Tag: Speeches

Below is the text of the speech made by Philip Hammond, the Foreign Secretary, on 10 November 2015 at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC, USA.

Thank you very much Dr Brooks for your kind introduction. I’m delighted to be here at the American Enterprise Institute.

You are rightly regarded as one of the most influential think tanks. The work that you do here has a real-world impact. Papers become policy. In Republican and Democrat administrations.

I also welcome the AEI board members who are here today. The fact that so many influential and busy individuals regularly take the time to hear not only from external speakers, but also from AEI scholars, is testament to your reputation for high quality and relevant work.

I haven’t come here by chance. I have come here by choice – because I want to make an argument to a conservative audience: first, that it is wholly consistent with conservative values to tackle the challenge of climate change; and second, that those conservative values can show us how best to deal with that challenge.

As I said in my speech in Boston last year, for too long, we’ve allowed the debate about climate change to be dominated by purists and idealists – many of whom operate on the left of the political spectrum – who actively promote the notion that they and only they, have the answers to the climate challenge; and that we have to sacrifice economic growth and prosperity in order to meet it.

I reject those arguments. I reject them first of all because wanting to protect the world we inherit, to pass it on intact to the next generation is a fundamentally conservative instinct. As long ago as 1988 former Conservative Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher said, “the last thing we want is to leave environmental debts for our children to clear up… No generation has a freehold on this earth. All we have is a life tenancy – with a full repairing lease.”

And I reject those arguments secondly because I do not accept that we have to choose between our future prosperity and safeguarding the future of our planet. This is not a zero sum game. As conservatives, we choose both.

The starting point for any discussion on climate change must be the threat it poses. Now of course, no-one is 100% certain of every aspect of the science. And no-one is 100% certain of the precise effects of man’s activity on our climate. But the evidence in favour of taking action to curb carbon emissions has been steadily mounting for decades. Uncertainty about the exact effects of climate change, or the role of man’s activity in delivering it, is not an excuse for inaction. In every other facet of life, we assess the risks and where the risk of occurrence is high and the impacts are potentially catastrophic, we act to mitigate and to prevent. Our approach to climate change should be no different.

That is exactly the precautionary approach that President Reagan took decades ago when the world faced a similar challenge.

In the 1980s, the majority of the world’s scientists were deeply concerned about the environment: in that case, about the depletion of the Ozone layer.

There were some doubters, but President Reagan concluded that the risks of doing nothing were too great. It was a core part of his conservative principles to take bold action when necessary. He displayed leadership, galvanising business and the international community to agree what became the Montreal Protocol, to phase out the use of damaging CFCs.

President Reagan described it as a “magnificent achievement”. And he was right to do so: we now know the worried scientists were right; and as a result of the Protocol, the ozone layer is now recovering.

I recognise the concerns of those who worry that the costs of tackling climate change will prove too great; that the attempts to do so might ruin our economy.

This is a reasonable concern.

And if it really was a choice between economic growth on the one hand, or lower greenhouse gas emissions on the other, then I too would be cautious.

But I shall argue that it is not.

And in doing so, the first thing I need to stress is that the cost of doing nothing is not … nothing.

Nearly a decade ago, the then UK government commissioned a review by one of our leading economists, Nicholas Stern, to ask what the cost of doing nothing might be. That Review estimated it could be equivalent to losing 20% of global consumption.

Since then, as our knowledge has developed, we have come to see this as not only an underestimate, but also a narrow way of looking at the problem. Many of the losses caused by climate change could be irreversible, regardless of our resources.

Unchecked climate change, even under the most likely scenario, could have catastrophic consequences – a rise in global temperatures similar to the difference between the last ice-age and today, leading in turn, to rising sea levels, huge movements of people fuelling conflict and instability, pressure on resources, and a multitude of new risks to global public health.

The worst case is even more severe: a drastic change in our environment that could see heat stress in some areas surpass the limits of human tolerance, leaving as the legacy of our generation an unimaginably different and more dangerous world for our children and grandchildren.

So the costs of doing nothing are, potentially, catastrophic – beyond anything that can easily be quantified in economic terms.

But even that argument would be vulnerable if the immediate cost of taking the necessary actions was economically ruinous. So the second thing we need to consider is what really are the costs of the necessary action?

And we should be honest. We should not pretend that acting on climate change does not involve hard choices. Even as the economy as a whole has more to gain than to lose from embracing the low-carbon agenda, there will be losers. Some sectors – particularly coal – are in for a difficult time, and we will need to think carefully about how we manage the impact on communities that have depended on these industries for generations. Their contribution to our economies has been a great one, and we should not abandon them now.

However, the more we learn, the more the evidence is shifting in favour of action. Because that evidence is showing that many of the measures to reduce climate risk will, in fact, stimulate economic growth.

Our experience in the UK bears this out. We have already reduced our emissions by more than a quarter since 1990. And over the same period of time, our economy has grown by more than 60%. Just last year, we registered a reduction in the carbon intensity of our economy of more than 10% – the steepest drop achieved by any country in the last six years. At the same time we had the fastest economic growth rate in the G7.

Not only that, but the growth in the low carbon sector of the UK economy is now outpacing the growth rate of the economy as a whole. In the UK, firms engaged in low carbon goods and services employed over 460,000 people and contributed 45 billion pounds to the UK economy in 2013. This is an increase of almost 30% in just 3 years.

And the global trends are in the same direction. The global low carbon economy is already worth 6 trillion US dollars, and is growing at between 4 and 5% a year. In 2013, additions to the world’s renewable energy generating capacity exceeded those to the fossil-fuelled capacity for the first time ever.

And the price of renewable generation is falling fast: the price of solar panels has fallen by 80% since 2008, and the price of wind turbines has fallen by more than a quarter since 2009. This is increasingly allowing these energy sources to compete on cost with fossil fuelled power generation, without the need for subsidy.

Our businesses in the UK are looking at these trends, and telling us that we should be a leader, not a back-marker; that we should be at the forefront of these developments, taking advantage of the opportunities.

The final argument against tackling climate change that I want to address today is the argument that if we take action, it will put us at a disadvantage to competitors who don’t.

Again, this is a perfectly reasonable concern. But, with countries representing 85% of the world’s emissions signed up to national contribution targets ahead of COP 21 in Paris, the reality is, all significant potential competitors are now headed in the same direction. And in any case, the UK’s experience so far is that a robust climate policy, even during a period when others have been uncommitted, has had no noticeable impact on our overall competitiveness. Businesses remain attracted to the UK’s openness to investment, flexible labour market, and highly skilled workforce.

In fact, it is increasingly clear that the economy of the future will be a low carbon economy. Studies suggest that by stimulating greater innovation and efficiency, climate policies will increase our economic competitiveness.

Two weeks ago, I was in the United Arab Emirates giving a speech on climate change as it happens. They have the world’s seventh largest reserves of gas and oil. Despite this, they are already planning for a future without hydrocarbons. They are investing in some of the world’s largest solar power plants, and are at the forefront of innovation in technologies such as high-efficiency solar-powered desalination.

And that is not only happening in the Middle East. China is now the world’s leading investor in renewable energy. In the next five years alone, it will add more wind power than the entire generating capacity, from all sources, of the UK. China has efficiency standards for its vehicles similar to those of Europe and America, and woe betide the Chinese official who rigs the test, and is increasingly planning its cities to be low carbon and resource efficient. Seven regions of China are already putting a price on carbon and in another two years, this will spread to cover the whole of the country.

So in summary, the world is moving towards a low carbon economy; I would suggest that there may now be more risk in being left behind than there is in taking the lead.

The threat is great, and the costs of dealing with it are now manageable. But the question remains: how best to respond to the challenge?

What are the appropriate mechanisms?

What are the conservative solutions?

How best can we tackle the principal cause of climate change: carbon emissions?

Of course there are those on the left who have seen the need for action on climate change as a justification for large scale “mobilisation”; for a regulatory bonanza and a bigger state. And, if a purely regulatory approach was the answer, I have no doubt that economic growth would suffer.

But it isn’t. The answer, as even the Chinese have realised, is to harness the power of the marketplace. To let the “hidden hand” of market forces loose on the challenge we are facing. And watch it deliver solutions – as it has delivered solutions to every other problem we have faced and resolved in our history.

We should be well placed in this regard. Free markets have shaped both our countries. New York and London host the world’s two most important stock exchanges; London, New York and Chicago the world’s most important commodity exchanges.

And it’s my confidence in markets that drives my approach to the economics of climate change.

In the UK we placed a price on carbon. This is completely in line with conservative economic values: a carbon price corrects a market failure: that we have allowed CO2 emissions to be a “free good” to the polluter even though they impose costs on society. With any other waste, we pay for it to be taken away. We don’t let people just dump it in the street.

Moreover, a market solution is simple and gives business the certainty that they’re asking for. Alongside 70 governments, over 1,000 businesses signed a declaration calling for carbon pricing last year. And rather than waiting for government, many businesses are taking matters in to their own hands by bringing in an internal carbon price to guide their investment decisions. The number of multinational businesses taking this approach has tripled over the past 12 months, tripled. Even oil companies, including BP, Shell, Statoil and Total, have come out in favour of carbon pricing. Major US companies that either already use internal carbon pricing, or intend to introduce it within the next two years, include Google, Microsoft, American Express, Coca-Cola, Monsanto, Wal-Mart, and Yahoo.

And fundamental to a market-based approach is letting our entrepreneurs and our innovators show the way.

Your organisation is dedicated to preserving and strengthening the foundations of a free society, including “competitive private enterprise”.

I agree wholeheartedly with that aim. Far too often, business is cast in the role of villain when it comes to climate change. But as Margaret Thatcher said in her speech to the UN General Assembly back in 1989:

“We must resist the simplistic tendency to blame modern multinational industry for the damage which is being done to the environment. Far from being the villains, it is them on whom we rely to do the research and find the solutions.” And she could have added: “make the investments”.

And again, the UK and US are well-placed to lead. We have some of the most innovative businesses, and our entrepreneurs are already leading the way. For example, UK firms build more Formula 1 racing cars than any other country, and they are pushing the boundaries of technology to harness the energy from braking, and release it back into acceleration through electric motors. The US firm Tesla is leading the world in developing battery technology for road cars, and increasingly for homes too – giving them independence from the grid, and moving us closer to the time when renewable generation is matched by effective storage to give round-the-clock access to renewable power.

We have the best research institutes in the world. If you look at a list of the top universities in the world, you will find that last year all of the top 10 were either British or American. (And, by the way, we think the 4/6 split UK/US is pretty reasonable, given your population is five times ours!).

The UK leads the world in offshore wind energy: we have installed more capacity than any other country in the world, and this is increasingly creating jobs as firms export their products and services. Meanwhile, companies such as Google are leading in developing the big data capabilities which will allow the supply and demand for energy to be matched more intelligently, reducing waste and cost.

I believe that our countries need to accelerate the pace of innovation in all of these technologies. In particular, we should focus on crossing the critical frontier of large-scale, high efficiency energy storage – giving the prospect of cost-effective renewable storage, not just round-the-clock, but through the seasons. If our innovators and entrepreneurs can solve this challenge, and bring the cost of clean energy with storage below the cost of fossil fuelled power generation, then the need for intervention will have passed and we can step back and leave the market to do the rest. Renewables will become the energy of choice – clean, competitive and secure.

If we take all of this action, we will reduce the cost of energy and the risks of climate change. We will create jobs, and enhance our energy security.

So if Britain and the US move ahead, we can reap the rewards. But of course, we cannot solve climate change alone. Only effective global action will achieve that.

That’s why the international community is negotiating right now what I hope will be a strong, effective and binding deal at the Paris meeting next month.

The Paris deal is important because it will give all countries confidence in the direction of travel. It will level the playing field, confirm once and for all that climate action does not create competitive disadvantage, catalyse investment, and spur innovation.

Over 150 countries have already made commitments to reduce their emissions over time ahead of the Paris meeting. It is likely that every significant country in the world will have done so, by the end of this year. These are not just rhetorical commitments. Many include strong substantive elements, such as China’s commitment for clean energy sources to make up a fifth of its energy consumption by 2030. Independent analysis estimates that this commitment could give China a renewable energy capacity of a thousand gigawatts by 2030 – roughly equivalent to the United States’ total electricity generating capacity today. This huge increase will fundamentally change world energy markets by expanding economies of scale, and accelerating technological innovation.

Our history shows us that when the US and the UK take a lead, we can persuade the world to follow. And we must take that lead.

Through our world-beating innovation, our trust in markets and our leadership on the world stage, we can show the world how to counter the threat of climate change at the same time as growing our economies.

As conservatives, we know the responsible thing to do is tackle threats when we see them, and to do so in ways which preserve our future security and prosperity.

And we know the smart thing to do is harness the power of the market to tackle the challenges of climate change.

Because if we do not lead, others will decide the way forward. And their solutions may not be conservative ones.

But if we do take the lead, we can ensure the global response is founded on the force of markets, the power of technology, and the institutions of capitalism.

To get there, leadership is required and not just that of Government. Think tanks, academia, businesses – all have a crucial role to play. The papers you write here at AEI; the policies you promote; the investments business make: all of these things together will determine whether and how we choose to address the challenge of climate change.

Taking action to combat climate change is the right thing to do;

The conservative thing to do.

And we have the power to ensure that as the world embraces the challenge it does so by harnessing the power of markets and the institutions of capitalism – the very things that have delivered for us time and time again throughout history.

I look forward to working with you to seize this opportunity.

Thank you.

Below is the text of the speech made by Philip Hammond, the Secretary of State for Defence, in Thales on 15th April 2014.

Introduction

In this series of speeches I’ve made setting out the case for Scotland to remain part of the family of nations of the United Kingdom, there has been no shortage of support from defence companies with significant interests in Scotland.

Employing, as you do, many hundreds of people here in Glasgow, I’m grateful for your support.

I know that the debate we’re engaged in about Scotland’s future, and the future of its defence industrial base, has a direct impact not just on your business, but on your employees and their families too.

And the referendum debate is really hotting up.

Significant interventions from the Governor of the Bank of England and the Chancellor on the economy and currency…

…and from the Presidents of the European Commission and Council on membership of the European Union, have helped clarify a number of the nationalists’ claims about what an independent Scotland would look like.

Listening to Alex Salmond last week, ahead of the SNP’s conference, I couldn’t help but be struck by how much of his independence proposition is predicated upon being able to dictate, either to the rest of the UK or to the European Union or to NATO, what their policies should be.

His entire economic policy rests upon trying to dictate to the rest of the UK that Scotland could keep the pound, when the UK government has already made absolutely clear that it will not agree to that:

…it’s not an item up for negotiation; a currency union without fiscal and political union simply doesn’t work, the only way to keep the UK pound is to keep the UK together.

And he also wants to dictate the timescales for removing our nuclear deterrent, within the first term of a Scottish Parliament following independence.

But Alex Salmond knows, as I know, that the future of our naval base at Faslane would be just one of many defence issues that would be the subject of long and protracted negotiations if there were to be a “yes” vote in the referendum.

Because if they insist that it has to go, there would have to be complex talks about the costs and timescales involved.

Any notion that it would be quick and easy is just plain wrong.

But my purpose in making this speech today is not to attack the Nationalists or make dire warnings about the future prospects of an independent Scotland.

Today, I want to set out what is at stake in this debate on defence and security…

… to renew the positive case for the Union…

…and to say why I believe, as Defence Secretary for the whole of the UK, that Scotland is stronger within our United Kingdom and the UK is stronger with Scotland within it.

Why defence matters in the independence debate

I approach this debate not, you’ll be shocked to learn, as a Scot.

But as an Englishman who has, over many years, spent much happy time in Scotland; who has always regarded Scotland as part of my home, not some foreign place.

And as someone who is a proud and whole-hearted believer in the success of our unique partnership of peoples.

Forged more than three centuries ago, and tested on countless occasions, it has not only withstood the test of time, but of domestic rebellion, continental revolution and two world wars.

This year, of all years, is a time to remember and to commemorate the millions of men from all parts of the United Kingdom who stood together in the trenches in France and Belgium…

…many of whom never returned…

…but who, together, English, Scots, Irish and Welsh, protected our freedom and our way life, as would the next generation just over two decades later.

Defeating fascism, fighting communism, building the most successful and enduring democracy in the world, and one of the strongest economies…

…the partnership between our peoples has been an economic, social and military success in which we should all take great pride…

…and which I believe can go on to achieve even greater, success in the decades to come.

And the reason that defence matters in this debate is not just because of our proud history of joint endeavour.

It’s because defence provides the security and the peace of mind that underpins almost every single other area of this debate.

And as recent events in Eastern Europe remind us all too clearly, the ability to protect your people, defend your borders and safeguard your national interests is fundamental to the successful functioning of any state – old or new.

Scale of UK forces delivers greater security

As Defence Secretary, it is clear to me that the size and scale of our armed forces, the broad spectrum of capabilities they can deliver, the high calibre of the men and women who serve in them, and the consequent influence we are able to wield upon the global stage…

…all backed up by one of the world’s largest defence budgets…

…deliver for people in all parts of this United Kingdom…

…a far greater level of safety and security than could two separate forces.

That is true now.

And it will only become more so in the future.

Because the equipment and the capabilities we require to retain our cutting edge and to keep this country safe are becoming ever more sophisticated and expensive.

And the range of threats we face is becoming ever more diverse and complex.

In the past, the threats we faced came only from the sea, from land and, more recently, from the air.

Now, they also come from two new domains, space and cyber space, and from non-state protagonists as well as from nation states.

For countries that lack the scale of our forces and the size of our defence budget…

…difficult choices have to be made about the threats against which they can afford to defend; and those against which they cannot.

But thanks to a £34 billion annual defence budget, supporting some of the most capable, agile and deployable forces in the world we, as the United Kingdom, can defend ourselves against the broad range of potential security threats we face.

At the same time as we are constructing new aircraft carriers here in Scotland, building new submarines in Barrow, test flying new Joint Strike Fighters in the United States, and trialling new unmanned surveillance aircraft in Southern England…

…we are also investing hundreds of millions of pounds in defensive and offensive cyber capabilities…

… to protect against the new and growing threat from cyber space.

Frankly, that is a position in which many of our international partners and allies would like to be; but very few of them are.

Scale: recruiting high calibre people

Of course, being able to buy and sustain military hardware is one thing.

But it is the people that operate that hardware that turn it into a military capability.

And it is the people in our armed forces that I believe are our greatest asset.

Drawn from the four corners of these islands, nothing epitomises more the strength we derive from being a United Kingdom than the men and women in our navy, army and air force…

…coming together with a common purpose, to keep our country and our people safe and secure.

And it’s precisely because of the scale of our armed forces that we can offer some of the most demanding, exciting and adventurous career opportunities available, the chance to serve in a wide variety of roles, including the chance to train and deploy overseas on operations…

…combined with the status that comes from serving in some of the best respected and most capable armed forces in the world…

Precisely because of that, we are able to recruit and retain some of the highest calibre young men and women our country has to offer to keep us safe.

Scale: supporting the UK industrial base

Scale is also critical when it comes to the size of the defence industrial base we can sustain in the UK, including here in Scotland.

On current estimates from Scottish Development International, the defence industry in Scotland employs around 12,600 people, and generates sales in excess of £1.8 billion.

The navy’s flagship project, the construction of the two new Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers, has sustained thousands of jobs in shipyards around the country.

When HMS Queen Elizabeth is floated out of her dock in Rosyth in 3 months’ time, she will be the biggest ship the Royal Navy has ever had…

…and one of the greatest feats of marine engineering this country has ever delivered, a ship of which the entire United Kingdom can be proud, and which embodies the strength of the Union, working together:

with her individual blocks built in Devon, Tyneside, Merseyside, Portsmouth and not far from here on the Clyde…

…with suppliers based across the country, from Pontypridd to Plymouth and from Ipswich to Inverness…

…taking final shape on the Firth of Forth, she is testimony to the United Kingdom’s combined manufacturing and engineering strength.

A reminder of what this great country is capable of when we work together as one.

Those who are working, or have worked, on HMS Queen Elizabeth are proud of the project in which they are involved…

…and we should all be proud of them.

And as the United Kingdom, we have in the Royal Navy the critical mass of warships to generate an order book of sufficient size to maintain a sovereign warship building capability.

Rather than placing orders for our surface ships with potentially cheaper yards overseas, successive UK governments have deliberately chosen to sustain our sovereign capability, albeit at a financial premium.

As a result, no complex warships for the Royal Navy have been procured from outside the UK since the start of the 20th Century, except during the 2 World Wars.

Today, that policy, and the Royal Navy’s scale, delivers billions of pounds of investment and sustains thousands of Scottish jobs, directly and indirectly.

And I believe it is neither in Scotland’s interests, nor the rest of the United Kingdom’s, to put that at risk.

Scale: UK global influence

And there’s another area in which the scale of the United Kingdom brings direct benefits to our collective safety and security.

And that’s through our influence on the world stage.

Exercised through the use of a Soft Power which is second to none…

…but which derives its strength from being backed by the hard power of our defence capability.

The size of our armed forces, the scale of our defence budget, the breadth of our military capabilities and the reputation of the men and women of our armed forces significantly increases the UK’s influence with our international allies and partners.

Our national security is underpinned by the international partnerships and alliances of which we are a central part…

…and it is through our high level of influence that we are able to shape those organisations and alliances in our own strategic interests.

The UK is one of just five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.

We are the largest contributor of deployable forces to Nato, the cornerstone of our defence policy, after the United States.

We have deep and wide ranging bilateral relationships with our most capable Western military allies, the United States and France.

And, together with the US, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, we are part of the world’s largest and most successful intelligence sharing community.

Being a member of those organisations is not an end in itself.

But it is the access to information on the latest security threats, the opportunities to collaborate on equipment programmes; and the ability to generate joint forces, such as the Combined Joint Expeditionary Force with France, to deter our adversaries and extend our global reach…

…that act as a force multiplier for the United Kingdom as a whole, allowing us to punch above our weight…

…and that means we are able, together, to deliver the highest level of security for all of the British people.

A strong defence presence in Scotland

And the truth is, Scotland’s contribution to the collective security of the United Kingdom is absolutely vital.

Scotland is at the very heart of the UK’s defence effort and, at a time when we have had to make reductions in the overall size of our forces to bring the defence budget back into balance…

…we will actually be increasing the size of our defence presence in Scotland:

…from a Regular force of some 11,000 personnel today, to 12,500 by 2020.

At Faslane, Scotland will be home to one of the Royal Navy’s three main bases and its entire fleet of submarines.

At RAF Lossiemouth, Scotland will host one of the Royal Air Force’s three main fast jet bases and one of our two Quick Reaction Alert Typhoon forces.

And around Edinburgh and Leuchars, Scotland will be the home to one of the Army’s seven adaptable force brigades.

With a total of 50 defence sites across Scotland…

…from Benbecula in the Outer Hebrides to Kirkcudbright in Dumfries and Galloway, where part of the international Exercise Joint Warrior is taking place right now…

…Scotland is as integral to the United Kingdom’s security as the rest of the United Kingdom is to Scotland’s.

Fundamental questions about independence remain unanswered

So what of the separatists’ alternative?

What would defence and security look like under an independent Scotland?

Standing here, 5 months before the Scottish people go to the polls, I would have expected to be able to answer that question.

But the truth is, I can’t.

So fundamental are the uncertainties regarding the Scottish government’s defence proposals …

…and so basic are the unanswered questions…

…that they are almost impossible to analyse in any meaningful way.

It’s hard to avoid drawing the conclusion that the SNP want to keep the Scottish people in the dark until after polling day.

Where, for example, is the detailed costing of the Scottish government’s defence proposals?

To have any credibility, the Scottish government has to be able to show that their proposals add up.

Where, to take another, is the assessment of risks and threats that Scotland will face?

Endnote 261 to the White Paper refers to an analysis of Scotland’s geopolitical context, threats and risks – upon which the Scottish government’s entire defence and security policy is apparently based.

And yet it remains unpublished.

Do the Scottish people not deserve to see these documents before they cast their votes?

Do the welders and fitters and electricians and draughtsmen in the shipyards not far from here not deserve to know how much the Scottish government would be able and willing to invest in warship building?

And do the young people considering a career in the Forces not deserve to know what security tasks Scottish defence forces would fulfil, and what opportunities and experience they would have as members of them?

There are question marks, even, over the size the defence and security budget would be.

The white paper states that there would be £2.5 billion for defence and security.

But we know from the Finance Secretary, John Swinney, and his secret memo leaked last year, that actually “a much lower budget must be assumed”.

So do the Scottish people not deserve to know what that “lower budget” would be; and what it would mean for an independent Scotland’s ability to defend itself?

The SNP’s defence force plans lack coherence

Finally, what of the capabilities that the Nationalists say the Scottish defence forces would have?

Would they be credible? And are they coherent?

It’s tempting to go through the whole lot, but time is short, so let me just take one example.

Fighter jets.

The White Paper asserts that, at independence, Scotland’s air forces would consist of [a minimum of] 12 Typhoon jets.

And even that 12 is two more than the SNP’s logic of a population based share of the UK’s current Typhoon fleet would give them.

Since the Scottish government regularly makes comparisons with Norway and Denmark, it’s worth noting that the Royal Danish Air Force has a fleet of 45 fast jets… …and the Royal Norwegian Air Force has 57, putting them in a completely different league to the Nationalists’ proposals for Scotland.

But even that does not tell the whole story.

Anyone who knows anything about modern defence will tell you that owning 12 jets does not mean that you have 12 jets available to deploy.

Even in a fleet as efficient as the RAF’s, roughly a third of the force will be in deep maintenance; and only a third will be at full readiness.

So even on the assumption that a Scottish air force could achieve the same levels of efficiency in maintenance and aircraft servicing as the RAF, despite its much smaller size…

…under the Nationalists’ plans, the number of jets they could expect to have available to deploy at any one time is just four.

Just four, to defend and protect the whole of Scotland’s skies and air approaches, which represents a huge proportion of the UK’s current area of responsibility.

And to police that area properly would require those few jets to be capable of flying well out over the North Atlantic and the Irish Sea.

To be capable of staying up in the air for prolonged periods, as our quick reaction alert Typhoons do today.

But that requires air to air refuelling capability.

Inexplicably, there is no provision for air to air refuelling aircraft in the Scottish government’s plans.

It doesn’t even get a mention.

A vital enabling capability not even considered.

So in fast air, at least, we have a policy proposition that falls apart at the first scrutiny, revealing that, in practical terms, large parts of Scotland’s airspace would be undefended.

That, to me, is a totally irresponsible proposition.

Conclusion

So, with 5 months remaining until the referendum on September 18th, it’s clear that on one of the most important topics of all, their future safety and security, the separatists owe the Scottish people a lot of answers.

In place of fact, we have assertion.

And in place of certainty, we have doubt.

But against the doubt and uncertainty of the separatist proposition, the case for remaining part of the family of nations of the United Kingdom is clear.

For more than three centuries, our nations have worked together to deliver a safe and secure United Kingdom.

Our armed forces, drawn from the four nations of our union, have proven themselves, time and again, to be the finest armed forces in the world.

The combination of our scale, our critical mass and our reputation allows us to punch above our weight in security terms…

…and enables a diplomacy that is second to none…

…ensuring that the people of these islands are safer and more propserous as a result.

Over the last two and a half years as Defence Secretary, I’ve had to take often difficult decisions to provide UK defence with a stable forward plan while making a contribution to rebuilding Britain’s fiscal stability after the financial crash.

Because rebuilding our economy is vital to our ability to sustain defence in the years to come.

And now at the very point that there is light at the end of what has seemed like a very long and dark tunnel…

…do we really want to turn in on ourselves to focus on the consequences of a difficult and painful divorce…

…rather than facing outwards, together, to meet the challenges and seize the opportunities of our changing world?

To me, the choice is clear..

Weakening our economic strength by dividing it with a border…

… or using our UK market of 60 million people as a springboard for success in a fiercely competitive global marketplace.

Diminishing our diplomatic reach and our unrivalled soft power by breaking up the union…

…or confidently building on our centuries of achievements, admired around the world, as we face the future together.

Dismantling the joint achievements of the last 300 years…

… or working together to deliver those of the next three hundred.

I have no doubt:

Unpicking centuries of shared security and prosperity would damage both Scotland and the rest of the UK.

It would leave us all weaker.

It would leave us all less secure.

It is our shared history, our common values and our unity of purpose which make us what we are today.

It is Scotland which makes the UK united, and adds the Great to Great Britain.

What we have is precious.

It has taken many years to build.

It works, and works well.

So let us ensure that come September, the message goes out so that there can be no doubt…

… our family of four proud and successful nations is safer, stronger and better together.

Thank you.

Below is the text of a speech made by the Secretary of State for Transport, Philip Hammond, on road safety, held at Great Minster House on 11th May 2011.

Each year an incredible 1.3 million people are killed and 50 million are injured on the world’s roads. Politicians often use words like incredible, but when I saw those figures I asked someone to check them. They are correct and they are mind-numbing figures. Equally chilling is the fact that, on current trends, road fatalities could become the world’s fifth biggest killer by 2030. These facts and figures demonstrate that road safety is a truly global issue. They also remind us of the motivation for the UN Decade of Action – a decade in which, with the right focus, action and policies, countless lives will be saved in the years ahead.

Britain is rightly proud of its road safety record. Our highways are among the safest roads in the world and we have seen significant decreases in our casualty figures. But, in spite of all we have achieved, we still lose six or seven people to road accidents in this country every day of the week. Every road death is a grim statistic – but it is also a personal tragedy. And, as well as the terrible human cost, there is a heavy economic price to pay. Again, I had to have these figures checked – in Britain, the economic welfare costs are estimated at around £16 billion a year, while insurance payouts for motoring claims alone are now over £12 billion a year.

So there is no room for complacency – and that’s why today the Government has launched its new Strategic Framework for Road Safety. The core principle underpinning our new strategy is that, with limited resources available, we need to target the most dangerous behaviours: focusing police and court time on those who deliberately engage in anti-social and dangerous driving behaviour, while supporting the generally law-abiding motorist to address poor driving skills or lapses of behaviour that could put him or her and other road users at risk.

Education

The strategy will be delivered both nationally and locally. The new Framework sets out those measures that we intend to take nationally, together with the areas where policy and delivery will reflect local priorities and circumstances. The national measures focus on two key strands – education and enforcement. Let me take each of them in turn. As I’ve said, we want to support basically law-abiding road users to address poor driving skills – to nudge their behaviour in the right direction. That means more educational options for drivers who make genuine mistakes, display poor skills or commit occasional low level offences – to improve their driving, support to develop safer skills and appropriate attitudes to driving. In appropriate cases, low level offenders will be offered a place on a police-approved education course (at their cost) instead of a fixed penalty charges and licence points. We know from experience that properly designed education courses can have a positive impact on driving behaviour. But our education initiative will go further: we will reform the regime for rehabiliting disqualified drivers – so that the most serious offenders who are disqualified from driving have to complete re-training and a mandatory new test before they regain their licence.

We will also continue to build on the recent improvements we’ve made to our driving and motorcycle tests And we’ll develop a new post-driving test vocational qualification – designed to help newly qualified drivers gain the necessary skills and experience to be safe and responsible road users – and to demonstrate that they have gained those skills to would-be insurers. The better the education and the better the training, the more we can enhance the safety of all road users, whether they are pedestrians or cyclists, drivers or motorcyclists. I also want to correct what I believe has been an overly narrow emphasis on automatically-detected speed-related offences, at the expense of tackling other equally or more risky behaviours such as tailgating, under-taking and weaving.

Since 1985 the number of prosecutions for careless driving has plummeted by three-quarters as time-consuming prosecution through the courts has been deemed a lower priority by police. So we will introduce a new fixed penalty notice for careless driving to help the police to tackle risky behaviour, such as tailgating, that currently tends to go unenforced, in an efficient and effective manner. Freeing up police and court resources to focus on the most dangerous drivers. This will also enable careless driving offenders to be diverted to the new educational courses offered where appropriate to those receiving fixed penalty notices. At the same time, we will increase the level of fixed penalty notices for many road traffic offences from £60 to £80-£100 plus penalty points. The current levels have fallen behind other fixed penalties offences and the lower levels for traffic offences risk trivialising the offences.

Enforcement

Sadly, it isn’t just about educating the well-intentioned. Alongside those who make genuine mistakes or have poor skills, but who want to do the right thing, there are also a minority hard-core of dangerous road users who commit serious, deliberate and repeated offences. Not because of poor skills, but because of bad attitude – and a reckless disregard of risk. These people are a danger to themselves and to others and, in order to tackle their negligence and target their recklessness, we will enhance the enforcement and sanctions regime. An effective deterrent requires credible sanctions. So, in addition to using innovative ways to recover unpaid fines, we will also work to make full use of existing powers for the courts to seize and crush an offender’s vehicle.

I’m also determined to increase the effectiveness of drink and drug drive enforcement and cut reoffending, as set out in our response to the North report on Drink and Drug Driving in March. One of the great successes of road safety over the last 40 years has been the extent to which drink driving has become socially unacceptable – and largely in consequence, the number of people killed in drink driving accidents has fallen by more than 75% since 1979. But sadly, people are still losing their lives because of drink driving – in 2009, 380 people were killed in drink driving collisions – about 17% of all of the fatalities on the road for that year. So we need to take tough action against the small minority of drivers who don’t give a second thought to the law and who put their lives in danger by drink driving and also the lives of others. They have ignored the shift in social attitudes; they ignore the risks they are taking and they ignore the drink driving limit. Shockingly, 40% of those who fail the alcohol breath test are more than two and a half times the permitted limit. A lower limit would not make this reckless minority change their behaviour. Their behaviour is entrenched– and so we have concluded that improving enforcement will have more impact on these dangerous people than lowering the limit.

So we are toughening up the enforcement regimes. We are revoking the right for drivers who are over the limit on a breath test to request a blood or urine test – eliminating the opportunity for delay that over the years has allowed countless drink drivers to get away with their offence. We will also be launching a more robust drink-drive rehabilitation scheme, providing high quality education courses, and requiring drink-drivers who were substantially over the limit to take remedial training and a linked driving assessment – as well as a medical examination – before recovering their licence.

Drink driving kills. But it is just as dangerous for people to drive impaired by drugs, and it is quite wrong that it is easier at present to get away with one than the other. So there needs to be a clear message that drug-drivers are as likely to be caught and punished as drink-drivers. We are working to approve drug testing devices and we will change the law to speed up the testing process, ensuring the police can bring drug drivers to justice. We are also exploring the introduction of a new offence – alongside the existing offence – which would relieve the need for the police to prove impairment case-by-case where a specified drug at a specified level has been detected in the blood stream. We are determined, over time, to make drug-driving as socially unacceptable as drink-driving has become.

There is also a significant correlation between uninsured driving and other road traffic offending. While we believe we will now make progress against uninsured drivers – with the introduction of Continuous Insurance Enforcement – we are clear that this is an area that requires further work to arrive at a fully effective package of measures. The rising cost of insurance will surely tempt more and more to take the risk. So we will consider introducing proportionate penalties for uninsured driving, to ensure that the cost of offending is better matched to the cost of insurance, while continuing to work with the insurance industry on measures that help to reduce the cost of motor insurance to make it more affordable over time.

Localism

Our new Strategy we are publishing today makes it clear that, while targets sometimes have their place, we do not consider over-arching national targets to be the most appropriate means of improving road safety in Britain. None-the-less, government at the national level has a crucial part to play in improving road safety – from delivering better driving standards and testing, to enhancing enforcement and education, right through to the way it manages the country’s strategic road infrastructure. So yes, we recognise the positive difference that central Government can make. But we also believe in the potential and possibilities offered by localism. And that’s why our Strategic Framework acknowledges that local communities also have a vital role in making roads as safe as they can be. Local service deliverers do not need civil servants in Whitehall to tell them how important road safety is. Nor do they need central diktats that constrain their local ambitions and priorities.

Instead of more suffocating bureaucracy and top down government, we will devolve decision making and empower people at the local level. Enabling the creation of local solutions tailored to meet local challenges – recognising that the road safety challenges we face are different in different parts of the country – whether it is setting local speed limits, or choosing the most appropriate traffic management schemes. By giving local authorities more freedom to assess and act on their own priorities, we will see better targeted, more effective local action. We will provide an economic toolkit to assist local authorities in assessing the full costs and benefits when considering speed limits – helping them to ensure that their decisions on speed limits are consistent and transparent to the communities they serve. And we will move to a more sophisticated method of monitoring progress through a Road Safety Outcomes Framework, which will help local authorities assess and prioritise their action as well as showing the impact of central Government measures.

We also want citizens to play a more active role in championing the cause of road safety in their areas. So we will ensure that more information is made available to help them to hold their local authorities and service providers to account and to enable them to compare the performance of their area against other similar areas. And that ability to compare is critical, the gap between the best and worst performing authorities is very significant. If the bottom half of highway authorities upped their game to the mid point authority, the number of killed and seriously injured casualties could decrease by 14%….that’s 3,500 fewer deaths or seriously injured every year. Our localism agenda is a radical transfer of power and information from Whitehall to the town hall and from Downing Street to the local High Street. It helps to build capacity, increase transparency and strengthen accountability. And it will enable local people to come together, to work together and build the types of neighbourhoods and communities that they want to live in.

Concluding remarks

Road safety is everybody’s business – we all have a stake in making our highways as safe as they can be. And in spreading our best practice in the UK to the many parts of the world with road safety records that are very far behind. That’s why the UN Decade of Action is so important. It’s also why road safety is a first order issue for me and for this Government. Britain has made great progress down the years in making our roads safer. We want that progress to continue and the Strategic Framework we are publishing today will take that agenda forward. My very clear message today is that we will work with the grain of human nature: encouraging and assisting drivers who occasionally lapse or who suffer from poor skills – the basically law-abiding majority – to become a safe and responsible motorists. We are not against them, we are with them and we will work to help them. But on those who wilfully and recklessly put themselves and others at risk, we will focus the resources of law-enforcement with a new determination.

Thank you.