key changes to Universal Credit. That includes introducing an Essential’s Guarantee and scrapping the two child limit.
“Every child in Scotland deserves a life free of poverty and I will continue to do everything in my power to make that a reality.”
Labour MSP for the Lothians, Sarah Boyack, has written an open letter to First Minister Humza Yousaf urging him to be honest about the fate of Edinburgh’s replacement eye hospital.
This comes after the First Minister confirmed that the Scottish Government was still committed to the eye hospital, despite the capital spending freeze imposed on health boards.
However, excerpts from the NHS Lothian board papers confirmed that work on the eye hospital would “cease” and stated that the board “should recognise the loss of this future infrastructure” will lead to major, negative challenges in delivering scheduled care over the coming years.
This admission throws into doubt the First Minister’s commitment, given the Scottish Government’s instruction to NHS Lothian to “immediately cease all capital projects”. The instruction includes “the New Eye Hospital at the BioQuarter”.
It also highlights a lack of certainty within the health board about the project’s status.
The current Eye Pavilion was deemed not fit for purpose in 2014, and a new replacement has been deemed a top priority by NHS Lothian.
Since 2014, the average wait time in days for inpatient and outpatient appointments more than doubled.
Ms Boyack has urged the First Minister to end the uncertainty around the project, as it is having detrimental impacts on patients and their treatment.
Commenting on her letter, Ms Boyack said:“The First Minister needs to level with the public about the replacement eye hospital.
“It was promised at the last election, then in the budget we found out that no new capital project can go ahead.
“While the First Minister says he is committed to the project, his government have kicked it into long grass.
“NHS Lothian has been put in an impossible position.
“If the First Minister is serious about delivering Edinburgh’s eye hospital, then he must come forth with a concrete timeline to deliver it.
“Anything less is just being dishonest with the public and damaging to patients.”
The letter reqads:
Dear First Minister,
I am writing regarding the recent announcements in relation to the construction of a replacement Eye Pavilion in Edinburgh.
As you are aware, you and your predecessor have both committed to a new Edinburgh Eye Hospital since the 2021 Scottish Parliament election following the current Eye Pavilion being deemed not fit for purpose in 2014. However, in a letter I received from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care on the 18th January confirmed that the building of a new Eye Hospital will not go ahead.
Moreover, NHS Lothian Board papers, published in advance of the board’s meeting on the 7th of February, have stated “NHS Lothian was directed to immediately cease all capital projects”. The board paper observed that “the loss of this future infrastructure will substantively and negatively impact on our ability to deliver compliant access to scheduled care for our population in coming years.” Worryingly the paper also highlighted the “the significant and detrimental impact this decision has had on our teams many of whom have dedicated time, expertise, and leadership in supporting progress of these vital projects.”
In light of your comments during First Minister’s Questions, on January the 25th, which appear to contradict NHS Lothian, I would appreciate if you could give an overview of the timeframe for the Eye Hospital being delivered if it is still the Scottish Government’s intention to proceed with the project, after the two year capital spending project freeze. Given the lengthy and increased waiting times for operations, the Scottish Government must also provide immediate support to ensure that NHS Lothian is able to provide adequate care for those with vision impairments.
My concern is that confused information and delays will only cause more disruption for patients, on top of increasing numbers of cancelled and delayed appointments.
Almost 1.6 million people have already been displaced
First Minister Humzah Yousaf and Scottish Trades Union Congress (STUC) have jointly called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and Israel during a bi-annual meeting yesterday.
The meeting was an opportunity for the Scottish Government and STUC to re-iterate solidarity with the Jewish and Muslim communities in Scotland, and commit to working in collaboration to ensure that antisemitism, Islamophobia, or any form of hatred or prejudice has no place in Scotland.
First Minister Humza Yousaf said: “We unequivocally condemn the terrorist atrocities committed by Hamas almost six weeks ago, and call for all hostages to be immediately, unconditionally, and safely released.
“What we are witnessing in Gaza is a humanitarian disaster. More than 11,000 men, woman, and children have lost their lives, and almost 1.6 million have been displaced. The people of Gaza are in desperate need of water, shelter, food, and safety.
“We must stand together and united, join with international organisations and aid agencies like the United Nations and World Health Organisation, and continue to lend Scotland’s voice to the growing international calls for an urgent ceasefire.
“The way forward is clear, and I hope that others across Scotland will add their voices to our calls – which build on Scotland’s proud history of supporting and promoting peace across the world.
“Working in solidarity with trade unions and others to combat antisemitism, Islamophobia, and all forms of hatred in Scotland is crucial, and I am absolutely committed to sending a clear message that hatred or prejudice directed at any community has no place in our modern Scotland.”
Commenting, STUC General Secretary Roz Foyer: ““The STUC is unequivocal: there must be an immediate ceasefire. We reiterate our utter condemnation of the Hamas attack on innocent Israeli citizens and call for the release of all hostages without delay.
“However, just as there can be no historical justification for such acts, neither is there any justification for the indiscriminate killing of innocents who are subject to terror and barbarism whilst the world looks on.
“We join with the First Minister and the Scottish Government, in addition to the United Nations, the World Health Organisation and international agencies across the world, in demanding a ceasefire and to end the killing of innocent men, women and children within the region.
“Collective punishment is a war crime. International law must be upheld. Peace must reign. However distant it may seem, a political solution can be found that guarantees peace and statehood for all peoples in Israel and Palestine.”
“Today I visited the Gaza Strip to meet with children, their families and UNICEF staff. What I saw and heard was devastating.
“They have endured repeated bombardment, loss and displacement. Inside the Strip, there is nowhere safe for Gaza’s one million children to turn.”
Read the full statement by UNICEF Executive Director Catherine Russell on her visit to Gaza: https://uni.cf/40Fliqv
Service and procession in Edinburgh to follow historic event
A special service will be held in Edinburgh following the Coronation of Their Majesties King Charles III and Queen Camilla.
The King will be presented with the Honours of Scotland during the Service of Dedication and Thanksgiving, which will take place at St Giles’ Cathedral later this year.
The Honours will be escorted from Edinburgh Castle to the Cathedral by a People’s Procession of around 100 representatives from across Scotland.
Prior to the Scottish service, the First Minister will attend the Coronation at Westminster Abbey on 6 May. The Stone of Destiny will be a key part of the event and will be placed in the Coronation Chair for the ceremony.
Organisations, community groups and individuals are invited to take part in street parties, community lunches or charity events during the Coronation weekend and big screens will show the ceremony at locations in Scotland including Princes Street Gardens in Edinburgh and Glasgow Cathedral.
First Minister Humza Yousaf said: ““I will be attending the Coronation on 6 May, and there will be ample opportunities for people across Scotland who wish to mark this historic occasion, to do so. These include watching the ceremony on big screens in communities, hosting street parties or taking part in charity and local events.
“Scotland will welcome the new Monarch later in the year with a Service of Dedication and Thanksgiving. The Honours of Scotland, including the Stone of Destiny, will form part of the ceremony at St Giles’ Cathedral and the event will be similar to the Thanksgiving Service held in 1953 during The Late Queen’s first visit to Scotland, following Her Coronation.”
Further details of the service and processions taking place later in the year, including viewing opportunities for the public, will be issued in the coming weeks.
The British Dental Association has warned the future of NHS dentistry in Scotland is in doubt, and action here must be high on the agenda for the next First Minister.
A devastating new survey of dentists across Scotland reveals:
An exodus is in motion.59% of dentists say they have reduced the amount of NHS work they undertake since lockdown – by an average of over a fifth.This movement is going unseen in official data, which counts heads, not commitment, and gives the same weight to a dentist doing a single NHS check-up a year as an NHS full timer.
Over 4 in 5 (83%) now say they will reduce – or further reduce – their NHS commitment in the year ahead. Over a third (34%) say they will change career or seek early retirement.
Just 1 in 5 (21%) say their practices have returned to pre-COVID capacity. 61% cite recruitment problems as an issue, over two thirds (67%) cite treating patients with higher needs requiring more clinical time.
A sustainable model must be in place come October. 90% cite financial uncertainty as having a high impact on their morale.
Health Secretary Humza Yousaf recently stressed NHS staffing was “at a historically high level”, with ‘record’ numbers of dental staff in hospitals alongside medics and allied health professionals. However, NHS Education for Scotland data indicates an 8% drop in high street NHS dentists delivering care since lockdown, a fall from 3,038 in March 2020 to 2,791 in September 2022.
The BDA stress even this fall understates the full scale of losses in light of this new survey evidence. The Scottish Government has never attempted to make a ‘Whole Time Equivalent’ estimate of the NHS dental workforce. Most dentists combine NHS and private work, and the BDA warn that without these estimates movement to the private sector is going undetected, and workforce planning is effectively impossible.
NHS dental care free at the point of use remains a central Scottish Government policy. BDA Scotland has long warned that any return to the service’s ‘business as usual’ model – low margin and high volume – will put practices under huge financial pressure and will likely lead to closures or movement to the private sector, with many practices left delivering some NHS care at a loss.
The SNP leadership election has seen key deadlines to reform this broken system move. The profession had anticipated the Scottish Government would reveal changes to the payment model on 1 April, that would be rolled out from October.
The BDA stress a sustainable model must be in place come October, when the current bridging payments that uplifted NHS fees finally lapse, exposing many NHS practices to unsustainable costs.
David McColl, Chair of the British Dental Association’s Scottish Dental Practice Committee, said:“Behind hollow boasts on record workforce numbers is a service that is hollowing out.
“The majority of dentists have pared down their NHS work, and many more are set to follow. It’s an exodus that’s going untracked by government but is the inevitable result of working to a broken system.
“NHS dentistry’s survival requires rapid action, with meaningful reform and sustainable funding.
“The steps taken in the next First Minister’s First Hundred Days will determine whether this service will have a future.”
Online poll of General Dental Practitioners in Scotland, Fieldwork February 2023, 526 respondents:
What changes in your working life do you anticipate in the next 12 months? % Net Likely n
I will reduce my personal NHS commitment 83% 439
I will change career/seek early retirement 43% 178
Approximately what proportion of your income was NHS based prior to March 2020?
% n
100% (exclusively NHS) 4% 23
90-99% (NHS) 43% 227
80-89% (NHS) 23% 122
70-79% (NHS) 13% 69
60-69% (NHS) 4% 22
50-59% (NHS) 4% 22
40-49% (NHS) 2% 11
30-39% (NHS) 1% 3
20-29% (NHS) 2% 12
10-19% (NHS) 1% 4
1-9% (NHS) 2% 9
0% (exclusively private) 0% 2
Approximately what proportion of your income was NHS based now?
% n
100% (exclusively NHS) 2% 8
90-99% (NHS) 25% 134
80-89% (NHS) 19% 98
70-79% (NHS) 14% 71
60-69% (NHS) 9% 48
50-59% (NHS) 11% 60
40-49% (NHS) 6% 32
30-39% (NHS) 4% 20
20-29% (NHS) 4% 20
10-19% (NHS) 3% 16
1-9% (NHS) 3% 16
0% (exclusively private) 1% 3
309 respondents reported a fall in NHS work between March 2020 and February 2023 – with an average drop of 22%.
Please estimate your practice’s current overall capacity compared to pre-COVID levels.
100% (my practice is at full capacity) 21% 111
90-99% 17% 91
80-89% 22% 116
70-79% 19% 102
60-69% 10% 54
50-59% 4% 21
40-49% 0% 2
30-39% 0% 2
20-29% 1% 4
10-19% 0% 2
1-9% 0% 2
0% (my practice is not operating) 0% 0
Don’t know 4% 19
What factors would you say are constraining your practice from operating at pre-COVID capacity (select any that apply)
% n
Recruitment and retention problems for dentists 61% 304
Patient cancellations/Did Not Attends 44% 220
Ongoing Infection Prevention and Control restrictions 18% 93
Staff sickness 43% 213
Higher needs patients requiring more clinical time 67% 336
For each of the statements below please rate the impact each currently has on your morale working as a dentist
Net High impact % n
Inability to provide pre-COVID levels of care 61% 321
COLLISION COURSE: SUPREME COURT JUDGES SAY ‘NO’ TO SCOTTISH REFERENDUM
The Scottish Government has made a reference to the Supreme Court to establish whether the Scottish Parliament has the power to hold an independence referendum.
The case was heard on the 11th and 12th of October and the verdict was made public this morning – Wednesday 23 November.
TIME FOR SCOTLAND RALLY
THE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT:
Reference by the Lord Advocate of devolution issues under paragraph 34 of Schedule 6 to the Scotland Act 1998 UKSC 31
Date:23 November 2022
Justices
Lord Reed (President), Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales, Lord Stephens and Lady Rose
Background to the Appeal
The Scottish Government has drafted a Scottish Independence Referendum Bill which makes provision for a referendum on the question, “Should Scotland be an independent country?”. Under the Scotland Act 1998 (“the Scotland Act”), the power of the Scottish Parliament to make legislation (or its “legislative competence”) is limited.
A provision of a Bill will be outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and therefore not law if it relates to the matters which have been reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament in Westminster (sections 29(1) and (2)(b)). These reserved matters include “the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England” and “the Parliament of the United Kingdom” (Schedule 5, paragraphs 1(b) and (c)).
In this reference, the Lord Advocate (the senior law officer of the Scottish Government) asks the Court whether the provision of the proposed Bill which provides for a referendum on Scottish independence would be outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament because it relates to either or both of the reserved matters of the Union or the United Kingdom Parliament.
This is a legal question about the Scottish Parliament’s power to make legislation under the Scotland Act. The Court is not being and could not be asked to give a view on the distinct political question of whether Scotland should become independent from the rest of the United Kingdom.
The powers of the Scottish Parliament were not in issue during the 2014 referendum on Scottish independence. This is because, in 2013, an Order in Council under section 30(2) of the Scotland Act modified the definition of reserved matters to enable the Scottish Parliament to pass the 2014 referendum legislation. The United Kingdom Government is currently unwilling to agree to the making of another Order in Council to facilitate another referendum on Scottish independence.
The Lord Advocate’s reference was made under paragraph 34 of Schedule 6 to the Scotland Act. The Advocate General for Scotland (the Scottish law officer of the United Kingdom Government) raises two preliminary issues, namely, whether the Court can and should answer the reference.
There are consequently three questions which the Court must consider. First, is the question referred by the Lord Advocate a “devolution issue”? If not, it cannot be the subject of a reference under paragraph 34 of Schedule 6, which would mean that the Court does not have jurisdiction to decide it. Secondly, even if it is a devolution issue, should the Court exercise its discretion to decline to accept the reference? Thirdly, if the Court accepts the reference, how should it answer the question the Lord Advocate has referred to it?
Judgment
In a unanimous judgment, the Court answers the questions before it as follows. First, the question referred by the Advocate General is a devolution issue, which means that that the Court has jurisdiction to decide it.
Secondly, the Court should accept the reference. Thirdly, the provision of the proposed Bill which makes provision for a referendum on the question, “Should Scotland be an independent country?” does relate to matters which have been reserved to the Parliament of the United Kingdom under the Scotland Act.
In particular, it relates to the reserved matters of the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England and the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
Accordingly, in the absence of any modification of the definition of reserved matters (by an Order in Council or otherwise), the Scottish Parliament does not have the power to legislate for a referendum on Scottish independence.
Reasons for the Judgment
Issue 1: Is the question referred by the Lord Advocate a devolution issue?
Only a “devolution issue” can be referred to the Court under paragraph 34 of Schedule 6 to the Scotland Act. The term “devolution issue” is defined by paragraph 1 of Schedule 6. Under paragraph 1(f), it includes “any other question arising by virtue of this Act about reserved matters” [13-14]. The Court concludes that the question referred by the Lord Advocate falls within this description and is therefore a devolution issue which the Court has jurisdiction to decide [47].
In reaching this conclusion, the Court holds, first, that the question referred is one “arising by virtue of” the Scotland Act because it is a question which arises under section 31(1) for the person wishing to introduce the Bill into the Scottish Parliament [16]. That person is required, on or before the Bill’s introduction, to give a statement confirming that, in their view, the provisions of the Bill would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament [9]. Secondly, the existence of the separate scheme for the scrutiny of Bills for legislative competence by the Court in section 33 of the Scotland Act does not prevent a reference from being made under paragraph 34 of Schedule 6 in relation to a proposed Bill, before it is introduced [21-27]. Thirdly, the terms of paragraph 1(f) of Schedule 6 are very wide. They are intended to sweep up any questions arising under the Scotland Act about reserved matters which are not covered elsewhere [37-42]. Fourthly, it is consistent with the rule of law and with the intention of the Scotland Act that the Lord Advocate should be able to obtain an authoritative judicial decision on the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament in advance of the introduction of a Bill [44-46].
Issue 2: Should the Court decline to accept the Lord Advocate’s reference?
The Court concludes that it should accept the reference [54]. The reference has been made in order to obtain an authoritative ruling on a question of law which has already arisen as a matter of public importance. The Court’s answer will determine whether the proposed Bill is introduced into the Scottish Parliament. The reference is not therefore hypothetical, academic or premature [53].
Issue 3: Does the proposed Bill relate to reserved matters?
The question whether the provision of the proposed Bill which provides for a referendum on Scottish independence would relate to matters which have been reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament under the Scotland Act (section 29(2)(b)) is to be determined by reference to the purpose of the provision, having regard (among other things) to its effect in all the circumstances (section 29(3)) [56-57], [70], [75].
A provision will relate to a reserved matter if it has something more than a loose or consequential connection with it [57], [71-72]. The purpose and effect of the provision may be derived from a consideration of both the purpose of those introducing the legislation and the objective effect of its terms [73]. Its effect is not restricted to its legal consequences [74].
Applying this test, the reserved matters which are relevant here are “the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England” and “the Parliament of the United Kingdom” (Schedule 5, paragraphs 1(b) and (c)). The latter reservation includes the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament [76]. The purpose of the proposed Bill is to hold a lawful referendum on the question of whether Scotland should become an independent country, that is, on ending the Union and the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament over Scotland [77], [82]. The Bill’s effect will not be confined to the holding of the referendum. Even if the referendum has no immediate legal consequences, it would be a political event with important political consequences [78-81]. It is therefore clear that the proposed Bill has more than a loose or consequential connection with the reserved matters of the Union of Scotland and England and the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. Accordingly, the proposed Bill relates to reserved matters and is outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament [82-83], [92].
The Scottish National Party (intervening) made further written submissions founded on the right to self–determination in international law and the principle of legality in domestic law [84]. The Court rejects these submissions, holding that the right to self–determination is not in issue here [88-89] and does not require a narrow reading of “relates to” in section 29(2)(b) so as to limit the scope of the matters reserved to the United Kingdom Parliament under the Scotland Act [90]. Similarly, the allocation of powers between the United Kingdom and Scotland under the Scotland Act does not infringe the principle of legality [91].
References in square brackets are to paragraphs in the judgment
Note
This summary is provided to assist in understanding the Court’s decision. It does not form part of the reasons for the decision. The full judgment of the Court is the only authoritative document. Judgments are public documents and are available online. Decided cases
The UK Supreme Court has today determined that the draft Scottish Independence Referendum Bill is outside the powers of the Scottish Parliament.
The Secretary of State for Scotland, Alister Jack, said that the UK Government was committed to working with the Scottish Government on the issues that matter most to people in Scotland.
Alister Jack said: “We note and respect the unanimous ruling from the Supreme Court today.
“People in Scotland want both their governments to be concentrating all attention and resources on the issues that matter most to them. That’s why we are focussed on issues like restoring economic stability, getting people the help they need with their energy bills, and supporting our NHS.
“Today alone, 11.6 million UK pensioners – around one million in Scotland – are starting to receive up to £600 to help with their energy bills this winter.
“As the Prime Minister has made clear, we will continue to work constructively with the Scottish Government in tackling all the challenges we share and face.”
NICOLA STURGEON’s RESPONSE:
“Earlier today, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment on the Lord Advocate’s reference, seeking clarity on whether or not the Scotland Act 1998 allows the Scottish Parliament to legislate for a referendum on independence.
“First of all – while I am obviously very disappointed by it – I respect and accept the judgment of the Court. In securing Scotland’s independence we will always be guided by a commitment to democracy and respect for the rule of law.
“That principle also reflects a practical reality – the route we take must be lawful and democratic for independence to be achieved. And as is becoming clearer by the day, achieving independence is not just desirable – it is essential if Scotland is to escape the disaster of Brexit, the damage of policies imposed by governments we don’t vote for, and the low growth, high inequality economic model that is holding us back.
“However, we must be clear today that the Supreme Court does not make the law – it interprets and applies it. If the devolution settlement in the Scotland Act is inconsistent with any reasonable notion of Scottish democracy – as is now confirmed to be the case – that is the fault of Westminster lawmakers, not the justices of the Supreme Court.
“In addressing the implications of today’s ruling, it is also important to be mindful of what the Court was not asked to decide and therefore what the ruling does not tell us.
“The Court was not asked to decide if there is a democratic mandate for a referendum. The mandate and parliamentary majority for a referendum is undeniable.
“Nor was the Court asked if Scotland should be independent. Only the Scottish people can be the judge of that. And it was not asked if there is any democratic means by which Scotland can choose independence.
“The question the Court was asked to decide – the only question the court could reasonably answer – was a narrower one. Would a Bill providing for an advisory referendum on independence be within the current powers of the Scottish Parliament?
“In other words, can the Scottish Parliament legislate for an independence referendum without the prior agreement of Westminster? The Court has answered that question in the negative.
“It has determined that under the Scotland Act 1998 – which encapsulates the current devolution settlement – even an advisory referendum asking the question “Should Scotland be an independent country?’ is a matter reserved to the Westminster Parliament.
“What that means is that without an agreement between the Scottish and UK governments for either a section 30 Order or a UK Act of Parliament to change its powers, the Scottish Parliament cannot legislate for the referendum the people of Scotland have instructed it to deliver.
“That is a hard pill for any supporter of independence – and surely indeed for any supporter of democracy – to swallow. However, as I said back in June when I informed Parliament that the Lord Advocate had agreed to make this reference, it was always the case that in the absence of an agreement with the UK government, the question of the Scottish Parliament’s competence in relation to a referendum would end up in the Supreme Court – if not before legislation then certainly after any decision by Parliament to pass a Bill.
“So while it is a statement of the obvious that this is not the outcome I hoped for, it does give us clarity. And having that clarity sooner rather than later allows us now to plan a way a forward, however imperfect it might be. Now, I am enough of a realist to know that the immediate questions posed by today’s judgment will be for me and the SNP.
“I am also long enough in the political tooth to expect some triumphalism on the part of unionist politicians. However, unionists of a more thoughtful disposition will, I suspect, know that to be misguided.
“Indeed, they will have been hoping that the Court – as the UK government asked it to do – would have declined to answer the substantive question today.
“That is because they will understand that this judgment raises profound and deeply uncomfortable questions about thebasis and future of the United Kingdom. Until now, it has been understood and accepted – by opponents of independence as well as by its supporters – that the UK is a voluntary partnership of nations.
“The Royal Commission on Scottish Affairs back in 1950 said this: “Scotland is a nation and voluntarily entered into the Union as a partner”.
“That sentiment was echoed nearly 60 years later by the cross-party Calman Commission which described the UK as “a voluntary union and partnership”.
“And it was reinforced in 2014 by the Smith Commission which made clear that “nothing in its report prevented Scotland becoming an independent country should the people of Scotland so choose”.
“What today’s ruling tells us, however, is that the Scotland Act does not in fact uphold that long held understanding of the basis of the relationships that constitute the UK – on the contrary, it shatters that understanding completely.
Let’s be blunt: a so-called partnership in which one partner is denied the right to choose a different future – or even to ask itself the question —cannot be described in any way as voluntary or even a partnership at all. So this ruling confirms that the notion of the UK as a voluntary partnership of nations is no longer, if it ever was, a reality.
“And that exposes a situation that is quite simply unsustainable. In the words of former Tory Prime Minister, John Major: ‘No nation could be held irrevocably in a Union against its will’.
“Indeed, perhaps what today’s judgment confirms more than anything else, is that the only guarantee for Scotland of equality within the British family of nations is through independence – that fact is now clearer than ever before.
“The immediate question, of course, is what happens now. Obviously, I am making these remarks just a couple of hours after the Court issued its judgment.
“While the terms and import of the judgment are clear it will still be important to absorb and consider it fully. I think it is safe to predict that this will not be my last word on the matter.
“However, my initial views – building on what I said in June – are as follows. First of all, it is worth repeating that the Court judgment relates to one possible route to Scotland making a choice on independence – a referendum Bill in the Scottish Parliament without Westminster agreement.
“While it is absolutely the case – if the UK was a voluntary partnership – that this would not be needed, it remains open to the UK government, however belatedly, to accept democracy and reach agreement.
“I make clear again today, therefore, that I stand ready at any time to reach agreement with the Prime Minister on an adjustment to the devolution settlement that enables a lawful, democratic referendum to take place – a process that respects the right of people in Scotland to choose their future, in line with the mandate of the Scottish Parliament, lets politicians make the case for and against independence and, crucially, allows the Scottish people to decide.
“What I will not do is go cap in hand. My expectation, in the short term at least, is that the UK government will maintain its position of democracy denial. That position is, in my view, not just unsustainable – it is also utterly self-defeating.
“The more contempt the Westminster establishment shows for Scottish democracy, the more certain it is that Scotland will vote Yes when the choice does come to be made.
“As for that choice – and for the avoidance of any doubt – I believe today, just as I did yesterday, that a referendum is the best way to determine the issue of independence.
“The fact is, the SNP is not abandoning the referendum route. Westminster is blocking it. And in that scenario, unless we give up on democracy – which I, for one, am not prepared to do – we must and will find another democratic, lawful and constitutional means by which the Scottish people can express their will.
“In my view, that can only be an election. The next national election scheduled for Scotland is the UK General Election, making it both the first and the most obvious opportunity to seek what I described back in June as a de facto referendum.
“As with any proposition in any party manifesto in any election, it is up to the people how they respond. No party can dictate the basis on which people cast their votes. But a party can be – indeed should be – crystal clear about the purpose for which it is seeking popular support.
“In this case, for the SNP, it will be to establish – just as in a referendum – majority support in Scotland for independence, so that we can then achieve independence. That, then, is the principle.
“However, now that the Supreme Court’s ruling is known, and a de facto referendum is no longer hypothetical, it is necessary to agree the precise detail of the proposition we intend to put before the country – for example, the form our manifesto will take, the question we will pose, how we will seek to build support above and beyond the SNP, and what steps we will take to achieve independence if we win.
“As you would expect, I have views on all of that. However, given the magnitude of these decisions for the SNP, the process of reaching them is one that the party as a whole must be fully and actively involved in.
“I can therefore confirm that I will be asking our National Executive Committee to convene a special party conference in the new year to discuss and agree the detail of a proposed de facto referendum.
“In the meantime, the SNP will launch and mobilise a major campaign in defence of Scottish democracy. For we should be in no doubt – as of today, democracy is what is at stake. This is no longer just about whether or not Scotland becomes independent – vital though that decision is.
“It is now more fundamental – it is now about whether or not we have the basic democratic right to choose our own future. Indeed, from today, the independence movement is as much about democracy as it is about independence.
“To conclude, I am well aware that there will be a real sense of frustration and disappointment today in both the SNP and the wider movement. I share it. My message, though, is this: while that is understandable, it must be short lived. And I believe it will be.
“Indeed, I suspect we will start to see just how short lived in the strength of the gatherings planned for later today in Edinburgh and other parts of Scotland. The fact is we have work to do.
“The case for Scotland becoming independent is more compelling and urgent than ever. Independence is now essential because of what Westminster control means, on a day-to-day basis, for people in this country, and for future generations.
“Thanks to Westminster control, the UK economy is in crisis – and we are entering a new age of Tory austerity. Low-income households in the UK are now 22 per cent poorer than their counterparts in France, and 21 per cent poorer than in Germany.
“To put that in context – it means the living standards of the lowest-income households in the UK are £3,800 lower than their French equivalents. Thanks to Westminster control, we are subject to an immigration and asylum system that neither works in practice, nor serves our need to grow our population.
“It mistreats those who come to our shores looking for sanctuary from oppression, and deprives us of the talents and taxes of those who want to live, work and contribute to our country. Thanks to Westminster control, even the limited measure of self-government that devolution provides is no longer guaranteed.
“The steady erosion of the powers of our Parliament, the undermining of the Sewel Convention, the imposition of the UK Internal Market Act, and now the Retained EU law Bill.
“And if we stick with Westminster control we are stuck outside the European Union permanently. And that comes at a heavy cost.
“According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, Brexit will mean in the long-run a fall in national income of 4 per cent compared with EU membership. That is equivalent to a cut in public revenues in Scotland of £3.2 billion.
“All the main Westminster parties now support a Brexit that Scotland did not vote for. And the Brexit conspiracy of silence that exists between them means the UK economy will become weaker, and people will pay a heavier and heavier price.
“That price will be paid in hard economic terms – but also in the narrowing of horizons and loss of opportunities for the generations to come. Scotland can do better than this.
“The example of independent countries across Europe and the world, many with nowhere near the assets and strengths we have, tells us that loudly and clearly. We hear from Westminster that what is needed is stability.
“But let’s be clear – the Westminster system has shown that it is not capable of securing stability. The people relying on food banks are not being offered stability.
“Those across our country afraid to switch on their heating are not being offered stability. The businesses struggling with Brexit are not being offered stability. The young people denied the rights and opportunities of EU membership are not being offered stability.
“A UK economic model which delivers low growth and low productivity coupled with sky high rates of poverty and inequality does not, and never will offer stability. Scotland can do so much better. So, yes, of course, this judgment is a disappointment. But it is not one we can or will wallow in.
“Indeed, getting the judgment now rather than later gives us the clarity we need to plot a definite way forward. Fundamentally, our job today is the same as it was yesterday. It is to persuade a majority of the Scottish people of the fact that independence is the best future for Scotland – and ensure a democratic process that allows majority support to be established beyond doubt.
“That job is not easy, I know – on some days, like today perhaps, it feels more difficult than ever. But nothing – nothing – worth doing is ever easy. There is no doubt in my mind that independence will be worth it. And my resolve to achieve independence is as strong as it has ever been. Indeed, it is if anything even stronger. Prosperity, equality, internationalism – and now, without any doubt, the very democracy of our nation – depends on independence.”
