Category: Scotland

  • Ian Blackford – 2022 Loyal Address Speech

    Ian Blackford – 2022 Loyal Address Speech

    The speech made by Ian Blackford, the Leader of the SNP at Westminster, in the House of Commons on 10 May 2022.

    Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I thank the Duke of Rothesay for coming to Parliament today and for leading us in the state opening with the address that we had? May I also send best wishes from everyone across the House, and certainly from our Benches, to the Queen, in what is such a momentous year for her? We also need to reflect on those we sadly lost during the last Session of Parliament. We think of James Brokenshire, David Amess and, of course, Jack Dromey, three outstanding but different parliamentarians who were all a fine example to all of us of how to conduct ourselves in this place.

    I thank the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) for moving the motion. He gave an erudite treatise on his history in government. I hope he still has a lot to give. He has made it very clear that he was removed early from office by the Prime Minister and perhaps he still has some days ahead of him. It is important that he stressed the unity there is in this House on the topic of Ukraine. We all stand together with our friends in Ukraine, standing up to the warmonger and war criminal that still resides in Moscow. He will face justice and we will make sure that, ultimately, the people of Ukraine prevail.

    I thought it was interesting that the hon. Gentleman told us that the recent difficulties the Prime Minister has had with the Metropolitan police are not new; he has had his collar felt in the past as well. I also thank the seconder of the motion, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones). What we had really was a job application for government from the Member. I am sure she has a long and fruitful career in front of her as a Member of this House and a member of the governing party.

    As much as I hate to rub salt into wounds, I have to say that this Queen’s Speech has one very obvious backdrop that deserves a mention: the democratic drubbing the Prime Minister and his party got last Thursday. I know they might want to hide from that reality, but the message from people right across these islands was crystal clear. The people made it clear that this is now a Prime Minister facing his final days in office and a Tory Government on their last legs.

    I am proud to say that Scotland sent the strongest message of all. I understand that this might be a wee bit uncomfortable listening for those on the Conservative Benches, but they need to hear it all the same because they need to hear what Scottish democracy is telling them and has been telling them for years. Last Thursday saw the best ever result for pro-independence parties in the local elections. The Scottish National party is the largest party in the largest number of councils—the greatest ever result in a local election in our party’s history. This is the 11th election victory in a row for the SNP and the eighth election in a row the SNP has won under the leadership of Nicola Sturgeon. A party in government winning more votes and winning more seats—can you imagine that, Prime Minister? That is what we did—what about the Conservatives? Down by 100,000 votes, and they lost 66 seats in Scotland. The worst news for all of them is, after all that, they still kept their leader.

    Democracy has spoken in Scotland. It has spoken before and it will speak again and again. All our democratic decisions say exactly the same thing: Scotland rejects this Westminster Government, we reject the Tory Party and we demand the choice of an independent future. The Scottish people know the cost of living with Westminster. We know the price we pay with the Prime Minister and the price of being stuck with a Tory Government we did not vote for. It is a price that none of us in Scotland—not one of us—can afford to pay any longer.

    Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)

    I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a direct question: how does it feel, eight years after Scotland said no so conclusively to separation, for the pro-independence parties to get the same proportion of votes as they achieved eight years ago, despite everything that has been thrown at us, and, frankly, everything we have thrown at ourselves? When will he admit that the game is up?

    Ian Blackford

    I have to say to my hon. Friend—I will call him that because I enjoy his company—that if the game is up for anybody or any party, the game is up for the Tory party in Scotland and for the Union. He needs to reflect on the fact that the SNP has won the last 11 elections. We went to the public and asked for a mandate to have an independence referendum. [Hon. Members: “You didn’t get one!”] I hear from a sedentary position that we did not get one. I ask Conservative Members to reflect carefully. Let us consider the first-past-the-post elections to the Scottish Parliament last year when we won 62 of the 73 seats. There is a pro-independence majority in the Scottish Parliament.

    The Queen’s Speech mentioned respecting democracy. Why do the Scottish Conservatives and those in London deny democracy to the people of Scotland? How many times do the people of Scotland have to elect the SNP into government yet Westminster says no? What price democracy when this place ignores the sovereign right and the will of the Scottish people? A day of reckoning will come for those who seek to frustrate the rights of Scots to have a referendum. That day will come and not only will there be a referendum, but we will win it because that is what democracy is about.

    Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reason that this shower of corrupt, criminal Conservatives are blocking Scotland’s democratic and legal right to have a mandate over its own future is that they know—

    Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)

    On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is in breach of the House’s regulations for somebody to call someone else a criminal in this Chamber.

    Mr Speaker

    A particular Member was not referred to, as you know—[Interruption.] Just a minute—I do not think I need any help. What I would say is that we want moderate and tolerant language that does not bring the House into disrepute or expect those outside to copy the behaviour. I want good behaviour and moderate language. I want people to think before they speak. I call Ian Blackford.

    Hannah Bardell rose—

    Mr Speaker

    No.

    Ian Blackford

    I agree with my hon. Friend. [Interruption.]

    Mr Speaker

    We don’t want to get into this.

    Ian Blackford

    I will come on to those points in a moment. Let me say respectfully, particularly to the hon. Members for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) and for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) that I think they know that a referendum will come.

    Let me take the Speaker’s warnings about behaviour in this House and how we should all reflect on it and how we interact with each other. That applies across the House—I say that to my friend the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) on the Labour Front Bench, too. When we have that referendum, it is incumbent on us all to engage constructively.

    Let us examine, and by all means pull apart, the arguments for and against Scottish independence, but let us treat the electorate with respect. Let us trust the electorate who have given the Scottish Government a mandate to have that referendum. [Hon. Members: “2014!”] I hear what Members say about 2014. The whole point is that the electorate are given a choice in an election to elect a Government—and a Government with a mandate for an independence referendum. Let us not forget that, in 2014, we were explicitly told that if we stayed in the United Kingdom our rights as European citizens would be respected. What did this House do to Scotland? This House took Scotland out of the European Union against its will, and it is perfectly right that, under those circumstances, the people of Scotland have the right to revisit whether they wish to become independent.

    Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)

    Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

    Ian Blackford

    I will make some progress.

    The most glaring omission in this Queen’s Speech is the complete lack of any immediate action to help people faced with the biggest inflationary crisis in 50 years. Democracy spoke last Thursday, but it is pretty evident that the Government have not listened and, certainly, given what we have seen today, that the Prime Minister has not learned. People turned out last week to punish the Prime Minister for the scandal of partygate. Let us not forget that the public know that this is the only Prime Minister who has been found to have broken his own laws in office and yet he still sits here as Prime Minister. That should shame this House as it shames us.

    The electorate also turned out to punish a Prime Minister and a Chancellor who have been so consumed by the crisis of partygate that they have failed to lift a finger to fight the Tory-made cost of living crisis. As the Bank of England confirmed last week, the occupants of No.10 and No.11 Downing Street have now led us to the brink of recession. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) has said, the very first line of the Queen’s Speech should have been a commitment to bring forward an emergency budget. Where is it? Where is the emergency budget that we need? We need an emergency budget to tackle now the rising cost of energy, fuel and food.

    Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)

    Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is remarkable that, for a Government who say that they care about the cost of living crisis, there was absolutely nothing new in this Queen’s Speech around, for example, a mass home insulation programme? Such a programme would be the cheapest, most effective and fastest way of getting our emissions down, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs, and tackling climate emissions, and yet we have nothing new on that at all in this Queen’s Speech.

    Ian Blackford

    The hon. Lady is right: there is nothing in this Queen’s Speech to deal with the cost of living crisis, and nothing to deal with home insulation. In the Scottish Parliament, the collaboration between the SNP and the Greens is an example of two parties coming together to make sure that we prioritise the climate emergency, which is really missing from this Queen’s Speech.

    Scottish Power has already called for urgent action. It has called for £1,000 bill discounts for 10 million families before energy bills rocket by another £900 this autumn, and yet, once again, there is nothing of that from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor in this Queen’s Speech. In fact, the Chancellor has already told us that his strategy to tackle the cost of living crisis is, literally, to sit on his hands, because he thinks it would be silly to act now—silly to act at a time when people are facing tough decisions on whether to turn the heating off, whether they can afford to put food on the table. The Chancellor thinks it is silly to act—that tells us everything that we need to know about the humanity and compassion of this Conservative Government. Just like the spring statement, nothing has come from this Government. This Queen’s Speech represents one more missed opportunity.

    I can give the Prime Minister some suggestions. He could have matched the Scottish child payment, which doubled in April and will increase to £25 per week per child by the end of this year. That is positive action to help those most in need. He could have matched the increase in Scottish-issued social security payments by 6%. He could have done what Governments are supposed to do in an emergency: helped people through it. By any measure or meaning, this Government fail on all counts.

    Another gaping hole in this programme is when it comes to energy policy, as has already been raised. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) rightly said last month, the Prime Minister’s energy strategy is nothing more than a con trick, lacking any substance or ambition. The lack of ambition to drive growth in green investment and forge the path to net zero, not to mention an industrial strategy to back it up, fails this and future generations. That lack of ambition will not help investment in renewables, it will not help a just transition and it certainly will not help consumers now or in the long term. As for us in Scotland—a country so rich in energy potential—it is fleecing us of our green present and future.

    Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)

    The right hon. Gentleman’s constituency and mine border the Cromarty Firth, which has the Nigg fabrication yard where many of the mightiest oil production platforms in the North sea were constructed. Would it not be a positive suggestion to Her Majesty’s Government to power ahead with building floating offshore wind structures in the highlands of Scotland? That would help the Prime Minister and it would help us in Scotland.

    Ian Blackford

    I am very grateful for that intervention, and I agree 100% with what the hon. Gentleman has said; he and I have been talking about that over recent months. There is fantastic potential, not just for the highlands but for the whole of Scotland, to benefit from the industrial revolution that will come from the opportunities in green energy. We need to make sure that we learn from the lessons of the past and that we are able to capture that supply chain. If we go back to the 1970s, Nigg was a thriving industrial base, with thousands of jobs in that community supporting the oil industry.

    I know the hon. Gentleman, like me, wants to see the highlands and islands being a thriving area with an industrial future, but we need the UK Government to help us on that. I look forward, together with him, to having discussions with the Government on exactly how we take that forward.

    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack) indicated assent.

    Ian Blackford

    I can see the Secretary of State for Scotland nodding, so perhaps we can discuss that over the coming days.

    Since the start of this year alone, we know that the UK Government have profited by at least £1.7 billion from the revenues brought in from North sea oil. All that revenue from Scotland’s resources, and still this UK Government refuse to match the Scottish Government’s £500 million just transition fund to help to ease reliance on fossil fuels. Still there is no commitment to carbon capture and storage in Scotland’s north-east. Not only are this Westminster Government harming our planet, but they are holding Scotland back.

    David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)

    I am genuinely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly as the Scottish cluster is so important to my constituency. Does he agree that the UK Government have thus far committed £41 million to that project? However, that was not what I wanted to intervene on; I wanted to intervene on his mention of the £500 million just transition fund for the north-east of Scotland. Can he do what his colleagues the hon. Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) and for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) have not been able to do thus far, and describe in detail what that £500 million will be spent on in the north-east of Scotland?

    Ian Blackford

    We have been short-changed by not getting carbon capture and storage in Scotland. Twice now we have been promised that it is coming, but we all know in Scotland that getting carbon capture and storage in the north-east of Scotland with the Acorn project is instrumental in getting to net zero by 2045. It is instrumental in ensuring that Grangemouth has a green chemical future. There can be no more dithering—there can be no more delay. The Acorn project must be greenlit, and it must be greenlit now.

    I say to the hon. Gentleman that yes, we will spell out exactly the plan for that £500 million transition fund. I say to the House now that, together with my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), we will be speaking more on Scotland’s future energy potential. We on these Benches will accept our responsibilities to deliver that energy strategy and the industrial policy that is lacking from those on the Government Front Bench.

    I have concentrated on how the proposed legislation in the Queen’s Speech fails to tackle the cost of living crisis and our green future, but what it will enact is every bit as harmful. At the heart of this Session’s programme there is a twin attack that must be challenged: an attack on devolution and an attack on human rights law.

    As the Prime Minister gets increasingly vulnerable and desperate, it is probably no surprise that he has reached back to the policy that got him the job in the first place—Brexit. The Brexit freedoms Bill to repeal EU-retained law and the other Brexit legislation in his Queen’s Speech represent a race to the bottom on standards. As for the idea that Westminster will be able to strike down devolved legislatures’ retained EU laws, that would be only the latest in a long line of Tory power grabs.

    The Prime Minister indicated dissent.

    Ian Blackford

    The Prime Minister shakes his head, but that is the reality—we have seen it over the course of the past few years. The Scottish Parliament has the right to retain EU law because we have the opportunity and the right to find our way back into the European Union. We will not be denied the right to retain EU law, and we will not be denied the right to an independent future in Europe—and the same applies to our human rights laws. This UK Government propose ripping up the Human Rights Act 1998. That is one more example of a Government who are prepared to force through legislation that is not only immoral but internationally illegal. That attack on human rights legislation is all the more concerning in the context of the continuing failure to respond compassionately and comprehensively to the ongoing Ukrainian refugee crisis, not to mention the anti-refugee Bill that was passed in the previous Session. The agenda of this Westminster Government could not be clearer—a hostile environment for devolution, for human rights law and for refugees—and that agenda continues apace in the Queen’s Speech.

    Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)

    Both the Government’s independent review of the Human Rights Act and the cross-party Joint Committee on Human Rights have found that there is no case—no evidence base—for replacing the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of rights, so does my right hon. Friend agree that the only reason why the Government are trying to do this is that for as long as the Human Rights Act is on the statute book, it is a serious threat to their project of diminishing the accountability of the Executive?

    Ian Blackford

    My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely correct. The public should be very afraid of what this Government are doing, and the consequences for our hard-fought and hard-won human rights, which have been built up over many decades.

    Mr David Davis

    I think the right hon. Gentleman would probably accept that I have a lot of credence in the importance of the human rights of British citizens, but the primary argument that I have heard about the modification of the Human Rights Act is that it will give the Government the ability to deport foreign criminals who have been released from prison. That is an important right of the Government, and surely it is worth having, if nothing else.

    Ian Blackford

    I am afraid that is a fig leaf for what is going on, which is an attack on the rights that have been fought for so hard, and so hard-won, over the past few decades. All this is the cost of living with Westminster, and it is exactly why Scotland wants out.

    Mr Perkins rose—

    Ian Blackford

    I have to make progress.

    Just as this Queen’s Speech seeks to entrench—[Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) saying, “Scotland doesn’t want out.” I hope he rises to speak at some point in the Queen’s Speech debate and tries to defend that. I say to him, as I do to the Prime Minister, that we have the mandate for an independence referendum. If he does not think that we will win it, let’s bring it on! I tell you what, Mr Speaker: he will soon find that Scotland will vote for independence.

    Just as this Queen’s Speech seeks to entrench Brexit Britain, our Scottish Parliament will bring forward legislation that offers a very different future to our people: a positive and progressive future at the heart of Europe. We are not seeking the Prime Minister’s permission; the only permission that we need—[Interruption.] There we are: we can see that the Prime Minister could not care less; he is talking to his friends on the Government Front Bench. That is the disdain that we see for the people of Scotland from this Government. They simply could not care less. The only permission we will ever need is the democratic permission of the Scottish people.

    Let us not forget that it is the people of Scotland who hold sovereignty. Let us not forget—the Prime Minister might want to listen to this—the legal opinion in the case of MacCormick v. the Crown at the Court of Session in 1953, when Lord Cooper stated:

    “The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law.”

    It is unquestionably the right of those in Scotland to determine their own future. Those rights were enshrined in the claim of right that was so instrumental in delivering our devolved Parliament, and that is the case today as we seek to exercise our rights in an independence referendum.

    Let me remind the Prime Minister of the words of Parnell, who used to sit on these very Benches. He said:

    “No man has a right to fix the boundary of the march of a nation; no man has a right to say to his country—thus far shalt thou go and no further.”

    Time and again, the people of Scotland have spoken, and they want us to choose our own future. They spoke at the last Holyrood election, and they spoke again last Thursday. The longer Scottish democracy speaks, the louder it will get. If the Conservatives want to stand in the way—if they want to try to deny democracy—they should be well warned that democracy will sweep them away, just as their party was swept away last week.

  • Tom Arthur – 2022 Comments on Transforming Derelict Land in Scotland

    Tom Arthur – 2022 Comments on Transforming Derelict Land in Scotland

    The comments made by Tom Arthur, the Community Wealth Minister, on 10 May 2022.

    Derelict sites are often found in more disadvantaged areas and can hold back development of communities.

    This programme is delivering community regeneration and tackling climate change, in line with our national strategy to transform the economy and deliver sustainable and inclusive growth and a fairer society.

    At the same time as announcing these grants, we are opening the programme to projects seeking funding in 2023/24 and I look forward to building on the momentum generated by today’s investments.

  • Mairi Gougeon – 2022 Comments on Sustainable Farming in Scotland

    Mairi Gougeon – 2022 Comments on Sustainable Farming in Scotland

    The comments made by Mairi Gougeon, the Rural Affairs Secretary in the Scottish Government, on 29 April 2022.

    We want Scotland to become a global leader in sustainable and regenerative agriculture and our farmers, crofters and land managers have a crucial role to play in helping us meet our climate emissions and nature restoration targets. We have been clear in our commitment to supporting farmers and crofters to produce more of our food more sustainably which will ultimately help make our food system more resilient.

    To help them on this journey, we will continue to support active farming and food production with direct payments.

    Many are already leading the way having carried out carbon audits and soil sampling work but we are offering support to encourage all farmers and crofters to undertake this.

    We are planning to introduce enhanced conditionality for payments with targeted outcomes for biodiversity gain and a drive towards low carbon approaches. The work on the NTP has been co-developed with industry to ensure that farmers, crofters and land managers have what they need as we move towards the new Scottish Agriculture Bill which will be brought forward in 2023 and will provide a replacement for the Common Agricultural Policy.

    I want to encourage all eligible people to make a claim once the portal is open and take the next step towards the future of Scottish agriculture. We have made the claims process as simple and straightforward as possible and it can be completed and accessed online. Anyone who requires any support with making a claim should contact their local RPID area office.

  • Kate Forbes – 2022 Comments on the Centre of Expertise in Equality and Human Rights

    Kate Forbes – 2022 Comments on the Centre of Expertise in Equality and Human Rights

    The comments made by Kate Forbes, the Economy Secretary in the Scottish Government, on 9 May 2022.

    Our vision for Scotland is to create a wellbeing economy where our society is thriving economically, socially and environmentally, and in which we deliver prosperity for all Scotland’s people and places.

    By focusing on wellbeing and fair work, we can deliver higher rates of employment and wage growth, to reduce poverty – particularly child poverty – and improve health and quality of life for disadvantaged families and communities.

    The Centre of Expertise in Equality and Human Rights will advance our understanding of how equality and human rights should influence the economic policy-making process. This includes work in areas to remove barriers to employment for disabled people, women, those with care experience and minority ethnic groups while also tackling poverty through fair pay and conditions.

    Scotland’s National Strategy for Economic Transformation identified challenges to overcoming inequality across the economy, but also opportunities to build a fairer and more equal society with opportunities for all to succeed.

  • Jamie Hepburn – 2022 Comments on Removing Barriers to Employment

    Jamie Hepburn – 2022 Comments on Removing Barriers to Employment

    The comments made by Jamie Hepburn, the Minister for Youth Employment and Training in the Scottish Government on 9 May 2022.

    We want all of our young people to succeed, no matter their background or circumstances. Our aim is to ensure those seeking work have access to valuable support and opportunities for years to come.

    We know that many young people may face additional barriers to successfully gaining permanent work and the uncertainty caused by the pandemic combined with the cost of living crisis has made this more challenging. By connecting young people seeking work directly with employers we can offer them potentially life changing opportunities.

    This additional support is on top of £15 million already allocated to local authorities through the Young Person’s Guarantee for the current year and will build on our strong record of tackling youth unemployment.

  • Alistair Darling – 1997 Comments on the Barnett Formula

    Alistair Darling – 1997 Comments on the Barnett Formula

    The comments made by Alistair Darling, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in the House of Commons on 27 November 1997.

    The Government have made it clear that they intend to keep the existing arrangements. The Government’s position was clearly set out in the two White Papers on which the referendum campaigns in Scotland and Wales were fought and won.

  • Nicola Sturgeon – 2022 Comments on Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak Being Fined for Breaking Rules

    Nicola Sturgeon – 2022 Comments on Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak Being Fined for Breaking Rules

    The comments made by Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish First Minister, on 12 April 2022.

    Boris Johnson must resign. He broke the law and repeatedly lied to Parliament about it. The basic values of integrity and decency – essential to the proper working of any parliamentary democracy – demand that he go.

    And he should take his out of touch chancellor with him.

  • Douglas Ross – 2022 Speech on Delivery Charges in Scotland

    Douglas Ross – 2022 Speech on Delivery Charges in Scotland

    The speech made by Douglas Ross, the Conservative MP for Moray, in the House of Commons on 7 March 2022.

    I am delighted to have secured tonight’s Adjournment debate on an important topic for my Moray constituents. The Minister has already put in a great shift at the Dispatch Box today, and I apologise for delaying him further. However, in my article in The Northern Scot this week explaining to my constituents that I was having this Adjournment debate, I said that hopefully we would get to it quicker than last Monday’s, which started at 1.07 am, so we have done a little better already.

    If the Minister wants to blame anyone for being here at this hour, he should blame the Treasury. I originally secured this debate on the use of red diesel at ploughing matches, but I am very pleased that the Minister, who was perhaps worried about what might come out in an Adjournment debate, agreed to change excise notice 75 to ensure that ploughing matches in Moray, across Scotland and in the rest of the UK will no longer be subject to the potential change. I am delighted that we got that without an Adjournment debate—no pressure, Minister, but I now expect everything I ask for this evening to be delivered.

    Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)

    I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He talks about blaming someone for our being here at this time of the evening. May I ask his view? This is an important debate affecting the good people of Scotland, yet on the Opposition Benches I see no hon. Member from the nationalist party. Does that not demonstrate to the people of Scotland that the important topic that he is raising is simply being ignored by nationalist MPs?

    Douglas Ross

    Well, that is for others to decide, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a fellow member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.

    Before my hon. Friend and I joined the Committee, it had looked at this issue. I have also secured Westminster Hall debates on it, including one that the Minister responded to 15 months ago, and I have raised it at Prime Minister’s questions. I know that it concerns Members across the House and our constituents, particularly those of us in the north of Scotland and the highlands and islands, and I make no apology for raising it again.

    The surcharges on the delivery of products bought by people in Moray and across many parts of Scotland are punitive and unfair and have been going on far too long. Businesses and couriers are treating my constituents and the people affected with utter contempt. It is completely wrong, and something must be done. To put into perspective how many people the issue affects, a Scottish Parliament briefing paper suggests that 440,000 people in Scotland live in areas affected by the surcharges. To put that into context, the same report says that 87% of adults in the United Kingdom buy online. That figure rose as high as 95% during the pandemic. That means that a big number of shoppers—95% of 440,000 people—are being punished not for what they want to buy, but because of where they want to buy from.

    It is absolutely wrong that the issue is raised time and again, but no action seems to be taken by the businesses or the couriers to deal with the problem. The Scottish Parliament Information Centre’s report says that the additional cost of delivery charges in commonly affected areas, compared with the rest of Scotland, is £45 million. That is £45 million that someone has to pay because they live in Moray, Inverness or one of many areas north of Perth—not the cost of the products, but the cost to deliver them.

    I would like to give some examples from my constituency, and one from slightly further afield, that I have been dealing with as the local MP. I have made it very clear that I want constituents to tell me when they have faced such problems, because I want to stop them. The only way we will stop them is by highlighting the injustice, highlighting the unfairness of the system and trying to get some action. I am glad that some action has been taken. The Advertising Standards Authority has issued several enforcement notices in cases that I have referred to it and in many others. Indeed, the Minister and I discussed that in our previous debate, but let me give just a few examples.

    A constituent in Mosstodloch purchased a wallet with no delivery charge advertised, yet when it came to the checkout online £15 was added. The ASA issued an enforcement notice on that company, because it had advertised no additional charges to mainland United Kingdom. A Findhorn resident tried to order a battery for a strimmer and was told it would be £30 to deliver to the IV36 postcode, which was almost more than the cost of the battery itself. Another constituent in Dyke was quoted £15 to order a tap for his motor home, even though free UK delivery was advertised. Dyke, in Moray, is part of the UK. How do these companies not get it? Why do they think that somehow we are cut off? We are not—we are part of the mainland UK. Therefore, if they advertise “free delivery to mainland UK”, whether for a tap for someone’s motor home or for something else, the person deserves to get free delivery to mainland UK. A constituent from Forres ordered goods worth £89 and the company was offering free delivery on orders over £40. She put in her IV36 postcode and the delivery charge rose to £117. So from free delivery for purchases of over £40, for her purchase of £89 it then became £117. Unfortunately, on this one, the ASA stated that because the company did not say that the free delivery applied to the whole of the UK, it was not able to take action. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that. Free delivery was being advertised, but just because the company did not say it was to the whole of the UK it got away with it.

    Another constituent from Findhorn had ordered £155-worth of specialist pipe insulation. Normal delivery was going to be £9.95, but they entered their IV36 postcode and an additional £40 was added, taking the total delivery cost to £50. In this case, the ASA did issue an enforcement notice, and I am pleased to say that the constituent got a full refund from the company. It accepted that it had done wrong in this case, even though it applied the charge in the first place. Another constituent put in an order for some garden equipment and although free UK mainland delivery was advertised, they were asked to pay a surcharge of £24 for “Scottish highlands”. We are not in the Scottish highlands. There is a Highland Council region, and Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen regions. Moray is a region on its own, yet we are again lumped in with the highlands. Finally, a product was ordered by one of my constituents in Elgin and they were told that the delivery charge was going to be £149.95. They then changed the address to that of a relative in Rothes, which is about 10 miles from Elgin and has an AB postcode, and there was no delivery charge whatsoever. So by travelling 10 miles within Moray one can go from a charge of almost £150 for delivery to having no charge at all. That just highlights issues with both businesses and couriers; they each try to blame each other, but they are both as guilty as each other and are imposing these charges when there is no good reason to do so.

    I was looking at the debate that the Minister and I held in Westminster Hall some time ago, when we spoke about how companies must at least be up front. We might not like the small print but if they are up front about things, in some cases we have to accept it. I do not accept it, but they are also not being up front. Another constituent in Elgin bought a bed for £435 and the order went through and was completed, but several days later she was contacted to say, “Actually, we have looked at your address and there is going to be a £70 surcharge for delivery.” That happened days after the purchase had been accepted by the company and agreed with my constituent. They believed that they were going to pay a certain amount, only then to get a phone call or an email to say, “Actually, we’ve found out where you live, we think it is too far away and we are going to put on another £70.” That is indefensible on the part of these companies and couriers; I am sure the Minister would agree on that, and so something must be done about it.

    I also said I would give one example from outwith my constituency, and I could have chosen literally hundreds. However, the example that I gave in a previous Westminster Hall debate—even previous to the one that I had with the Minister, because I have raised this issue a number of times before—was that it would sometimes be cheaper for me to buy an item in London, and instead of paying a charge to some company for it to be delivered to Scotland, pay for a seat for the gift I had bought, or some other parcel, on my easyJet flight.

    That is no longer the best example that I could give. A resident of Inverness, Jim Oliver, was seeking to help his mother-in-law, who was trying to purchase a gardening tool online. The cost of the gardening tool was £40, but she was going to be charged £2,000 for delivery. [Interruption.] Oh, it gets worse! It gets a lot worse than that. Jim decided to try himself. He typed in the same product name, and the delivery charge came out, not more expensive than buying a seat on the easyJet flight to get it up to Inverness, but more expensive than the world’s most expensive footballer. They could have bought Neymar for less. The delivery charge for a £40 product came in at £2,001,997.

    That was clearly a computer glitch, but I also want to highlight the fact that these companies just do not care. They literally do not care about their customers in parts of Scotland if they allow their system to say, “We will charge you more than the cost of Neymar to deliver this product to Inverness.” That demonstrates the contempt in which a number of these businesses hold our area, and the fact that they have got away with it for so long allows them to continue in the same vein.

    I must give credit to the Advertising Standards Authority for the work that it does in this area. It has seriously tried to tackle the issue, and has been extremely diligent in pursuing cases that I have put to it. It has tried to deal with them by means of enforcement notices—I have given examples in which that has not been possible—but what is an enforcement notice? What does it do? It is a slap on the wrist. Enforcement notices are clearly not stopping other companies following similar practices, they are clearly not acting as a deterrent, and people in Moray and other parts of the north of Scotland are being treated completely differently from people elsewhere in Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole. We need tougher enforcement from the ASA, and I think we should consider what further powers we could give it to take far stronger action.

    I decided to return to that debate in Westminster Hall and remind myself of the points that the Minister raised in his response. I wonder if he can update us on some of the issues. Back then, he said:

    “The consumer protection partnership chaired by officials in my Department continues to work on the issues.”

    Can he tell us what work the partnership is doing, and what proposals it has advanced to him or to other Ministers? He also noted that

    “Ofcom will be undertaking a review of its future regulatory framework for post”

    —and, presumably, other items—

    “over the next year.”—[Official Report, 9 December 2020; Vol. 685, c. 453WH.]

    That will have reached a conclusion by now. I do not know whether there have been any delays as a result of the pandemic, but can the Minister tell us what the outcome was of Ofcom’s review?

    In the past the Minister and his predecessors have been averse to the idea of legislating in this area, but does he accept that the longer we debate the issue—the more times I return to it, or it is raised by Members from my part or other parts of Scotland—while the current measures are not dealing with the problem, the more important it is to consider legislation? Why do 440,000 constituents in the far north and many other parts of mainland Scotland have to live with this day in day out, week in week out, year after year? For these prices are going up year after year. We read in parliamentary briefings that the cost for many parts of Scotland is going up and up. It was £45 million in 2021; what will it be in 2022 or 2023 if this continues?

    Will the Minister seriously consider potential legislation? In the more immediate term, will he agree to meet me and some of the big companies involved—the couriers and some of the other companies that are most guilty of adding excessive charges for constituents in Moray and many other parts of the highlands and the north? We need to get these companies round the table and explain to them that the problems they are causing and the issues that this causes for local representatives and the Government have to be dealt with. At the moment, they seem to be continuing as if nothing is wrong, although, as I have tried to explain tonight, things are continuing to go wrong. We need a meeting with them and the Minister, sitting round the table, to hear their responses to these concerns and to the cases that I and other elected Members put to them. If they think that they are in the right, we need to hear the reasoning behind that, but if they accept, as I hope they will, that they are in the wrong for imposing these excessive charges, we need to hear what they will do about it. I hope that the Minister’s office will help to bring these people round the table and help to deal with the situation before it is allowed just to go on and on.

    This is simply unacceptable. It was unacceptable when I raised it in 2017 in my maiden speech, it was unacceptable when I raised it with the former Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions, it was unacceptable when I raised it with the Minister’s predecessor in Westminster Hall and it was unacceptable when I raised it with this Minister in Westminster Hall. It is still unacceptable now, as I raise it in this Chamber in March 2022, that my constituents are forced to pay these excessive charges simply because of where they live. This is a postcode lottery. It is no longer acceptable to treat people in Moray and many parts of the country so differently from their friends and relatives in other parts of Scotland or the United Kingdom.

    The time for action has long passed. It has not come quickly enough, and we now need firm action from the Government to deal with this issue. Once and for all, we need to deal with the problem that many people have faced for far too long. I hope that, in responding to this debate, the Minister can update us on any actions taken since this was previously raised in this House, tell us what more can be done and give some hope to the people of Moray as they look to the year ahead. It is never too early to mention Christmas, and people will already be thinking about purchases for the year ahead and going into Christmas—[Interruption.] Well, it probably is too early to mention Christmas, but genuinely, people look at purchases and are deterred from buying them, not because they do not want or need the product but because they are unwilling to pay these extortionate costs. The people of Moray and the people of the highlands and islands are watching with interest tonight to see what hope the Minister and his Department can give them that this long-running problem will soon be just a bad and distant memory and that we can look forward to a future when Moray and other parts of Scotland are not affected by these extortionate costs.

  • Keir Starmer – 2022 Speech at the Scottish Labour Party Conference

    Keir Starmer – 2022 Speech at the Scottish Labour Party Conference

    The speech made by Keir Starmer, the Leader of the Opposition, in Glasgow on 5 March 2022.

    Thank you, Bea, for that fantastic introduction, it’s great to see you again and to be back in Glasgow making my first address to you as Labour Leader – as Anas did yesterday.

    Isn’t he bringing new energy, and a focus on the future.

    I know, because we are working so closely together, that he has the ideas and the determination to change the course of Scottish politics.

    He is leading us into important local elections here in just two months’ time.

    Anas, you have my support to make the changes that we need, to take Scottish Labour forward – thank you for everything you’re doing.

    With a rejuvenated Scottish Labour Party and a UK Labour Party, laser-focused on doing what it takes to win a General Election, we have huge opportunities ahead of us and the chance to change Britain again.

    Labour can win a General Election. Scotland can choose not just to oppose the Tories but to replace them with a Labour Government.

    A Labour government that I will lead, founded on a new contract with the people – the people of Scotland and people in every part of the United Kingdom.

    A Labour government like those that have went before that will forge, for our times, a new Britain. A new Britain that Scottish people aren’t just part of, but are proud of.

    Conference, I also want to say how important it is for us all to be together in the same room together. Because, I was elected to lead our party during lockdown.

    At the height of the pandemic, I so looked forward to gathering again like this again.

    I could scarcely have believed that when we did come back together, it would be against the backdrop of war in Europe.

    The events we are witnessing right now will stay with us forever. These are dark days, peace in Europe has been threatened by an imperialist aggressor.

    Images I didn’t think I would see in my lifetime – Russian tanks rolling into a European country, soldiers kissing their children goodbye, as they stay to fight, and families fleeing for the border.

    The world has reacted with anger and dismay, nowhere more so than here in Britain, where British people continue to show steadfast support for the people of Ukraine.

    We are in a new world. This will mean making sacrifices, our sacrifices will be like nothing, compared to the suffering of the people of Ukraine.

    Their courage is inspiring the world, just as the actions of Putin repel the world.

    Let me be crystal clear, there is no justification for Putin’s actions.

    They are an affront to the values of this country, to this party, and the international institutions, which we helped to build.

    For what crime does Putin accuse the people of Ukraine?

    It is their yearning for openness and democracy. To be free to determine their own future, and decide for themselves what alliances they make.

    Labour is the party of collective security. Labour is the party of NATO. And Labour stands with the people of Ukraine.

    We are demanding the strongest sanctions against Putin – we must tackle the oligarchs here and go after their money, and while we’re at it, clean up our own politics, once and for all.

    And yes, the next Labour government will also rebuild our own defences.

    Royal Navy ships, built here on the Clyde have been crucial to keeping safe passage in the international waters of the Black Sea.

    RAF personnel and Royal Navy men and women, playing their part from bases in the North and West of Scotland, responding to the regular testing of our own territorial security, by Russia.

    Conference, let us thank our own military for all that they do to keep us safe. Let us thank all of our military families, as they follow these events anxiously.

    But let’s also be clear that what Putin is afraid of – his fear, is order, and liberty.

    Afraid of democracy, of openness, of progress, and of a world which will move on without him. He is afraid of everything that we are most proud of.

    We know Putin’s playbook. He seeks division so we must meet him with unity.

    He believes the benefits of aggression outweigh the consequences, so we must take a stand. And he believes the West is too corrupted to do the right thing, so we must prove him wrong. I believe we can.

    The rule of law and the pursuit of justice have been important to me all my life. Playing by the rules is part of who I am.

    My dad was a toolmaker in a factory and my mum, a nurse in our beloved NHS.

    I became the Chief Prosecutor for England and Wales.

    My parents taught me that in life you need to stick up for yourself, but also stick up for those who can’t always resist the bully on their own, and we will.

    Friends, like me, Anas is a father. And he spoke to you yesterday about one of his hardest times as a parent. I want to say to Adam, Anas’ son, and to all of you here. It matters that you have elected our first leader who looks like Anas, and his family. It matters.

    Together, as Labour leaders, we won’t just talk the talk, we will walk the walk, and we will keep challenging ourselves too. In your words, Anas: it is a fight for all of us.

    Conference, you know, I try to see the best in people. I am an optimist, I believe in the politics of optimism.

    Yet we are living in a time, when right and wrong doesn’t seem to matter to those in government.

    At the height of the pandemic, every British family was touched by worry or tragedy. Everyone was affected because they followed the rules.

    But, some – and one man in particular – felt that the rules just didn’t apply to him. I refuse to accept that.

    I refuse to accept the pain and sacrifice of so many British families being cheapened, even laughed at. No wonder then that under the Tories, trust in politics is now at an all-time low.

    Two-thirds of the public think that the way British politicians act undermines democracy. Six out of ten people think politicians are likely to lie to them.

    That’s sadly inevitable, when we have a government that is misleading the public and covering up their own wrongdoing to save the Prime Minister’s job. It is also deliberate.

    This Tory government is so disreputable that even the Scottish Tories are actually embarrassed by it. It is a government that wallows in cynicism.

    It wants the public to believe that politics is no longer a force for good. And, of course, they don’t care about the consequences of their actions, including the consequences for the Union.

    It might suit the Tories – as much as it suits the SNP – to keep Scotland stuck on pause in the politics of 2014 forever, but I am calling Boris Johnson out.

    I want to lead Britain because I believe in it. I believe in all its parts and all of its differences. In all of our home nations, in all of the good and decent people who share the same hopes and dreams, fears and frustrations, the same land and the same coasts. A common language and inheritance, and the same threats to our way of life.

    Boris Johnson and his Tory party pose as patriotic defenders of the Union. But, every day that he remains in power, he weakens it. He breaks everything he touches and he won’t change.

    Even the Scottish Tories know that. Weakening the bonds between people, weakening the promises of one generation to the next, weakening the legitimacy of the office that he holds.

    Left to their downward spiral, the Tories would destroy everything that they profess to hold dear.

    So when I am asked ‘how will we win’, this is where I start. I refuse to accept that we are stuck where we are now. There is another way to lead this country.

    This United Kingdom – and the nations that come together within it. Our best days are ahead of us.

    I refuse to accept that there is no place to talk about the future and no way to bring people together on the things we have in common and the change we need to make.

    I refuse to accept that all that matters is where people were in the Scottish referendum, or the Brexit referendum.

    Just as I refuse to accept that the British people no longer care about what happens in Europe. Or that we will tolerate child poverty rising again, here at home.

    I refuse to accept that the biggest cost of living crisis of our lifetimes should break the backs of ordinary families.

    It is because I believe in the British people that I am angry that they have a government more concerned with handing contracts to their mates than addressing our challenges.

    It is because I believe in our United Kingdom, that unique partnership of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Because I believe in us, that I am angry that we have Tories who have allowed the UK to be a place that is laughed about abroad.

    And conference, I am angry that we have allowed these Tories to beat us.

    This is on all of us to fix and we can fix it. It is our duty to win. I believe that we can. But still our greatest hurdle might not be the Tories, but ourselves.

    There is no rule in politics that disillusionment with the Tories delivers a Labour government.

    Labour wins, as it always has done, when we have the ideas, the optimism, and the trust of the British people. So we need to be honest with ourselves – trust in us declined too.

    We are the party of working people; our founding and defining mission. But too many working people came to see us as far removed from their lives.

    We put our priorities above theirs; our ideas as more important, than their experiences. So yes, our duty to win does mean keeping our discipline.

    Never losing sight of who it is that we need to convince – working people and especially those who voted for our electoral opponents.

    We can win and we can make change, or we can pursue apparent political purity inside our party. But please make no mistake, we cannot do both. Running away from the mainstream is running away from voters – and we will never do that.

    As Gordon Brown, our last Prime Minister, said: “It is the fighters and believers that change the world.”

    He is right. We have changed our world. We did it before and we can do it again.

    In Gordon’s day, the lights in Downing Street burned late into the night. Not for parties. But they burned because here was a Scottish MP who never rested from the task at hand. Restless always to improve the lives, not just of Scots, but of families struggling to pay their bills in every part of Britain.

    The Minimum Wage, the Winter Fuel Allowance, the Child Trust Fund, the Child Tax Credit, and paid paternity leave – thank you Gordon, for your leadership in office, and since. Global leadership on vaccines, for the poorest countries, and closer to home – leadership of our commission on the UK’s future.

    That commission will create a new blueprint for a new Britain, that the next Labour Government – my government- will build. It will be a new Britain which puts security, prosperity and respect, at the heart of our politics again.

    A new Britain with a government that knows to serve the public is a privilege, not a birth right.

    Ours will be a government that works for every part of the country, every region, and every nation of Britain.

    For us “levelling up” isn’t a slogan. It is in our DNA. It’s what Labour Governments are for.

    As we come out of the pandemic, I have spent my time in the places where we need to win. Talking to people about the rising cost of living, their ideas for their town, their experiences at work, their hopes for their kids, the things that matter to them. And their hopes for a better society, after the trauma of Covid.

    I can tell you this – they have ideas, they want change, they have ambition. All they want is a government that shares their ambition.

    Labour’s new contract with the British people is rooted in those thousands of conversations. Something tangible. So you know how a Labour government will lead.

    This contract is founded on three principles – security, prosperity, and respect.

    The first term in the contract is security.

    Everyone has the basic right to feel safe in their own community. We all need to know that the NHS is there for us when we need it. And if we work hard we should also have a right to job security.

    The second term in the contract is prosperity.

    Everyone should have the opportunity to thrive. To realise our ambitions and make a good life for ourselves and our families. To have the skills they need to prosper.

    And then there is a third term in my contract.

    Respect is a less obvious political virtue than security and prosperity, but it is every bit as important. Everyone has the right to live in places we care for and to have our lives and ambitions taken seriously, and to be valued for who we are and what we do.

    Let me be clear, that means respect for Scotland within our Union. That’s why Gordon’s commission is so important because it is examining how to reform the UK. Not just to acknowledge or accommodate devolution, but to give it proper respect and unleash the true power of the idea.

    Not the devolution of grievance, or one-upmanship. But the vision of devolution that Anas is talking about and that our mayors in England are also talking about – pushing power away from parliaments and towards people – and towards great cities like Glasgow, which is being let down so badly by the SNP.

    That’s why the next Labour Government will govern for all of Britain. We will change Westminster, and Whitehall, and we’ll clean it up at the same time.

    Under the Tories, our country has become increasingly unequal. The Tories talk of levelling up is not serious.

    In contrast, Labour in power will always be alongside people. Not weary of finding solutions to problems new and old.

    As North Lanarkshire Labour have with their school meals and activities programme all through the holidays to make sure no child there was left behind. Thank you.

    Or as North Ayrshire Labour are doing with their solar farms and wind turbines – turning their communities into net exporters of energy. Thank you again, this is the difference.

    This is the difference that being in power makes.

    This Tory government is so distracted, it has no plan for household finances and no economic planning at all. And I ask you, what do these Tories and the SNP have in common?

    Well, beyond being joined at the hip in wanting to turn every election into the same referendum again, and again, they have no industrial strategy to meet the challenge of our age. They don’t have the credible policies we need to create and sustain decent jobs.

    Decades of power between them – neither the Tories nor the SNP – has done enough to secure the jobs and industries of the future.

    The so-called party of British business is barely able to talk to business. Whilst the party of North Sea nationalism is now selling Scotland’s offshore wind to every foreign energy interest imaginable.

    So we have a new opportunity now to have a Labour government that will be in partnership with business, to create work. Because Labour is the party of work, we always have been.

    There is no challenge ahead of us, whether its automation or climate change, that we can’t rise to.

    President Biden said: “When I hear climate change, I think jobs.” He is right, and this must be our mind-set too.

    That’s why the Shadow Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, is out talking to business every week about our plan to buy, make and sell more in Britain. That’s why we have proposed Labour’s Climate Investment Pledge.

    We will meet the challenge of the next generation and the urgency of the climate emergency with £28bn of green capital investment every year until 2030. That’s equivalent to more than half of the current defence budget. That’s what we’re about – decent jobs with a future.

    Jobs that support communities and allow individuals and families to prosper and live well. Jobs for those workers in Fife who can see the offshore industry of the future being constructed while political failure in Edinburgh and London, leaves them idle.

    No one should support the Labour Party simply to oppose the Tories or for that matter the SNP.

    It is the honour of my life to be the Leader of our Party but I tell you this – I have no ambition to be Leader of the Opposition. We gather here not just to oppose the Tories but to replace them.

    Throughout our history, our leaders have been driven by our love of our country but also full of passion for what more it can be. Each time, Labour has built a new Britain – Attlee, Wilson, Blair and Brown – each has sought office to change this country. That is my ambition too, not just to oppose the Tories, but to replace them.

    Scotsmen and women, including from this city, have been integral to the great Labour governments of which we are so proud.

    The next Labour government, the Labour government that I will lead, needs those Scottish voices again – to help us build our new Britain.

    Conference, I want to welcome Scottish Labour MPs to join Ian Murray in our task. Thank you, Ian.

    I wants to win more seats in Scotland, not just to achieve Labour’s majority, but to have more MPs like Ian – forthright and determined that Scotland is not just stuck between two governments, fighting the same constitutional battle day after day, year after year.

    I do understand why there are people in Scotland on both sides of the constitutional divide who despair of this Tory government. Who could blame them?

    But just as we must defeat the cynicism of the Tories, we should be confident that ours are the bigger ideas, tat working together, we can achieve more than we achieve alone.

    That is the difference between simply opposing this Tory government and replacing it. That’s the difference between Labour MPs using their votes to make a change and not just posture. That’s the difference between the SNP failing to support our windfall tax on big energy to cut the bills of millions of families. That’s the difference between backing Labour’s plans, and an SNP that fails to turn up.

    Scottish votes have never carried more weight in a General Election. Those who pretend that Scotland can’t choose the government it wants are wrong.

    I understand the scale of the task that Anas and I have but, I’ve never taken on any job because I thought it was going to be easy.

    It was John Smith, the night before he died, who told us that the chance to serve our country was all that Labour sought. I have spent my own working life serving this country. My values, our Labour values, have changed Britain before. We can build a new future together.

    We must be clear-headed in our determination to win the people’s trust.

    Our party will continue to change, and I won’t apologise for that. Tony Blair said the only Labour tradition he’d wanted to change was losing – too right.

    We are changing Labour again for the challenges of our time. Don’t let us sit here in this conference and just oppose the Tories let us build the alternative.

    I am going to take my contract to the people of Scotland, and every part of Britain. It is my solemn promise that their priorities, are again the priorities of the Labour Party.

    A new Britain, that Scotland isn’t just part of, but proud of.

    A United Kingdom, reengaged in the world. Fierce in our defence of liberty, forever alert, and apologists for no one.

    Conference, Downing Street should be a place where the lights are always on. Where no matter the time, work is being done by serious people in the service of our country.

    A Labour government, a chance to serve. This is who I am, and that is my ambition.

    Thank you.

  • Nicola Sturgeon – 2022 Article on Ukraine and Boris Johnson

    Nicola Sturgeon – 2022 Article on Ukraine and Boris Johnson

    The article written by Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish First Minister, on 2 February 2022.

    The prospect of war in our continent is more than enough to avert our gaze from the latest Whitehall troubles.

    However, a prime minister who has found it so hard to speak the truth throughout his career surprised us all with a hard dose of it when he stood before parliament last week to address the situation in Ukraine, saying: “Ukraine asks for nothing except to be allowed to live in peace and to seek her own alliances, as every sovereign country has a right to do.”

    It was a sentiment echoed by the leader of the opposition, by my own party’s Westminster group leader, Ian Blackford MP, and by every other SNP MP who responded to the statement.

    As someone who has spent my life campaigning for the sovereign right of the people of Scotland to determine our own futures, sovereignty is a principle fundamental to my own worldview. To see such pressures being exerted on a state that has resolutely set itself on a path to integration with the liberal democratic order is unspeakable.

    A Europe split into 19th-century “spheres of influence” is not one in which small independent countries would prosper. The wealthier and more equal the nations of Europe become, the more equitable the relations between them should be. Indeed, the great steps that the likes of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have taken in the past 30 years are testament to the invigorating effects of independence in Europe.

    However, my agreement with the prime minister on these principles did not last long: question after question from the floor of the House of Commons brought him back to the issue of Russian funding in the Conservative party, and the continuing existence of “Londongrad”-style influence operations in the UK.

    Meanwhile, as long as the fortunes of Russia’s elites are based abroad, threats of economic sanctions are limp and ineffective.

    The UK’s allies are beginning to take note of the intractability of the problem.

    A report from the Center for American Progress – a thinktank close to the Biden administration – stated last week that “uprooting Kremlin-linked oligarchs will be a challenge given the close ties between Russian money and the United Kingdom’s ruling Conservative party, the press, and its real estate and financial industry”.

    After all, clear mechanisms to crack down on these practices exist.

    My government has long called for Westminster to legislate on the improper use of Scottish limited partnerships – just one favourite instrument of financial exploitation – to ensure that they are no longer used to facilitate the sort of financial corruption that has benefited authoritarians and their wealthy cronies for far too long.

    Corruption and lack of transparency are a drag on liberal democracy, and authoritarians have become adept at using these scandals as a way of saying to people ground down by them that all forms of government are the same, and all politicians are as bad as each other.

    And so I can only call on the prime minister to finally take action. He must recognise that his government and his party have enabled this situation, and he must acknowledge that the most resolute action he can take is at home, to rebuild his government’s tattered reputation.

    To quote the author and journalist Oliver Bullough from his book, Moneyland, which documented so much about the London “laundromat”: “Without trust, liberal democracy cannot function.” And as Bullough wrote more recently about the situation in Ukraine: “No one is more to blame than us for the fact that Russia’s richest can treat war like a spectator sport.”

    And while during such periods the temptation is to focus on individuals in power, this can lead us to forget the role of the competing factions within the Russian security state and the pressures they are exerting on the situation, and it may lead some to forget the pressure this is putting on 40 million Ukrainians – our fellow European citizens – as they go about their daily lives.

    In some ways, this is a reality many have been dealing with since 2014, especially those in Russian-occupied eastern Ukraine.

    So while Ukrainians must and will defend themselves from aggression if attempts at diplomacy fail, we cannot be blind to the circumstances that have led to the current crisis, and that includes the situation where wealth with direct links to the Putin regime has been allowed to proliferate here in the UK with often the scantest regard paid to its provenance or to the influence it seeks to exert on our democracy.