Annabelle Ewing MSP

Welcome to Annabelle Ewing MSP's biography pages

Parliamentary Activities

Search for other Speeches made by Annabelle Ewing

Meeting of the Parliament 28 October 2014 : 28 October 2014
Annabelle Ewing (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)

Does the member therefore agree with the Strathclyde commission’s conclusion that there would be no need for fresh legislation with respect to the devolution of air passenger duty?



Meeting of the Parliament 28 October 2014 : 28 October 2014
Annabelle Ewing (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)

I am very pleased to have been called to speak in the debate, for it affords all the political parties represented in this chamber the opportunity to set out what they see as the key principles underlying their submissions to the Smith commission. At the same time, it is important to note that the objective as far as engagement is concerned goes far beyond these walls; as the Deputy First Minister said, that must be as inclusive as possible for it is, indeed, the people of Scotland who must have the opportunity to inform and to influence the implementation of the proposals through the widest possible engagement.

In that regard, over the past weeks we have seen thousands of individuals, as well as third sector and other organisations, taking the time to formulate and submit their positions to the commission. It is important to note that that element of the process concludes this Friday and I urge all those who are listening to the debate or are interested in making a submission but have not yet done so to email their submissions to haveyoursay@smith-commission.scot by the close of play on Friday.

It is very clear that consideration of what change Scotland wants and needs is very much rooted in the massive engagement that we have witnessed as part of the independence referendum campaign—a campaign that galvanised significant sections of the population to want to ensure that, going forward, their voices were heard. Indeed, the hope, excitement and sense of opportunity that we see around us in our changed Scotland are alive and well and, I submit, growing. It is in that context of the legitimate expectations of the people of Scotland, based on the promises that were made, that the Smith commission must operate, and what expectation could there reasonably be other than that maximum self-government in the UK should be delivered as a result of the Smith commission process?

We need look no further to find support for that than what the Unionist parties said in the days running up to polling day. On 8 September, 10 days before polling day, Gordon Brown said:

“the plan for a stronger Scottish Parliament we seek agreement on is for nothing else than a modern form of Scottish Home Rule within the United Kingdom”.

On 13 September, five days before polling day, Danny Alexander said:

“Scotland will have more powers over its finances, more responsibility for raising taxation and more control over parts of the welfare system—effective Home Rule but within the security and stability of our successful United Kingdom.”

On 15 September, three days before polling day, David Cameron, the UK Prime Minister, said:

“If we get a No vote on Thursday, that will trigger a major, unprecedented programme of devolution with additional powers for the Scottish Parliament.”

As for the infamous vow—we have heard that mentioned in caveated terms, at least from the Tory benches this afternoon—that was published on 16 September in the Daily Record, two days before polling day and signed by the UK Prime Minister, the UK Deputy Prime Minister and the UK leader of the Opposition, we note that the promise was for “extensive new powers”. Indeed, they agreed that

“The Scottish Parliament is permanent, and extensive new powers for the Parliament will be delivered by the process and to the timetable agreed and announced by our three parties, starting on 19 September.”

Those were the promises made and that is what the people of Scotland have the legitimate expectation to see delivered within the timetable set forth.

For our part, the SNP has captured those legitimate expectations on the part of the people of Scotland in the key principles underlying our submission. We need powers for a purpose—powers that will enable our Scottish Parliament to help create jobs and economic growth, to tackle inequality, to represent our interests in the world in the areas of our responsibility and, of course, to significantly enhance the financial and democratic accountability of this Parliament. Such a package will allow this Parliament to deliver real change for the people of Scotland, which is exactly what they want and expect.

A challenge faces all the unionist parties, and I appeal in particular to the Labour Party to take this opportunity to raise its sights and be radical in its thinking. Surely the Labour Party in Scotland does not want Scotland to continue to be treated as a branch office of Westminster. That is a situation that no one could reasonably describe as the best of both worlds.



Meeting of the Parliament 28 October 2014 : 28 October 2014
Annabelle Ewing

Will the member take an intervention?



Meeting of the Parliament 28 October 2014 : 28 October 2014
Annabelle Ewing

Will the member give way?



Meeting of the Parliament 28 October 2014 : 28 October 2014
Annabelle Ewing

Malcolm Chisholm will be aware that the vow itself refers expressly to “extensive new powers”, and that it was signed by the UK Prime Minister, the UK Deputy Prime Minister and the UK leader of the Opposition—we do not have one of those in the Scottish edition in the chamber today.

Would Malcolm Chisholm care to say what he feels is meant by a vow of “extensive new powers” as signed by all three unionist party leaders?



Meeting of the Parliament 08 October 2014 : 08 October 2014
Annabelle Ewing (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)

Will Johann Lamont clarify what she thinks that Gordon Brown meant when he talked about powers as near to federalism as possible in the context of the United Kingdom?



Welfare Reform Committee 07 October 2014 : 07 October 2014
Annabelle Ewing (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP)

Good morning, everyone. I want to pick up on a point that was made a while back, but I will start with a new point, which we have not touched on yet: the basic ethos of the welfare fund, which is a grant-making fund. I note many comments in the witnesses’ submissions about that. It seems that they welcome that approach but have concerns about some of the language that is used in the bill, which some might interpret as having to do with being able to claw back funds from fraudulent claims. It would be interesting to hear from them on the basic point of grants versus loans and why they have concerns about the language in the bill.



Welfare Reform Committee 07 October 2014 : 07 October 2014
Annabelle Ewing

I want to return to an important issue that was raised earlier on access and awareness, on which I did not succeed in catching the convener’s eye. Marion Davis mentioned that it would be useful to have forms issued, in the way that social work departments apparently already do. I would like to explore that further. Is it the case that no local authority issues the forms? Why do they not do so, if that would help the process, given that there is a precedent in other parts of authorities? That is an important point to address, because access is key. Does anyone have any information on that?



Welfare Reform Committee 07 October 2014 : 07 October 2014
Annabelle Ewing

That was the point that I wanted to try to get to the bottom of. Leaving aside the issue of stigma and all the other very good points that have been made about vouchers but coming back to Bill Scott’s point about meeting individual needs, I wonder whether, instead of purchasing furniture or whatever as an economy of scale, local authorities can be a more powerful purchaser by being able to secure a better deal and therefore allowing more money to stay in the fund and help more people. Do the witnesses agree with Jules Oldham’s point that, if they meet people’s needs, furniture packages might be a reasonable proposition but that, for some, vouchers are just a step too far? Am I picking that up correctly?



Welfare Reform Committee 07 October 2014 : 07 October 2014
Annabelle Ewing

I want to pick up on a point that was made in the first witness session by the representative from Age Scotland about the overall resources for the welfare funds. I am also looking at the submission from Inclusion Scotland, which states:

“Unless the Scottish Government acquired new revenue sources and/or powers over benefit conditions it is difficult to envisage how this increasing call on resources to meet short term need can ever ben ‘fully’ addressed.”

That was a response in the submission to a question from the committee. Could Bill Scott expand on that? Although we have been discussing important points of detail, equally important is the context within which all of this sits, which is a resource issue, too.

12:15  
Vote DetailMSP VoteResult

S4M-11304.3 Michael Russell: Addressing the Attainment Gap in Scottish Schools—As an amendment to mo
>> Show more
YesCarried

S4M-11304 Liz Smith: Addressing the Attainment Gap in Scottish Schools—That the Parliament believes
>> Show more
YesCarried

S4M-11123 Joe FitzPatrick on behalf of the Parliamentary Bureau: Business Motion—That the Parliament
>> Show more
YesCarried

S4M-11114.2 Kenny MacAskill: Policing—As an amendment to motion S4M-11114 in the name of Graeme Pear
>> Show more
YesCarried

S4M-11114 Graeme Pearson: Policing—That the Parliament acknowledges that policing in Scotland contin
>> Show more
YesCarried

S4M-11116.1.1 Patrick Harvie: Scotland’s Future—As an amendment to amendment S4M-11116.1 in the name
>> Show more
YesCarried

S4M-11116.1 Nicola Sturgeon: Scotland’s Future—As an amendment to motion S4M-11116 in the name of Jo
>> Show more
YesCarried

S4M-11116 Johann Lamont: Scotland’s Future—That the Parliament recognises the result of the independ
>> Show more
YesCarried

Amendment 61 moved by Elaine Murray on motion S4M-11101 Kenny MacAskill: Courts Reform (Scotland) Bi
>> Show more
NoDefeated

Amendment 62 moved by Margaret Mitchell on motion S4M-11101 Kenny MacAskill: Courts Reform (Scotland
>> Show more
NoDefeated

Search for other Motions lodged by Annabelle Ewing
EventIdTypeSub TypeMSP NameParty NameConstituencyRegionTitleItemTextFormattedAnswer DateAnswerStatusIdExpectedAnswerDateAnsweredByMspApprovedDateSubmissionDateMeetingDateProductionStatusIdRecordStatusIdStatus DateOnBehalfOfConsideredForMembersBusinessCrossPartySupportRegisteredInterestSupportCountSupportDateIsEventLinkCurrentMinister
Motion S4M-11294: Annabelle Ewing, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 24/10/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-11292: Annabelle Ewing, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 24/10/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-11291: Annabelle Ewing, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 24/10/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-11187: Annabelle Ewing, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 12/10/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-10942: Annabelle Ewing, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 08/09/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-10709: Annabelle Ewing, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 01/08/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-10694: Annabelle Ewing, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 30/07/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-10672: Annabelle Ewing, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 28/07/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-10307.1: Annabelle Ewing, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 13/06/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Motion S4M-10074: Annabelle Ewing, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 17/05/2014 Show Full Motion >>
Search for other Questions asked by Annabelle Ewing
EventIdTypeSub TypeMSP NameParty NameConstituencyRegionTitleItemTextFormattedAnswer DateAnswerStatusIdExpectedAnswerDateAnsweredByMspApprovedDateSubmissionDateMeetingDateProductionStatusIdRecordStatusIdStatus DateOnBehalfOfConsideredForMembersBusinessCrossPartySupportRegisteredInterestSupportCountSupportDateIsEventLinkCurrentMinister
Question S4W-22948: Annabelle Ewing, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 29/10/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4W-22797: Annabelle Ewing, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 07/10/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4T-00804: Annabelle Ewing, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 06/10/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4O-03545: Annabelle Ewing, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 22/09/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4O-03477: Annabelle Ewing, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 04/08/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4O-03417: Annabelle Ewing, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 16/06/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4F-02203: Annabelle Ewing, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 16/06/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4O-03356: Annabelle Ewing, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 05/06/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4O-03259: Annabelle Ewing, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 12/05/2014 Show Full Question >>
Question S4O-03234: Annabelle Ewing, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 02/05/2014 Show Full Question >>

[519] Related Links Pod - 0 27559

Further information

Email our Public Information Service for more information.