UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Clare Short – 2003 Resignation Statement

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a personal statement.

    I have decided to resign from the Government. I think it is right that I should explain my reasons to the House of Commons, to which I have been accountable as Secretary of State for International Development, a post that I have been deeply honoured to hold and that I am very sad to leave.

    The House will be aware that I had many criticisms of the way in which events leading up to the conflict in Iraq were handled. I offered my resignation to the Prime Minister on a number of occasions but was pressed by him and others to stay. I have been attacked from many different angles for that decision but I still think that, hard as it was, it was the right thing to do.

    The reason why I agreed to remain in the Government was that it was too late to put right the mistakes that had been made. I had throughout taken the view that it was necessary to be willing to contemplate the use of force to back up the authority of the UN. The regime was brutal, the people were suffering, our Attorney-General belatedly but very firmly said there was legal authority for the use of force, and because the official Opposition were voting with the Government, the conflict was unavoidable. There is no question about that. It had to carry.

    I decided that I should not weaken the Government at that time and should agree to the Prime Minister’s request to stay and lead the UK humanitarian and reconstruction effort. However, the problem now is that the mistakes that were made in the period leading up to the conflict are being repeated in the post-conflict situation. In particular, the UN mandate, which is necessary to bring into being a legitimate Iraqi Government, is not being supported by the UK Government. This, I believe, is damaging to Iraq’s prospects, will continue to undermine the authority of the UN and directly affects my work and responsibilities.

    The situation in Iraq under international law is that the coalition are occupying powers in occupied territory. Under the Geneva convention of 1949 and the Hague regulations of 1907, the coalition has clear responsibilities and clear limits to its authority. It is obliged to attend to the humanitarian needs of the population, to keep order – to keep order – and to keep civil administration operating. The coalition is legally entitled to modify the operation of the administration as much as is necessary to fulfil these obligations, but it is not entitled to make major political, economic and constitutional changes. The coalition does not have sovereign authority and has no authority to bring into being an interim Iraqi Government with such authority or to create a constitutional process leading to the election of a sovereign Government. The only body that has the legal authority to do this is the United Nations Security Council.

    I believe that it is the duty of all responsible political leaders right across the world – whatever view they took on the launch of the war – to focus on reuniting the international community in order to support the people of Iraq in rebuilding their country, to re-establish the authority of the UN and to heal the bitter divisions that preceded the war. I am sorry to say that the UK Government are not doing this. They are supporting the US in trying to bully the Security Council into a resolution that gives the coalition the power to establish an Iraqi Government and control the use of oil for reconstruction, with only a minor role for the UN.

    This resolution is unlikely to pass but, if it does, it will not create the best arrangements for the reconstruction of Iraq. The draft resolution risks continuing international divisions, Iraqi resentment against the occupying powers and the possibility that the coalition will get bogged down in Iraq.I believe that the UK should and could have respected the Attorney-General’s advice, told the US that this was a red line for us, and worked for international agreement to a proper, UN-led process to establish an interim Iraqi Government – just as was done in Afghanistan.

    I believe that this would have been an honourable and wise role for the UK and that the international community would have united around this position. It is also in the best interests of the United States. Both in both the run-up to the war and now, I think the UK is making grave errors in providing cover for US mistakes rather than helping an old friend, which is understandably hurt and angry after the events of 11 September, to honour international law and the authority of the UN. American power alone cannot make America safe. Of course, we must all unite to dismantle the terrorist networks, and, through the UN, the world is doing this. But undermining international law and the authority of the UN creates a risk of instability, bitterness and growing terrorism that will threaten the future for all of us.

    I am ashamed that the UK Government have agreed the resolution that has been tabled in New York and shocked by the secrecy and lack of consultation with Departments with direct responsibility for the issues referred to in the resolution. I am afraid that this resolution undermines all the commitments I have made in the House and elsewhere about how the reconstruction of Iraq will be organised. Clearly this makes my position impossible and I have no alternative than to resign from the Government.

    There will be time on other occasions to spell out the details of these arguments and to discuss the mistakes that were made preceding the conflict. But I hope that I have provided enough detail to indicate the seriousness of the issues at stake for the future of Iraq, the role of the UN, the unity of the international community and Britain’s place in the world.

    All this makes me very sad. I believe that the Government whom I have served since 1997 have a record of which all who share the values of the Labour Party can be proud. I also believe that the UK commitment to international development is crucial. The levels of poverty and inequality in a world rich in knowledge, technology and capital is the biggest moral issue the world faces and the biggest threat to the future safety and security of the world. We have achieved a lot, and taking a lead on development is a fine role for the UK. There is much left to do and I am very sorry to have been put in a position in which I am unable to continue that work.

    I do think, however, that the errors that we are making over Iraq and other recent initiatives flow not from Labour’s values, but from the style and organisation of our Government, which is undermining trust and straining party loyalty in a way that is completely unnecessary. In our first term, the problem was spin: endless announcements, exaggerations and manipulation of the media that undermined people’s respect for the Government and trust in what we said. It was accompanied by a control-freak style that has created many of the problems of excessive bureaucracy and centralised targets that are undermining the success of our public sector reforms.

    In the second term, the problem is the centralisation of power into the hands of the Prime Minister and an increasingly small number of advisers who make decisions in private without proper discussion. It is increasingly clear, I am afraid, that the Cabinet has become, in Bagehot’s phrase, a dignified part of the constitution – joining the Privy Council. There is no real collective responsibility because there is no collective; just diktats in favour of increasingly badly thought through policy initiatives that come from on high.

    The consequences of that are serious. Expertise in our system lies in Departments. Those who dictate from the centre do not have full access to that expertise and do not consult. That leads to bad policy. In addition, under our constitutional arrangements, legal, political and financial responsibility flows through Secretaries of State to Parliament. Increasingly, those who are wielding power are not accountable and not scrutinised. Thus we have the powers of a presidential-type system with the automatic majority of a parliamentary system. My conclusion is that those arrangements are leading to increasingly poor policy initiatives being rammed through Parliament, which is straining and abusing party loyalty and undermining the people’s respect for our political system.

    Those attitudes are also causing increasing problems with reform of the public services. I do believe that after long years of financial cuts and decline, the public services need reform to improve the quality of services and the morale of public sector workers – the two being inextricably linked. We do not, however, need endless new initiatives, layers of bureaucratic accountability and diktats from the centre. We need clarity of purpose, decentralisation of authority and improved management of people. We need to treasure and honour the people who work in public service. As I found in my former Department, if public servants are given that framework, they work with dedication and pride and provide a service that, in the case of the Department for International Development, is known throughout the world as one of the finest development agencies in the international system. Those lessons could be applied in other parts of the public service.

    I have two final points. The first is for the Labour party and, especially, the parliamentary Labour party. As I have said, there is much that our Government have achieved that reflects Labour’s values and of which we can be very proud, but we are entering rockier times and we must work together to prevent our Government from departing from the best values of our party. To the Prime Minister, I would say that he has achieved great things since 1997 but, paradoxically, he is in danger of destroying his legacy as he becomes increasingly obsessed by his place in history.

    Finally, I am desperately sad to leave the Department for International Development. I apologise to those in the developing world who told me that I had a duty to stay. I shall continue to do all that I can to support the countries and institutions with which I have been working. It has been an enormous honour to lead the Department. It is a very fine organisation of which Britain can be proud. We have achieved a lot but there is much left to do, and I am sure that others will take it forward. I hope that the House and party will protect the Department from those who wish to weaken it.

  • Clare Short – 1999 Speech at Trade Union Congress Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by Clare Short to the 1999 TUC Conference in Brighton on 16th September 1999.

    Congress, I am very pleased to be here today among so many old friends. Labour and trade unions have come a long way together, united by our shared commitment to social justice for all.

    And I am proud to be here today as part of a Labour Government, for which we waited so long, which has – whatever our impatience – those values of social justice at its core.

    Social justice at home – to undo years of growing inequality and poverty.

    And social justice abroad – working systematically to reduce the poverty of the world’s poorest people.

    My job – heading up our Government’s efforts to reduce global poverty -takes me to countries with large numbers of malnourished and illiterate people. These visits have caused me to reflect a great deal on the days when equally bad conditions were common in the UK.

    I recently read a new book about the history of council housing and urban renewal in Birmingham between 1849 and 1999, written by a local historian, Carl Chinnlie outlines how Britain was transformed from the early 1800s by the process of industrialisation. It was a period of great change. Young people moved in droves from the countryside to the towns. The era of deference to the land-owning class ended.

    Both the middle class and working class established a new sense of identity and a new politics. Both were creating wealth and wanted to benefit from it.

    But working people lived in squalid conditions. A report commissioned on Birmingham in 1849 recorded that people lived in tiny, cockroach infested, badly built houses made of dirt. Water came from polluted wells, streets were uncleaned, cesspits overflowed. Women struggled to keep their families clean hut disease was rife and life was short. Birmingham was not alone. In 1847, average life expectancy in Surrey was 45, in London 37, and in Liverpool just 26.

    The history of the British trade union movement and of the Labour Party is the history of Britain’s struggle, first for democracy and then for social justice. A struggle to ensure that the wealth created by industrialisation was fairly shared by all people and that education, healthcare, decent housing and a decent income was available to all.

    Clearly that job is not complete. Our Government is working to reduce child poverty and increase opportunity.

    But many people in the world today exist in poverty and squalor as bad as that of British people in the l850s. I have, for example, recently visited Sierra Leone, where average life expectancy is 35; Bolivia, where 70 per cent of people are malnourished; and India, where one third of the population of nearly one billion people lives in extreme poverty.

    The parallel between the 1850s and now is very striking. Today, globalisation is causing massive economic and social change. huge wealth is being created but we are also seeing an enormous growth in inequality, between countries and within countries.

    The challenge of our times is to ensure that the wealth and opportunity generated by globalisation is distributed equitably; and that we seize the opportunity for a rapid period of advance and a reduction in the suffering caused by poverty worldwide.

    In my view, this is both the biggest moral challenge our generation faces and also a growing challenge to our own interests. If we do not reduce poverty, the conflict, disease and environmental degradation to which it leads will damage the prospects of the next generation, wherever they live.

    The challenge before us is huge. One in four of the world’s population – that’s 1.3 billion people – lives on less than 60 pence a day, without adequate food, clean water, basic education or healthcare.

    It is easy to feel overwhelmed in the face of such poverty. But that would be the wrong response.

    In recent decades, much has been achieved. Life expectancy and literacy are increasing; infant and child mortality is declining. We now better understand what works in development and how to speed it up. But, because the world’s population has grown so fast, there are more poor people than ever before.

    Faster progress is now possible and necessary to prevent the constant growth of poverty.

    At the heart of this Government’s development policy is a commitment to the international development targets – targets for poverty reduction agreed by the world’s governments at the major United Nations conferences of the past decade.

    The main goal is to halve the proportion of the world’s population living in abject poverty by 2015. Associated targets include achieving universal primary education, basic healthcare and reproductive healthcare for all, and sustainable development plans in every country – also by 2015.

    These targets have not been plucked from the air. They build on progress already made. And the development committee of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, which represents the most developed nations, believes they are achievable and affordable. But to achieve them we need to generate the necessary political will, and adopt the appropriate policies, nationally and internationally.

    Congress, what a wonderful opportunity this is! That within 20 years, we can have every child in the world in school, every human being with access to basic healthcare, every woman with the chance to control her own fertility. This Government is committed to using Britain’s influence to mobilise the international system behind these targets and the policies necessary to deliver them.

    Alter years of cuts to the aid budget under the previous government, we have reversed this trend. We have committed an extra £1.6 billion for development over three years.

    And we are improving the quality and poverty focus of our aid. Working in partnership with developing country governments that are serious about reducing poverty, upholding human rights and tackling corruption.

    But the new development agenda goes beyond providing aid. We must also ensure that the interests of the world’s poor are fully integrated into all areas of policy.

    Otherwise, aid is simply a charitable sop to make up for the disadvantages flowing from unfair trade and investment policies.

    Take debt relief. Britain has led the efforts to get international agreement on faster and deeper debt relief for many of the world’s poorest, most indebted countries.

    Progress was made at the Cologne G8 summit and I hope this will be finalised at the World Bank and International Monetary Fund meetings later this month.

    We are also working for a comprehensive trade round that advances the interests of developing countries. This is in the interests of British workers too. We all benefit from the higher levels of growth and investment that result from reduced trade barriers. And we will all lose if the world retreats into protectionism. We cannot reduce poverty without economic growth which must also be sustainable and environmentally responsible. The poorest countries need improved trading opportunities to reduce poverty.

    We have also been very closely involved in reforming the global financial architecture. The Asian financial crisis showed that major reforms were necessary – to deal with the problems of short-term capital flows; and to reduce the risks of financial and economic instability spreading across the world. A lesson of that crisis was that the high levels of growth achieved in East Asia were not sustainable in an Indonesia that did not respect human rights or allow trade unions to organise; or in Korea and Thailand, where the relationship between banks and industry was unregulated and corrupt.

    Congress, this is a very large agenda. And much of it overlaps with your concerns.

    We are all operating in a new, very different world.

    I often say that globalisation is as big an historical shift as was the change from feudalism to industrialisation. That earlier shift remade the whole political and economic landscape of the world. It brought economic growth but unequal benefits.

    And it gave birth to the trade union movement.

    It was the trade unions who realised early on that industrialisation was here to stay – but that it must be managed.

    And so it is today. Global economic integration and interdependence is a reality. We cannot turn back the clock. Our common challenge is to manage the globalisation process equitably and sustainably. That is why my Department and I have been talking with the TUC and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, to strengthen our ability to work together on these issues, particularly core labour standards worldwide. We plan to publish a joint statement on how we take this forward in the next few months.

    Today, I want to highlight three areas where I think future dialogue and co-operation between us is essential to forge a real partnership for social justice and development.

    First, core labour standards. There are an estimated 250 million working children in developing countries. Most are trapped by the need to provide income for their desperately poor families. But many children are engaged in forced, exploited or dangerous employment which threatens their health and mental development.

    My Department is supporting a range of initiatives in this area, such as the programme to remove children from the football stitching industry in Sialkot, Pakistan. We are also working with Juan Somavia to strengthen the role of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) in promoting core labour standards across the world.

    Your efforts, and those of trade unionists worldwide, helped to secure the unanimous adoption in June of a new ILO Convention on the Worst Forms of Child Labour.

    We have much to do to implement this important advance. We must establish programmes to allow children to move out of work and into school, and create conditions in which parents are no longer dependent on their children’s income. There is much to learn from our own experience of eliminating child labour.

    Secondly, the link with business. Here in Britain, trade unions are increasingly working in partnership with employers – to bring real benefits to the workforce, the business and the health of the economy.

    But dialogue with employers can also help strengthen the rights of workers in developing countries. Take, for example, the Ethical Trading Initiative, which is supported by my Department. It brings together trade unions, business and nongovernmental organisations to examine supply chains in poorer countries against an agreed Code of Conduct, which includes key commitments on labour standards.

    You have a crucial role here. Your members are the bedrock of knowledge about employee and employer relationships. You have vital links with trade unions in other countries. And you have a mutual interest in protecting the poorest and ensuring that globalisation does not lead to a decline in labour standards that threatens the conditions of workers in industrialised countries.

    A third key area is what I call ‘reaching out to the poorest’. The world’s very poorest people are rarely in the organised workforce. Of course, trade unions have an interest in organising the unorganised. But, like us, you also have an interest in supporting pro-poor economic development. The best of international trade unionism is about speaking up for the poor and the oppressed, whether they are unionised or not. Evidence suggests that high levels of economic growth in very unequal societies have a limited effect on reducing poverty because the poor only gain in proportion to their original share. Where societies are less unequal, economic growth has a much greater impact on reducing poverty. This is familiar territory to the trade union movement and needs to be taken forward in the poorest countries, which tend to be the most unequal.

    We also know that development proceeds fastest where there is an active civil society; where people hold their governments to account, demand that they do better, speak out against corruption, urge faster progress. Just as you are instrumental in pushing for social reform in this country, so must trade unions increasingly be advocates of economic and social reform in developing countries.

    We are rightly proud of the trade unions’ role at the forefront of the struggle to end apartheid in South Africa. And in Zimbabwe today, trade unions are the only effective opposition to the excesses of the Government. Trade unions worldwide can take heart from these examples.

    Congress, throughout this century trade unions have been at the forefront of advancing social justice in Britain and in many countries across the world.

    The challenge for the new Millennium is to advance these principles of social justice in a new, more interdependent world. To bring real advances in human welfare for millions of working people and their families. Trade unions are central to this.

    Strengthening the voices of the poor and the exploited across the world, championing the reforms that will improve their conditions and life chances.

    I very much hope that in the next year we will forge a strengthened alliance to take forward this urgent and profoundly important agenda.

  • Clare Short – 1983 Maiden Speech in House of Commons

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Clare Short in the House of Commons on 29th June 1983.

    I am grateful for this chance to make my first speech, as I prefer to call it, in this House. I intend to follow tradition and speak about my constituency. However, it is impossible for me to follow the tradition of not being controversial, for what is happening in my constituency encapsulates much of the harm done to many parts of the country by the policies of the Conservative Government.

    I wish first to pay tribute to my predecessor, Sheila Wright, who was the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth in the last Parliament. I am the Member for Ladywood and a large part of Handsworth has come into my constituency. Sheila Wright worked with me when I was a candidate and she was a Member of Parliament. For a long time she supported and helped me in my work. She is a friend of many years. She worked for the people of Handsworth for five years as a Member of Parliament and, before that, for 25 years as a councillor. The best tribute I can pay to her is the one that was paid during the election campaign by many people in the area who spoke warmly of her, sent their regards to her and remembered all the help she had given to them and their families.

    It is a great honour for me to represent Ladywood in this House. It is an honour for all of us to represent our constituencies, but in my case there is an added honour in that I come from Ladywood. I was born there, grew up there, have many friends there and many members of my family live there. Therefore I care about my constituency with the intensity with which people care about the place from which they come. I make the pledge to my constituents that I shall work with all my ability and energy to represent and fight for their interests for as long as I am here.

    The people of Ladywood are suffering terribly from the Government’s policies. According to the census of April 1981, Ladywood has the sixteenth worst unemployment in the British Isles. The male rate of unemployment then was 25 per cent. Unemployment in the country has doubled since then, and the male unemployment rate in my constituency is now 50 per cent. For school leavers it is 95 per cent. People say cynically that it cannot get much worse than being nearly 100 per cent. It can, because the period of unemployment is getting longer all the time; young people leave school and go on a YOP scheme—now being replaced by the youth training scheme, which will be no better, and in many ways will be worse, than the scheme it is replacing—and are then unemployed for ever-lengthening periods.

    In Britain as a whole, two out of every three school leavers are unemployed, as are one in four of all under-20s and one in six under-25s. A whole generation is being blighted. Of the total unemployed, more than 1 million have been unemployed for one year or more and more than 500,000 for two years or more. They are living in grinding poverty, and the hopelessness they feel about their future is destructive and intolerable.

    Long-term unemployment is growing faster for young people than for any other group. Of the 1 million who have been out of work for one year or more, 250,000 are under 25, and they comprise the group for whom long-term unemployment is growing fastest. That is damaging to the future of the nation. When we damage our youth, we damage ourselves.

    Half the population of Ladywood is black and half is white, and we are nearly all immigrants. I am a child of Irish immigrants. The white community is made up of immigrants from Ireland, Scotland, Wales and many other parts of Britain who came to Birmingham in more prosperous days to seek a better life for themselves and their children.

    The black population similarly came, more recently, from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Caribbean for exactly the same purpose. We are the same sort of people. We sought out our homes in the west midlands because we wanted to better our lives and those of our families.

    Now, everything they hoped for and came to the west midlands to achieve is being snatched from them as a result of the collapse of the west midlands in the recent past. In the 1930s the west midlands escaped much of the suffering that went on in Britain. Today the west midlands symbolises the destruction that is being done to the British economy by Conservative policies.

    We were told by the Prime Minister yesterday that recovery is patchy. Indeed it is; there are no signs of recovery in my constituency. As has happened in many other areas since the election, another major closure has been announced and unemployment is rising. It is not true to say that this amount of unemployment, misery and suffering is creating anything good. Nothing is coming out of it except pure destructiveness, and that is not only intolerable but stupid. It is said that productivity is going up. In fact, the less efficient firms are closing down; inevitably productivity goes up, but nothing new is created.

    Investment is at an all-time low. That means that we are laying down nothing new for the future. We cannot secure a recovery and a better future without investment and that investment is not taking place. The money that is available is flowing out of Britain to invest in other countries. We have North Sea oil—we are lucky to have it—but it is being wasted. I understand that £17 billion a year is being poured down the drain merely to keep people unemployed. These people want to work. They want to be productive and we must recognise that a large part of the nation’s wealth is our people and their capacity to produce. We are arranging things in such a way that they cannot produce. We are damaging them and ourselves.

    During the election campaign I was asked repeatedly, “Why are the Government doing this to us?” The people in the west midlands see clearly that there is destruction everywhere and that nothing new is replacing it. They said, “It is claimed that the Government’s policies are designed to reduce inflation but when we had inflation we all had incomes, our incomes increased and we lived better. We now have nothing and we still have inflation.” There are two rates of inflation in Britain and the one for the poor— for those who live in council houses, for example—is still increasing. Nothing is coming out of the Government’s policies.

    The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), the former Secretary of State for Transport, said that we must get rid of inflation to create jobs, but that is not true. Inflation has been decreasing and more jobs have been destroyed. We have seen that happen in the recent past and we know that we are not creating jobs. The policy is not working.

    In answer to the question that was put to me by my constituents, I explained, “We have an extremist and dogmatic Government who are deliberately using unemployment” — that is what monetarism is — “to reshape our society. They are using unemployment to frighten workers, destroy trade unions and cut wages. They have a vision of a more unequal society, a more competitive society. They say that from that will come more efficiency and, therefore, more economic prosperity.”

    The people of Ladywood, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I reject the Government’s policies. We do not want the future that they hold before us. It is not acceptable to us and, what is more, it is not even working.

    We frequently hear the excuse that the problem in Britain is the problem of the international economy, over which we have no control. It is clear from OECD figures and American Bureau of Labour statistics that unemployment in Britain has increased massively faster than in any other industrialised country. Britain led the world into recession, but an international recession is made up of individual national recessions. If in turn we each throw our economies into recession, we shall have, of course, a great international recession. We started it and similar policies to ours have been pursued in the United States of America.

    We can now start to undo the recession. We can work with international partners to change the world economy. There should be no excuse there. There can be jobs for all, and it is our duty and obligation to organise our society in such a way that everyone can work, make a contribution and get a decent income. Anything less than that is unacceptable.

    There are nine old people’s homes in my constituency, and I visited them all during the election campaign. They are all desperately short of staff. There are nine old people’s homes in a sea of unemployment. People are queuing for jobs all around them, but those responsible for running the homes are not allowed to employ more staff to take care of the elderly. That is the result of public expenditure cuts. Pretence is made that cuts in public expenditure are cuts in bureaucrats but that is not so. The cuts lead to reductions in the staff who can care for the elderly and the very young. It is disgraceful and unnecessary.

    The great sadness for the people of Ladywood is that they see what is going on in the knowledge that they have rejected it. However, they must continue to suffer because it seems that the rest of the country has to learn the hard way. The Government’s policies are not beneficial to any of us.

    Racial equality is important to the people of Ladywood. As I have said, half of my constituents are black and half are white. However, we are united in our need for jobs, decent schools for our children, decent housing and proper health care. We need to respect one another. We must respect all the various racial groups in our society and we must work alongside one another, or it will not be a good place in which to live and work.

    The black community in Ladywood has been undermined and hurt badly by the Government’s actions. The Nationality Act 1982, which was placed on the statute book in the previous Parliament, has made the black community feel insecure and unwanted. That includes the generation which came as immigrants and the generation that is growing up that was born in Britain. These people must be made welcome and be part of our society, or it will be dangerous for us all.

    Black people, especially those who originated from the Indian subcontinent, are harassed constantly by disgraceful immigration procedures. Many of them have approached me already to make representations. There are families which want to look after their aging parents and which can afford to do so. They have a house and they want to care for them. However, we do not allow Asian families settled here and which are prosperous to look after their aging parents.

    I am making representations to the Minister of State, Home Office about a case which encapsulates all that is wrong with our immigration procedures. It concerns an old man who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and the colonies. He fought for Britain in the first and second world wars. He was made a prisoner of war by the Japanese. He has come to Britain and has been refused entry. He is here on temporary admission while I make representations. That old man is shocked and astounded that the country that he respected, honoured, worked for and fought for will not allow him to come in as a visitor. That is what has been done to a large part of the population in my constituency and it is not good enough. It is not the behaviour of a civilised society and we can do better than that.

    I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion in a form that will reflect part of the speech of the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), who was the Foreign Secretary in the previous Government. The Government must not think that their increased majority means that they have a mandate for their policies. They were given a smaller vote than that which the previous Government secured in 1979. They did not win a great victory in areas such as Ladywood, where more than 50 per cent. of the people are opposed to them. The intensity of that opposition is great. It is not an exaggeration to say that the Government are hated in my constituency, especially their leadership. People hate them with vigour. This is divisive, destructive and damaging to our society. If there are not changes, I fear for us all.

  • Grant Shapps – 2013 Speech on the Labour Party

    Below is the text of the speech made by Grant Shapps on 31st July 2013.

    I know the summer is not a traditional time for political speeches…

    …so apologies for rousing you from your deck chairs…

    …but there is a certain urgency to what I want to say and less than two years left to get this message across.

    Since the beginning of this parliament, we’ve been working relentlessly to sort out the mess…

    We’ve cut a third off the deficit…

    … created 1.3million jobs in the private sector…

    … and cut tax for 25million working people.

    We’re supporting a nation that wants to get on.

    Making tough decisions now…

    …so that we can help not just this generation…

    …but the next.

    That’s the story so far.

    But what if the next five years told a very different tale?

    I’d like you to imagine for a moment that it’s the day after polling day…

    … the 8th May 2015.

    The sun is rising over the Thames…

    … the longest night of the political calendar is over…

    … and a new government is formed.

    History in the making.

    As the city starts another day, a car travels up Whitehall.

    In it are Ed Miliband…

    …and Ed Balls.

    Len McCluskey’s there too, of course…

    … After all, he paid for that car…

    … chose the passengers…

    … and put fuel in the tank…

    …In every sense, the back seat driver.

    Now, as the car slowly approaches the gates of Downing Street.

    The Skycopter hovers above…

    … capturing live the unthinkable nightmare that so many have dreaded.

    Yes – that’s right.

    After years of fighting off their radical left-wing policies…

    …And despite a gruelling, hard-fought campaign stretching back a generation…

    …It’s finally over for the Blairites

    Because they know, as we do…

    …how the bungling premiership of Miliband, driven by Balls, would inevitably pan out.

    And so I invite you to imagine…

    …if indeed your power of creativity can stretch this far…

    …that it’s the two Eds’ first day on the job.

    One man and his tempestuous Chancellor.

    A new day has dawned, has it not?

    You can picture the scene for yourself…

    Weak Ed Miliband cuts short his first bilateral to hurriedly address the irate calls of his Chancellor…

    …that it was a skinny latte, not a cappuccino that he ordered.

    And imagine Miliband sigh as the Downing Street switch connects the soon-to-be Lord McCluskey of Anfield…

    …with his third set of policy demands for the day…

    Because after all those rigged MP selections…

    …And the tens-of-millions of pounds in union funding…

    …Today – is payday for Unite…

    …And it’s gonna come with 1,000% interest.

    Because now, it’s starting to sink in for Ed…

    … he’ll be lucky if he gets to choose his own sandwich at lunchtime…

    …let alone his Cabinet.

    Meanwhile – there’s Ed Balls…

    Yes, think for a moment of Ed Balls.

    There he is next door…

    …unpacking his portrait of Gordon to hang on the wall…

    …and already thinking about measuring up for the Number 10 curtains…

    …As the country braces itself to relive the torrid nightmare of a Chancellor…

    …who is once again demanding to know…

    …when it will be his turn.

    On that first day they waste no time in enacting their manifesto.

    And it’s a package that comes with a sense of inevitability…

    Since Labour have already committed to billions more in unfunded spending this year alone…

    … in government, the deficit quickly begins to grow…

    …foreign investors soon take fright…

    …and mortgage rates – for millions of ordinary people – start to rise.

    In opposition, Labour opposed all the changes to tighten border controls.

    They’ve even proposed going further – planning a higher target for immigration.

    So back in government, immigration goes up…

    …bringing new pressure to our public services…

    … and fresh strains on health, housing and education.

    In Opposition Labour have opposed…

    …every single measure introduced to fix the welfare state.

    So in addition to reversing our own measures…

    …Messrs Miliband and Balls follow through on Labour’s pledge…

    …to make benefits a human right.

    Now, I’m not making this up –

    … Labour has actually been working on this policy…

    Which, taken to its logical conclusion…

    …could allow prisoners – serving a life sentence at Her Majesty’s Pleasure…

    …To be entitled to housing benefit.

    As they…and thousands more…

    …exploit the Human Rights Act…

    …to secure their newfound human rights to claim welfare, regardless of personal circumstances…

    … The implications for public finance are immense.

    Gone the fairness brought to the welfare system…

    … gone the incentive to get back into employment…

    … and gone the assurance that work will always pay

    Forget the cost to the state…

    …or to hardworking taxpayers…

    …because with the Welfare Party…

    …benefits always come first.

    But they’re not done yet…

    Next up, they implement their pledge…

    …to get rid of medical professionals examining care standards in our hospitals.

    As if to learn nothing from the NHS tragedies of Morecambe Bay…

    …or the appalling conditions at Mid Staffs…

    …Labour once again hand the most crucial role in patient safety…

    …back to those with no qualifications whatsoever in healthcare.

    So – they’ve returned uncertainty to the Health Service…

    They’ve brought the benefits system to its knees…

    … they’ve spent more…

    …borrowed more…

    …and created more debt.

    And after a while, these decisions –

    …real choices that Labour have committed to or worked up during this parliament…

    …come back to bite them…

    …and the rest of us.

    Imagine the concern of hardworking people…

    …as their council tax bill doubles – just as it did under the last Labour government …

    … leaving those on fixed incomes – like the elderly – financially vulnerable.

    And imagine the angst of parents as they start to attack – and close down – popular Free Schools…

    even though people in their own party – like Lord Adonis – have praised them as some of the country’s best.

    Meanwhile, as the deficit creeps back up to double digits…

    … the Paris based Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development issue a bleak warning on the state of Britain’s economy…

    …With the economic news worsening, in scenes reminiscent of some of our Eurozone neighbours…

    … the International Monetary Fund meets in Washington to draft its UK bailout demands.

    A nation is pushed to the brink once more…

    … Britain firmly back in the danger zone.

    Yet inside Downing Street the mood is only worsened…

    …by the endless television rounds of Lord Mandelson…

    …keen to offer his view.

    As they say in the Labour party –

    Things Can Only Get Better…

    …if only because they’d struggle to get any worse.

    Right, I think that’s enough dystopian torture for one day…

    So let’s get back to reality.

    While we’ve been working to get Britain back on track…

    Labour are on the wrong side of every major argument.

    They said that, under this government, crime would soar…

    … It hasn’t.

    … Crime has fallen by 10%.

    They said there’d be a double – or was that triple – dip recession…

    … There wasn’t.

    We now know the only actual recession took place under Labour –

    … and at 7.2% it was the biggest in this nation’s history.

    They said the private sector wouldn’t create jobs –

    … meaning a million more unemployed by today…

    … But they were wrong…

    … private sector employment is at an all-time high.

    The sad fact is, Labour loves doing Britain down.

    In every case it’s almost as if they’ve been willing the country to fail…

    You could almost sense palpable disappointment for Ed Balls just last week…

    … as, through gritted teeth, he acknowledged stronger than expected growth.

    It’s the single biggest difference between our outlooks.

    We can see a vision of this country beyond the boom and bust of Brown.

    A future where we continue to generate employment…

    …adding to those 1.3million jobs created in the private sector.

    A future where we drive up apprenticeships…

    …adding to the record number created since 2010.

    … And a future where we help businesses trade around the globe…

    …continuing record rises in exports to China, India and Brazil.

    We recognise that times have changed.

    And as a nation we can harness the opportunities this brings to our citizens.

    Take the humble phone in your pocket for example…

    Just a few years ago it was good for making an emergency phone call.

    Or perhaps sending a text…

    But today here in Britain, there are more mobile phones than there are people…

    These sophisticated online devices are changing everything about our lives.

    The built-in cameras capture events…

    … as three-quarters of Britain’s 34m facebook users access their news-feeds through their mobiles…

    They enable us to share projects and thoughts through social media, no matter where we are.

    Now, we can just as easily access TV and Radio from across the globe…

    … as we can discover what’s happening in our own back yard.

    Just this month, new payment technology means that if you leave cash and your credit cards at home…

    …you can still pay by simply touching your phone on a contactless reader in quarter-of-a-million UK shops.

    You can bring colleagues together for meetings using Skype or Facetime – from London to Bejing.

    …Who here shares my appreciation of the phone’s flash – which doubles as a torch – when you’ve come home late and dropped your keys?

    … and this morning maybe you blamed your phone – rather than your alarm clock –

    …when you overslept and missed the Deputy Prime Minister’s press conference!

    Today it’s a reality that we carry the world around with us.

    Of course this raises all sorts of complex questions for society and public administration.

    But as a government, we must be at the epicentre of the opportunities this brings.

    That means removing the digital-divide for all our citizens…

    …with the most ambitious rollout of fibre-optic broadband in Europe.

    And the faster deployment of 4G, which just this week saw 15 UK cities upgraded to a staggering 60megabits per second…

    …that’s a high-definition film downloaded in just 3 minutes.

    It means helping young people fresh out of education to set up their own e-businesses…

    … backing world-beating innovation from aerospace to computing…

    …and hi-tech engineering to pharmaceuticals.

    Yet in this changed environment,

    Labour leaders remain inextricably bound up with the past.

    Their addiction to wholesale union funding means they maintain an old fashioned, skewed relationship with trade union barons…

    … demanding policies…

    … fixing candidates

    and installing their leader.

    It’s a dinosaur world, that time forgot…

    …which would lead to them governing in response to the demands of a few.

    Instead, we’re governing for the many…

    … unencumbered by narrow interest and restrictive practice.

    …We look to the advances and opportunities from technology…

    … to unleash new jobs in brand new industries.

    It’s part of our overall package to rebalance our economy and get Britain moving.

    But it’s something which the same old Labour party…

    … wedded to their old ways and beholden to their union paymasters – will never match.

    Now, the last few years have been a struggle for people in this country.

    But they’ve led the way in sacrifice to get this economy back on track.

    Of course, down the line they’ll hear the false promises of Labour’s soft options and easy credit.

    But this country has been there before…

    … and it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

    So today, I’m here to remind all of us –

    …that if we give up on our recovery now…

    …we’d be handing the keys right back to the people who crashed the economy in the first place.

    Same Old Labour…

    …forcing Brits to live the pain again.

    So on that morning of the 8th May 2015…

    …I want to make one thing certain.

    Ed Miliband and Ed Balls must drive past those gates of Downing Street – without turning in.

    They’re off to the commiseration party at Labour HQ.

    t’s a vision we need to make a reality.

    Because if we don’t see this through…

    We’ll be condemning our citizens to relive the austerity gains of the past few years.

    And if we do that – we’ll be letting Britain down.

    I’ve absolutely no intention of doing so…

    …and nor does this Prime Minister.

    hat’s why, during this summer, Cabinet colleagues will be outlining what we’ll be doing next.

    You’ll be hearing from our excellent Home Secretary Theresa May…

    … the redoubtable Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith…

    … and ministers from across the government.

    Because we’ve got to continue the bold steps to recovery…

    …so that we can go to the British people in two years’ time…

    …and ask for their permission to finish the job.

    And we won’t throw away a single minute…

    …not even a single second in getting our country back on track.

    So when parliament returns this September…

    It will be clearer than ever that we have the right programme to take this country forward.

    We’re determined to do what’s right for our nation in the long term, rather than what’s popular in the short.

    We’re advancing to a brighter and better future.

    Because we’re on the side of hardworking people the length and breadth of this country…

    …And we must not let them down.

    …because they are relying on us to succeed.

    Thank you.

  • John Swinney – 2013 Speech to SNP Party Spring Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Swinney, the then Scottish Finance Minister, to the SNP Spring Conference on 24th March 2013.

    Conference, this has been a momentous week.

    Almost 80 years after our party was formed; 14 years after the Scottish Parliament was created; six years after this party entered government – our aim of self-government took another massive step forward.

    Let me start with a truth that we have all patiently put forward for decades, a truth that will play a fundamental part in the decision made by the people of Scotland on September 18th 2014:

    “By international standards Scotland is a wealthy and productive country. There is no doubt that Scotland has the potential to be a successful independent nation.”

    That is a quote from a group of dispassionate and impartial economic experts who form the Fiscal Commission established by the First Minister. These independent onlookers have conducted one of the most thorough analysis of Scotland’s economy that has ever been undertaken. We know that quote to be true.  Our job is to make sure our people share the confidence we have in Scotland.

    Scotland has strong foundations, perhaps some of the strongest from which any country has sought its independence.  Our opponents will try to undermine the self-confidence of our people. We must never let that happen.

    This Spring Conference is not only timely because of the announcement of the referendum date on Thursday.  It is timely because Wednesday’s budget confirmed the choice between two futures that the people of Scotland will face.

    The choice is between a UK system that, in the Budget short-changed Scotland, with a last minute cut to the finances Parliament has already allocated, locking us further into a no-growth austerity agenda; or, the prospect of taking into our own hands the vital decisions to stimulate our economy.

    In these last days of the union, we have seen the gulf that exists between our ambition for Scotland and the poverty of Westminster’s policies.

    We want to transform the life chances of our people. The No campaign want to keep our people in their place.

    In all the debate about Scotland’s financial future, one point is very clear: the real risk to Scotland comes from staying part of the United Kingdom.  By any measure, the Chancellor’s plan isn’t working.

    The Chancellor tells us he can’t borrow to invest. Yet he is going to borrow £244 billion more than he planned to borrow just to deal with economic failure.

    Sustainable public finances require a growing economy. That is not on offer from the UK – not now, not any time soon.

    The UK growth forecast for 2013 started off at 2.9%. Now it is only 0.6%.

    This is a damning judgement of the UK Government’s record on the economy.

    Conference, the Chancellor needed to deliver a Budget to kick start the economy.

    Instead, the Chancellor and the Scotland Office spent Wednesday afternoon claiming that they had given Scotland extra money, only for the cheque to bounce within a matter of hours. They’ve cut our budget by £100m, and replaced it with loans that we have to pay back.

    In eight days’ time, Scotland’s spending plans – democratically agreed by our own Parliament – will be cut as a result of George Osborne’s decisions.

    Scotland needs investment—not cuts. That is the price of being part of the United Kingdom.

    And to make matters worse, the combined effect of the Chancellor’s cuts will deliver a hammer blow to some of the most vulnerable in our country.

    Working tax credits – cut.

    Housing benefit – cut.

    Child benefit – cut.

    Child tax credits—cut.

    Council tax benefit—cut.

    Disability living allowance—cut.

    Employment and support allowance—cut.

    Child trust funds—cut.

    And unsurprisingly VAT and employee national insurance contributions—up.

    And the NO campaign believe this is an example of their excellent stewardship of the UK economy.

    The tragedy of this week’s budget is not simply the misguided policies of this Tory Government. It is the missed opportunity for Scotland.

    The contrast with the record of the SNP government could not be clearer.

    For six years, we have delivered careful management of the public finances.

    We have balanced the Budget.

    We have lived within our means. But we have also restored free education, abolished prescription charges, safeguarded the NHS, secured pensioners’ bus passes. And, for the sixth year in a row, we have frozen the Council Tax.

    That is a triple-A record at a time when the UK has lost its triple-A rating.

    But Conference, it has not been without its challenges.

    Along with our local government partners, we’ve plugged Westminster’s £40million cut to the Council Tax Benefit budget for next year.

    We’ve set up a £33 million Scottish Welfare Fund to administer Community Care Grants and Crisis Grants, reinstating £9 million of funding cut by Westminster in recent years to financially support an extra 100,000 vulnerable Scots.

    We’ve given £5.4 million to benefits advice groups to help them cope with the increasing demand for help from hard-hit families as a result of Westminster’s cuts.

    And as the First Minister announced yesterday all SNP-led local authorities will follow the lead of Dundee in halting the threat of evictions from this disgraceful tax for those struggling to pay.

    We have not stood by while Westminster cuts fall hardest on our poorest.

    But to the people of Scotland I say, in all honesty, we cannot, within our limited powers and resources, fix every Westminster cut. To create a fair and prosperous society we need the powers of independence.

    Conference, the foundations for Independence are clear.

    Scotland is wealthy, in numbers and in our people.

    With our geographical share of oil, Scotland would be ranked 8th out of the 34 OECD member countries. We are a rich country.

    Five of the seven countries that rank above Scotland are small independent nations.

    We are better off than the rest of the UK.

    Our population makes up 8.4% of these Islands. Last year we contributed 9.9% in revenues to the UK and got 9.3% in return.

    The difference is that Scotland was in a relatively stronger financial position than the UK to the tune of £4.4bn, or £824 per person.

    With independence we could have chosen to invest an extra £1.4bn in capital projects, creating jobs and growth, to save £1.4bn in an oil fund for the future and to borrow £1.4bn less…all of that – and we would still have enough left over to undo the bedroom tax.

    The numbers show that Scotland’s relatively stronger fiscal position last year was not a one off event.  Over the past five years, Scotland has been in a relatively stronger fiscal position than the UK as a whole to the tune of £12.6 billion.

    And when we look further back, between 1980 and 2011, Scotland has run an average annual surplus equivalent to 0.2% of GDP, whilst the UK has run an average deficit of 3.2% of GDP.

    That’s the true picture Scotland’s books present.   This country pays her way and has strong foundations for Independence.

    Conference, you will have noticed we have had a bit of a rammy over oil in recent days.  A rammy over oil is nothing new.

    The NO campaign have accused me of saying one thing in private about oil and a different thing in public.

    That would never do would it.

    Back in the 1970s the Westminster Government claimed in public that oil was volatile and running out.  But in private, the UK Government said something very different.  The Government’s Chief Economist at the time in Scotland, Gavin McCrone assessed the impact of oil.

    His verdict was this:

    “All that is wrong now with the SNP estimate [of government oil revenues] is that it is far too low”

    Well this Government will take no lessons from the Unionists.  We say the same thing in private as we say in public.  We say oil production is rising.  Investment is rising, now worth around £100 billion.

    Oil prices are higher than the Office for Budget Responsibility predicts.

    Scotland is estimated to be the largest producer of hydrocarbons in the EU.  The industry has the potential to generate between £41 and £57 billion in tax revenue between 2012-13 and 2017-18.

    We are on the cusp of another great boom in the oil industry and our opponents are at it again; claiming it is all going to run out; pretending that oil is a problem instead of the opportunity that it truly represents.

    Conference our job is to make sure Scots are not duped out of our oil opportunity for a second time in our history.

    Our opportunity is not just about oil.

    We have some 25% of Europe’s potential offshore wind and tidal energy, a tenth of Europe’s wave power potential, and an estimated 50% of carbon capture and storage reserves. We remain one of the richest energy nations in Europe.

    This represents a huge resource which if harnessed correctly will make an important contribution to the Scottish economy for decades to come. And as oil and gas mature, so the new technologies of renewable energy and carbon capture will be reaching their peak.

    There can be no doubt, that in the event of a Yes vote in 2014 Scotland will be becoming independent from a position of relative economic strength.  Having the ability to properly combine the assets of our people with our natural assets in the pursuit of a more prosperous Scotland can only enhance our potential.

    For beyond any one sector or industry, we have the strength of the people of Scotland and of our nation itself.  We have a strong intellectual base with many of our Universities regularly appearing in assessments of the Top 100 global places of learning.

    Last year a record 87% of school leavers sustained their place in education, employment or training. And youth unemployment is currently falling at its fastest rate since 1992.

    Our opponents only talk about what we “can’t do” never what we “can do”.  Conference, our children don’t have time any longer for Scotland’s defeatists.  We need to take control of our future.

    We have to explain to Scotland what is possible.

    That is why we invited a group of world leading economists, some of them Nobel laureate winners, to analyse Scotland’s economy and finances.

    Their 222 page vision for the macroeconomic framework of Scotland will

    – build investor and business confidence,

    – enable Scotland to develop sustainable fiscal policies,

    – and sustain an economy that enables Scotland to develop our own unique policies.

    It’s a robust structure that provides foundations for prosperity, fairness and economic opportunity.

    The work of the commission considers all the options that are of significance in designing the macroeconomic framework for an independent Scotland.

    They make the argument that retaining Sterling would make sense for Scotland and the rest of the UK.  It would give price stability and enable a future independent Government to use the full  fiscal and economic flexibility that comes with sovereignty to  change and adapt to new economic circumstances, promote growth and create jobs.

    A Sterling zone would provide a consistent and transparent framework to manage the transition process, and ensures that the rest of the UK would also retain an integrated market with a key trading partner.

    And Conference, far from all the rhetoric we know the UK Government accepts that it is possible.

    And I’m pretty sure conference that our £45bn worth of exports to the UK will bring them to the table the very moment the Yes ballots are counted.

    The Fiscal Commission also recommended an independent fiscal body to consider fiscal discipline.

    Scotland knows the hardship suffered when a country lets its finances get out of control.

    Westminster took us into the second largest structural budget deficit in the EU despite a decade of continuous economic growth. We know what this exposure led to when the recession hit. We see the impact on intergenerational poverty. We have nothing to be thankful to Alistair Darling for his stewardship of the UK economy.

    The Fiscal Commission also encouraged us to set up an oil fund.

    Norway has had their oil for forty years—the same amount of time Westminster has squandered ours. They formed an oil fund 17 years ago which is now worth £450 billion.

    We’ll save on the upside and deliver for Scotland’s pensioners and future generations.

    As the Commission makes clear, as a nation our economic fundamentals are sound – but, Conference and Scotland, we could do better.

    The sad truth remains: while many of our economic characteristics are as strong, if not better than the UK as a whole, we lag behind many other countries of a comparable size both on key economic and social indicators.

    The Fiscal Commission gave us a substantial and thoughtful route map on creating a sound economic framework for an Independent Scotland. I thank them for this work and I have some advice for the NO campaign. Read the report – you’ll learn something about how to run sustainable public finances.

    Conference, the Fiscal Commission also told us something else.  We live in a society of growing inequality.

    In terms of GDP per head, the UK is currently ranked 17th in the OECD and 28th in the UN’s Human Development Index – between the Czech Republic and Greece.

    Too many of our people live in poverty, part of a UK economic structure and society which is one of the most unequal in the advanced economies.

    Despite growth in recent decades, inequalities have grown rather than fallen, and the gap between the rich and poor has become greater. Those inequalities will only rise as a result of the forthcoming welfare reforms.

    Indeed, the OECD in 2011 showed that since 1975 income inequality among working age people increased more quickly in the UK than in any other OECD country

    Regional variations within the UK have also widened. Policy decisions have been taken at the UK level with little consideration for their impact in different parts of the UK.

    Every person struggling with the impact of poverty is a member of our society unable to play their full part in the economic life of our country. All this does is hinder our efforts to become a stronger and more successful nation where all have the opportunity to flourish.

    So our pledge to the people of Scotland is this.  The point of Scotland is becoming independent is to give us the power to boost the economy and tackle inequality.  That is what people can expect with Independence.

    With independence – Scotland would have control over new economic levers that can be used to deliver economic growth, boost resilience, achieve greater fairness and opportunity, promote sustainability and boost long term competitiveness.

    We can fully unlock Scotland’s job creation potential and improve the prospects of the people in Scotland.

    At the heart therefore of our case for independence is the argument for greater economic powers for Scotland to be able to grow our economy more quickly and build a more cohesive, sustainable and inclusive society.

    Scotland has proven its competence in managing the powers we currently hold. Independence will allow us to build upon this platform of trust and competence into areas of responsibility available to other comparable nations.

    With the momentous date in the diary, let’s get ready for a day when policies are no longer engineered in London and endured in Scotland.

    A day when we are no longer held back.

    Independence offers the people of Scotland the chance to make our country a wealthier, fairer, more sustainable place in which we can all to live.

    That is the bright future that lies ahead for our country.

  • John Swinney – 2003 Speech on Iraq

    Below is the text of the speech made by John Swinney in the Scottish Parliament on 13th March 2003.

    Presiding Officer,

    Two months ago the SNP led a debate in this – our national Parliament – on the growing crisis in Iraq.

    That day we set out our “deep and serious concern” that the UK Government was pursuing “an inevitable path to war.”

    Two months on I believe we were right then and we are right today. Tony Blair and George Bush are determined to go to war – regardless of the UN, regardless of world opinion and regardless of the evidence.

    The final proof was revealed this week.

    Before a single shot has been fired the United States is already inviting tenders for post-war rebuilding work in Iraq.

    So war in Iraq is now an economic opportunity for American construction firms. With thousands of lives, the Middle East peace process and the stability of the world all at risk that is nothing short of an obscenity.

    Much has happened over these past two months that demands further debate. Events which could shape the future of our world and our country’s place in that world.

    In recent weeks we have witnessed further reports from the UN weapons inspectors, an accelerated military build-up, intense diplomatic manoeuvring and a deadline for war.

    And yesterday the United Nations was thrown into chaos as the lobbying for war grew ever more desperate.

    But despite the frantic efforts since our last debate on January the 16th, the marches, the arguments and the counter-arguments, one thing has remained constant.

    The people of Scotland have not been moved. We – and millions across the globe – are saying to George Bush and Tony Blair: Not in our name.

    My position is that no case for military action against Iraq has been proven.

    I believe that any pre-emptive action by the US and the UK without a specific UN mandate would be contrary to international law.

    I believe that no UK forces should take part in any military action without a UN mandate that specifically authorises action based on clear, compelling and published evidence.

    At the outset let me stress two points.

    Firstly, I – and this party – will always support Scottish armed forces.

    Hundreds of Scottish-based servicemen and women are being deployed to the Gulf.

    Part of supporting our troops is telling the Government – the people who give the orders – when it is wrong to commit our troops to action.

    Our courageous and professional servicemen and women expect to be deployed as a last resort, when all other options have been exhausted. Today – with the inspection regime delivering results – that is patently not the case.

    The second point I want to stress is this. Saddam’s regime is barbaric. On that there is no argument.

    I find it offensive that those of us who oppose war – across all parties – are lectured to on the nature of his regime. We are well aware of Saddam’s atrocities.

    But so were members of the Conservative Government who approved the building of an Iraqi chemical weapons plant at the same time that Saddam was using poison gas during the Iran-Iraq war.

    So I’ll take no lectures from the gung-ho faction warning of the dangers of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. Those dangers have been considerably heightened by the actions of previous US and UK Governments. And they should be ashamed of those actions.

    Presiding Officer,

    More than 50 years ago the countries of the world came together in the city of San Francisco to establish the United Nations.

    Their primary aim was set out in the first words of the UN charter: to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.

    And crucially the charter sets out “that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest.”

    The common interest. Not the interest of the United States or the United Kingdom. But the common interest of the world as a whole.

    And nobody has given the United States monopoly power to decide what the interests of the rest of the world should be.

    That attitude is patronising at best; profoundly dangerous at worst.

    The proper forum for deciding the world’s common interest is the United Nations; not the Oval Office.

    And the United Nations has spoken.

    Any unilateral war launched against Iraq would be contrary to international law.

    In a significant intervention the Secretary-General himself, Kofi Annan, said only on Monday: “If the US and others were to go outside the security council and take military action, it would not be in conformity with the UN charter.”

    From the world’s top diplomat that is as damning an assessment of unilateral action as it is possible to get.

    And it is absolutely clear, as we debate this issue today, perhaps days from war – there IS no UN mandate for military action in Iraq. In the forseeable future there WILL BE no UN mandate for military action in Iraq. And for those of us who believe in the rule of international law, that means there should be – no military action in Iraq.

    Presiding Officer,

    UN Security Council Resolution 1441 – adopted by the security council on November the 8th – is not a mandate for war. Nowhere in that resolution – nowhere – is there specific authorisation for force.

    It is a resolution which calls for disarmament. It establishes an enhanced inspection regime. And it warns Iraq it will face “serious consequences” if it does not comply.

    Writing in the Herald this week Robert Black, professor of Scots Law at Edinburgh University said: “There is absolutely no warrant in principle or authority for maintaining that this entitles one or more of the members of the security council, as distinct from the security council as a body, to determine what those consequences shall in fact be.”

    And Professor Black has further argued that the recent draft resolution – the so-called second resolution – also does not constitute a legal mandate for war.

    “Any contention,” says Professor Black, “by the UK and US governments that Resolution 1441 (either alone or if supplemented by the draft resolution) legitimises in international law resort to armed intervention in Iraq is without legal foundation.”

    But we don’t need to rely on legal opinion. On the very day that 1441 was passed the US ambassador to the United Nations himself said the resolution did not contain any automatic triggers for war.

    In the last Gulf War, when my Party supported the then Government’s position, the UN had passed a resolution stating that “all necessary means” should be used to enforce compliance.

    The reason we do not have a resolution using the terms that authorise war is because the UK and the US know the security council will not agree to such authorisation. Why? Because the majority on the security council knows the case for war against Iraq has simply not been proven.

    Even the resolution of March 7 – which sets a deadline but still does not constitute a mandate – is not going to receive approval from the UN security council. Whatever happens President Chirac has said France will exercise its veto. Tony Blair’s reaction? This would be “unreasonable”.

    So we are left with the question when is a veto reasonable or unreasonable?

    Since 1980 on 14 occasions Britain has voted – along with the majority of the security council on resolutions relating to Israel and the occupied territories.

    On the self-same 14 occasions the US has vetoed those resolutions.

    Why is it reasonable to veto the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians and unreasonable to veto war in Iraq?

    But it’s not just France’s veto that Mr Blair should be worried about. He should be worried that despite all his efforts he has failed to win the argument.

    He’s failed to win the argument because no-one is clear what precisely the argument is.

    Last year it was regime change.

    Then it was the war against terrorism.

    Then it was disarmament.

    Then it was the moral case.

    And then last week President Bush went all the way back to the beginning again and said it was about regime change.

    If the US and UK can’t agree a justification among themselves, how on earth do they expect the rest of the world to support a war in Iraq?

    What the rest of the world DOES support is the inspection process.

    And the inspection process is starting to work.

    On February 14 Hans Blix reported increased co-operation from Iraq.

    On Friday Dr Blix reported further progress.

    On the question of interviewing scientists he said “Iraq has provided the names of many persons.”

    On the question of alleged mobile production units for biological weapons he said: “No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found.”

    On the question of destroying the Al-Samoud 2 missiles, he said: “The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial measure of disarmament. We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks. Lethal weapons are being destroyed.”

    On the question of chemical weapons, he said: “There is a significant Iraqi effort underway to clarify a major source of uncertainty.”

    On the question of time, he said: “It would not take years, nor weeks, but months.”

    So if the process can take months – why did the UK Government put down a deadline of 10 days?

    The international community has asked the inspectors to undertake an onerous task. Let’s give them the time they need to complete the job we have asked them to do.

    This week it’s become clear they are not going to be given that time. The US wants the inspections over by tomorrow. The UK by Monday. Both countries have rejected the Franco-German proposal for 120 days. Both countries have rejected the non-aligned proposal of 45 days. Why? Because the United States has decided to go to war. And nothing will divert President Bush from that path.

    I doubt there is a single person in this country who honestly believes the UK Government is in control of either the events or the timescale.

    It has never been more obvious. On this issue power lies with the US. And the UK, sadly, is now little more than an out-station for the White House press office.

    The British Government is now relying on what it calls six key tests – six conditions it has set Iraq to avoid war.

    One of those tests is for Saddam Hussein to appear on television. Last night a former national security adviser to the White House called that test “trivial.”

    And he is right. Tony Blair has to understand – demanding a television appearance is no substitute for a legal mandate for war.

    Presiding officer,

    As with all wars, there is one certainty. The people who will suffer most will be civilians.

    Innocent people will die.

    According to the UN up to two million could be left homeless.

    And 900,000 refugees could be created.

    In February the UN launched an appeal for 120 million dollars to cope with the impending humanitarian disaster. So far western Governments have pledged just a quarter of that amount.

    The British Government have allocated an extra £1.75 billion to the Ministry of Defence to fight the war. But the Department for International Development has not received a single extra penny to cope with the consequences.

    I have no doubt that many of those who support war do so out of genuine concern for the Iraqi people and the conditions they live in today.

    But I would have more respect for the politicians who put forward those arguments if they backed their tough words with hard cash.

    These are desperately dangerous times for the world.

    And these are desperately difficult issues to wrestle with.

    No right thinking person can have anything but revulsion for Saddam Hussein.

    But I – along with the vast majority of people in this country – cannot escape the feeling that what is happening in our name is just wrong.

    A unilateral strike on Iraq is wrong. Ignoring international law is wrong. Going to war without the evidence is wrong.

    Three years ago, in a widely admired speech, the now deputy leader of the Scottish Labour Party told this Parliament:

    “Please understand that the peace process is not just about an absence of war. It is about taking positive steps to resolve conflict.”

    As I survey the world today, I simply do not believe enough has been done to resolve this conflict peacefully.

    The next few days will prove crucial for all of us who live on this fragile planet. Decisions taken will have profound consequences for generations to come. Today this Parliament can make its voice heard. I urge Parliament to ensure that voice is a voice for peace. I move the motion.

  • Gerry Sutcliffe – 2005 Speech to the Trading Standards Institute Annual Conference

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Trade Minister, Gerry Sutcliffe, to the Trading Standards Institute Annual Conference in Brighton on 21st June 2005.

    Introduction

    They say you can measure your success by the amount of repeat business you get. Since May 5th the country’s invited us back for another term; I’ve been invited back to the DTI to be Consumer Minister again; and now, Ian, you’ve invited me back here.

    I hope this means I’m doing something right.

    So I want to thank you for inviting me to open this year’s conference for the third time in a row.

    Two years ago – Scotland.

    Last year – Manchester.

    This year – Brighton.

    Ian – I can see the pattern you’re developing here. So let me say right now I’ll be happy to carry on moving southwards and accept what’s clearly going to be your invitation for Paris next year. And Rome in 2007.

    This week you’re focusing on Delivering the Vision. Vision is very important to us. But so is delivery. And I think it’s clear that our vision, and yours, is of great changes for Trading Standards. These changes should alter the way enforcement is delivered, the way we interact with consumers and business.

    Launch of New Strategy

    The new strategy underpins what we’ll be doing in the next decade. It sets out a plan for a regime that supports both economic progress and social justice; that protects vulnerable consumers; and which supports markets that are open, competitive and fair, with opportunities for business growth and innovation.

    The regime will be based on proportionate, risk-assessed and evidence-based intervention. Instead of regulating and inspecting on a routine all-inclusive basis, we want to see more effort targeted on rogue traders, and a lighter touch for mainstream responsible businesses.

    We want to see prosperous, and fair, national and international markets, where both business and consumers can trade with confidence, and where everyone receives a fair deal.

    This new strategy sets out our plans to achieve these objectives.

    Some quick highlights:

    We’ll complete the rollout of Consumer Direct across the whole of Britain within a year.

    We’ve already said we accept Hampton’s recommendations. Which means we’ll set up the proposed Consumer and Trading Standards Agency by 2009.

    We’ll implement the conclusions of the “Less is More” report on better regulation. Measuring, and then reducing, the administrative burden of regulations.

    We want to see less attention paid to, and less effort spent on, routine inspection. In its place, a new priority on tackling the most urgent issues, piloting specialist Scambuster teams at a regional level to crack down on genuine crooks. More coordination and joint working across boundaries. And an additional £1.5 million, to be bid for in 2006/7 and 2007/8, to get these teams going.

    We’ll work to improve the performance framework for Trading Standards, rolling out the peer review process.

    We want to see an appropriate balance between the rights of consumers and their responsibilities. Protecting the weakest. Helping people to make the right decisions, including rolling out the OFT Consumer Codes Approval scheme, and work like the new TrustMark initiative, launching to consumers this Autumn. For the first time consumers will be able to make an informed choice when finding firms to undertake work on their homes or – through the VBRA’s code approval this year – on their cars. And I want the VBRA’s code to be just the first step to wider commitment by the motor sector.

    We’ll implement the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive – introducing a general duty not to trade unfairly. A new, easier to understand basis for consumer protection, with powerful new tools. – Which does not mean an end to criminal sanctions or a drop in the levels of protection.

    We’ll work to improve redress for consumers

    And we’ll work with the Commission to review consumer law across Europe, with a view to simplifying and modernising

    Consumer Direct

    Let me start with Consumer Direct, which is at the core of our new vision.

    Consumer Direct is here to stay. The future success of both Trading Standards and Consumer Direct depends on cooperation and working together.

    So it’s vital that we continue to build on the partnership we’ve developed.

    Last year I told you I knew Consumer Direct was going to be a success. Today, I can prove it. Consumer Direct is working. It’s already taken over four hundred thousand calls.

    But as we’re often told, size isn’t everything. Quality counts as well. Our satisfaction ratings are outstanding. Some of you will know these already, but survey figures show:

    Eighty-four percent of callers satisfied or very satisfied.

    Nine in ten saying they would recommend Consumer Direct to others.

    And it’s reaching new people. Three quarters of callers said they’d never accessed this sort of advice from any organisation.

    Just as importantly, we know Consumer Direct is saving consumers money. Between £150 and £200 each.

    We’re well into Wave 2. I’ve launched Consumer Direct in three new regions – the South East, two weeks ago here in Brighton; two days later, the East of England service in Newmarket and last week in London. Next week, the East Midlands.

    When all four are up and running – Consumer Direct will cover about three quarters of people in Great Britain.

    We’ve only got here because of the hard work and commitment from all of you. Let me thank everyone in Trading Standards for your support and hard work. But in particular I’d like to highlight the work of:

    Peter Denard and Clive Bainbridge in the South East.

    Ian MacLachlan and Mike Hill, East of England.

    In the East Midlands, Richard Hodge and Peter Heafield.

    And in London, all involved at the ALG, and Colin Perrins

    Eight regions running already. Three more to finalise. I know the West Midlands, North West and North East are making great strides as well. I hope to be signing contracts with all three soon. Now we know the service is delivering real results, we’re not going to hang around. Last year I said we’d be finished by the end of 2006. We’re going to beat that. I want the whole country to have Consumer Direct by Spring next year. And we’ll deliver that, together.

    Looking forward – once national rollout’s complete, I’m discussing the OFT taking over the leadership role for Consumer Direct. I’m sure this will be a logical and positive move. It’ll help improve cooperation, build better links, and make the best use of the intelligence the service provides. I recognise the critical role Trading Standards have played in developing and operating Consumer Direct. So do OFT. Both I and John Vickers want you to continue your ownership of Consumer Direct and your partnership with us in taking it forward.

    Talking about intelligence – we’ve now got the pilot phase of the central database finalised. We’re training Trading Standards officers across the regions in using the database. I expect this to quickly become a vital tool to support, and help target, enforcement activity.

    It’ll change the way you operate. First tier advice is now the province of Consumer Direct. You must meet the challenge of providing second tier advice. You need to be able to react to the complex cases referred from Consumer Direct. You – and other partners like Citizens Advice – need to be able to support the most vulnerable consumers, those that are in greatest need of your expertise.

    A fully operational Consumer Direct is at the heart of our new vision. And we see the new Consumer and Trading Standards Agency taking over responsibility for Consumer Direct in due course, as well as drawing on the intelligence it provides to help frame the direction of enforcement activity and inform the work of the Trading Standards service.

    Hampton & Consumer and Trading Standards Agency (CTSA)

    Philip Hampton’s report on reducing administrative burdens marks a new, more intense focus on regulatory services.

    The final Hampton report was published alongside the Budget. It said burdens on business could be reduced by streamlining the regulatory system to have fewer, larger regulators, with which business must interact. We accepted the recommendations, including creating a new CTSA at the centre of Government to co-ordinate work on consumer protection and Trading Standards.

    This is a major new step, with implications for all of you here today. We want the CTSA to be a strong, proactive body responding to the needs of consumers and business in the 21st century. It’ll be consumer-focused, but also ensure a fair trading environment for business, to drive competition.

    Philip made strong recommendations, and we’ve accepted his report. But he also recommended we consult on this, and we’ll be doing so shortly, seeking views on the structure, powers and role of this body.

    Let me give you a flavour.

    We already know that Hampton recommended that the CTSA should co-ordinate all aspects of Trading Standards work. This means it’ll cover issues such as fair-trading, product safety and weights and measures. It will not deal with work currently done by the Food Standards Agency, Health and Safety Executive and the proposed Animal Health Agency.

    Hampton also said the CTSA should include the consumer enforcement functions currently carried out by the OFT, as well as the National Weights and Measures Laboratory, the British Hallmarking Council and the Hearing Aid Council.

    An effective CTSA will meet Hampton’s call for a more coherent enforcement network. As well as its role in consumer enforcement, he said the CTSA should:

    Provide strategic leadership to the Trading Standards Service on advice to business

    Address consumer education needs; and

    Be responsible for a framework of minimum performance standards for you.

    We’re already making progress on this. The Audit Commission’s launching a consultation on the comprehensive performance assessment regime for England. For the first time ever, it includes trading standards performance measures. This is something that we’ve lobbied for long and hard, and I’m delighted the Audit Commission have taken it on board.

    They’ve included not only BV166, but DTI performance measures 1, 2 and 3. And they’ve included our suggested definitions for minimum standards. These standards are not statutory – they’re not a new burden – but they are a major step forward in making clear what we expect from the trading standards service. The CTSA will build on the work that DTI has begun.

    Hampton’s overall objective was to reduce the burdens on business. But setting up the CTSA provides us with an opportunity to ensure additional benefits not just for business, but also for consumers and government.

    Arculus

    Alongside Hampton, we’ll adopt the 8 recommendations in the “Less is More” report. Following the Dutch approach to reducing the administrative burden of regulation and its cost – first measuring the burden, then setting a target to reduce it. Applying a “One In, One Out” approach to new regulation. And a commitment from us to simplifying or removing complex, burdensome regulation.

    Retail Enforcement Pilot

    This and Hampton show the importance we attach to better regulation. We’re going to put our money where our mouth is. So I’m delighted to announce a scheme being piloted in Warwickshire and Bexley. This coordinates approaches by – and from – multiple agencies; sets up a model to pilot new methods of risk assessment; and provides a new feedback mechanism for companies, which will help rank both business and authorities.

    The pilot moves away from inspection and towards advice and education for the business community. We all want more compliant businesses. If we get better at telling them upfront what they have got to do, how they should do it and what help they can get, then we’ll go a long way to helping.

    And the pilot establishes a new mechanism for resolving conflicting requirements within and between authorities.

    Gerry Murphy from Kingfisher will be talking about this in more detail later this morning, so I won’t steal his thunder. But this Retail Enforcement Pilot is one example of how we can deliver substantive benefits in line with the Hampton recommendations.

    Legislation

    On the legislative front, we’ll be bringing in the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive – a general duty not to trade unfairly.

    I know this has caused, and is causing, concern for some of you. So I want to spell out again why we support it. And I want to knock a few myths on the head.

    We support the Directive because it will introduce safety-net legislation – a “general duty” – requiring traders not to treat consumers unfairly.

    It will fill gaps in our existing legislation and set standards to judge new practices. Simply put, it will give us stronger legislative tools for preventing consumer harm.

    Take the conmen who evade the timeshare legislation by moving into holiday clubs – same unfair practice, but a slightly different product. Suddenly timeshare legislation doesn’t apply. A general duty would have helped prevent that.

    Filling those gaps is a good thing – as experience around the world shows. Bringing this Directive in will help us meet our target. And it’ll help you protect the people most in need.

    There’s a lot of discussion about this Directive and what it means. And there’s a lot of misinformation out there. So I’m going to be blunt:

    People say this will mean an end to criminal sanctions. Nonsense.

    That it’ll be impossible to enforce. Nonsense.

    Less protection for vulnerable people. Nonsense.

    There’s a lot of detail I can’t cover here. But for those interested – my team will be holding a mini-theatre this afternoon.

    We’re also carefully considering the responses to last year’s consultation on doorstep selling. This is heavily linked to both the Directive and to aspects of the Consumer Strategy. We expect to make an announcement on our chosen way forward in the near future.

    There are many other aspects to our work – particularly credit, and progress on weights & measures and the General Product Safety Directive. They’ll all be covered at mini theatre sessions on Thursday, so I’ll just say a few words on each:

    Reviewing W&M

    On weights and measures, we’re continuing to progress our commitment to simplify the regulations. On food, the current priority is responding to the Commission’s proposals on specified quantities. Our stakeholders want UK legislation to await the clarification of the relevant European requirements – and of course we’ll be guided by that. But we’ll shortly be publishing consultative drafts of new regulations to simplify the weights and measures requirements on packaged goods. Good for business, we think. And less of a burden for you.

    GPSD

    On GPSD, we consulted on draft Regulations earlier this year.

    Your responses have helped us fine-tune them in some areas, but the balance of views from the enforcement community, consumer groups and business suggested that our proposed approach was broadly right.

    I know that some of you aren’t convinced of the need for the advisory scheme we’re introducing for recall cases. But business argued strongly for a safeguard and this represents the lightest touch possible.

    The legislation emphasises the importance of business voluntarily notifying safety problems and taking action itself to remove risks to consumers as an alternative to formal enforcement activity. Business will need to know about its new responsibilities. And we’ll work with you to make sure the message gets across.

    Consumer Credit

    The Consumer Credit Bill just missed out from getting Royal Assent in the last parliament – due to the PM calling a General Election. But I am very pleased to have been able to re-introduce it so early in this new parliament. It’s now making good progress, and I hope to see it through the Commons by summer. The reforms in the Bill will ensure that consumers are better protected in the credit market.

    We’re making great progress on the commitments in the White Paper on wider credit issues, including new legislation to establish a transparent market, shaping the European agenda

    through the Consumer Credit Directive, and taking forward work on tackling over indebtedness.

    All of this will help consumers understand their credit situation, manage their commitments more effectively, and help vulnerable consumers avoid the dangers of over-indebtedness.

    Conclusion

    I hope all of this reinforces our commitment to supporting the work that you do and the issues you care about. And our commitment to protecting the weakest and most vulnerable. But let me come back to what I said earlier – the way we all work needs to change.

    A greater emphasis on joined up-ness . All of us working more closely together; across authorities; with other enforcers; and with us. With the CTSA coordinating, prioritising and spreading best practice.

    More focus on intelligence-led work – cracking down on the worst rogues and the hardest-to-beat scams, drawing on evidence from Consumer Direct and other sources.

    Less routine inspection and more help for business. Working for consumers. Promoting competitive markets. And ensuring a fair trading environment, fit for the 21st century.

    Let me be clear here. For the first time in a generation, Hampton means you’re right in the spotlight. I want us all to work together to deliver this new vision. Let’s get it right.

    Finally, I couldn’t let Judith go without paying tribute to her leadership. The Institute has been blessed with some wonderful Presidents – Lord Ezra; Lord Borrie; and then Baroness Wilcox took the helm. I’ve seen first hand the drive and passion that Judith has given the Institute and all matters Trading Standards.

    The time has come for her to hand on her role and responsibilities to a new President. Judith and her predecessors are a hard act to follow. – But I am sure Lord Garden will relish the opportunity.

    Tim, you arrive at the TSI and the Trading Standards arena at a fascinating time. I’m sure I will be seeing a lot of you and I wish you and the Institute every success as we move ahead.

  • Nicola Sturgeon – 2015 Rural Summit Speech

    nicolasturgeon

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish First Minister, in Musselburgh on 24 November 2015.

    The rural parliament was established to ensure that the needs of rural communities were considered, debated and acted upon by government, by the wider public sector and by local communities themselves.

    Last year’s event was a major success, and I welcome the fact that next year’s parliament – which we hope will be even more successful – will be held in Brechin. I’m sure that they will be great hosts.

    For today’s rural summit, I want to do two things. The first – very simply – is to confirm that the Scottish Government broadly agrees with the five “asks” which you have just heard outlined. We believe that delivering them – in partnership with rural communities – will bring benefits for rural areas and for Scotland.

    We will publish a detailed response before the end of the year, and as part of that, we will make it clear that we expect all public sector bodies to play their part in meeting our shared aims for rural communities.

    The second thing I want to do – which will take a bit more time – is to set the Scottish Government’s ambitions for rural Scotland a wider context.

    The Programme for Government which we published in September – sets out our intention to create a Scotland which is fairer, more prosperous, and which has more empowered local communities.

    So I’m going to look at each of those aims – fairness, prosperity and empowerment – in turn.

    Because each in different ways demonstrates the potential value of the rural parliament. Although the aims we have for rural areas are often the same as those for Scotland as a whole – what’s often distinctive, are the particular issues and challenges which rural areas face.

    If you look at our ambitions for a fairer Scotland, for example, we know that in general – although there are genuine difficulties around measuring rural poverty – poverty rates seem to be lower in rural Scotland than in urban Scotland.

    But there are some quite specific problems in rural areas. For example – and I know this was raised in Oban last year – in remote rural areas, more than 1 person in every 5 lives in extreme fuel poverty. In the rest of Scotland it’s fewer than 1 in 10.

    Fuel poverty is something this government is determined to address – it’s scandalous that in a developed, energy-rich nation, there are people who cannot afford to heat their homes. So we are allocating almost £120 million this year to relieve poverty and improve energy efficiency across Scotland.

    But we know that we need to do more for rural areas. That’s why we have established a Rural Fuel Poverty Task Force – to explore the specific challenges we face, and to guide future policies. It will report within a year with specific proposals which make it easier for people in rural areas to keep their homes warm.

    Another example is housing. The Scottish Government is currently well on course to deliver our pledge of 30,000 affordable homes during this Parliament. That’s a record level since devolution. And one of our key commitments for the next parliament is to increase this still further, and deliver 50,000 affordable homes in the next 5 years.

    But we know that there are very specific challenges relating to rural areas.

    That’s why we have established a new rural housing fund. It’s open to community groups and rural landowners – meaning that they can take a more active role in meeting the housing needs of local communities.

    Again, it’s a specific intervention targeted at a specific rural issue – it will help to reduce housing costs, and enable more people to live in rural areas.

    Alongside our work to promote equality, we also want to build prosperity.

    The two go together – a more equal society, where everyone can participate to their full potential, will lead to a stronger and more sustainable economy. And we need a strong economy to fund the public services we value so highly.

    My view is that although rural areas face challenges, they also have great economic opportunities – maybe to a greater extent now, than at any time for many years.

    It’s maybe worth providing some context for that statement. Tomorrow night, there’s a reception in the Scottish Parliament. It will mark the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Highlands and Islands Development Board – now Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

    When that board was established, it was a time of great gloom about the economic prospects of the Highlands and Islands. The population of the area had been in decline for more than a century. Unemployment was higher than in the rest of Scotland.

    Times have changed dramatically since then. In fact, the population of the Highlands and Islands is now at its highest point in more than a century. The area accounts for 4/5 of Scotland’s total population growth since the 1960s. Employment is higher than the Scottish average.

    This area has a stronger, more diverse and productive economy than ever before.

    There are still challenges. But the successes have been significant. And one thing which is contributing to those successes is that if you look at the key sectors in our national economic strategy – ones where we see great growth potential for the future – they are ones where rural areas are well placed to prosper. For example they include tourism, food and drink, renewable energy and life sciences.

    So what we are doing is promoting those sectors – food and drink has been a huge success story in recent years, for example. And we are also providing the wider business support and infrastructure investment which will help rural communities to flourish.

    Rural rates relief benefits more than 2,500 businesses across Scotland. It’s an important way of alleviating the extra costs companies can incur, and of helping the sustainability of the rural economy.

    We’re making major investments in rural infrastructure. This autumn has seen the completion of the Borders railway – the longest new domestic railway line in Britain in more than a century.

    We’ve also started work on the dualling of the A9 – our largest road infrastructure project for a generation. It will bring major economic benefits across the north of Scotland.

    And the Digital Scotland Superfast Broadband project is currently making broadband available to approximately 7,000 properties every week. By the end of 2017, 95% of properties across Scotland will have access.

    I’m going to spend a bit of time talking about that, since I know that it was a major issue in Oban last year.

    To give some idea of how much we have achieved so far – 2 years ago, only 4% of homes in the Highlands could get superfast broadband. Now, it’s 59%. By the end of next year, that proportion will increase to 84%.

    But – and this is a hugely important point – we see that as a staging post, rather than an endpoint. That’s why we have lobbied the UK Government to introduce a Universal Service Obligation for broadband – it’s commitment to do that is welcome.

    And we have allocated £7.5 million to Community Broadband Scotland to work with local communities to reach the remaining properties in the Highlands and across Scotland.

    That actually provides a very good example of the value of the rural parliament. Earlier this year, the rural parliament asked for more data about the Digital Scotland programme. It wanted greater transparency about which postcodes weren’t likely to be connected under the current plans.

    That information is now starting to be released more quickly. It means that communities – if they’re not likely to be covered – can get on with developing alternative plans.

    We’ve seen a good example today of what can be achieved by local communities here in East Lothian.

    Community Broadband Scotland has just announced a grant of £150,000 to Humbie Lammermuir Community Enterprise – a non-profit venture which has been established to deliver broadband in the villages of Humbie, Fala and neighbouring areas.

    The initial project – using wireless transmission – could connect up to 250 homes. It’s a good example of how Government funding, combined with local initiative, can make a major difference.

    Improving digital connectivity doesn’t just boost economic opportunities; it transforms the way people live, work and learn. That’s particularly true in remote and rural Scotland – so we need to do everything possible to connect those areas.

    And I know that the rural Parliament, as you have already shown, will be an important ally of the Scottish Government – and sometimes a very challenging ally – as we work to do that.

    The grant to Humbie Lammermuir Community Trust demonstrates something else. It’s a good example of the fact that economic development requires more than central or local government investment. It’s often about local initiative.

    That’s why – and this of course is a major theme of the 5 “asks” from the parliament – this Government is giving communities more power to take decisions about issues which directly affect them.

    For example the Parliament passed a Community Empowerment Act earlier in the summer– among other things, it requires public bodies, including the Scottish Government, to consider how to engage with local communities.

    We have also a target of ensuring that 1 million acres of land were in community ownership by 2020. We have set up a short life working group to help us to achieve that target. We have also introduced a Land Reform Bill, and we are trebling the size of the Scottish Land Fund, which supports community buy-outs.

    And we are taking very specific steps to give more powers to islands and coastal communities. In September we published a consultation paper seeking views on specific proposals for an islands Bill.

    We’re also ensuring that when Crown Estate lands are devolved to the Scottish parliament, the parliament will in turn devolve power to local communities.

    We will consult widely on the best way of doing that. But we have already made it clear that Coastal and island communities will benefit from the net revenues resulting from offshore activities within 12 miles of their coast. It’s a further way in which we will ensure that local communities benefit from their natural resources.

    It is consistent with a wider vision for Scotland – as a nation whose natural resources bring prosperity to every corner of the country.

    The rural parliament has an important role to play in achieving that vision. It is also a further vital way of giving communities a stronger voice and a bigger say.

    By coming together, we can discuss and address the distinct challenges and opportunities facing rural areas. We can ensure that local communities have a real say in the decisions that directly affect them. And we can take steps which will improve the prosperity and wellbeing of rural Scotland, and of Scotland as a whole.

    So I’m delighted to speak here this afternoon; I wish all of you, all the best for a productive set of discussions; and I look forward to working with you in the months and years ahead.

  • Nicola Sturgeon – 2015 Speech at Jimmy Reid Memorial Lecture

    nicolasturgeon

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish First Minister, at the Jimmy Reid Memorial Lecture held in Glasgow on 24 November 2015.

    Thank you, Grahame [Smith, General Secretary of the STUC].

    You know, I sat quite a few of my university exams in this room. But I don’t think I’ve ever been set a bigger test than to follow what we have just seen.

    To give a lecture in Jimmy Reid’s honour – in the room, indeed on the very spot, where he delivered, what is undoubtedly the finest political speech in Scotland’s postwar history – is a daunting challenge. It is also of course an enormous privilege.

    I was privileged to know Jimmy, and it’s a particular honour tonight to speak in the presence of his family. I am grateful to them, and to all of you, for coming here tonight, and to the Jimmy Reid Foundation for organising tonight’s event.

    I’m going to start with the rectorial address you’ve just listened to – partly because it’s magnificent, but partly also because it’s directly relevant to what I want to talk about tonight. The reason that speech has endured – and you heard it very clearly in that clip – is that Jimmy, above all else, was making a moral case. He was articulating the values which he exemplified throughout his entire life.

    He argued that humans are essentially social beings. We flourish through contact, conversation, the contribution we make to each other and to our wider society. And so when people sign up to the values of a rat-race, when they allow themselves to be blinded to the misfortunes of others.

    And also, when things are done to people – when they are told they are expendable, or feel excluded from decision-making – it doesn’t simply cut their income. It corrodes their soul and diminishes their sense of self. So the basic principle of empowerment – through respect for individual dignity, and encouragement of individual potential – is at the core of what I want to talk about tonight.

    The title of this speech is that worker’s rights are human rights. I’ll spend some time looking at the UK Government’s Trade Union Bill – since it’s such an extraordinary and unwarranted assault on some of the social and economic rights we value and have come to take for granted.

    I’ll then make a broader case about rights; about our duty to recognise and cherish the value, dignity and potential of every individual in our society – and the fact that when we fail to do so, we don’t just harm those individuals, but diminish our society as well.

    But I want to start with some immediate context. Tomorrow, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will announce the results of the UK government’s spending review. He has a chance – possibly the final chance – to accept austerity is not a necessity, to change course on some potentially catastrophic decisions.

    For example, if all of the UK Government’s proposed tax credit changes are implemented, around 200,000 families with children in Scotland stand to lose an average of approximately £3000 a year. More than three quarters of the families who receive tax credits have at least one person who works. The cuts are directly targeted at working people on low incomes and their children. They hurt many of the people we most need to help.

    I call, again tonight, on the Chancellor to reverse his decision to cut tax credits when he has the opportunity to do so tomorrow. If he doesn’t do so, the Scottish Government will set out proposals to protect the incomes of low paid families in our budget in December.

    Obviously, the substance of the Chancellor’s proposals on tax credits is of greatest concern, but the process is deeply damaging too.

    There was no consultation before the Chancellor announced these cuts in June and no mention of them in the Conservative manifesto. The decision was taken behind closed doors with no opportunity for people to vote against it, and the full implications and will be made clear to families in letters around Christmas time. This is something which is being done to people – to working families and their children – with no opportunity for meaningful debate or discussion, or for them to influence their own destiny.

    If you reflect on the opening of Jimmy Reid’s rectorial address– its evocation of “the despair and hopelessness that pervades people who feel with justification that they have no real say in shaping or determining their own destinies” – it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that UK Government policy is not tackling alienation, it is breeding alienation.

    The tax credit cuts; the bedroom tax; the way in which budgets in recent years have impacted most negatively on women, those on low incomes and people with disabilities – These are things which are being done to the least powerful in our society, by a Government which too often seems oblivious to the consequences.

    And they are now being accompanied by other measures which seem set to strike at basic and fundamental rights – protections which are most valuable, for people who are at their most vulnerable. The proposal to abolish the Human Rights Act is one deeply regressive step; the Trade Union Bill is another.

    When Jimmy Reid spoke here in April 1972, it was towards the end of the Upper Clyde Shipworkers dispute. The work-in Jimmy helped to organise was arguably – in fact, in my view, unarguably – the greatest achievement of the post war union movement in Scotland. It asserted the fundamental right of individuals to work. It did so through a peaceful, positive, optimistic, uplifting protest which captured the imagination of people at home and around the world.

    It stands as an enduring example of how trade unions empower people; of how they provide a voice for those who might otherwise go unheard.

    The right to strike is an essential part of that, but the real value of trade unions goes much further. They help employers to create the safe, humane, productive working conditions which head off industrial disputes – and which build better businesses. Because of that, trade unions are a force for good in modern society.

    That’s certainly been our experience in Scotland. Industrial relations here are strong. The number of working days lost due to strikes has declined by 84% since 2007- that’s the highest reduction anywhere in the UK. Last year, fewer days were lost in Scotland, relative to our working population, than in any other part of the UK.

    And so the UK Government’s proposed Trade Union Bill is based on a worldview we simply don’t recognise. It sees the relationship between employers and unions as one of conflict rather than co-operation. It does not reflect public opinion here, or the reality of industrial relations either. It offers illiberal solutions to a problem which simply doesn’t exist in Scotland.

    And it makes an overwhelming case – one which both the Scottish government and the STUC made last year – for trade union law to be devolved to our own democratically elected parliament in Scotland. After all, that Bill doesn’t contain a single proposal, in my view, which would ever be passed by the current Scottish Parliament. In fact, in a debate two weeks ago, the Scottish Parliament disagreed with the bill by 104 votes to 14.

    It’s worth looking at some of the measures. The UK Government wants the right to restrict facility time. Facility time means that employees can spend time carrying out union duties – helping employees at disciplinary hearings, offering training, or meeting employers. It’s a vital part of partnership working, it is the embodiment of how we do industrial relations – it’s not an abuse which needs to be controlled.

    The UK Government also advocates a ban on public sector employers using “check off” facilities – that’s the payroll mechanism which enables union membership subscriptions to be deducted at source.

    Now the Scottish Government, as an employer, has been operating a check-off facility for years. The costs are so minimal that we have never charged unions for it.

    The UK Government intends to make our actions illegal. It’s maybe worth repeating that. The UK Government doesn’t want to stop using check-off procedures themselves; it wants to make them illegal for the Scottish Government to use.

    It’s an extraordinary and completely unacceptable attempt to control how we act as an employer. It demonstrates that fundamentally, the UK Government wants to discourage union membership. The provision has no other conceivable purpose.

    The UK Government also wants the power to call in agency workers to take over the duties of people who go on strike. And it has consulted on the proposal that picket leaders should wear armbands or identification tags – a proposal that quite frankly borders on the sinister.

    Liberty has pointed out that this provision increases the chances of blacklisting – something which has been a very real and recent danger for union members.

    Overall, in fact, Liberty has stated that the Bill “represents a severe unnecessary and unjustified intrusion by the state into the freedom of association and assembly of trade union members.”

    The UK Government’s own Regulatory Policy Committee has pointed out that key consultation proposals aren’t backed by any supporting data. The entire Bill is driven by dogma and ideology rather than being underpinned by evidence. That’s why the Scottish Government is part of a broad coalition – among the devolved administrations, the trade unions and wider civic society – we are, and will continue to be vigorously opposing the Bill.

    We have argued for it to be voted down at Westminster. We have proposed that Scotland should be exempted from its provisions. And since the Bill will have a significant impact on Scotland – including on how the Scottish Government as an employer carries out devolved functions – we will argue that it should only apply to Scotland if legislative consent is given by the Scottish Parliament. It is almost impossible to imagine that such consent would ever be granted.

    We will do everything in our power to frustrate this Bill. Finally, if the Bill is passed, and its provisions do apply to Scotland, the Scottish Government will not willingly co-operate with it. We will seek to do everything we can to continue the good workplace practices that the Bill attacks. Indeed, I can pledge categorically tonight that we would never employ agency workers in the event of industrial action in the Scottish Government.

    But in addition to opposing this Bill we want to do something much more positive. We want to exemplify here in Scotland that there is a better way of conducting industrial relations; one which is based on a different vision of society. After all, there’s a fundamental contradiction in the UK Government’s approach. The UK Government claims to want a high-wage/high-productivity economy. But if you genuinely want to bring that about, hostility to union membership makes no sense.

    It’s maybe worth looking at West Germany after the war. It developed what became known as Rhine capitalism. It was based on a strong sense of partnership between workers, trade unions, businesses and the public sector. Rhine Capitalism encouraged competitive markets, but combined them with strong social protections. As a result, the German economy has been characterised by innovation, high productivity and strong exports.

    That approach to the economy was based on a distinct vision of society. Article 1 of postwar Germany’s constitution places human dignity as the underpinning principle of the entire state. That feeds into concepts such as the constitutional principle of the “social state” – a state which strives for social justice.

    What we’re aiming to create in Scotland isn’t identical, of course – this is a different time and context. But the core principles are very similar – they’re based on human dignity, value and potential. We have put a commitment to inclusive growth at the heart of our economic strategy. We reject the idea that a strong economy and a fair society are competing objectives. Instead, we recognise them as mutually supportive.

    Of course we need a strong economy to fund the public services we value so highly.

    But it is just as true that a more equal society, where everyone can participate to their full potential, will lead to a stronger and more sustainable economy. And workers who are well educated and trained, well paid and highly valued and supported, will be more productive than those who aren’t.

    That is the principle driving our Fair Work Convention that was established earlier this year. It’s a partnership between Government, unions, employers and employees. It aims to promote productivity in a way that ensures that companies and employees all benefit.

    We’ve also established the Scottish Business Pledge for companies that openly embrace those values to show public leadership and commitment. More than 150 companies in Scotland have signed up. And we are championing the real living wage – last year there were only 34 living wage accredited employers in Scotland, now there are 400, and that number is growing.

    We have also published new procurement guidance which explicitly recognises fair work – including payment of the living wage – as important considerations when we decide how public sector contracts are awarded.

    Now, these are just beginnings – but they are very important beginnings. We’re starting to use the influence and purchasing power of government to send a clear signal. Progressive employment practices are something to be celebrated – not simply because they’re good in themselves, though they are, but also because they contribute to long-term economic and business success.

    And of course the basic principle that applies to businesses – that they prosper when their people are valued and empowered – also applies to society as a whole.

    Many of you will remember Jimmy Reid’s memorial service. Billy Connolly was one of the speakers, and told a story about going for walks with Jimmy in Govan when they were young. This was probably in the late 1950s or early 1960s. It resonated particularly strongly with me because many of the streets they walked are streets I now represent in parliament.

    Jimmy would point to a tower block and say: “Behind that window is a guy who could win Formula One. And behind that one there’s a winner of the round-the-world yacht race. And behind the next one … And none of them will ever get the chance to sit at the wheel of a racing car or in the cockpit of a yacht.”

    Jimmy put the same sentiment even more poignantly when he spoke in this hall – “I am convinced that the great mass of our people go through life without even a glimmer of what they could have contributed to their fellow beings.”

    Getting people to see that glimmer, and kindling it into a spark or fire of ambition, and then enabling them to realise that ambition – that is one of the key challenges today for government and for wider society.

    Indeed, if you were to ask me to sum up what I consider to be my mission as First Minister, assuming I am re-elected next May, it would be that – the mission of making real progress towards genuine equality of opportunity It will require sustained work to tackle intergenerational poverty.

    That’s why I’ve appointed an independent adviser on poverty – to advise and, more importantly, challenge my government to subject all of our policies to the test of whether they help tackle poverty.

    It’s also why our commitment to transformative, high quality and universally available childcare; and our determination to close the attainment gap at school; and our work to ensure that more children from deprived areas get to university are such important priorities for this government.

    But helping everyone to realise their potential, creating a society in which the determinants of an individual’s success are their own talents and their capacity for hard work, not the accident of their birth or their family background – that will also require sustained work to overturn stereotypes and challenge assumptions.

    Last week I went to two events, one after another – one relating to digital skills, and another relating to childcare.

    Both are hugely important – we will need thousands more digital specialists in our workforce every year for the next decade, and we will also need many more childcare workers.

    But if we proceed as we always have done – 80% of the new digital workers will be men, and more than 90% of the child care workers will be women. It would be wrong to proceed as we have done. That’s why I put such emphasis on gender equality and the need to tackle gender stereotypes.

    Similarly, we know we need many more doctors over the coming years. But if we proceed as we have in the past, only 1 in 20 will come from the most disadvantaged areas, rather than the 1 in 5 that equality of opportunity would demand. That’s why the work I’ve put in train through the Commission for Widening Access to university is so important.

    Because the facts that I have just cited don’t reflect the real talents of people in Scotland – instead, they reflect social circumstance and entrenched assumption.

    And the truth is this – we simply can’t afford as a society, morally or economically, to squander so much of our talent. The price is too high.

    I was incredibly fortunate when I was growing up, to have parents who instilled an absolute belief that if I wanted to, had the ability and worked hard enough, I could go to university and achieve my dreams. I’m all too aware that too many people still – more than 30 years later – aren’t that fortunate.

    So there’s a responsibility on all of us to encourage each other’s ambitions, and also to vigorously challenge society’s barriers and stereotypes.

    And there’s a particular obligation for Government in everything we have responsibility for – whether it’s – support for pregnant mothers, or care for older people; tackling the inequities in our education system ; reducing reoffending, or developing a new welfare system; promoting equal marriage rights, or resettling refugees.

    There is an fundamental human right and an obligation to demonstrate that we value the dignity and recognise the potential of every individual. It’s an important part of empowering our people and our communities.

    One of the things which came to define the referendum debate last year was not just a desire, but a yearning, for a better society – not just a more prosperous society, but also a fairer one country as well. That wasn’t confined to those who voted yes – it was shared across the entire country.

    And one of the things which also changed last year was that we all got to see that alternative futures for Scotland are possible. As a nation we could see what every individual would ideally know from birth – that we control our own fate; that with hard work, the sky is the limit.

    I see it as my job, and the job of my government to take that sense of possibility, and to help people experience it in their day to day lives. Our great challenge – and opportunity – is to ensure that:

    Schoolchildren thinking about their future know that if they work hard, they can achieve their dreams;

    That workers have a real voice in how their employers operate; That their rights are not expendable; that welfare recipients are spoken to as human beings, not scrutinised as cheats;

    That people who run small businesses get encouragement to grow;

    That citizens have a say in the future of their communities;

    That older people receive the support and care they need to live with security and dignity. That is the society we should be striving for.

    Jimmy Reid rejected a society where human beings are told that they are expendable; where ordinary people are excluded from the forces of decision-making; where people feel themselves to be victims of forces beyond their control.

    We must reject a society where workers’ rights are derided; where inequality is unchecked; where working families wait to get letters telling them their income is being cut by thousands of pounds.

    Instead, we can build a better society, based on respecting rights, recognising dignity and encouraging and, crucially, enabling each other’s potential.

    Near the beginning of my speech I quoted some of the opening words of Jimmy Reid’s rectorial address. I want to end with the final verse of the final song which was played at his memorial service. It was Paul Robeson’s wonderful version of “Ode to Joy”. It speaks of a society where:

    None shall push aside another

    None shall let another fall.

    March beside me, sisters and brothers

    All for one and one for all.

    The verse represents the antithesis of the rat race Jimmy Reid rejected. Its vision – of individuals making progress through solidarity – is the one which he worked towards throughout his life.

    My hope is that we in Scotland can make much more progress towards it in the years ahead. If we do, we will live in a wealthier, fairer, better nation. And we will have built a fitting memorial to the wonderful, inspiring and challenging legacy of the great and irreplaceable Jimmy Reid.

  • Nicola Sturgeon – 2012 Speech to SNP Party Conference

    nicolasturgeon

    Below is the text of the speech made by Nicola Sturgeon to the 2012 SNP Party Conference on 21st October 2012.

    I am immensely proud of what was achieved in the past 5 years – not by me, but by those who work day and daily to care for the sick and vulnerable.

    Today, in our Scottish Health Service, we have the lowest waiting times on record. We have the lowest ever rates of hospital infection. Patient care is safer than ever.

    And, unlike in England, our NHS is secure as a public service.

    There will be no privatisation of the NHS in Scotland – not by this government. Not now, not ever.

    Today, I want to pay a personal tribute to our National Health Service. To all of the doctors, nurses, managers, allied health professionals, cleaners, auxiliaries – to everyone who works so hard – I say a heartfelt thank you.

    I owe you a debt of gratitude. We all owe you a debt of gratitude.

    Delegates,

    Moving on from the NHS was always going to provoke mixed emotions in me.

    But there were no mixed emotions about accepting the First Minister’s invitation to be the new Cabinet Secretary for Infrastructure and the Constitution.

    My first job was to agree the transfer of power that puts beyond doubt the ability of our Parliament to legislate for an independence referendum.

    That job was started by Bruce Crawford and I want to take this opportunity today, on behalf of the whole party, to thank Bruce for his excellent and vital contribution to the Scottish Government over the the past five years.

    Delegates,

    As you know, the agreement with the UK government was signed on Monday.

    I have it here.

    An original, signed copy of the Edinburgh Agreement.

    Delegates,

    This piece of paper allows me to stand here before you and say, without a shadow of doubt, that there will be an independence referendum.

    It will be in the autumn of 2014.

    And just as we promised, it will be a referendum made here in Scotland.

    Young people who can marry, have kids and pay taxes will get the right to vote on the future of our country.

    Not to give us an advantage.

    But because votes for 16 and 17 year olds is the right thing to do.

    There will be just one question on the ballot paper.

    One question.

    And to that one question, there is only one answer.

    That answer is Yes.

    Delegates,

    This will be a referendum made in Scotland.

    And it must also be a referendum decided fairly and squarely.

    The issue that most exercised the UK government during the negotiations was campaign funding.

    They think that the limits proposed in our consultation are too low.

    Well, let me be clear. We will set the spending limits with care. We will listen to our consultation. We will listen to the Electoral Commission. We will listen to both campaign organisations.

    And then we will take a decision that is right for Scotland. A decision that guarantees a level playing field and a fair contest.

    Make no mistake, this time around, Scotland’s future will not be bought and sold for anyone’s gold.

    Delegates,

    Our government’s top priority is economic growth.

    The GDP and employment figures this week remind us just how fragile our economy is.

    As a government we are doing everything we can to get the economy growing again.

    But as we push in one direction, Westminster pulls in the other.

    Last week, David Cameron stood up at his party conference and said that, despite all the problems in the economy, he thought that Britain was on the right track.

    He made that claim less than 24 hours after the IMF predicted that the economy will shrink this year.

    And this week we had the sorry spectacle of the Prime Minister making a complete mess of energy policy.

    As families face rising bills, David Cameron came up with a plan that quickly looked more like a practical joke than a practical policy.

    Unfortunately, energy price regulation is reserved.

    But where we can act, we do.

    So while the fuel poverty budget is being cut to zero in England, our government will invest £200m in this and the next two years to tackle fuel poverty.

    That is real, tangible help to the people of Scotland from this Scottish government.

    Delegates,

    The hard fact is that the Tories have failed Scotland.

    And the overwhelming case for our independence is made all the stronger by the unfair, destructive, self-defeating policies of this arrogant, incompetent, out of touch Tory government.

    We need a change of direction.

    If we are to get our economy back to long term health, get our people back to work, create opportunities for our young people and make sure that our nation’s wealth is used to build a stronger and fairer society, then we need control of our own resources. We need the power to take our own decisions. We need independence.

    Without it, we are working with one hand tied behind our back. While we want to invest in the modern infrastructure our country needs, the Tories are slashing our capital budget by one third.

    And they are doing it at a time when we should be supporting our construction industry, not attacking it. Creating jobs, not destroying them.

    Delegates,

    Housing investment benefits the construction sector but it also delivers a vitally important social return.

    As a government, we have a proud record on housing.

    In the last Parliament, we increased investment by 40% compared to the previous administration.

    We built more houses for social rent.

    And it was this government – our government – that started a new generation of council house building in Scotland.

    Just last year, councils built more than 1000 houses.

    Do you remember how many council houses Labour built in their last four years in office?

    Let me remind you. It was 6. A grand total of 6 council houses – each and every one of them in Shetland.

    That is why this party will never, ever, take lessons from Labour on housing.

    Today, I can announce a further shot in the arm for house building in Scotland. A boost for the construction industry that so badly needs our help and support.

    Thanks to the sound decisions announced by John Swinney in his budget last month, I can announce a package of £45 million that will go directly to supporting the delivery of 1,200 new houses across councils, housing associations and the private sector.

    Action that will protect up to 800 jobs.

    Action from a government doing everything in our power to get our economy moving.

    Delegates,

    We are doing everything we can but our economy needs more.

    So I have a very direct message for the Chancellor today. A message on behalf of every construction firm clinging on by their fingertips, on behalf of every unemployed person desperate for some light at the end of the tunnel.

    Our economy needs a capital stimulus and it needs it now.

    If the Chancellor cares about getting growth back in our economy, if he cares about getting people into work and giving our young people hope of a brighter future, then listen – not to us – but to the growing band of economists and business organisations who say it is time to take a different course.

    Use the Autumn budget statement to increase capital spending and accept, once and for all, that we will not cut our way out of this recession.

    We must build our way out of recession.

    Delegates,

    I don’t meet many people who think the economic policies of successive UK governments have been good for Scotland.

    But I do meet people who ask, how do we know independence will be better?

    Friends, there is no country in the world – big or small – that is guaranteed success.

    But the combination of our natural resources and the skills and intelligence of our people make us just as capable as any other nation in the world of being a successful, prosperous independent country.

    That Scotland could thrive as an independent nation is not, never has been, never should be in doubt.

    And shame on any politician who ever suggests that it is.

    But we’re not nationalists just because we believe Scotland could be independent.

    We are nationalists because we believe Scotland should be independent.

    For us, independence is the means by which we build a wealthier, healthier and fairer Scotland.

    The last Government Expenditure and Revenue calculations – the GERS figures as they are commonly known – showed that in 2010/11, Scotland was better off than the rest of the UK to the tune of £2.7 billion.

    That’s £500 for every person in Scotland.

    Delegates,

    Only independence will ensure that, in future, Scotland’s resources are invested for the benefit of Scotland’s people.

    Never before has it been more important to make and win that argument.

    In the last few weeks, we have seen the emergence of a new Tory/Labour effort to write Scots off as subsidy junkies.

    According to Johann Lamont, we have a something for nothing culture.

    Ruth Davidson says that nine out of ten of us make no contribution and are little more than scroungers on the state.

    What an insult to each and every hard-working, law-abiding, tax-paying citizen of this country.

    Now, I don’t expect any better of the Tories. But what has happened to Labour?

    The truth is Scotland doesn’t have a Labour Party and a Tory Party any more.

    What we have is the Thatcherite Tories of Ruth Davidson and the one nation Tories of Johann Lamont.

    One Scotland, two Tory parties.

    Labour should be ashamed of itself.

    Delegates,

    The unionist parties don’t just oppose independence – they want to roll back the hard won gains of devolution as well.

    Free personal care, medicines free at the point of need, bus travel for pensioners, education based on the ability to learn not the ability to pay.

    These are not signs of a something for nothing society.

    They are the hallmarks of a decent society and we will fight to protect them.

    And to those who say they can’t be afforded when the Tories are cutting our budget, we say this.

    The answer to Tory cuts is not to hit the elderly, the sick, the struggling family or the young person aspiring to a university education.

    The answer to Tory cuts is to control our own resources.

    Control our own resources so that we can get our economy growing.

    Control our own resources so that we can choose the priorities of our people over weapons of mass destruction on the river Clyde.

    Delegates,

    We will be better off with independence.

    Not just economically. We will be better off as a society too.

    The welfare reform agenda of the UK government is a real cause for concern.

    Not because its wrong to encourage people into work. I agree that the best route out of poverty is work.

    But I do not agree with that being used as the excuse for crude budget cuts that will hit the disabled and the vulnerable hardest.

    Last month, Citizens Advice reported that the number of Scots needing food parcels had doubled as a result of welfare changes and benefit delays.

    Food parcels in energy rich Scotland.

    That is unacceptable. It offends our sense of decency.

    And if that is what our opponents mean by better together, then I say the case for independence is unanswerable.

    Because, you see, I don’t accept that it is inevitable.

    Yes, money is tight. Yes, Labour and the Tories have put us in debt.

    But there are still choices to be made.

    In his last budget, George Osborne made a choice for us.

    He chose to cut the top rate of tax for people earning over £150,000 a year from 50 to 45p.

    A tax cut that will cost more than £10 billion over the next three years. A tax break funded by cuts in welfare for the poorest.

    Delegates,

    That is just wrong.

    Its robbing Peter to pay Paul. Except that’s probably not the best way to describe it. Because while those who benefit from top rate tax cuts are usually men, those who are hit hardest by welfare cuts are women and children.

    Delegates,

    I do not believe that would ever be Scotland’s choice.

    That is why each and every one of us has a duty to explain to our friends and our neighbours the reality of independence.

    It’s not about waving flags.

    It’s about the kind of society we want to build for ourselves and our children.

    Independence is about having the powers we need to eradicate, once and for all, the obscenity of child poverty in our rich society.

    Delegates,

    Make no mistake, we need independence to ensure that we have a welfare state that reflects our values.

    But, as a government, we are determined to do everything we can now to mitigate the worst impacts of these cuts.

    Next April, responsibility for the Social Fund passes from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament. The Social Fund comprises Community Care Grants, small amounts of money to help vulnerable people live independently, and Crisis Grants for people who have nowhere else to turn and who need access to small lifeline grants to provide the basics like food for their children.

    I welcome the transfer of responsibility. But the amount of money being transferred with it – £24m – is less than was spent on the Social Fund back in 2005.

    Delegates,

    I can announce today that we will replace the Social Fund with a new Scottish Welfare Fund.

    And we will go further.

    We will reverse the cuts that have been made to that Fund by both Labour and Tory governments.

    We will increase it by £9 million and provide essential crisis support in these difficult times for 100,000 more of our most vulnerable people.

    Our Scottish Government will not desert any of Scotland’s people in times of need.

    Friends,

    The case for independence is strong and it is compelling.

    Over these next two years, we will set out for the people of Scotland the opportunities of independence.

    But we will also set out the cost of Scotland not being independent.

    Without independence, regardless of which unionist party is in power, billions more of our oil revenues will be spent on Westminster priorities rather than on our own.

    We will see our welfare state continue to be dismantled.

    And, make no mistake, promises of more powers will disappear without trace because Westminster will think it has put Scotland firmly back in its box.

    And, without independence, we will have to bear the cost of a new generation of nuclear weapons on the river Clyde when we should be getting rid of Trident from Scottish waters once and for all.

    Delegates,

    The stakes are high but the choice is clear.

    It is a choice of two futures.

    A future shaped by those of us who live and work here. A future that reflects our values and speaks to who we are. Or a future shaped by a Westminster system that is increasingly out of touch with Scotland and the values we hold dear.

    I trust – we trust – that the Scottish people will make the right choice and their answer will be yes.

    Friends,

    Our opponents will do everything they can to misrepresent what we stand for.

    But we know and Scotland knows that our cause is a noble one. The Scotland we seek is modern, welcoming and inclusive.

    We want a new relationship of equals with our friends in the rest of the UK. One that is based on co-operation and solidarity.

    I am as proud a Scot as its possible to be. I’m also the grand-daughter of an English-woman. I represent a constituency where, in one primary school alone, more than 20 different languages are spoken.

    Some of the strongest supporters of independence I know are people who have come to Scotland from other countries.

    They understand that important though national identity is to each and every one of us – be it Scottish, English, Irish, British, European, Pakistani, whatever – that’s not what independence is about.

    Independence is about making sure that those of us who choose to live here have the political, social and economic powers that we need to build a prosperous, successful, confident and outward looking country.

    That is our independence and we are proud to champion it.

    Delegates,

    I often imagine visiting that multi-lingual school in my constituency ten years from now to speak to children who aren’t yet born about the days before Scotland was independent.

    I imagine the look of incredulity on their faces as they struggle to comprehend that their country was ever not independent.

    And the really wonderful thing is knowing that no-one will ever tell these kids that Scotland is too wee, too poor or too stupid to stand on our own two feet.

    No-one will tell them that because we will have proved it wrong and they will be the living embodiment of the modern, successful country we know an independent Scotland can be.

    Delegates,

    That dream can become our reality. That is the prize now within our grasp.

    Be under no illusion, the next two years will be the toughest of our political lives. We’ve got a lot of work to do.

    But when did we ever let that put us off? If we had, I wouldn’t be standing here as Deputy First Minister and Alex Salmond would not be the outstanding First Minister of Scotland that he is today.

    We won a majority last year because we had the best record, the best team and the best vision for Scotland.

    And we will win the independence referendum because we will put forward the best case, the strongest case, the positive case for our country’s future.

    Fellow nationalists,

    We are so lucky.

    Not many people get the chance to shape a nation.

    And yet this is the opportunity that each and every one of us has been given.

    What a privilege for our generation of Scots.

    So let us make this promise today, to ourselves and to future generations.

    We will win our independence.

    Yes, we will.