argyrotsipi/train-dataset huggingface dataset:
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-09
Topic: International Affairs
Peter Wishart (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his very brief intervention. All I can say to him is that they couldn’t care less about the economy or about the damage to the UK. They couldn’t care less about our relationship, about isolationism or about all the other things that this Brexit does. The only thing they care about is their hard Brexit. That is the only thing that has underpinned their whole approach in the course of the past few years. That is the only thing they wanted. Nothing else mattered other than securing a hard Brexit, so there will be huge celebrations down the Bulldog Club tonight and I hope the champagne tastes good. Will we be celebrating in the White Heather Club in Scotland, or here? Nobody bothered to ask me. Well, no, we will not. We most certainly will not be celebrating this Bill passing today The Government may have won their hard Brexit, but they have most definitely lost Scotland. Nothing could sum up the alienation of Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom more than the passing of this Bill. This Bill symbolises the difference between Scotland and the rest of the UK. I sometimes think this House forgets Scotland’s relationship with this Brexit disaster and chaos, so let me gently remind Conservative Members what happened. One MP was voted from Scotland with a mandate for the EU referendum, and one MP from Scotland voted for the Bill that allowed a referendum to take place. When Scotland was obliged to vote in an EU referendum that it had nothing to do with, we voted 62% to remain Now, people may have thought, given all that has happened, that Scotland’s voice would be accommodated, listened to and somehow taken account of—not a bit of it. Every representation was rejected. Everything to try to minimise the blow to a Scotland that wanted to stay in the European Union was ignored out of hand before the ink was even dry. Everything that we brought forward that said, "Listen. Maybe we have a different view about Brexit than the rest of you down here," was totally and utterly ignored and disrespected. That is why yesterday, when the Scottish Parliament was asked to agree to a legislative consent motion to allow the Government to progress and pursue this hard Brexit, the Scottish Parliament overwhelmingly said no, and only the rump of Scottish Conservatives in that Parliament voted for it. Will that matter to this Government? Will that be listened to? Absolutely not. It will be rejected, ignored and disrespected. I say to Conservative Members that that is what is driving the new demand for Scottish independence. We will no longer be ignored, disrespected, and rejected out of hand. That is why we are back here with 48 Members. That is why we have 80% of the vote. That is what the people of Scotland voted for.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-09
Topic: International Affairs
Peter Wishart (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on that, but he really must accept what is happening in Scotland. Something dramatic is going on. I think all of us agree that there will be another referendum at some point, because things are totally and utterly—[Interruption.] Conservative Members are saying no. Did my hon. Friends hear them?
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-09
Topic: International Affairs
Peter Wishart (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): We heard them say no, but whenever they say no to Scotland and say that they will deny Scottish democracy, the only thing that that does—this is a note of caution to Conservative Members—is drive support for Scottish independence. The more they say no to us, the more we will assert our rights, and the idea of Scottish independence will continue to grow and will overrun and consume them My little bit of advice to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite is to say, "Just get on with it." Just give us that independence referendum and acknowledge that we are on a different trajectory to the hard Brexit UK that they want. They can have their hard Brexit. If that is what they want, and if they want an isolationist United Kingdom, please have it. That is their choice and their democratic right. Nobody is preventing them from doing that, and I will be the first person to say, "Good luck." Let us hope they get on and make a success of it, but do not hold my country back, do not subsume my country into what they are trying to achieve. We do not want it, and we have told them that on numerous occasions. It is over. Scotland will be an independent country, and the sooner this House recognises that, the better I will finish now, because I realise that I have kept the House attention’s for long enough. The battle for hard Brexit is over, and Conservative Members have won, but the battle for Scottish independence has just begun.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-09
Topic: International Affairs
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The argument the hon. Gentleman is making about voters getting who they vote for and governing themselves is pertinent in Scotland. His party have been rejected by 75% of the people of Scotland. We have an unelected Tory Government governing Scotland. Surely he sees the justice of being able to ask the Scottish people whether they want to continue with a Government that 75% of them have rejected, and what they want to do about the European Union, where 62% of them want to remain.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-09
Topic: International Affairs
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The right hon. Gentleman is making a point that pertains to my community in Na h-Eileanan an Iar as well. I heard Conservative voices saying that today the anguish will end. The anguish might end for those in the Conservative party and their psychodrama, but with this Brexit coming—and there is no good Brexit—the anguish is just beginning for an awful lot of people outside this Chamber.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-09
Topic: International Affairs
Alan Brown (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): If, as the hon. Lady says, all these regulations and agreements are actually driven by industry, what is there to be gained from leaving the EU? The Conservatives claim that the Government are taking back control, but according to her, industry drives all this regulation.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-09
Topic: International Affairs
Thomas Sheppard (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): They do not say that. I will happily supply the hon. Member with lots of compelling evidence as to why Scotland would prosper as an independent country rather than being dragged down by the central Government of the United Kingdom I know that many people are looking to the future in this debate, and that many envision this as a bright new dawn for the United Kingdom. They see a world where the authority and status of this nation will be restored in the eyes of the world. I know that people genuinely think that—I do not say that they are insincere in this belief—but I do say that it is a delusion, a mirage, to suggest that this will happen. If you want evidence for this, look no further than what has been happening over recent months. A compromised United Kingdom Government, understanding that their ability to negotiate a trade agreement with the United States will be so much more diminished compared with their ability as part of a major European bloc, have got themselves into the embarrassing situation of demonstrating servility to the Trump Administration in order to try to protect their future economic prosperity. That is what the future holds. We will have to make unholy alliances and awful justifications for doing deals with certain people in order to get trade agreements I am sure that there are Conservative Members who have sympathy with some of the points that I have made but they are not going to express them today, because that great political party—arguably the greatest, historically, in Great Britain—has got itself into a situation whereby it is impossible to progress in that party unless one evangelises the cause of Brexit. Dissenting voices are no longer allowed. The right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) is typical of many whose joy and enthusiasm for what is about to happen are unbridled. He cannot wait to pop the champagne corks and break out the bunting in celebration, but I am afraid that the future is nowhere near as rosy as he expects. He and others who have chosen this path are going to be severely disappointed.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-09
Topic: International Affairs
Thomas Sheppard (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Throughout this entire process, we have been asked to take decisions without adequate information, so that is entirely consistent with the way in which this matter has been conducted I want to move on to consider the question of political mandates, which are quite important in this discussion. To do that, we have to consider the election that took place on 12 December, in which people were asked their view and Brexit was very much the central issue of the campaign, certainly in most of the United Kingdom. Others have said—my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) has said it repeatedly—that a majority of the people who voted in that election throughout the United Kingdom voted for parties that either wanted to stop Brexit altogether or wanted a fundamental re-examination of the terms on which it was being proposed.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-09
Topic: International Affairs
Thomas Sheppard (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): If the hon. Gentleman had had the patience to wait for another couple of paragraphs, he would have allowed me to develop my point. I will address explicitly what he says The point is that we have a Government elected on 43% of the vote in an electoral system that I believe corrupts the expression of popular opinion across Parliament, rather than allowing it to be deliberated. But rules are rules, and we all went into the election understanding the rules of engagement and what the contest would be. I am not in any way saying that I do not accept the result and the Government, even with 43% on a first-past-the-post basis and a majority of more than 86, have a legitimate democratic mandate not just in principle to leave the European Union, but to deliver Brexit on the terms that it proposed to the electorate. I accept that However, I do not accept—this is my central contention—that that mandate runs in Scotland. The 12 December vote was very much a tale of two election campaigns. The Conservative party won the campaign in England, which was dominated by the relationship that this country will have with the European Union. The SNP won the campaign in Scotland, which was dominated by whether Scotland would have the right to choose to go down the path set here by the United Kingdom—[Interruption.] I am being heckled by the right hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), who I think is still a co-chair of the Conservative party, so let me explain and offer some rationale. I do not say these things glibly Others have talked about statistics. The Scottish National party won the election in 80% of the areas in which it was contested in Scotland, and 80% of the Members of Parliament returned here from Scotland are from the SNP. We won 45% of the popular vote, and the central proposition that we put to the electorate was that Scotland and the people who live in Scotland should have the right to choose how they are governed and whether they want to go down the path chosen by the United Kingdom Government There are echoes and similarities between what happened in December 2019 and what happened in May 2015. Then, as now, a Conservative Government were returned with a majority. Then, as now, the SNP won an overwhelming majority of seats in Scotland. The difference is that in 2015 we did not seek a mandate from the people of Scotland in relation to the constitutional position or how the country should be governed. We did not do that because the election took place just months after the 2014 referendum, when the electorate made a choice and decided to remain in the United Kingdom. That does not apply now, because in December 2019 we went to the Scottish electorate and explicitly asked them to endorse the proposition that people who live in Scotland should have the right to choose how they are governed and whether they wish to go down the Brexit path being offered by the United Kingdom Government.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-09
Topic: Agriculture
Alan Brown (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman must know he is undermining his own argument about taking back control in saying that we cannot have divergence between Scotland and England. We now face 11 months where there is the risk of a no-deal crash-out. Will he confirm that the EFRA Committee he chaired and which I sat on heard evidence that if we were to trade on World Trade Organisation rules, we could not stop the import of chlorinated chicken or hormone-injected beef because of most-favoured-nation status? We could not prevent that under environmental standards. Did we not hear from the farming industry that the big concern was the market being flooded by Argentinian beef, which would ruin our industry? We can have any policy we want, but if we trade on WTO rules, farming is finished.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-09
Topic: Agriculture
Deidre Leanne Brock (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Let me return to the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the NFU and common frameworks that were discussed when we considered the Agriculture Bill in the last Parliament. I was surprised to hear those comments because all the NFUs that gave evidence to the Committee were telling us that they wanted to see their ability to differentiate the different jurisdictions maintained and that frameworks should always be agreed between the four NFUs, not imposed. What does he say to them?
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-09
Topic: International Affairs
Alan Brown (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The hon. Gentleman correctly said that the SNP have 80% of seats and we favour independence, but a key plank of our mandate was actually Scotland’s right to choose, so it does not matter what our views are on independence. He clearly has a different view. Does he not agree that the mandate we have is for the people of Scotland to choose either independence or to reconfirm that they want to stay in the Union?
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-09
Topic: International Affairs
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): On the UK’s future relationship with the EU, the hon. Gentleman is content to leave it to the Tory Government, but on Scotland’s future relationship, all we get is being patronised; we cannot decide ourselves. The reality is that, in 2014, we were promised a guarantee of our place in the European Union by staying in the United Kingdom. That promise is null and void. We cannot have any more non-Scottish MPs patronising the Scottish people. Their mandate must be respected. We must have a referendum, and the Scottish people must decide—not non-Scottish MPs, who think this is better for Scotland. Scotland needs to decide.
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-09
Topic: International Affairs
Ian Blackford (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a historic moment for all of us. We must reflect on the fact that this is the first time that a part of the Union—a country of the Union—is having something done to it that it resents. The Scottish Government and the Scottish National party made it clear over the past three and a half years that we were seeking to compromise and to ensure that what the people of Scotland voted for—staying in the European Union and our rights as EU citizens—was respected It was interesting that when the Secretary of State summed up the debate today, he made no reference to my colleagues’ powerful speeches about that desire for our rights to be respected and the fact that we do not consent, under any circumstances, to the people of Scotland and our country being taken out of the European Union against our will. Let us make no mistake: that is exactly what is happening. Yesterday, the Scottish Parliament voted overwhelmingly not to give its consent. This is a constitutional crisis. We will not and cannot accept what has been done to us. I say to the Prime Minister and the Government—
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill — House of Commons, 2020-01-09
Topic: International Affairs
Ian Blackford (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an important point. In the election in December, the people of Scotland stood by the Scottish National party on the basis of our right to choose. We will not accept being taken out of the European Union, and I say to the Prime Minister, "Respect democracy. Respect the election result. Respect the right of the people of Scotland to choose our future." We will have our referendum, Prime Minister, and Scotland will remain an independent European country.
EU Educational and Research Programmes — House of Commons, 2020-01-20
Topic: Technology
Questions: What plans he has to ensure UK access to EU educational and research programmes after the UK leaves the EU; and if he will make a statement.
Patrick John Grady (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Institutions across Scotland, including the University of Glasgow, receive some of the highest per capita shares of Horizon 2020. They will understandably be worried by the comments of the Commissioner for Research, Science and Innovation, who has said that the UK will be treated as a third party, and that there will be no cherry-picking in any new deals for programme participation. Will the Minister tell us what that means in terms of potential new barriers for institutions such as those in my constituency?
EU Educational and Research Programmes — House of Commons, 2020-01-20
Topic: Education
Questions: What plans he has to ensure UK access to EU educational and research programmes after the UK leaves the EU; and if he will make a statement.
Carol Frances Monaghan (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The sector has repeatedly expressed concerns about our future participation, or potential non-participation, in Horizon Europe. We have been told by the Prime Minister and his Ministers that they intend to remain, or that "we hope to remain, but not at any cost". When can we have absolute clarity? The sector needs it now, as do the EU researchers and academics who work in our higher education institutions.
EU Educational and Research Programmes — House of Commons, 2020-01-20
Topic: International Affairs
Questions: What plans he has to ensure UK access to EU educational and research programmes after the UK leaves the EU; and if he will make a statement.
Carol Frances Monaghan (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Many of the countries that the Minister has just mentioned also participate fully in Erasmus. The future relationship with the EU has yet to be decided, as was confirmed by the Secretary of State when he said that Erasmus "will be a question for further negotiations".—[Official Report, 14 January 2020; Vol. 669, c. 912.] However, at Prime Minister’s questions last week, the Prime Minister said: "There is no threat to the Erasmus scheme, and we will continue to participate in it. UK students will continue to be able to enjoy the benefits of exchanges with our European friends and partners, just as they will be able to continue to come to this country."—[Official Report, 15 January 2020; Vol. 669, c. 1021.] Who was correct, the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State?
Economy and Jobs — House of Commons, 2020-01-20
Topic: Macroeconomics
Christopher Charles Stephens (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): Is the shadow Chancellor aware that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs’ wealthy unit had 1,046 full-time equivalents 18 months ago but now has 961? What does that say about the Government’s approach to tax avoidance and evasion?
Economy and Jobs — House of Commons, 2020-01-20
Topic: Transportation
Peter Grant (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): The Chancellor may be aware that a very welcome infrastructure announcement was made just before Christmas, when the Scottish Government gave the long-awaited confirmation that the Levenmouth rail link will be reinstated. Exactly how much money do the United Kingdom Government intend to put into that vital project?
Economy and Jobs — House of Commons, 2020-01-20
Topic: Labor
Ian Blackford (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): In this utopian vision that the Minister is presenting, I wonder what message she is delivering to the 3.8 million 1950s women who have been denied their pension. Where is the vision for the women who have been told that they will have to wait an additional six years?
Universal Credit Bonus Payments — House of Commons, 2020-01-20
Topic: Social Welfare
David Melvyn Linden (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): It is always a pleasure to see Elderslie’s most famous daughter in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker Hon. Members will have seen coverage in recent weeks that Greggs announced that its 25,000-strong workforce would receive payments of up to £300 each as part of a £7 million reward scheme. However, those of us more familiar with the flaws of the current universal credit system understand that some staff on universal credit will keep as little as £75 after tax and national insurance, and bonus earnings are clawed back by the Government at a rate of 63p in the pound. I am grateful to colleagues at Parkhead citizens advice bureau for helping to raise this as a social policy issue and hereby present the following petition to Government for consideration The petition states: The petition of residents of Glasgow East, Declares that current rules surrounding bonus salary payments to Universal Credit claimants are profoundly unfair and lead to unintended reductions in subsequent Universal Credit payments which perversely disincentivises work The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to revise Universal Credit rules which would see one off bonus payments treated as capital rather than salary payments And the petitioners remain, etc [P002550]
Productivity — House of Commons, 2020-01-07
Topic: Macroeconomics
Alison Emily Thewliss (Scottish National Party, Centre-left): May I first pay tribute to the economist Professor Andrew Hughes Hallett, who passed away on Hogmanay The Bank of England has said that pessimism and uncertainty around Brexit have had an impact on investment and productivity. That uncertainty has been compounded in Scotland by the fact that our Government found out only today in the media that the UK Government will finally be setting their budget, yet they have absolutely no certainty over whether that budget will include the £1.2 billion in Barnett consequentials promised by the Prime Minister during the election campaign. When does the Chancellor intend to meet the Scottish Finance Secretary to apologise?