Tag: Speeches

  • Winston Churchill – 1922 Speech on the Ireland Situation

    winstonchurchill

    Below is the text of the speech made in the House of Commons by Winston Churchill, then the Secretary of State for the Colonies, on 16th February 1922.

    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Churchill) I beg to move, “That the Bill be now read a Second time.”

    I feel that I am entitled to ask the indulgence of the House because I have had to make so many inroads on their attention and upon their patience on Irish matters during the course of the present week, but I have felt that on the whole it is a good thing to keep the House most closely in touch with every move and change in the Irish situation and to publish the full picture of Ireland which is presented both by the Northern and Southern Governments before the House and the country from day to day. It is my duty to ask the approval of the House for this Bill. It gives effect to the Treaty which both Houses of Parliament have already approved by such large majorities. It clothes the Provisional Government with lawful power and enables them to hold an election under favourable conditions at the earliest moment. The importance and urgency of this Bill are plain. Take, for instance, the object of clothing the Irish Provisional Government with law. Is it not fatal to peace, social order and good Government to have power wielded by men who have no legal authority? Every day it continues is a reproach to the administration of the Empire. Every day tends to bring into contempt those solemn forms of procedure on the observance of which in every country the structure of civilised society depends. Only three days ago I spoke about some criminals, murderous criminals, who had been caught by the Irish Provisional Government in Southern Ireland, accused of murdering and robbing a British officer, and I said that I presumed that they would be handed over to be dealt with with the full rigour of the law. I was interrupted by an hon. Friend on these Benches with the remarks: “There is no law,” and “What law?” It is perfectly true, but is it reasonable to make such interruptions and not support the Bill which alone can clothe with law the acts of the Irish Government? A Provisional Government, unsanctified by law, yet recognised by the Crown, by His Majesty’s Ministers, is an anomaly, unprecedented in the history of the British Empire. Its continuance one day longer than is necessary is derogatory to Parliament, to the Nation, and to the Crown. We must legalise and regularise our action. Contempt of law is one of the great evils manifesting themselves in many parts of the world at the present time, and it is disastrous for the Imperial Parliament to connive at or countenance such a situation in Ireland for one day longer than is absolutely necessary.

    Mr. RONALD McNEILL It is your own creation.

    Mr. CHURCHILL Yes, with the full approval of both Houses of Parliament. Moreover, what chance does such a situation give to the Irish Executive who, at the request of the King’s representative in Ireland—made, of course, on the advice of His Majesty’s Government—have assumed the very great burden and responsibility of directing Irish affairs? How can you expect such a Government to enforce a respect for its decisions when such decisions are absolutely unsanctioned by law? How can you wonder that such Ministers are set at defiance by the more turbulent elements amongst their followers and that the prisoners captured from the Northern Border have to be released, not by powerful authoritative action, but by processes of expostulation and persuasion? I am asked questions every day about the non-payment of rents in Ireland, about the spread of lawlessness, and even anarchy, in different parts of the country, about crimes of violence against persons and property increasingly committed among a population hitherto singularly free from common crime as opposed to political crime. I am asked these questions every day, and I ask in my turn: “How can you expect these tendencies to be arrested except by a Government entitled to display the insignia of lawful power and to proceed by methods which have the sanction of antiquity and prescription?” I notice that this succession of unanswerable truisms excites no challenge.

    The Bill, in addition, will enable an election to be held in Ireland at an early date under favourable circumstances, or under the least unfavourable circumstances which are possible. What are the objects to be sought at this election? I am going to tell some of those objects to the House. The first of these objects is a National decision upon the Treaty by the Irish people. I am asked every day by my hon. Friends below the Gangway questions about the Irish Republican Army. I will explain the view of the Irish Government on that point. It is very important we should understand the different points of view. Whether we agree with them, or sympathise with them, or recognise them, is quite another matter, but it is important we should understand them. This is the view of the Irish Government, the Irish signatories of the Treaty. Their view is that the Irish Republic was set up by the Irish people at the elections which took place during the Conference, and that this Irish Republic can only be converted into an Irish Free State by the decision of the Irish people. That is not our view. We do not recognise the Irish Republic. We have never recognised it, and never will recognise it. I am explaining their view and they say that they were elected by the Irish people on a certain basis, and that only the Irish people can release them. They are determined to stand by the Treaty and to use their utmost influence with the Irish people to procure their adhesion to the Treaty, and that will, from the Irish point of view, be the act which will disestablish finally the Republic. Take Mr. Griffith’s position. Mr. Griffith has not joined this Government. He has been chosen as the President of the Dail. He is also, in Irish eyes, the President of the non-recognised Irish Republic, and if the Irish people accept his advice and guidance, and ratify the Treaty and endorse the Treaty which he has signed, he will be able to disestablish the Irish Republic and to lay aside these functions. These matters do not affect us in our procedure in any way; but is it not a desirable thing that upon the authority of the Irish people recorded at an election, the Republican idea should be definitely, finally and completely put aside?

    The second object of the election is to secure an adequate constituent assembly. You certainly have not got that now. To try to make a constitution for the Irish Free State with the present truncated body, almost half of whose Members have definitely seceded from the Southern Irish Parliament, would be an impossible task, and were such a constitution made it would not command any definite or lasting assent among the Irish people. The third object—and I commend this to the serious consideration of the House, of British Members as well as of Ulster Members—is to secure afresh a normal, and if I may say so, a sensible Parliament in Ireland. How was this present Parliament made? The men who were elected to it were chosen, not because of any fitness for conducting business—[An HON. MEMBER: “Just the same as this Parliament.”]—they were chosen because they were the men thought to be most obnoxious to the British power at a time when passions were at their fiercest. This Parliament was made out of men who hated this country most in Ireland. It is obvious that if any progress is to be made, we must get, or there ought to be—for after all, it is not for us finally to decide—a Parliament which represents the hope of the future rather than the hate of the past.

    Lastly, it is a bad thing for any body of Ministers to continue in a position of power without being supported in that position by a national mandate. [Interruption.] If that interruption is intended to have any application to this bench, it is singularly inapplicable, considering that the mere rumour that Ministers were inclined to seek a renewal of their mandate was greeted with the most violent and most panic-stricken protest. Irish Ministers must know where they stand with the Irish nation. Some people think that they have waited too long already in choosing the time of their election. The sooner that election comes in Ireland the better. I am anxious to deal with every aspect. I shall be asked: “Supposing Mr. de Valera and his friends win this election in Ireland, what is to happen then?” If I do not deal with this now, I shall be blamed for leaving, it out. Let me say, I do not think that there is any advantage in speculating upon these ugly hypotheses. It is perfectly clear that the repudiation by Ireland of the Treaty would free all parties from their engagements, and that the position of Great Britain, standing on the Treaty, ready to carry out the Treaty, if others could be found, on behalf of the Irish nation, to do their part, that that position would be one of great moral as well as of undoubted material strength. The position of Southern Ireland, on the other hand, would be one of the greatest weakness and division—absolutely isolated from the sympathy of the world, bitterly divided in herself. The position of Northern Ireland would be also quite unaffected. I do not think it is prudent or necessary at this stage to assume for a moment such a result, and all the information we are able to obtain leads us to feel that any such treatment would not only be unnecessary but incorrect. But it Would be a pity for us to go threatening and blustering at this stage and to give the impression that the Irish people are being made to vote under duress or at the point of the bayonet. All such language and suggestions would be very unhelpful at the present time, and if such language were indulged in, the fact that it could be stated that the votes had been given under duress would tend to impair the authority of the decision at a subsequent date. That is what I have to say on a perfectly fair point which may be made as to who would win the Irish election.

    There is another suggestion which is made and with which I must deal. There are those who think that the present Irish Government may be overturned by a coup d’état and that a red Soviet Republic may be set up. We do not think that is at all likely, but if it were it is quite clear that a Soviet Republic in Ireland would ruin the Irish cause for 100 years, but would not in any respect impair the foundations of the British Empire or the security of Ulster. No people in the world are really less likely to turn Bolshevik than the Irish. Their strong sense of personal possession, their respect for the position of women, their love of country and their religious convictions constitute them in a peculiar sense the most sure and unyielding opponents of the withering and levelling doctrines of Russia. What we know of the characters and personalities at the head of the Provisional Government in Ireland leads us also to believe that they are not the men who would tamely sit still and suffer the fate of a Kerensky. Therefore I do not think this second evil alternative is one which we need allow to embarrass us or obstruct our thoughts and decisions at the present time. But this Irish Government, this Irish Ministry, ought not to be left in the position in which even the most necessary measures which they take for their own defence or for the enforcement of authority, or even for the maintenance of law and the suppression of brigandage or mutiny, are devoid of formal sanction.

    If you want to see Ireland degenerate into a meaningless welter of lawless chaos and confusion, delay this Bill. If you wish to see increasingly serious bloodshed all along the borders of Ulster, delay this Bill. If you want this House to have on its hands, as it now has, the responsibility for peace and order in Southern Ireland, without the means of enforcing it, if you want to impose those same evil conditions upon the Irish Provisional Government, delay this Bill. If you want to enable dangerous and extreme men, working out schemes of hatred in subterranean secrecy, to undermine and overturn a Government which is faithfully doing its best to keep its word with us and enabling us to keep our word with it, delay this Bill. If you want to proclaim to all the world, week after week, that the British Empire can get on just as well without law as with it, then you will delay this Bill. But if you wish to give a fair chance to a policy to which Parliament has pledged itself, and to Irish Ministers to whom you are bound in good faith, so long as they act faithfully with you, to give fair play and a fair chance, if you wish to see Ireland brought back from the confusion of tyranny to a reign of law, if you wish to give logical and coherent effect to the policy and experiment to which we are committed, you will not impede, even for a single unnecessary week, the passage of this Bill.

    Surveying the whole situation since we met in the winter and approved of the Irish Treaty, I ask myself this question: Ought we to regret what we then did? [HON. MEMBERS: “Yes,” and “No!”] In endeavouring to examine this matter with candour I do not feel that that question is one which we ought to leave on one side. Ought we to regret having made the settlement and signed the Treaty? I am looking at it, not from an Irish point of view which I am not specially concerned as a British Member; I am looking at it from a British point of view. I think we are better off in every respect in this Irish matter than we were six months ago. Contrast the position which we are now in and the position in which we were six months ago. Contrast the difficulties of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, the impossible position in which he was, with the position in which the Government now stands. I know I have differences in this matter with hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. They will see that I am endeavouring to deal with the subject in a reasonable manner worthy of its gravity, and in a spirit of mutual respect, even with those with whom, no doubt, there are naturally large and legitimate differences.

    Contrast the positions. It appears to me as if the tables were turned. Ireland, not Britain, is on her trial before the nations of the world. Six months ago it was we who had to justify ourselves against every form of attack. Now it is the Irish people who, as they tell us, after 700 years of oppression, have at last an opportunity to show the kind of government that they can give to their country and the position which they can occupy amongst the nations of the world. An enormous improvement in the situation, as I see it, has been effected in the last six months. Take the position of Ulster. The position of Ulster is one of great and unshakable strength, not only material strength, but moral strength. There was a time when, as is well known, I and others with whom I was then associated thought that Ulster was not securing her own position, but was barring the way to the rest of Ireland to obtain what they wanted. Those days are done. Ulster, by a sacrifice and by an effort, has definitely stood out of the path of the rest of Ireland, and claims only those liberties and securities which are her own, and standing on her own rights, supported as she is and as she will be by the whole force and power, if necessary, of the British Empire, I am entitled to say that she is in a position of great moral and material strength at the present time.

    The position of the Imperial Government has also become greatly improved. It is very desirable that the great affairs of the British Empire should be increasingly detached from the terrible curse of this long internal Irish quarrel, and that the august Imperial authorities should stand on a more impartial plane. I think we have nothing to regret in the course we took last December, as far as the Imperial Government, or as far as Ulster is concerned, with one exception with which I shall deal later. But the position of Ireland is one which deserves a much greater measure of sympathy. The position of Southern Ireland is one of great difficulty and danger. The trials and responsibilities of the new Government are most serious. I have explained the weakness of their present position. I have explained how urgent it is that we should come with this Bill and clothe them with greater authority and strength. We see the efforts they are making. We cannot tell how far they will be successful. All the world is looking on at their performance. They are the people at the present time, not Ulster, not Great Britain, whose difficulties and whose task deserve sympathy and support.

    Take the case of the signatories of the Treaty, the men who put their names to that document in Downing Street in December. They go back to their own comrades or colleagues in Ireland, with whom they were working. They are practically put on their trial for having betrayed the Irish Republic. These men who, whatever you may think of them, at any rate from their own country’s point of view were the most vigorous and effective fighting men, were absolutely put on their trial and condemned by the more talkative section, largely composed of people whom the British Government all through regarded as perfectly harmless, and some of whom we gave the strictest instructions, should not be arrested, and when on some occasions they were arrested by mistake, they were let loose again, as you return under-sized fish to the water. These men, I say, standing by the Treaty against this kind of unfair attack, as long as they stand by the Treaty and we have confidence in them, deserve our help and deserve to be given the means of making good.

    The situation on the frontier of Northern Ireland has, I think, been a little improved by the agreement of both Governments to the establishment of a border Commission to make sure that there is no hostile attack on a large scale being organised on the one side or the other. It has also been improved, I think, by the agreement of both Governments to an impartial Commission of Inquiry into the Clones affair; and it has been, I think, generally improved by the control which has been enforced. I hope that the releases of the kidnapped men will continue. Twenty-six have already been released, and I hope the releases will continue in the next few days until that matter is completely cleared out of the way. The position in Belfast is terrible. Things are being done there of a most awful character, and I know the efforts that are being made by the Northern Government to calm things there, and to control the people and the furious and inhuman passions that are alive amongst certain sections of the population, Catholic and Protestant. I do trust that in the near future, whatever may have occurred since their last meeting, there will be some form of parley between the heads of the two Governments, or representatives of the two Governments. I would point out that the Southern Government has definitely, formally, asked for such a meeting. I do trust it may be possible to bring it about in the course of the next few days or weeks. It is most desirable, from every point of view, to arrive at some method of calming the terrible vendettas and the counter-vendettas which are rife in the streets and in the alleys of Belfast.

    I come to the difficult part of what I have to say to the House. I come to the question of the Boundary Commission. There is an Amendment on the Paper, which definitely challenges the whole policy and position of the Government upon the Treaty in this particular respect. I have no doubt that we shall be asked in the course of the discussion to give an assurance, on this side or on that side, of what was meant, what we thought, or what was intended. It may be very proper that legal authority should inform the House what they consider is the interpretation of the Treaty. It may be perfectly right and proper for Ministers to state to the House what they meant and intended when they signed the Treaty, but, as the House will see, nothing that can be said now can possibly affect the Treaty. The Treaty, in Article 12, prescribes what is going to be done, what is going to happen, and we have no power, except by tearing up the Treaty, to alter what is prescribed in that Article. No declaration that may be made now will have the power to alter that Article. When the time comes it will have to be interpreted in the manner prescribed in the Treaty. By that interpretation we shall be bound. Those who signed the Treaty will be absolutely bound, and those who have voted for the Treaty will also be bound to accept that interpretation.

    I think it much better—and I am going to put everything quite plainly and bluntly before the House—that we should know exactly where we are. I know that will be the feeling of my hon. Friends who have the special interests of Ulster in their charge. Of course, all this trouble in regard to the boundaries surrounds the boundaries of Fermanagh and Tyrone. I remember on the eve of the Great War we were gathered together at a Cabinet meeting in Downing Street, and for a long time, an hour or an hour and a half, after the failure of the Buckingham Palace Conference, we discussed the boundaries of Fermanagh and Tyrone. Both of the great political parties were at each other’s throats. The air was full of talk of civil war. Every effort was made to settle the matter and bring them together. The differences had been narrowed down, not merely to the counties of Fermanagh and Tyrone, but to parishes and groups of parishes inside the areas of Fermanagh and Tyrone, and yet, even when the differences had been so narrowed down, the problem appeared to be as insuperable as ever, and neither side would agree to roach any conclusion.

    Mr. R. McNEILL We knew what you were at.

    Mr. CHURCHILL I am where I was. Then came the great War. Every institution, almost, in the, world was strained. Great Empires have been overturned. The whole map of Europe has been changed. The position of countries has been violently altered. The modes of thought of men, the whole outlook on affairs, the grouping of parties, all have encountered violent and tremendous changes in the deluge of the world, but as the deluge subsides and the waters fall short we see the dreary steeples of Fermanagh and Tyrone emerging once again. The integrity of their quarrel is one of the few institutions that has been unaltered in the cataclysm which has swept the world. That says a lot for the persistency with which Irish men on the one side or the other are able to pursue their controversies. It says a great deal for the power which Ireland has, both Nationalist and Orange, to lay their hands upon the vital strings of British life and politics, and to hold, dominate, and convulse, year after year, generation after generation, the politics of this powerful country.

    I am going to speak plainly, and if I say anything which my hon. Friends below the Gangway who represent Ulster do not approve of, do not let them think that I am expecting them to agree. I am trying to show them the outlook upon the subject which we have at the present time, and to put them in a position to do what they think is their duty, without any chance of misunderstanding or misconception. I was speaking just now of the great strength of the Ulster position at the present time, morally and materially. In that position there is, it seems to me, only one weak point and it is this: Certain of these districts in Fermanagh and Tyrone, even in the county boundary, may be districts in which—I am not pre-judging—the majority of the inhabitants will prefer to join the Irish Free State. If that be true, and to the extent to which that is true, one feels that the tremendous arguments which protect the freedom of Protestant Ulster have, in those districts, lost their application and have, possibly, an opposite application. There is also one weak point in the position of His Majesty’s Government in respect to Ulster and in the position of the Ministers who signed the Treaty in respect to Ulster. I am not concealing it for a moment. I am locating it, defining it and exposing it. This is the weak point: The Boundary Commission to be set up under Article 12 affects the existing frontiers of the Ulster Government and may conceivably affect them prejudicially. It is far better to face facts and not to gloss them over. To that extent, Ulster may have a ground of complaint against the Government. What is the answer which the Government will make? I cannot do better than quote the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Glasgow (Mr. Bonar Law), the late Leader of the House. That right hon. Gentleman, whose re-appearance in the winter Session gave so much pleasure to the House, in speaking on this subject, in his cool, judicial, and fair-minded way, said: Very likely the Government felt that if they did not conclude the negotiations right away they might not conclude them at all. If so, I think that that is a defence which ought to be seriously taken into account.”—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1921; cols. 203–4, Vol. 149.] I think to-day also it ought seriously to be taken into account. We were bound, we considered ourselves bound, to try to reach a settlement. Had we waited to refer the details of that settlement at the last moment to the Northern Government it is quite evident by what occurred in the Dail, and by the violent opposition encountered there, that no settlement would have been achieved at all. Therefore, we agreed to the Boundary Commission. We agreed to it with, no doubt, a feeling that the argumentative position of this country in regard to some of those districts in Fermanagh and Tyrone was not as strong as in regard to what is characteristically the Protestant part. We agreed, knowing well that outside the limits of those counties there are also Protestant districts of great importance and considerable population and dimensions which it seemed to us must be taken into account and consideration in the general question of rectifying the boundaries which is entrusted to the Boundary Commission. There is no doubt whatever that we felt the difficulty in this matter. If we are accused to-day of having brought the settlement to a conclusion without having referred it, as we should have liked to do in this matter, at the last moment to the Northern Government—

    Sir W. DAVISON You promised to do it.

    Mr. CHURCHILL I will deal with that point in a moment, and I think we shall not have any difference on the subject. If we are reproached for that, let the House consider what would have been the position of this country as a whole, not the position of the Government, but of the country, sore pressed at the present time with burdens, with threats, with menaces in every quarter of the world, if we had had to break off the Conference, destroy the negotiations, and embark upon what was literally the re-conquest of Ireland, at enormous expense in money and in men, to embark upon bloodshed, upon a far larger scale than anything that had ever occurred and to appeal to the country for support, when the only difference which could be disclosed would not be the question of allegiance to the Crown, or of common citizenship in the British Empire; not the question of the exclusion or the right of Ulster to contract out—it would not have been any of those questions which did in former times, and might in future almost justify men in their wrath in drawing the sword, but simply the question of the right of option of certain Catholic districts in Fermanagh and Tyrone and, of course, certain Protestant districts in Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan and elsewhere. We may be censured, but we must be judged in relation to the whole situation and in regard to our efforts to cope with it.

    There is really no need for anger on the point. If we have done wrong, action should be taken by the House without anger being shown. If our supporters in the House feel convinced that we have done wrong in the Boundaries Clause, into which we have entered, and from which, having pledged ourselves to it, it is altogether out of our power to recede, if they think it impossible on general grounds to endorse our action, then they should do their duty as we have endeavoured to do ours. This is no time for any Government to ask favours. This is no question on which this Government stands in need of asking a favour. The issues are far too serious. The days in which we live are far too difficult. The burden of affairs is far too onerous for any Government to wish to hold office except on public grounds and for public causes. The question should therefore be dealt with quite impersonally, quite dispassionately, with mutual respect, and without heat or recrimination on either side. But before any Member, wherever he may sit, takes the momentous step of voting for an Amendment which, if carried, will destroy the Treaty and the Administration pledged to the Treaty, let him ponder carefully and long upon the responsibilities to be assumed and upon the alternatives which are involved, upon the consequences which would surely follow. Let him, as Mr. Gladstone said 40 years ago at this box, think well, think wisely, think not for the moment but for the years that are to come.

    If I am not trespassing on the time of the House, I will conclude the full scope of the argument which I am endeavouring to submit. If the House in its wisdom decides that we are not to take that step, if it decides, as we think it will, to stand by the Treaty at all costs, then let us see what the future course of events is likely to be. I am going to try to make a forecast and give a time-table of the next few months for the information of this House and, of course, I make it, as they say, with all reserve, and with a prophetic sense which has been frequently corrected by contact with ultimate realities—but not so frequently as is commonly supposed. The first thing to do is to pass this Bill through both Houses of Parliament, which we may hope will be achieved in the course of the next month. Do you want more margin than that?

    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George) No.

    Mr. CHURCHILL The next thing will be the holding of the Irish election, which I might provisionally fix for March or April. The next thing is that the Irish Free State Parliament should assemble and, acting as a Constituent Assembly, should make the Constitution. Let us hope that that will be in progress in May or June. Then there is the final confirmatory legislation of the Imperial Parliament, which, we may say, will take place in June or July, if the time-table were observed. I must read on this point the actual words of what we have agreed with our co-signatories of the Treaty in this respect. The question is from what gate, according to the Treaty, does the Ulster option month begin to run. Does it run from the passing of this Bill or from the passing of the final confirmatory Act. There were differences of opinion on this point: There is a doubt as to whether on the strict reading and interpretation of the Treaty the month in which North East Ulster must exercise its option does not run from the date of the passing of this Bill. The Irish Ministers hold quite definitely that it should. On the other hand the Attorney-General holds a different view as to the correct interpretation. The Irish Ministers, however, recognising that as a matter of fairness, apart from strict interpretation, much could be said as to the advisability of allowing North East Ulster to consider the Constitution of the Irish Free State before exercising her option, they are willing not to insist on their construction and to allow the month to run as from the date of the Act of the British Parliament recognising the constitution framed by the Provisional Parliament. These are the exact words agreed to with the co-signatories of the Treaty. We have not in any way departed from our reading of the Treaty, nor they from theirs, but they have waived their point on the ground of what they think reasonable and fair in respect to the exercise of the option.

    Lord ROBERT CECIL Will it be confirmed by this Bill?

    Mr. CHURCHILL It does not require any special legislation. It is a question of the interpretation in good faith of the Treaty by the parties. We are convinced that the words of the Treaty justify the reading of which the Attorney-General has approved, but there will be no quarrel about it because, apart from questions of law altogether, the other signatories to the Treaty agree as a matter of reason and fair play, and so it comes to this—

    Sir W. DAVISON What is the opinion of the Ulster Government on the matter?

    Mr. CHURCHILL It is a question of the interpretation of the Treaty, and of extending the option, and extending it in such a form that Ulster can see what form of constitution it is and what kind of Government it is that they are invited to decide as to whether they will accept it or not. I should like to know what would have been said if we had been told that under the Treaty the option was to run from the passing of this Bill, and that Ulster had to take a decision of the kind without even seeing the kind of Government or the form of constitution with which she was invited to associate herself. There are enough real grievances now without our going out of the way to look for imaginary grievances.

    Mr. R. McNEILL Will it be open to the Northern Government in Ireland to pass their address within a month after the passing of this Act, because their object will be to pass it at the earliest possible moment?

    Mr. CHURCHILL No. The constitutional time for presenting the Address under the Treaty will be within a month of the passing of the final confirmatory legislation promulgating the constitution of the Irish Free State. Meanwhile Ulster is wholly unaffected by this legislation. If the House will follow this time table they will see that it cannot be until the end of July or the beginning of August at the very earliest that the Boundaries Commission could commence its complicated labours.

    Therefore it cannot be until September or October at the earliest, and it may possibly be a much more remote date, if the constitution of the Irish Free State takes longer in the making than the 2 months, which is certainly a possibility, or if the Boundaries Commission takes longer than 2 or 3 months, before this decision upon the boundaries can possibly be arrived at.

    Sir F. BANBURY They will all be dead by then.

    Mr. CHURCHILL That is just what I was expecting to hear—that we shall all be dead by then.

    Sir F. BANBURY No, but they will all be dead in Ireland. They will have killed each other.

    Mr. CHURCHILL Then our task will be greatly simplified. But it will be said—it is said, and I quite understand the feeling—”are we to be kept in this uncertainty all these months? Things will be getting worse all the time.” Even if that were so, we should have to face it. There is no way of avoiding it. If it is true that things are going to get continually worse we have got to stand up to that fact.

    Mr. M’GUFFIN You have not stood up.

    Mr. CHURCHILL We shall have to face what will come. It is inevitable. But why should you assume that things will get worse during all this time, provided, of course, that we all try to make them better, and that no one, who has any influence or responsibility, tries to make them worse? I do not think that things are bound to get worse. I think, on the contrary, that they are going to get better. In order to form a reasonable opinion about the next few months it is necessary to study the real interests of both parties in North Ireland and South Ireland. Let us begin with the North. There was the Craig-Collins interview of 3 weeks or a month ago, and its great decision, which was taken between the heads of the two Governments by agreement. So far as the boundaries question is concerned it is evident that the discussion which then took place was premature, and that it was not possible to arrive at a clear understanding upon that subject. When both parties to that agreement began to address their own supporters they found that the discrepancies between their views and the gaps between their claims were so large that that part of the agreement has undoubtedly at present completely broken down. But as to other parts of the agreement I do not agree, nor does the Prime Minister of North Ireland, that that has been the case. The removal of the boycott in Southern Ireland has been, on the whole, effective to a very large extent, and I know that great efforts have been made by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland to mitigate the lot of the Catholic workers who were discharged during the late trouble, and who are now out of work.

    Mr. DEVLIN What were the efforts?

    Mr. CHURCHILL I will not deal with that. I know that efforts are being made by Sir James Craig, and he has approached me on the subject, to see what assistance the British Government can render, and that these efforts will continue to be made in a loyal and faithful spirit I am confident. Then there is the most important question of an alteration in the form of the Council of Ireland. The Council of Ireland cannot be altered except by mutual consent, but anything can be done by the mutual consent of the two Irish Governments. This House, I am certain, would hasten to ratify and give effect to anything in the nature of a settlement or agreement reached between the two Governments. I have just received a letter from Sir James Craig on this subject. It is dated 15th February. The Prime Minister says: The Government of Northern Ireland has been carefully considering the subject of the continuance under the new Free State Act of the Council of Ireland and has come to the conclusion that it would be advisable for many reasons to substitute some other means of dealing with those services entrusted to the Council by the Government of Ireland Act, 1920. It will be within your recollection that in the agreement I reached with Mr. Collins, a change was hinted at to which he was by no means averse. It appears to me the position of the Council under Article 12 of the Treaty would be both unworkable and likely to lead to continuous irritation between the two Governments. We have had experience already of the Ministers for Labour in Northern and Southern Ireland respectively meeting together to settle matters in dispute as regards the railways, which is one of the powers relegated to this Council. The short experience has shown fruitful results, and I feel strongly that in all matters under the purview of the Council the Executive of each Government could better deal with the subject as a separate Government consulting the other on terms of equality than by an ad hoc Committee, the majority of the members of which have no executive authority. I will not trouble the House with the rest of the letter, which is not relevant. What I am anxious to show is that the agreements which were reached between Sir James Craig and Mr. Collins at their meeting have not lapsed as a whole. There has been a breakdown on one point, but the rest of those agreements stand, and the project of endeavouring to reach a settlement of the outstanding difficulties is by no means cast aside and finally abandoned. Is it not in the interests of the North to see what sort of Parliament and Government will emerge from the elections in the South? May not that Parliament and Government be in a far stronger position and be of a far more reasonable complexion than the present Dail Eireann? Is it not better to discuss passionate questions like the boundary question after the election than when everyone is preparing for it, and when the supporters of the Treaty are constantly exposed to the bitter reproaches of Mr. De Valera and his extreme Republican sect, and when a renegade Englishman like Mr. Erskine Childers is doing his best to poison the relations between the Irish people and their chosen leaders? Will it not be very much better to take up the difficult question of the boundary after the Irish elections have been held than before? After the election let us see what comes of it and let us then make up our mind what is best to do. Let us now see what is the interest of Southern Ireland in this matter. What is their heart’s desire more than anything else? [HON. MEMBERS: “A Republic.”] Not at all; that is a delusion, and my hon. Friends are absolutely at sea when they say so. A Republic is an idea most foreign to the Irish mind, associated with the butcheries of Cromwell in their minds and foreign to all the native genius of the Irish race, which is essentially monarchical.

    Major C. LOWTHER Why have they an Irish Republican Army if it is so foreign to them?

    Mr. CHURCHILL Because they have been fighting for position against this country. I say really what the Southern Irish most desire and what Irishmen all over the world most desire is not hostility against this country, but the unity of their own. They can never attain that unity by force. That they are at last compelled to recognise and admit. They can never attain it by harshness or by hostile action towards Ulster. Take the boundary question as an example. There is no one who can predict what the Commission will decide. Let me take an extreme and absurd supposition. Let us assume that the Commission, going far beyond what any reasonable man would expect, and far beyond what those who signed the Treaty meant, were to reduce Ulster to its pre-ponderatingly Orange areas. I am taking that extreme and absurd supposition. Suppose that were to happen, would not that be a fatal and permanent obstacle to the unity and co-operation of Ireland?

    Let us just see what would happen. The Protestant North would be violently and finally sundered from the rest of Ireland, there would be no mitigating or modifying element or influence, and common interests between the two would be reduced to a nullity. The resentment of Ulster would be enduring, and her practically homogeneous population would, for generations, aim not, as Southern Irishmen hope, at bringing Ireland as a whole into harmony with the British Empire, but would rivet herself by every conceivable means on to England and Scotland, so that in the course of time Ulster would effectively become a part of Great Britain and not a part of Ireland. I am addressing this argument not only to this House; I am endeavouring to lay down the true way along which the permanent interests of the Southern Irish Parliament and Government lie. What would Great Britain do in such an absurd and extreme contingency as that which I have indicated? She is bound by the Treaty; but, in my opinion, if we saw Ulster maltreated and mutilated by the Boundary Commission so that she was no longer an Irish economic entity, we should be bound to reconsider her whole economic and financial position. [HON. MEMBERS: “Oh, oh!”]

    Now I hope my argument will be carefully considered; although I say it myself, it is worthy of consideration. Not only should we defend 1280 every inch of Ulster soil under the Treaty as if it were Kent, but we should be bound to take special measures to secure that Ulster was not ruined by her loyalty to us. It is evident that our position, if we only study it and reflect upon it, is one of tremendous strength, and that with patience and with care we may easily succeed in bringing about a result acceptable to all. If I were an Irish Nationalist I should dread more than anything else such a development as I have indicated, against which I could do absolutely nothing, nothing by force against the British Empire, nothing by persuasion against the inflexible will of the Northern Protestants, nothing by appeal to the judgment of the world, for the world, be assured, will always uphold the Treaty and Ulster’s right to self-determination under the Treaty. If I were an Irish Nationalist, I would far rather go to the other extreme. I would far rather say: Take more Catholics, not less; make a more even balance in your Assembly; agree with us in friendship for common purposes; keep all your own rights, but share ours too, and instead of cutting this partition line deeper and deeper across the soil of Ireland, instead of painting the map on either side of this line in ever more vivid contrasts of orange and green, let us try to blend a little more and modify those contrasts and divisions.

    Pursuing that line of thought, if that line of thought is found to have validity, it is clear the boundary line would cease to have the same bitter significance in proportion as North and South are associated for important common purposes in some higher organisation than their existing Parliaments. Nothing in the agreement between Sir James Craig and Mr. Collins was more important than the improved arrangements for a Council of Ireland, on the subject of which I have read a letter to the House. Since then we have had a bad set-back, but we are, I think, repairing and restoring the situation. We must have time, we must have patience, we must have this Bill. Ulster must have British comfort and protection. Ireland must have her Treaty, her election and her constitution. There will be other and better opportunities of dealing with the difficult boundary question, and if the House will take the advice of the Government, we strongly deprecate any attempt to reach a final conclusion upon that subject now.

    Let me, before I sit down, leave Ireland and the Irish point of view and Irish interests, and say to the House what is the function of the Imperial Parliament. That, after all, is our point of view. That is our first and proper care in this House. Our interest is very clear, and it should be everywhere recognised and proclaimed what our interest is. The Imperial interest, taking a long view, seeks both the unity of Ireland and the unity of the British. Empire, or if you prefer it, Commonwealth of Nations. We can help Ireland to the one if Ireland helps us to the other, and we may be willing to help Ireland to the one in proportion as she helps us to the other. We ought to use our great power and our great unmeasured strength to that end, and in this method of policy, and we shall be justified in so doing at every step by our interest, by our honour, by our good faith and by fair play. From an Imperial point of view we are bound to endeavour to act in an impartial manner; but though we are impartial we cannot be indifferent. Naturally, our hearts warm towards those in the North who are helping, and have helped so long, to keep the old flag flying, and who share our loyalty and our sentiments, and address us in terms of common kinship and not in those of forced aversion.

    Ulster has a great part to play in these next few months, an immense part, and the opportunity perhaps of rendering service to the British Empire of inestimable value, and of long lasting consequences in history, and I am very glad indeed to think that at this juncture there should be a man like Sir James Craig as Premier of the Northern Government and that Ulster will be represented in this House and in the House of Lords by representatives who are fully alive to the Imperial aspect of this great question, and are not likely ever to lose sight of that. I end in the way I began, upon the Treaty to which we now ask the House to give statutory effect, and the Bill which we ask the House to read a second time. For generations we have been wandering and floundering in the Irish bog, but at last we think that in this Treaty we have set our feet upon a pathway, which has already become a causeway—narrow, but firm and far-reaching. Let us 1282 march along this causeway with determination and circumspection, without losing heart and without losing faith. If Britain continues to march forward along that path, the day may come—it may be distant, but it may not be so distant as we expect—when, turning round, Britain will find at her side Ireland united, a nation, and a friend.

  • Winston Churchill – 1901 Maiden Speech in the House of Commons

    winstonchurchill

    Below is the text of the maiden speech of Winston Churchill, held in the House of Commons on 18th February 1901.

    I understood that the hon. Member to whose speech the House has just listened, had intended to move an Amendment to the Address. The text of the Amendment, which had appeared in the papers, was singularly mild and moderate in tone; but mild and moderate as it was, neither the hon. Member nor his political friends had cared to expose it to criticism or to challenge a division upon it, and, indeed, when we compare the moderation of the Amendment with the very bitter speech which the hon. Member has just delivered, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the moderation of the Amendment was the moderation of the hon. Member’s political friends and leaders, and that the bitterness of his speech is all his own.

    It has been suggested to me that it might perhaps have been better, upon the whole, if the hon. Member, instead of making his speech without moving his Amendment, had moved his Amendment without making his speech. I would not complain of any remarks of the hon. Member were I called upon to do so. In my opinion, based upon the experience of the most famous men whose names have adorned the records of the House, no national emergency short, let us say, of the actual invasion of this country itself ought in any way to restrict or prevent the entire freedom of Parliamentary discussion. Moreover, I do not believe that the Boers would attach particular importance to the utterances of the hon. Member.

    No people in the world received so much verbal sympathy and so little practical support as the Boers. If I were a Boer fighting in the field—and if I were a Boer I hope I should be fighting in the field—I would not allow myself to be taken in by any message of sympathy, not even if it were signed by a hundred hon. Members. The hon. Member dwelt at great length upon the question of farm burning. I do not propose to discuss the ethics of farm burning now; but hon. Members should, I think, cast their eyes back to the fact that no considerations of humanity prevented the German army from throwing its shells into dwelling houses in Paris, and starving the inhabitants of that great city to the extent that they had to live upon rats and like atrocious foods in order to compel the garrison to surrender. I venture to think His Majesty’s Government would not have been justified in restricting their commanders in the field from any methods of warfare which are justified by precedents set by European and American generals during the last fifty or sixty years. I do not agree very fully with the charges of treachery on the one side and barbarity on the other.

    From what I saw of the war—and I sometimes saw something of it—I believe that as compared with other wars, especially those in which a civil population took part, this war in South Africa has been on the whole carried on with unusual humanity and generosity. The hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has drawn attention to the case of one general officer, and although I deprecate debates upon the characters of individual general officers who are serving the country at this moment, because I know personally General Bruce Hamilton, whom the hon. Member with admirable feeling described as General Brute Hamilton, I feel unable to address the House without offering my humble testimony to the fact that in all His Majesty’s Army there are few men with better feeling, more kindness of heart, or with higher courage than General Bruce Hamilton.

    There is a point of difference which has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition upon the question of the policy to be pursued in South Africa after this war has been brought to a conclusion. So far as I have been able to make out the difference between the Government and the Opposition on this question is that whereas His Majesty’s Government propose that when hostilities are brought to a conclusion there shall be an interval of civil government before full representative rights are extended to the peoples of these countries, on the other hand the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition believes that these representative institutions will be more quickly obtained if the military government be prolonged as a temporary measure and no interval of civil government be interposed. I hope I am not misinterpreting the right hon. Gentleman in any way. If I am, I trust he will not hesitate to correct me, because I should be very sorry in any way to misstate his views. If that is the situation, I will respectfully ask the House to allow me to examine these alternative propositions. I do not wish myself to lay down the law, or thrust my views upon hon. Members. I have travelled a good deal about South Africa during the last ten months under varying circumstances, and I should like to lay before the House some of the considerations which have been very forcibly borne in upon me during that period.

    In the first place I would like to look back to the original cause for which we went to war. We went to war—I mean of course we were gone to war with—in connection with the extension of the franchise. We began negotiations with the Boers in order to extend the franchise to the people of the Transvaal. When I say the people of the Transvaal, I mean the whole people of the Transvaal, and not necessarily those who arrived there first. At that time there were nearly two and a-half times as many British and non-Dutch as there were Boers, but during the few weeks before the outbreak of the war every train was crowded with British subjects who were endeavouring to escape from the approaching conflict, and so it was that the Uitlanders were scattered all over the world. It seems to me that when the war is over we ought not to forget the original object with which we undertook the negotiations which led to the war. If I may lay down anything I would-ask the House to establish the principle that they ought not to extend any representative institutions to the people of the Transvaal until such time as the population has regained its ordinary level. What could be more dangerous, ridiculous or futile, than to throw the responsible government of a ruined country on that remnant of the population, that particular section of the population, which is actively hostile to the fundamental institutions of the State? I think there ought to be no doubt and no difference of opinion on the point that between the firing of the last shot and the casting of the first vote there must be an appreciable interval that must be filled by a government of some kind or another.

    I invite the House to consider which form of government—civil government or military government—is most likely to be conducive to the restoration or the banished prosperity of the country and most likely to encourage the return of the population now scattered far and wide. I understand that there are hon. Members who are in hopes that representative institutions may directly follow military government, but I think they cannot realise thoroughly how very irksome such military government is. I have the greatest respect for British officers, and when I hear them attacked, as some hon. Members have done in their speeches, it makes me very sorry, and very angry too. Although I regard British officers in the field of war, and in dealing with native races, as the best officers in the world, I do not believe that either their training or their habits of thought qualify them to exercise arbitrary authority over civil populations of European race. I have often myself been very much ashamed to see respectable old Boer farmers—the Boer is a curious combination of the squire and the peasant, and under the rough coat of the farmer there are very often to be found the instincts of the squire—I have been ashamed to see such men ordered about peremptorily by young subaltern officers, as if they were private soldiers. I do not hesitate to say that as long as you have anything like direct military government there will be no revival of trade, no return of the Uitlander population, no influx of immigrants from other parts of the world—nothing but despair and discontent on the part of the Boer popuation, and growing resentment on the part of our own British settlers.

    If there was a system of civil government on the other hand, which I think we have an absolute moral right to establish if only from the fact that this country through the Imperial Exchequer will have to provide the money—if you had a civil government under such an administrator as Sir Alfred Milner—[Cries of “Hear, hear,” and “Oh”]—it is not for me to eulogise that distinguished administrator, I am sure he enjoys the confidence of the whole of the Conservative party, and there are a great many Members on the other side of the House who do not find it convenient in their own minds to disregard Sir Alfred Milner’s deliberate opinion on South African affairs. As soon as it is known that there is in the Transvaal a government under which property and liberty are secure, so soon as it is known that in these countries one can live freely and safely, there would be a rush of immigrants from all parts of the world to develop the country and to profit by the great revival of trade which usually follows war of all kinds. If I may judge by my own experience there are many Members of this House who have received letters from their constituents asking whether it was advisable to go out to South Africa. When this policy of immigration is well advanced we shall again have the great majority of the people of the Transvaal firmly attached and devoted to the Imperial connection, and when you can extend representative institutions to them you will find them reposing securely upon the broad basis of the consent of the governed, while the rights of the minority will be effectively protected and preserved by the tactful and judicious intervention of the Imperial authority. May I say that it was this prospect of a loyal and Anglicised Transvaal turning of the scale in our favour in South Africa, which must have been the original “good hope” from which the Cape has taken its name.

    It is not for me to criticise the proposals which come from such a distinguished authority as the Leader of the Opposition, but I find it impossible not to say that in comparing these two alternative plans one with the other I must proclaim my strong preference for the course His Majesty’s Government propose to adopt. I pass now from the question of the ultimate settlement of the two late Republics to the immediate necessities of the situation. What ought to be the present policy of the Government? I take it that there is a pretty general consensus of opinion in this House that it ought to be to make it easy and honourable for the Boers to surrender, and painful and perilous for them to continue in the field. Let the Government proceed on both those lines concurrently and at full speed. I sympathise very heartily with my hon. friend the senior Member for Oldham, who, in a speech delivered last year, showed great anxiety that everything should be done to make the Boers understand exactly what terms were offered to them, and I earnestly hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary will leave nothing undone to bring home to those brave and unhappy men who are fighting in the field that whenever they are prepared to recognise that their small independence must be merged in the larger liberties of the British Empire, there will be a full guarantee for the security of their property and religion, an assurance of equal rights, a promise of representative institutions, and last of all, but not least of all, what the British Army would most readily accord to a brave and enduring foe—all the honours of war.

    I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not allow himself to be discouraged by any rebuffs which his envoys may meet with, but will persevere in endeavouring to bring before these people the conditions on which at any moment they may obtain peace and the friendship of Great Britain. Of course, we can only promise, and it rests with the Boers whether they will accept our conditions. They may refuse the generous terms offered them, and stand or fall by their old cry, “Death or independence!”[Nationalist cheers.] I do not see anything to rejoice at in that prospect, because if it be so, the war will enter upon a very sad and gloomy phase. If the Boers remain deaf to the voice of reason, and blind to the hand of friendship, if they refuse all overtures and disdain all terms, then, while we cannot help admiring their determination and endurance, we can only hope that our own race, in the pursuit of what they feel to be a righteous cause, will show determination as strong and endurance as lasting. It is wonderful that hon. Members who form the Irish party should find it in their hearts to speak and act as they do in regard to a war in which so much has been accomplished by the courage, the sacrifices, and, above all, by the military capacity of Irishmen. There is a practical reason, which I trust hon. Members will not think it presumptuous in me to bring to their notice, is that they would be well advised cordially to co-operate with His Majesty’s Government in bringing the war to a speedy conclusion, because they must know that no Irish question or agitation can possibly take any hold on the imagination of the people of Great Britain so long as all our thoughts are with the soldiers who are fighting in South Africa.

    What are the military measures we ought to take? I have no doubt that other opportunities will be presented to the House to discuss them, but so far as I have been able to understand the whispers I have heard in the air there are, on the whole, considerable signs of possible improvement in the South African situation. There are appearances that the Boers are weakening, and that the desperate and feverish efforts they have made so long cannot be indefinitely sustained. If that be so, now is the time for the Government and the Army to redouble their efforts. It is incumbent on Members like myself, who represent large working class constituencies, to bring home to the Government the fact that the country does not want to count the cost of the war until it is won. I think we all rejoiced to see the announcement in the papers that 30,000 more mounted men were being despatched to South Africa. I cannot help noticing with intense satisfaction that, not content with sending large numbers of men, the Secretary of State for War has found some excellent Indian officers, prominent among whom is Sir Bindon Blood, who will go out to South Africa and bring their knowledge of guerilla warfare on the Indian frontier to bear on the peculiar kind of warfare—I will not call it guerilla warfare—now going on in South Africa. I shall always indulge the hope that, great as these preparations are, they will not be all, and that some fine afternoon the Secretary of State for War will come down to the House with a brand-new scheme, not only for sending all the reinforcements necessary for keeping the Army up to a fixed standard of 250,000 men, in spite of the losses by battle and disease, but also for increasing it by a regular monthly quota of 2,000 or 3,000 men, so that the Boers will be compelled, with ever-diminishing resources, to make head against ever increasing difficulties, and will not only be exposed to the beating of the waves, but to the force of the rising tide.

    Some hon. Members have seen fit, either in this place or elsewhere, to stigmatise this war as a war of greed. I regret that I feel bound to repudiate that pleasant suggestion. If there were persons who rejoiced in this war, and went out with hopes of excitement or the lust of conflict, they have had enough and more than enough to-day. If, as the hon. Member for Northampton has several times suggested, certain capitalists spent money in bringing on this war in the hope that it would increase the value of their mining properties, they know now that they made an uncommonly bad bargain. With the mass of the nation, with the whole people of the country, this war from beginning to end has only been a war of duty. They believe, and they have shown in the most remarkable manner that they believe, that His Majesty’s Government and the Colonial Secretary have throughout been actuated by the same high and patriotic motives. They know that no other inspiration could sustain and animate the Regulars and Volunteers, who through all these hard months have had to bear the brunt of the public contention. They may indeed have to regret, as I myself have, the loss of a great many good friends in the war. We cannot help feeling sorry for many of the incidents of the war, but for all that I do not find it possible on reflection to accuse the general policy which led to the war, we have no cause to be ashamed of anything that has passed during the war, nor have we any right to be doleful or lugubrious. I think if any hon. Members are feeling unhappy about the state of affairs in South Africa I would recommend them a receipt from which I myself derived much exhilaration. Let them look to the other great dependencies and colonies of the British Empire and see what the effect of the war has been therel Whatever we may have lost in doubtfu. friends in Cape Colony we have gained ten times, or perhaps twenty times, over in Canada and Australia, where the people—down to the humblest farmer in the most distant provinces—have by their effective participation in the conflict been able to realise, as they never could realise before, that they belong to the Empire, and that the Empire belongs to them. I cannot sit down without saying how very grateful I am for the kindness and patience with which the House has heard me, and which have been extended to me, I well know, not on my own account, but because of a certain splendid memory which many hon. Members still preserve.

  • Robin Cook – 2003 Resignation Statement

    robincook

    Below is the text of the resignation speech made by Robin Cook in the House of Commons on 17th March 2003.

    This is the first time for 20 years that I have addressed the House from the back benches.

    I must confess that I had forgotten how much better the view is from here.

    None of those 20 years were more enjoyable or more rewarding than the past two, in which I have had the immense privilege of serving this House as Leader of the House, which were made all the more enjoyable, Mr Speaker, by the opportunity of working closely with you.

    It was frequently the necessity for me as Leader of the House to talk my way out of accusations that a statement had been preceded by a press interview.

    On this occasion I can say with complete confidence that no press interview has been given before this statement.

    I have chosen to address the House first on why I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support.

    The present Prime Minister is the most successful leader of the Labour party in my lifetime.

    I hope that he will continue to be the leader of our party, and I hope that he will continue to be successful. I have no sympathy with, and I will give no comfort to, those who want to use this crisis to displace him.

    I applaud the heroic efforts that the prime minister has made in trying to secure a second resolution.

    I do not think that anybody could have done better than the foreign secretary in working to get support for a second resolution within the Security Council.

    But the very intensity of those attempts underlines how important it was to succeed.

    Now that those attempts have failed, we cannot pretend that getting a second resolution was of no importance.

    France has been at the receiving end of bucket loads of commentary in recent days.

    It is not France alone that wants more time for inspections. Germany wants more time for inspections; Russia wants more time for inspections; indeed, at no time have we signed up even the minimum necessary to carry a second resolution.

    We delude ourselves if we think that the degree of international hostility is all the result of President Chirac.

    The reality is that Britain is being asked to embark on a war without agreement in any of the international bodies of which we are a leading partner – not NATO, not the European Union and, now, not the Security Council.

    To end up in such diplomatic weakness is a serious reverse.

    Only a year ago, we and the United States were part of a coalition against terrorism that was wider and more diverse than I would ever have imagined possible.

    History will be astonished at the diplomatic miscalculations that led so quickly to the disintegration of that powerful coalition.

    The US can afford to go it alone, but Britain is not a superpower.

    Our interests are best protected not by unilateral action but by multilateral agreement and a world order governed by rules.

    Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate.

    Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired.

    I have heard some parallels between military action in these circumstances and the military action that we took in Kosovo. There was no doubt about the multilateral support that we had for the action that we took in Kosovo.

    It was supported by NATO; it was supported by the European Union; it was supported by every single one of the seven neighbours in the region. France and Germany were our active allies.

    It is precisely because we have none of that support in this case that it was all the more important to get agreement in the Security Council as the last hope of demonstrating international agreement.

    The legal basis for our action in Kosovo was the need to respond to an urgent and compelling humanitarian crisis.

    Our difficulty in getting support this time is that neither the international community nor the British public is persuaded that there is an urgent and compelling reason for this military action in Iraq.

    The threshold for war should always be high.

    None of us can predict the death toll of civilians from the forthcoming bombardment of Iraq, but the US warning of a bombing campaign that will “shock and awe” makes it likely that casualties will be numbered at least in the thousands.

    I am confident that British servicemen and women will acquit themselves with professionalism and with courage. I hope that they all come back.

    I hope that Saddam, even now, will quit Baghdad and avert war, but it is false to argue that only those who support war support our troops.

    It is entirely legitimate to support our troops while seeking an alternative to the conflict that will put those troops at risk.

    Nor is it fair to accuse those of us who want longer for inspections of not having an alternative strategy.

    For four years as foreign secretary I was partly responsible for the western strategy of containment.

    Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq’s nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam’s medium and long-range missiles programmes.

    Iraq’s military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the last Gulf war.

    Ironically, it is only because Iraq’s military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam’s forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days.

    We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.

    Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term – namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.

    It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.

    Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?

    Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam’s ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors?

    Only a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within months.

    I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to complete disarmament, and that our patience is exhausted.

    Yet it is more than 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.

    We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply.

    I welcome the strong personal commitment that the prime minister has given to middle east peace, but Britain’s positive role in the middle east does not redress the strong sense of injustice throughout the Muslim world at what it sees as one rule for the allies of the US and another rule for the rest.

    Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in Iraq.

    That explains why any evidence that inspections may be showing progress is greeted in Washington not with satisfaction but with consternation: it reduces the case for war.

    What has come to trouble me most over past weeks is the suspicion that if the hanging chads in Florida had gone the other way and Al Gore had been elected, we would not now be about to commit British troops.

    The longer that I have served in this place, the greater the respect I have for the good sense and collective wisdom of the British people.

    On Iraq, I believe that the prevailing mood of the British people is sound. They do not doubt that Saddam is a brutal dictator, but they are not persuaded that he is a clear and present danger to Britain.

    They want inspections to be given a chance, and they suspect that they are being pushed too quickly into conflict by a US Administration with an agenda of its own.

    Above all, they are uneasy at Britain going out on a limb on a military adventure without a broader international coalition and against the hostility of many of our traditional allies.

    From the start of the present crisis, I have insisted, as Leader of the House, on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain should go to war.

    It has been a favourite theme of commentators that this House no longer occupies a central role in British politics.

    Nothing could better demonstrate that they are wrong than for this House to stop the commitment of troops in a war that has neither international agreement nor domestic support.

    I intend to join those tomorrow night who will vote against military action now. It is for that reason, and for that reason alone, and with a heavy heart, that I resign from the government.

  • Robin Cook – 1999 Speech on Kosovo

    robincook

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, at the Mansion House in London on 14th April 1999.

    May I begin, Lord Mayor, by thanking you for your hospitality and your invitation to join you again at this annual dinner. It is a tribute to this dinner that as I look around this room I see such a distinguished audience of people of calibre, status and wisdom in front of me. Never too early to invest in the goodwill of your audience.

    As I look around I see nearly all the Diplomatic Corps in front of me, and can I say to each of those familiar faces of friends from the Diplomatic Corps, I am conscious of the heavy responsibility on me. I see in your eyes as you look at me in expectation that this speech may obtain the matter for at least one reporting telegram. I see I also have with me one of my eminent predecessors, here to see if the new man is quite up to the mark of the old. And as final confirmation of the distinguished character of this event, I also see in this room all those members of staff of the Foreign Office sufficiently senior to be paid more than the Secretary of State.

    Last year I said that the Lord Mayor was one of the greatest roving Ambassadors for Britain. I have to begin this year by admitting you have more than fully kept up to that tradition, My Lord Mayor, indeed you have achieved a first, I suspect, in the history of both Lord Mayors and Ambassadors in that in one single year you have visited every capital in the European Union. And you did that in order to carry a very important message around Europe, that the introduction of a single currency for the rest of Europe does not in any way diminish the attraction and the significance of the City of London as a financial trading centre. It is a mark of the confidence that you have contributed to in the City of London as a place to do financial business that we in the City of London trade more in the euro than France, Germany, or Italy, all added together. I am proud of the fact, but I would mildly suggest that it would be helpful to our diplomatic relations if Paris, Bonn and Rome did not put that in their reporting telegram tonight.

    May I thank you, Peter, on behalf of Britain for that tremendous effort you have put in, and that contribution you have made to the continuing success of the City of London. Can I balance those thanks with one modest correction. I did read in a recent interview from you that you said: ‘When I travel abroad as Lord Mayor, I enjoy the status of Cabinet Minister, so I can get up and say what I want to say.’ I am not sure that you have quite correctly comprehended the constitutional freedoms of a Cabinet Minister, so I did ring Alastair Campbell this afternoon and asked him: ‘Could I get up and say what I want to say?’, to which I got the blunt and characteristic response: ‘Who do you think you are – the Lord Mayor of London?’ But I am happy to say I have got clearance to report to you on the conduct of our foreign policy.

    Unlike so many of the companies in the City, it has been a year of steady growth. We have increased the number of our posts around the world, we have increased the number of diplomats working in our posts around the world. We have put particular focus in that expansion on helping British business. We have doubled the number of diplomats representing us in the Caspian Basin where within the next few years 10 per cent of the world’s oil supply will come. We have created new consular posts to support our business work in Scandinavia, in China and in countries in between.

    We have mended fences with countries where we have previously had no full diplomatic relations. I am happy to say that in the past week I have been able to announce the up-grading of our relationship with Iran to full Ambassadorial status, reflecting our success in securing a commitment from the government of Iran to take no action to further the fatwah against Salman Rushdie. And that has paved the way for us to have a dialogue with the Organisation of Islamic Congress in order to make sure that we have a better understanding between both the European world and the world of Islam.

    With Libya we have achieved an historic breakthrough within the past two weeks in that we have secured the handover of those two whom we have charged with the bombing of the Pan Am flight over Lockerbie. It has not entirely cleared the way yet for normal diplomatic relations with Libya, there are other matters that are still to be resolved in our bilateral relations, particularly the killing of WPC Fletcher, but it has enabled us to proceed with our judicial process and has enabled us also to lift the United Nations’ sanctions on Libya through the immediate suspension of those sanctions and thereby remove what is becoming an increasing problem between us and countries of the Arab world.

    I am particularly pleased with one relationship which we have also improved. We have always maintained diplomatic relations with Nigeria. I have to say until last year our High Commissioner found that the diplomatic relations that he had with the country to which he was attached was mainly being summoned in to be scolded whenever the Foreign Secretary had criticised the previous military regime in Nigeria. But nothing has given me more pleasure in the past year than the visit which I paid immediately after the Presidential elections as the first western Foreign Minister to visit the new democratic Nigeria: to sense the tremendous excitement of those people as they move into a new era of democracy and away from the recent past of military rule. The goodwill that I sensed there from the people of Nigeria in part reflected their respect for our firm position during the dark years of military rule.

    While I was in Africa I also hosted a joint conference with the French Foreign Minister. Those of you here from the Diplomatic Corps from an African state will understand the full and striking novelty of the British and the French Foreign Minister hosting a joint conference in Africa. Indeed I can confirm, since the doyen of the Diplomatic Corps has pointed out, this building was constructed in 1752, even in that long time this room has never heard of a joint conference in Africa between the French and the British Foreign Ministers. But both myself and my colleague strongly feel the time has come for our two countries to put behind us the habits of competition in Africa and to base our approach to Africa on a policy of cooperation. We are both interested in securing stability and development in Africa; we both strongly believe we have a better chance of securing that if we work together rather than against each other.

    This, if I may say, is a striking example of how close cooperation now is between the government of Britain and our European partners. There are other examples. We have just held this past weekend the first summit between the Prime Ministers of Britain and of Spain. The trial that we are about to hold in the Netherlands over the Lockerbie bombing would not have been possible without the very welcome and strong cooperation with the government of the Netherlands and particularly the personal interest of my colleague, van Aartsen. With Sweden we have launched a joint programme on social exclusion. With the new Germany we have secured a commitment in Europe to an annual report on European activity on human rights. And next month our Prime Minister goes to Germany to receive the Charlemagne Prize in recognition of his contribution to European development.

    That strong standing in the capitals of Europe is a vital asset to us in European negotiations. I have to say also it is a vital asset as well to the companies of the City and elsewhere in British industry. It has enabled us to end the ban on our beef exports; it has enabled us to secure one of the biggest increases in support of structural funds for Objective One regions in the recent Agenda 2000 negotiations; it has secured for Britain a commitment that there will be a seat for the United Kingdom in the European Central Bank if and when we join the euro; and at the Berlin European Council it enabled us both to support budget discipline and retain the British budget rebate.

    Together with our partners we are building a modern Europe, a modern Europe which has two clear futures. First, barriers are coming down between us. We have learnt that we can achieve more security for our nations by integrating our markets and our economies than we ever achieved by arming frontiers that kept us apart. But secondly, it is not an homogenised, pasteurised Europe, it is a Europe which recognises that cultural diversity is a source of strength, a Europe that respects equal rights of every citizen regardless of ethnic identity. A Europe that does not just tolerate cultural difference but treasures them as part of the richness of our communities. And those two features of a modern Europe, free of barriers with equal respect for cultural diversity, those key characteristics, explain why it is that Europe is united in support for the military campaign against Yugoslavia.

    In our Grace earlier this evening we prayed for peace in our time. I hope we will secure that peace soon in our time. But meantime modern Europe cannot tolerate on its continent the revival of fascism or the doctrine of ethnic superiority and the fostering of ethnic hatred. We have seen in the past three weeks mass deportations on a scale that we have not seen since the years of Hitler or Stalin. We have seen innocent women, children and some, but not all, their men herded like cattle into railways and carried on mass deportation by shuttle service. We have seen others of their ethnic community hunted like animals across the hillside.

    When I was at Rambouillet I was introduced by our Ambassador to a young woman from Kosovo who has acted as Albanian interpreter to our Embassy in Belgrade and had accompanied us to Rambouillet. I met her again last week after she had spent a fortnight escaping from Kosovo to Macedonia. In that time she had spent several days on the hillside with many thousands of others seeking to escape from the ethnic cleansing. In those days on the hillside she saw 14 babies born under the open sky. Many of those babies died and so too did some of their mothers.

    Mercifully, many of those refugees have now made it over the border from that terror and I warmly welcome, Lord Mayor, the generous donation that you have announced tonight on behalf of the City of London, a donation which demonstrates the responsibility with which the City takes its international role. I also wish to pay particular appreciation to the enormous relief work that is being carried out by our and our Allied troops over those past three weeks. In two days alone, British troops constructed shelter in camps in Macedonia for 30,000 people. NATO is now emerging as a major humanitarian agency, assisting the victims of that ethnic cleansing at the same time as we seek by military campaign to make it more difficult for that ethnic cleansing to be conducted.

    We meet within a City of London whose very basis is respect for the rule of law. In Kosovo at the present time we witness total contempt for the rule of law. The mass graves that have been uncovered by our photographs by aerial reconnaissance are the graves not of the casualties of fighting or of war, they are the graves of the victims of war crimes. I say to you, we will hold to account those who have carried out those unpardonable crimes. We know the names of the Field Commanders, they know their responsibility for the conduct of their units and we are passing to the War Crimes Tribunal all our information and intelligence in order that they may pursue those responsible and pursue them right up the chain of command to the top in Belgrade.

    I am well aware that one should not commit servicemen to take the risk of military action unless our national interest is engaged. I firmly believe that upholding international law is in our international interest. Our national security depends on NATO. NATO now has a common border with Serbia as a result of the expansion to embrace Hungary and other countries of central Europe. Our borders cannot remain stable while such violence is conducted on the other side of the fence. NATO was the guarantor of the October agreement. What credibility would NATO be left with if we allowed that agreement to be trampled on comprehensively by President Milosevic and did not stir to stop him? Therefore we must succeed, we must succeed for our own sake but also for the sake of the refugees, we must succeed in pressing home our key objective that they should be able to return to their homes under international protection. Anything else would be a betrayal of the refugees and a reward for President Milosevic.

    One of the encouraging features of the past two weeks has been the solidarity that we have received from the other seven countries of the region. I met last Thursday with the other European Foreign Ministers. All their governments are robust that a stand must be made against President Milosevic. All of them are now in a new dialogue with each other on regional solidarity. With each of them Europe is now accelerating its contacts and deepening its economic links. This is an exciting development which must not cease with a solution to the immediate crisis in Kosovo, but which we must take forward to enable those seven countries to develop a fuller integration with the modern Europe which they want to join.

    By contrast, Belgrade still lives in the past. I visited Belgrade at the start of the Kosovo crisis and had a full discussion with President Milosevic on the looming developments in Kosovo. I have to report that he began by saying that I could not understand what was happening in Kosovo unless I started in 1389. There was something tragic about such a deep history perspective on current events. I am pleased to assure the diplomatic representatives here today that I did manage to choke back the observation that if we all went back to the 14th century, HMG would have very sound title to large chunks of France. But I did not believe that it would be in our national interest to assert that title, nor is it in the interests of Serbia to live in the Middle Ages when the rest of the world is moving on into the 21st century. And some day his people too will decide that they want to join the modern Europe and they do not want to be trapped in the time warp which President Milosevic offers them.

    The strength of our Alliance is in no large part thanks to the continued commitment of our north American allies to freedom and stability in Europe. Just before I left for this dinner I held my daily conference call with Madeleine Albright. I will share with you the thought which I did not share with her, that for once I was very glad it was not a video conference call. The past three weeks has carried with it the very important message that vital to the freedom and security of Europe is the partnership between America and Europe, a partnership which goes back to the last war. And in 1945 when together we surveyed what we found in Europe, we found death camps, we found indecent bureaucracy of the extermination programme, pathetic survivors and millions of victims and we said then: ‘Never again’. That is the pledge that we must honour in Kosovo, because in the past two weeks we have again borne witness to forced movements by train, to thousands hungry and squalid in makeshift camps, to pathetic masses shorn of their homes and their papers for no reason other than ethnic identity. Had we done nothing in response, we would have been complicit in that evil. Had we done nothing, we would have betrayed the modern Europe we are trying to build.

    President Milosevic may be beginning to grasp that we will not let him profit from the ethnic cleansing he has inflicted in Kosovo. He knows exactly what he must do to end the NATO air strikes: stop the violence, withdraw his troops and let the refugees go back with a guarantee of an international military force.

    NATO was born 50 years ago out of the defeat of fascism. 50 years later we cannot tolerate the rebirth of fascism in our continent and that is why our servicemen are in action over Kosovo, some of them risking their lives tonight as we meet in the safety of the Mansion House.

    This annual dinner is one of the many expressions of the strong traditions of the City, traditions that provide deep roots for the political and economic freedoms that have fostered the success of the City: the rule of law; equal opportunity on merit; transparency of information and the freedom of comment; a spirit of internationalism and security for trade with any part of the world. Because we possess these freedoms perhaps we do not sometimes prize them enough. Nobody has a better or a more bitter appreciation of the worth of freedom than those who are denied it, such as the people of Kosovo. It is in the hope that we can build a modern Europe in which all its peoples can be united by the same security and freedom that I now call upon each of you to join with me in a toast to the Lord and Lady Mayoress.

  • Robin Cook – 1999 Speech on the Global Environment

    robincook

    Below is the text of a speech made by the former Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, to the Green Alliance at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers in London on 15th February 1999.

    For the past week I have been commuting to and from Rambouillet, the chateau just outside Paris where the Kosovo peace talks are going on. It is easy in foreign affairs to become preoccupied with the pressing issue of the day. But while we deal with the conflicts of today, it is crucial that we keep thinking about the kind of world we want to live in tomorrow.

    THE SIZE OF THE CHALLENGE

    If we want that world to have a healthy environment, then we have a major challenge ahead of us. For anyone who still thinks that global warming can be treated as a side-issue here are four simple statistics. The six warmest years on record have all been since 1990. Last year was the warmest ever. Thousands of square kilometres in Britain are already at risk of flooding. A fifth of the world’s population live within 30km of the coast.

    The facts are just as stark in other areas. Take biodiversity. Some people still say that the extinction of plant and animal species is a natural process. So it is. But as the malign result of human activity it is now occurring at up to a thousand times the natural rate. Well over a tenth of the plant species known to man are at risk of extinction. And that isn’t just a tragedy for those who enjoy nature. It should concern anyone who cares about our health. A quarter of all prescription drugs are derived from plants. Drugs derived from tropical forest plants are worth USD25 billion a year.

    In fact, last year the scientific journal Nature published the first ever estimate of the monetary value of the services nature provides for us. The figure the authors came up with was USD33 trillion. If he had to pay for their true value, even the hardest-nosed cynic might think twice about destroying them. It is no coincidence that New York City has found it is cheaper and more effective to restore the forest from which its water is drawn rather than build a new water treatment plant.

    Freshwater is another issue where the position is crystal clear. The demand for freshwater is doubling every 21 years. In 1994 the UN Development Programme reckoned that there was a third as much usable water per person in the world as there had been in 1970.

    Each one of these issues is a slow-moving menace with the momentum of a super-tanker bearing down on us. And I haven’t even got onto the loss of soil and spreading deserts, the state of the world’s fish stocks, the forests, the coral reefs or the ozone layer.

    There is another statistic that is pretty sobering for party politicians like me. All of Britain’s political parties together have less than a million members. The largest number of them, of course, belong to the Labour Party. But there are over five million paid-up supporters of environmental groups in Britain. This is clear evidence of the immense public interest in the environment – people putting their subscriptions where they see their interests.

    THE ROLE OF THE FOREIGN OFFICE

    I believe firmly that the agenda of foreign policy should be set by the concerns of the people. I believe it should be about the things that matter to them. I have therefore pushed the environment up the Foreign Office’s agenda.

    The environment is not a problem we can deal with on a national level alone. CFCs from Chinese fridges will cause skin cancer on this side of the globe. There are still sheep in Britain that cannot be brought to market because of the Chernobyl explosion in the former Soviet Union.

    The response therefore to the environmental challenge must be international. We need to build a coalition that unites the international community in a determination to take the action required. And the Foreign Office has a key role to play in building that coalition.

    I also believe that the environment must be central to foreign policy because it cannot be separated from other issues with which we have to grapple. The prospects for peace in the Middle East would be enhanced if the region’s freshwater were properly conserved. South-East Asia would be more stable if over-fishing were not forcing the fishermen further into the disputed Spratly islands. We strengthen our foreign policy and help make a safer world by factoring in protection for the environment.

    And the converse is true. We strengthen our environmental policy by having a foreign policy that supports democracy, human rights, accountability and openness. It is no coincidence that democratic countries tend to look after their environments better than dictatorships, or that the East European Greens were in the vanguard against communism. All across the world environmental concern is driven by the people. If the people have no voice, their leaders have no interest in the environment.

    STRENGTHENING THE ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT

    We have already strengthened our environment department – it is now the fastest-growing department in the Foreign Office. I can announce today that we are taking this one step further:

    We will be inviting a secondment from an environmental organisation. I want a closer dialogue between government and the environmental movement – so our foreign policy benefits from their immense expertise, and they benefit from a foreign policy that is alive to their concerns and priorities.

    We will be inviting a secondment from business. This will strengthen our partnership with business both to protect the environment and to promote exports from Britain’s strong environmental industries.

    We have agreed a series of secondments into our environment department for young future leaders from developing countries. The programme will be organised through the ‘Leadership for Environment And Development’ programme based in New York. The key to building a global consensus on the environment will be to break down the suspicion between North and South. We in the developed world need to convince the South that our concern for the environment is not a form of protectionism in disguise. We also need to listen to their legitimate wish to enjoy the same prosperity we take for granted, and work with them on models of economic development that are also environmentally sustainable. When the fifth of the world’s population in the richest countries are responsible for over four-fifths of the world’s consumption it is a bit much for the rich to lecture the poor about preserving the environment. We need to work with the South, and build their perspective into our foreign policy.

    A GREENER FOREIGN OFFICE

    The other announcement I made in November was that the Foreign Office was going to put our own house in order as well. I announced a full environmental audit of our operations, so we could ensure that it wasn’t just our policy that was green, but our buildings were as well. This is moving ahead.

    We have carried out an energy audit of our Embassies from Tokyo to Dhaka. The new Embassy we are building in Berlin will be a model in energy efficiency, and our new Embassy in Moscow will contain some of the latest environmentally-friendly building technology.

    We are preparing a Green transport plan for all our operations. We have engaged consultants to look at our home estates and our posts overseas. And we are looking at bringing the Foreign Office and all its posts into line with the criteria of ISO 14001 – the recognised world-wide standard for environmental assessment.

    MAKING A DIFFERENCE

    Our Embassies can have a real impact overseas using their political contacts and public profile to make a practical difference on the ground. All over the world our embassies are running pilot projects, organising training courses, funding consultancies and other projects that have an impact multiplied out of all proportion to our investment in them.

    In Kazakhstan, for example, our Embassy is funding a project to use British expertise to tackle mercury pollution. In Venezuela we are helping to train the National Guard and Coastguard in the enforcement of environmental law. We are providing start-up funding for the manufacture of fuel-efficient stoves to reduce chronic air pollution in the capital of Mongolia.

    I am shortly going to visit Russia. When I am there I will be going to Murmansk to visit the decommissioned nuclear submarines whose waste poses a severe environmental hazard to the region. We are already working with the Russian nuclear regulator to ensure that it has the capability it needs to deal with this problem. But there is a great deal more to be done, and I will be seeing for myself how Britain can best contribute to that.

    THE CLIMATE CHANGE CHALLENGE FUND

    By working with business, the environmental movement and developing countries, we can break the myth of conflict between the green agenda and the growth agenda. I want British business to lead the way in showing that what is good for the environment can also alleviate poverty – it is not just a rich man’s luxury.

    Today I can announce a major step forward in the way we do that work. Together with the DETR, and in cooperation with DFID and the DTI, we are launching a new climate change fund in partnership with business. It will be called the Climate Change Challenge Fund. It will help us make use of British expertise in clean technologies and renewable energies. It will fund projects that will help developing countries to build up the capacity they need to combine healthy growth with low emissions of greenhouse gases.

    To start it off the Foreign Office is putting in half a million pounds into the fund. We hope British companies with an interest in energy and the environment will at least match this sum.

    The Challenge Fund will enable young high-fliers in the key industries in these countries to spend time in British companies. It will pay for carefully targetted consultancies and training programmes.

    The authorities in Peking, for example, tell us that they would welcome British expertise in encouraging the use of gas rather than coal for heating and cooking. And a consortium led by a British company, The Solar Century, is negotiating in China to build the world’s largest factory to make solar panels. At a stroke they will be vividly illustrating the value of environmental technology to the Chinese, helping to hold back global warming, and also creating jobs for Britain. Shell are already showing what British companies can achieve by providing solar power to the townships of South Africa.

    This fund will be a model for government and business working together. It will show that being green need not put you in the red on the balance sheet. And it will show that business can be a friend of the environment and not a threat to the environment. It is a win-win solution.

    I can report that I have already received business support for the initiative. For example, British Gas, Lloyds Register, Price Waterhouse Coopers, National Power, Alstom Gas Turbines, the British Consultants Bureau, ABB UK, and the Combined Heat and Power Association have all welcomed it.

    Today I spoke to Sir Brian Unwin, the President of the European Investment Bank. The Bank is keen to work with us, funding appropriate projects that our challenge fund opens up through its well-established banking network in developing countries. And we could not hope for a better partner. The bank exists to fulfil the objectives of the European Union, and one of those objectives is to make the Kyoto agreement work. It already lends almost 7 billion euros a year on environmental projects, including 150 million euros in developing countries. We will be working together with the Bank to harness some of those resources for the projects opened up by our Challenge Fund.

    THE OTs – A PARTICULAR CONCERN

    The Foreign Office has another particular environmental responsibility, and that is for the Overseas Territories. Their ecosystems are of global significance. The British Antarctic Territory acts as a barometer for climate change and atmospheric pollution – it was there that British scientists first discovered the hole in the ozone layer. The Pitcairns contain the world’s best preserved raised coral atoll. 22 species of whales and dolphins have been recorded around the Falklands. Gibraltar is a key migration route for birds of prey.

    If Britain is worried about biodiversity, then the Overseas Territories should be our first concern – they have ten times as many endemic species as Britain itself.

    These ecosystems are under threat. Uncontrolled development and economic pressures are taking their toll. Foreign species of animals and plants threaten the delicate ecological balance. And few places face such a direct impact from global warming as our island territories.

    We will shortly be publishing a White Paper on the Overseas Territories. It will set out our renewed determination to protect their environments. We will work with their governments, with our international partners and with the environmental community and the private sector.

    Our aims are to build sustainability and proper resource management into their economies, to protect their fragile ecosystems from further degradation, and to find viable alternatives to the depletion of scarce resources.

    We will step up the policy advice we have been providing, like the Caribbean Marine Biodiversity Workshop we organised last year. We will step up the financial assistance we are providing, like the 2.5 million pounds the British Government has committed, since coming to office, to environment-related projects in the Overseas Territories. And we will ensure that the Overseas Territories have access to the expertise they need to become the guardians of their own natural heritage.

    GREENING GLOBAL GOVERNANCE

    One of the slogans of the Green Movement is ‘think globally and act locally’. It is the Foreign Office that can supply some of the thinking globally.

    The lending policies of institutions like the IMF and the World Bank can have a direct impact on the environment. We need to make sure that it is a positive and not a negative impact. The trade policy of the European Union helps determine whether it is in the interests of farmers in the South to look after their soil or not. We need to make sure that all external policies of the European Union support its expressed commitment to safeguarding the environment.

    We need to think carefully about whether there is more we can do to wire in the environment to the work of international organisations. I believe that the key to doing so is transparency. Historically, progress in the environment has been driven by the public and by their lobby groups. Concerned citizens and pressure groups can have a huge impact. Their principal weapon is fact, and so they need access to the facts.

    All international bodies, from the European Union to the United Nations, should not only conduct full assessments of the impact their activities have on the environment, but open up their workings in ways that are now the norm for international treaties on the environment.

    And transparency is also the key to accountability. When institutions take decisions that have environmental consequences we need to make sure that those who are affected by those decisions can hold them to account. To do that, they need to know how those decisions were made.

    Let me deal with two of these multinational bodies where Britain has a leading role. First, the European Union. We used our EU Presidency last year to get agreement to integrate the environment into all policy-making. Three of its Councils must submit comprehensive environment strategies by the end of this year. Opinion polls agree that the environment is one area where the British public, along with all the other citizens of Europe, want to see more rather than less concerted action.

    Today I can announce a further step in partnership in Europe on the environment. Both Joschka Fischer and I have a long commitment to the environment and we talk about it whenever we meet. We have proposed a British-German forum on the environment, to bring together not just our governments but our non-governmental organisations and our businesses as well to look at some of the strategic problems we face on the environment.

    Secondly, the Commonwealth can make a stronger contribution to international partnership on the environment. It is unique in the trust it engenders between its members, and the constructive and friendly atmosphere of its discussions. It is the ideal body for breaking down mutual suspicion on the environment between North and South.

    It was at the Edinburgh Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting that my discussion with the Malaysian Foreign Minister led to the environment initiative at last year’s Asia-Europe Meeting in London. We will be tabling proposals to the South African Government and working closely with them to ensure that the environment is central to our work at this year’s Commonwealth Heads of Government in Durban.

    TRADE AND THE ENVIRONMENT

    Lastly, let me address the question of trade and the environment. We live in a global economy, and the framework of that economy will do more than anything else to determine our global future – from the spread of prosperity and the equity of global growth to the survival of the environment and the protection of biodiversity.

    Economists have long recognised that markets do not function effectively when hidden costs are not taken into account. If our trading system ensures that the polluter pays, then we will have taken a major step to creating an economic framework that ensures both transparent markets and sustainable growth. And that is just as important for developing countries as it is for the West.

    We have made clear our support for the High Level Symposium this year on Trade and the Environment. It will help bring together policies on both trade and the environment – not to strengthen one at the expense of the other, but to create a trading system in which growth is sustainable. It will also provide a focus for our work with our EU partners to make sure that our joint concerns for the environment are fully reflected in the new trade round.

    WHY THE ENVIRONMENT MATTERS

    The pioneers of the environmental movement had to work hard to persuade people that it mattered. Today the impact of environmental stress is all too apparent. There is barely a major area of public policy unaffected by it.

    National security, once the preserve of diplomats and generals, must now take the environment into account. Boutros Boutros-Ghali predicted that the next war in the Middle East would be over water. Two-fifths of the world’s population live in multinational river basins. Nine countries, for example, share the water of the Nile.

    Our economic future is bound in with our environmental future. Our companies now know that growth must be sustainable if it is to be commercially viable in the long-term. Farmers and fishermen the world over have learnt to their cost the economic impact of exhausting the soil and the ocean.

    And the environment is a key determinant of our health. Every day our doctors see the casualties of poor air quality. It may not be too long before the hole in the ozone layer brings them more patients. And according to a recent study in the Lancet modest action on greenhouse gases now could be saving 700,000 lives world- wide a year through cleaner air by 2020.

    PROGRESS SO FAR

    We have made progress. Kyoto and Buenos Aires showed that the world can get its act together, set itself legally-binding targets and develop innovative mechanisms for protecting the environment. We have taken action on the ozone layer by phasing out the use of CFCs.

    But we are under no illusion that this is enough. We are still piling sandbags in preparation for a tidal wave. Assuming all the Kyoto commitments are met in full, global emissions of greenhouse gases will be a third more in 2010 than they were in 1990. We have started on the road to effective international action on the environment, but we have a long way yet to travel.

    A JOINED-UP RESPONSE

    It is not a job that can be delegated to one part of government. To use the vogue expression, it needs a joined-up response. And this Government is providing just that.

    Whether it is Gordon Brown at the Treasury looking after our relations with the World Bank and the IMF and reflecting environmental objectives in his budget, Stephen Byers at DTI working for British environmental technology, John Reid developing a public transport policy for Britain, or Clare Short at DfID providing a record boost to our development strategy, the environment is being integrated.

    It is being led by John Prescott and his staff at DETR. It was his leadership and strength of will that brought Kyoto back from the brink. It was he again that kept the process on track in Buenos Aires. We could not ask for a more effective and committed champion to lead the work which is supported through half a dozen other Whitehall departments.

    CONCLUSION

    But Government cannot achieve everything on its own. We are only one of many agents of change to the environment. Business and commerce have a direct impact on the environment. Together we have a responsibility to shape that impact for the good. Pressure groups and the media can be an important driving force for the education of the public. Together we need to get across the message of how their own conduct can shape their environment for the better or the worse.

    I therefore end by asking you to join with me in a global partnership, to protect our global environment. It is a partnership around one clear message – ultimately, what we do to our planet we do to ourselves and our children.

    What John F Kennedy said over thirty years ago applies even more strongly today:

    Never before has man had such capacity to control his own environment. We have the power to make this the best generation of mankind in the history of the world – or to make it the last.

    Let’s make sure that it is the best.

  • Robin Cook – 1997 Speech to TUC Conference

    robincook

    Below is the text of the speech made by the then Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, to the 1997 TUC Conference.

    Thank you, Tony, and thank you for that warm welcome. I have, because of my life style, become accustomed to starting my speeches by apologising for being late. As the first speaker to present the fraternal greetings on behalf of the Labour Party and Government, I want to begin by apologising for being 18 years late. Sorry it took so long! If it helps to make up for the fact that it took so long, let me begin by assuring you that we have every intention of staying there for the next 18 years.

    We began by making up for lost time. One step that I was proud to take within the first fortnight in office you have already referred to, Tony. The staff of GCHQ make a major contribution to defending the freedoms of this country. Now they are free to share in one of those fundamental freedoms, the right to join the trade union of their choice. Never again must we allow it to be accepted that you cannot be true to your country and also loyal to your trade union.

    I took that step as Foreign Secretary, partly because I know that if I want to say to other countries that “you should observe civil liberties and labour freedoms”, then I have to practise what I preach in Britain first. I am proud of the fact that we have managed to bring to our foreign policy the same values of democracy and of civil liberty and trade union rights that inform our domestic policy.

    Once in my travels I saw a sign in a Paris hotel, “Please check in your values at reception.” I am not one of those who believes that you should check in your values when you check in your passport as you leave the country. We are an international Movement. The rights and freedoms we demand for ourselves we should demand for others who are unable to obtain it by themselves.

    That is why when I was in Indonesia last week I pressed the Government of Indonesia on the concern felt across the union Movement in Britain about the position of Mr Pakpahan, currently in prison on charges arising from his steps to organise an independent trade union ‑‑ independent of Government approval. I was told that he had actually been charged with making a speech inciting the overthrow of Government. I had to tell the Government of Indonesia that if that was an offence in Britain, Tony Blair and I would have spent the last five years locked up in prison!

    I do not want Foreign Ministers to arrive in Britain, from Indonesia or any other country, to start to tell me that we have fallen down on trade union rights. That is why I am delighted that we now have made a commitment that early next year we will publish the White Paper giving effect to our commitment that unions will be recognised by companies where a majority of the work force vote for recognition.

    I want to pick up something that Adair said in his fraternal greetings from the CBI, before me. Of course, it would be far better if that recognition was done by voluntary agreement between management and work force. Of course I understand the tensions that can arise where management feel that they are forced to recognise the trade union. All I would ask is that it is also recognised that tensions can arise within a work force when they feel that their legitimate aspirations are being ignored and are not being listened to.

    As we enter the next century, the key to a competitive successful company will be the skills, the energy and the creativity of its work force, and you cannot ask a work force to bring their innovation, their initiative and their creativity to their work station but then say to the same work force “We are not going to listen to you when you want to talk about the conditions of work in the workplace.” It is an issue of democracy.

    Democracy is one of the key values that has run through what the Labour Government has done since it took office in May. It is because of that commitment to democracy that tomorrow we will give the people of Scotland a vote on the return to Scotland of a Scottish Parliament which will enable us to ensure that the public services to the people of Scotland are delivered by people elected by the people of Scotland. And the same again next week in Wales. It will be the first time in history that Scotland has had such a democratic Parliament.

    I know there are some Nationalists in my own country who will say it will be the first time for 300 years we have had a Scottish Parliament. I do not want to disillusion them about the nature of the previous Scottish Parliament, but very few of the people that I represent ever got a look in in that Parliament of 17O7. This will be a democratic Parliament, bringing decisions closer to the people. It will be good for Scotland. Devolution will be good for Wales. I tell you this, I think it will also be good for Britain because one of the problems that we must tackle is that we have inherited a state in Britain that is too over‑centralised, in which too much power is exercised by too few people at the top, and there is too little freedom for discretion, for local communities to decide the services they want for themselves.

    That is why, having won that power in Whitehall and Westminster, we are determined to share that power, to return power from Whitehall, from Westminster, back to local communities, in particular to take the last remaining power away from that cast of a Gilbert and Sullivan opera in the House of Lords. By the time we meet again next year, we will be on the verge of putting into practice our commitment to clear that mediaeval lumber of Parliament and to make it absolutely established in both Houses of Parliament that the people who take part in passing the laws of our country should earn their seat by the process of democracy, not by the right of birth.

    For democracy to work best it needs to work within a society that is cohesive, a society in which there is social cohesion and social justice. That is why we have already set up our Low Pay Commission which has already met twice to put into effect our commitment to introduce a national minimum wage.

    Yes, I accept ‑‑ and I agree with Adair Turner on this ‑‑ that we have to be competitive in the international world, we have to trade successfully in a global economy, but we will never compete on the basis of going down the cul de sac of lowering wages. There will always be somewhere in the world which will do the job more cheaply than ourselves. We will only compete if we do the job better than others, not through low pay, but through high skills, high technology, high motivation. You do not get a high skilled, motivated, committed work force on the back of poverty pay.

    So we have started on our task, creating a fairer, more just, more open, more democratic Britain. We have started to create a Britain that is more at ease with itself, and also a Britain that is more at ease with its European neighbours.

    I am a magnanimous personality. I wish to be generous to my opponents. I therefore wish to record the immense contribution made to Labour’s election victory by the Tory Eurosceptics. If it had not been for the constant image of division and dis‑loyalty which they paraded I might not be standing in front of you here as a Government Minister. My prize award to a Tory Eurosceptic for having his cake and eating it at the same time went to a former Tory MP ‑‑ I stress former ‑‑ who in his election address said “I shall listen very carefully to all the arguments about the single currency and then I shall vote against it”. Fortunately his electors, to their credit, having listened carefully to all the arguments, then voted against him!

    On May 1st Britain rejected a narrow nationalism that looked back to the lost world of the 19th century independent nation states. It voted to look forward to the next century of interdependent states, and Britain as a result of that new Labour Government is no longer standing on the side lines in Europe, heckling from those side lines ‑‑ not a very good position from which to score any goals. Britain is now a respected and leading player in the European team. We gave an early signal of our commitment in the first weekend after that election, by announcing our determination to sign the Social Chapter, to end the unfair, unjustifiable situation in which the work force in Britain was left with the worst rights to know what was going on of any country in Europe.

    If I have any concern about Europe, it is I think that too often our image of Europe is one of top politicians meeting at Summits, in top people’s hotels, talking about politicians’ obsessions about institutions and procedures. I firmly believe that if we want to make that European project legitimate, relevant, we have to demonstrate that we are participating in the European Union because it can bring real benefits to the lives of the citizens, of people, can bring them a better environment by making sure we do not dump our pollution on each other, can give them better rights at work by making sure we have minimum standards across Europe and, most of all, can tackle the biggest question facing so many families in Britain and across Europe, which is how do they obtain and how do they keep a job.

    As Tony Blair has said, the key objective of our policy Europe should not be to integrate the economies of Europe but to strengthen the economies of Europe. There is no better test of the strength of an economy than its ability to offer its people the opportunity of a job and the security of a career with a future.

    I therefore give you this assurance, that next January, when Britain assumes the Presidency of the European Union, we will make it our number one objective to establish the European Union as a Europe for the people, not a Europe for the top politicians. If I am going to do that, Tony, I need the help of the trade union Movement. I need your help to communicate to the British people why partnership cannot stop at the Channel; why we need to co‑operate with the other countries of the European Union. I want your help to explain during that British Presidency that Britain’s place is in Europe and that we can make Britain’s place the driving seat of Europe. Together we can do it, just as we together won that victory on May 1st.

    Ours is not a tactical alliance, it is a strategic bond based on our common belief that by working together we can achieve more than we can as individuals, based on our shared commitment that for the individual to thrive the individual needs a strong community.

    I am very much aware that Labour’s longest serving Foreign Secretary was Ernest Bevin who came from the trade union Movement. Having seen both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and also the trade union Movement, he said “Can the diplomats and governing classes show us anything so wonderful as this Movement which was built out of nothing?” Those of us who are now in charge of the Government and of its embassies must now show the same humility in constantly remembering that we were put there to serve the ordinary people of Britain. That is what the new Labour Government will do, that is the task we have begun, that is the job for which we will seek another renewed mandate at the next election, and that is the task that I ask our friends in this hall to join with us, to make sure that we complete it.

  • Robin Cook – 1974 Maiden Speech to the House of Commons

    robincook

    Below is the text of the maiden speech made by Robin Cook in the House of Commons on 14th March 1974.

    I, too, am a new Member and I begin by paying tribute to my predecessor, Mr. Tom Oswald, who represented Edinburgh, Central in this House for over 20 years. I have been a Member of this House for only a very short period, but in that time I have come to appreciate how much those who worked beside Tom valued him as a conscientious and reliable Member of this House.

    We in Edinburgh have long respected Tom as one who always gave the first claim on his time to any constituent with a problem. Those who knew him well will be familiar with his habit of maintaining a running serial number on all items of correspondence which he dispatched from this House. It will give some idea of how hard he worked for his constituents when I tell the House that at his retirement Tom Oswald had just reached his 40,000th letter.

    We do not conduct much agriculture in the city centre of Edinburgh. Therefore, I do not intend to follow those hon. Members who have spoken on this subject in the debate. However, we have a serious housing problem. For many of my constituents the expenditure on housing is the major expenditure in their weekly budget. Therefore, I propose to address myself to the price of housing and to the increase in the price of housing which has taken place in recent years.

    We have heard a lot in this debate about the increases in international commodity prices. We have heard how world market forces have pushed up prices with the inexorability of the laws of dynamics. It is worth noting that there is no world market in council houses. We neither trade them nor play the commodity market with them. Yet twice in the past 18 months my constituents have been faced with a major increase in the weekly price of their housing, their council rent, although the rent they pay is among the highest in Scotland.

    Therefore, I welcome wholeheartedly the rent freeze announced by the Secretary of State last week. I do so as chairman of the housing committee of Edinburgh, an authority with 52,000 council tenants. However, very few of those council tenants actually live within my constituency. Indeed, the reason for the acute housing shortage in the city centre is that for decades we have torn down the slums and failed to replace them with modern houses. A much greater proportion of my constituents are private tenants, and to many of those private tenants that rent freeze will be of far greater benefit than to most council tenants.

    I went on a number of walkabouts in my constituency around the shopping centres, expecting to meet shoppers who would talk to me about the increase in food prices. They did, but far more often we met elderly people, private tenants, who were desperately worried by the notice they had just received of the increase in their rent. In one case there was a punitive increase of £98 per annum for a room and kitchen.

    I concede that in some cases the rent of privately rented property is unrealistically low, but it must be remembered that many of those who still benefit from rent control are themselves elderly people receiving the old-age pension. They have not only a low income but are least capable of adjusting budget habits of a lifetime to a situation in which their weekly rent is trebled.

    It must also be remembered that we are talking of property which is the worst in the housing stock and the most neglected. Only this week I received a letter from a constituent who informed me that his rent was being increased by 400 per cent. phased over only four years. Yet this tenant has no hot water and there is no obligation on the private landlord to provide hot water at any stage in the course of those four years.

    Elsewhere in my constituency there are over 100 private tenants who are faced with a rent that will treble; yet I have a letter from the factor of their landlord informing one of the tenants that he is under instruction to spend no money on the repair of the properties. In these circumstances, what possible cost inflation or conceivable wage claim could justify these price increases?

    I regret the extent to which discussion on the Housing Finance Act has concentrated on the council sector. I regret it because it has concealed the greatest evil of the two Acts—the evil that for the first time since the Great War it is possible to get a good return on money invested in slums.

    We have been told that we need not worry unduly about these price increases because those with low incomes—the weak members of society—are protected by rent rebate and rent allowance schemes. On Tuesday there was quite a bit of chest-beating by hon. Members who seemed to imply that because we shall repeal the Housing Finance Act we might somehow contrive to make rebate schemes illegal. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur), who is not here tonight, referred to 149,000 council tenants in Scotland who are living rent free because of the Housing Finance Act. That is not the case. Less than one-tenth of those council tenants are living rent free because they receive a rebate. Over 90 per cent.—the overwhelming majority—live rent free because they receive supplementary benefit and always have their rent paid for them in any case.

    It is worth remembering that, even before the Housing Finance Act, nine out of 10 council tenants in Scotland were already covered by a rent rebate scheme. Indeed, the rebate scheme that we in Edinburgh were compelled to drop by law was significantly more generous than the rebate scheme we then had to introduce. I do not expect that the Government intend to make it illegal for us to retain a rebate scheme. I am confident that they will restore to us the freedom to make that rebate scheme more generous once again. Repeal is only a first step and a beginning towards a more just system of housing finance.

    Those of us interested particularly in housing will watch the proposals put forward by the Government with particular concern to see whether they tackle the causes of increased housing costs. I welcome particularly the commitment given in the Gracious Speech to bring into public ownership building land. Here we have one of the clear, root causes of the recent increases in the price of houses. There have been references to commodity speculation forcing up prices. There is no clearer case of that than in building land.

    The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) has already referred to speculation in agricultural land. Let me give one example of speculation in urban land which has occurred in the city centre of Edinburgh. A major industrial company wished to dispose of four acres of derelict industrial land. It was sold on a Wednesday for £137,000. On the Thursday, the company which acquired the land sold it again for £200,000. On the afternoon of that Thursday the gentleman to whom the company sold it, sold it again for £220,000—an increase of £80,000 within 24 hours.

    The company which sold the land in the first place is not an innocent in business. It is a major industrial concern, well known to many hon. Members on the Government benches for the very fine beer it brews, and to the Opposition for the fine donations that it makes to their party.

    Presumably, the company regarded the price as a fair one for the site. The £80,000 beyond that represents pure profit on speculation, and it has two consequences. First, it has the consequence that the site could not be used for council housing because we could not afford it at that price. Secondly, it means that every house now being built on that site will finally sell for £800 more because of the increase in the cost of the land.

    It is scandalous that we should allow speculation to drive up the price of an essential commodity such as housing in this way, and I welcome the commitment to take building land out of the market. I was distressed to see in the Gracious Speech that “Proposals will be prepared”. I hope we do not take too long preparing those proposals because unless we have public ownership of land, it will not be possible to expand the house building programme.

    Finally, I should like to thank the House for the courteous silence maintained throughout my speech, particularly as all I have said has not been of a non-contentious nature. However, I do not apologise for having confined myself to one topic. Housing is the major problem of my constituency, and its rising cost is the major inflationary pressure on my constituents. I am confident that they will welcome the prompt action of the Government to contain those costs.

  • Alistair Carmichael – 2014 Speech on Higher Education

    alistaircarmichael

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alistair Carmichael at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland on 29th January 2014.

    Thank you Charlie for that introduction, and for handing me the task of keeping our audience invigorated immediately after lunch.

    I am delighted to be able to join you today to speak about what is, by any measure, a Scottish success story.

    In Scottish higher education, we have a sector that enjoys an international reputation for excellence. A sector that punches above its weight on research.

    And a sector that is currently teaching record numbers of students.

    Earlier this month, figures published by the Higher Education Statistics Authority showed that in 2012/13 the number of qualifiers in Scotland was up.

    The proportion of students obtaining a first or second class degree is higher in Scotland than elsewhere in the UK. And we have a higher proportion of women qualifying in science and technology.

    The future

    But it is to the future that we must look – a bright future if our current world rankings are anything to go by.

    Five Scottish Universities rank in the latest top 200. The UK as a whole excels in academic excellence.

    We are ranked second only to the United States. in terms of world-class research.

    The UK’s share of the world’s top 1 per cent most cited publications is on an upward trend.

    And in 2013 the UK was ranked third in the world for innovation in the Global Innovation Index.

    UK-wide research

    There are many reasons for this success – but one that is absolutely fundamental is the highly integrated research environment in which our universities and higher education institutions can operate.

    This integration ensures a coherent and strategic approach to research activity in a common research area.

    It allows funding, ideas and people to flow unhindered across the UK in pursuit of research excellence.

    And that is of benefit to us all. A benefit that comes from being part of a United Kingdom.

    And that is where I want to focus my comments today.

    For too long there has been the simplistic assumption of devolved and reserved.

    Devolved – for the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government alone. Reserved for the UK Parliament and UK Government.

    But the reality is much more complex than that.

    Whilst policy responsibility resides either north or south of the border, we all continue to work within a shared common framework.

    And perhaps nowhere is this more clearly illustrated than higher education and research.

    Last year I published a paper in our Scotland analysis series with the Minister for Universities and Science, that examined the contribution Scotland makes to our UK-wide research framework, and the benefits that Scotland gets as a result.

    As part of the UK we are able to share the costs and risks of research, funding it from a large and diverse tax base to make research more affordable.

    As we set out in that paper, in 2010 the UK Government allocated £1.9 billion for science and research capital for the period 2011-15.

    And since then we’ve allocated an additional £1.5 billion funding for science and innovation capital.

    Research councils

    We’ve got a network of seven Research Councils operating across the UK providing a clear strategic overview of all research disciplines.

    This network minimises duplication and overlap in institutions maximizing our ability to make new and innovative discoveries, and to go on to turn these discoveries into the next miracle cures of the future.

    A shared set of policy guidelines, rules and regulatory arrangements provide a consistent grounding for research excellence and a shared framework on which research collaborations can be built.

    And it’s not just at home that we invest.

    Through our Embassies and consulates we have a Science and Innovation network in 29 different countries to help extend the reach of the UK’s research base.

    Here in Scotland we’ve grasped the nettle to make the most of this UK-network.

    In 2012-13, Scotland secured £257 million of research grant funding from the UK Research Councils.

    This amounts to 13% of the funding available, all for a country which has 8.4% of the UK population.

    Higher Education Research and Development figures for 2011 show that Scottish Higher Education Institute spent £953 million. This is the equivalent to approximately £180 per head of population in Scotland compared with £112 across the UK as a whole.

    The point that I make is that we don’t get access to this despite being part of the UK, we get it because we are part of the UK.

    So the questions we need to ask ourselves are:

    How would an independent Scottish state maintain the level of research quality excellence currently enjoyed by Scottish Higher Education Institutions as part of the UK?

    AND what evidence is there that independence would improve the performance of our institutions?

    It’s not just me asking these questions….

    We’ve seen academics specialising in subjects as diverse as bacteriology to space engineering, veterinary science to the food industry, highlighting the risks.

    What the white paper says

    Of course the Nationalists would have you believe that all would be well in the event of independence – in this and every other walk of life.

    But merely asserting it is not enough. Evidence is required to back up their case.

    And when getting involved in the world of academia, evidence is not a nice to have, it’s a prerequisite.

    And yet, of course, it was evidence that the White Paper lacked.

    We were promised a blueprint for independence, but we didn’t get it.

    Instead we got a set of assertions and grand statements: ‘there will be major direct gains in an independent Scotland for Scotland’s universities.’

    What we didn’t get was any explanation of how we might achieve these gains.

    Instead all we got was a list of the things we have right now in our higher education institutions as part of the UK.

    I don’t disagree with what the paper says about positive student surveys. As a graduate of a Scottish University with a sixteen year old son currently contemplating his own possible applications to them, I celebrate that.

    I don’t disagree with student mobility initiatives such as Erasmus and Fulbright – I wholeheartedly support them.

    Nor do I challenge the fact that this sector helps to drive the Scottish economy and the importance of maintaining a strong research base to ensure that it keeps on doing just that.

    But the point is, all of these things are happening already; as part of a constitutional setup that delivers to the people of Scotland the best of both worlds.

    All the Scottish Government did in their White Paper was to draw attention to everything that is already good about higher education in Scotland.

    At the same time they failed to examine what we stand to lose by breaking up the UK-wide networks that we have.

    According to the Scottish Government we’ll have a common research area between an independent Scotland and the continuing UK.

    Sounds a lot like what we have right now doesn’t it?

    Except of course for one vital distinction. National Governments fund national research.

    There is no international precedent for sharing or replicating a system on the scale of the current UK funding streams across international borders.

    Independence would mean creating a new separate Scottish state; and at the same time creating a new international border with England, Wales and Northern Ireland – the continuing UK.

    You have to ask yourselves why would a state that we had just chosen to leave, want to carry on sharing institutions, funding, expertise in the same way that we do now because we are part of it?

    Some of them have talked about the ‘international trend’ in research for collaboration between countries.

    Let’s take a look at an example.

    NordForsk is an organisation under the Nordic Council of Ministers that provides funding for Nordic research cooperation, as well as offering advice and input on Nordic research policy.

    So far, so good.

    But the bit the Scottish Government are less quick to highlight is that in 2011 the fund amounted to around £13 million – compared to the £307 million secured by Scottish institutions alone from UK-wide Research Councils in 2012-13.

    We have excellent academic links with countries across the globe – of course we do.

    No-one is suggesting that there would not be collaboration between scientists and researchers in a separate Scotland and their colleagues on the other side of an international border.

    But the reality is simple.

    Divergence in research frameworks could make the flow of funding, people and knowledge harder.

    Domestic collaborations would become international collaborations and would carry larger risks.

    An independent Scottish state might wish to share arrangements and facilities but we do not share our Research Council funding – or have a common research framework, the very life-blood of research and innovation in the UK – with other states.

    Why should we in Scotland expect to be treated differently?

    Common research

    The White Paper states that the Scottish Government would seek to continue the current arrangements for a common research area.

    Much as they seem to seek a common currency area; common border area; common regulations for business.

    I have said elsewhere that while the Scottish Government want people to believe they have a vision, in fact what they proffer is a mirage.

    And like all mirages, the closer you get, the less real it becomes.

    In research – as in so many other areas – there can be no guarantees.

    If we vote in September to create a new separate state, we also vote to leave the United Kingdom.

    Becoming a new state means setting up new institutions. And it means leaving the institutions we have in the UK, like the UK Research Councils.

    The Scottish Government cannot assert that shared arrangements will be secured. This will all be subject to negotiations.

    And as anyone knows who’s ever taken part in negotiations, to get a deal you have to give as well as take.

    On top of this – we know they want to do a deal that sees them keep all the bits they like from being part of the UK, whilst giving up the bits they don’t, at break-neck speed. Something has to give.

    But it would seem that the Nationalists want to rely on goodwill and generosity from the continuing UK.

    They want agreement to share institutions from the UK family that we would have just walked out of.

    A family to which we had decided to stop making our contributions.

    But at the same time there’s no offer of goodwill the other way.

    Take the situation of students from the continuing UK paying fees in an independent Scotland.

    The White Paper states the Scottish Government remains committed to free tuition in Scotland.

    At question 240 they recognise that students from any EU member state have, and I quote ‘the same rights of access to education as home students. This means EU applicants for entry are considered on the same academic basis as home students and pay the same. This will remain the case with independence.’

    And yet the answer to the question will students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland still be charged is a simple ‘yes’.

    Mike Russell has nothing to offer the higher education sector in his vision of independence.

    Assertions

    His White Paper is full of assertions and makes promises he cannot deliver.

    That is precisely why he has chosen to distract attention with a synthetic spat around immigration with accusations of xenophobia.

    It is the oldest trick in the book that when you have nothing of substance to say you seek to create heat as a substitute for light.

    The UK Government has of course taken its own tough decisions on fees in England, and we know well that this is not easy.

    But those decisions – like all decisions in government – must be taken in light of affordability, legality and non-discrimination.

    Devolution has allowed the Scottish Government to make its own funding decisions within a member state. But as part of the EU an independent Scotland would have to abide by the law and not discriminate against another country.

    Let’s just think about this for a second.

    We’ve got a Scottish Government here claiming on the one hand that it could charge students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland…

    …Whilst on the other hand admitting that if an independent Scotland were a member of the EU it would have to offer free tuition to students from every other EU member state.

    What does it say about the good faith that the Scottish Government would go into negotiations with those representing the continuing UK we had just left?

    I can see the script now: “We’d like to share the UK pound with you , and we’d still like to have access to the Bank of England – but as for your young people; they will have to pay fees whilst young people from France, Spain and Italy can get into our universities for free.

    And can we have a common research area too, please?”

    I don’t know about you, but I’m not convinced this is the greatest opening line for a set of negotiations of the sort the Scottish Government envisage with the continuing UK.

    Not to mention the fact that it would be illegal under EU law.

    First we saw a group of academics query the proposal saying it would run into ‘significant problems with EU law’.

    Academics including Professor Hugh Pennington and Professor Peter Holmes.

    We were told that there was legal advice. We’ve heard that before of course.

    And just as with the legal advice the Scottish Government claimed to have on automatic EU membership, when people like the former Director of Universities Scotland, David Caldwell ask to see it, it goes strangely quiet.

    The professor of European Union law at the University of Edinburgh has said that the Scottish Government would face an ‘extremely steep uphill battle’ to convince the EU that charging students from the continuing UK would be legal.

    And Paul Beaumont, Professor of European Union and Private International Law at the University of Aberdeen has said there’s a ‘substantial hole’ in the Scottish Government’s plans for funding higher education in Scotland.

    But it’s not just academics within Scotland who have voiced concerns.

    The spokesman for the European Commissioner for education has confirmed that ‘unequal treatment based on nationality is regarded as discrimination and is prohibited by article 18 of the treaty on the functioning of the EU…’

    The former European Commissioner for Education Jan Fiegel put it even more simply:

    ‘this would be illegal. This would be a breach of the Treaty.’

    So now we have a Scottish Government planning to speed through its accession process for the EU

    …securing all the favourable terms that the UK has built up over years and decades’ worth of negotiation

    …whilst publicly stating that they immediately intend to breach the terms of EU membership which prohibit discrimination between states.

    Again, if this weren’t so serious it would be laughable.

    International stage

    But this is how the Scottish Government would seek to represent Scotland on the international stage – and to think that Mike Russell has the temerity to accuse me of xenophobia.

    A state that chooses to pick and choose from the rule book to suit its own ends.

    That wants to rely on some kind of ‘social union’ and ‘great friendship’ to get good terms from those that it walks out on, but is unwilling to offer any goodwill in return.

    I said at the beginning that higher education and research is an excellent example of how being a part of the UK delivers the best of both worlds.

    A thriving network of universities that are delivering opportunities for all, regardless of social background, to improve life chances and enabling students to go on to contribute to the common good.

    Graduates – doctors, teachers, scientists amongst them – all delivering benefits to society.

    Whilst at the same time we are part of a UK-wide research network supported by a diverse and strong economy.

    A network that provides the funding to allow our doctors and scientists go on to be the very best of their professions, exploring and making new discoveries that benefit us all.

    The best way to ensure that our sector can continue to perform as it does is to reject independence and stay with a system of higher education that draws on the best of both worlds.

    And if you cherish our system of higher education as I do

    …if you are proud of the amount of highly rated research that is being undertaken here as I am

    …and if like me, you believe in investing in our young people so that they can to make the most of what we have on offer…

    You will make the positive choice for Scotland and for higher education, and vote to stay a part of our UK family.

  • Alistair Carmichael – 2014 Speech in Brussels

    alistaircarmichael

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alistair Carmichael, the Secretary of State for Scotland, in Brussels on 20th January 2014.

    The most important political debate of my life-time – indeed of most Scots’ lifetime – is taking place now. In just 8 months Scots will have the opportunity to cast their vote on the future of our country in a referendum on Scottish independence.

    We will take the most fundamental collective decision that a nation can ever be asked to take: Whether we stay part of the United Kingdom family or go it alone. That is Scotland’s choice.

    There are many questions to ask and answers to give on the impact of such a permanent and irreversible step. It is by no means a new debate but it is one that still manages to throw up fresh issues and uncertainties.

    You won’t be surprised to hear that I’m very clear on my view: Scotland is better off within our United Kingdom, and the United Kingdom is better off with Scotland as part of it.

    But this isn’t a decision that will only impact on our day-to-day lives within Scotland and the UK. It’s a decision that will affect our relationships with people and countries around the world.

    Today I am going to set out why that would be and why I believe that it is in all of our interests that it should not happen.

    I want to show how Scotland has flourished and achieved within the United Kingdom and because of the United Kingdom – not in spite of it. I also want to show how Scotland can continue to contribute to and benefit from our United Kingdom family. And why that contribution is important to all of us who live there and to our friends and partners here in Europe and across the globe.

    Setting the scene

    But first, let me recap on how we got here. The Scottish National Party’s outright win in the May 2011 election to the devolved Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh meant that Scotland had its first single-party majority devolved government since the Parliament was established in 1999.

    The SNP entered that election campaign with a manifesto pledge to hold an independence referendum and succeeded in electing more than enough Members of the Scottish Parliament to set the legislative agenda.

    What it did not have, however, was the legal power to hold that referendum. In the settlement which established the Scottish Parliament in 1999, the responsibility and power over all aspects of the constitution was retained by the UK Parliament at Westminster.

    Whatever the legalities of the situation the politics was quite clear so the UK government took steps to ensure that rather than just talking about a referendum, there could actually be one.

    For the Scottish Parliament to have acted alone would have been to act outside the law. And as every government knows: the rule of law is a fundamental first principle of government. You abandon it at your peril.

    So Scotland’s two governments agreed a framework for a legal, fair and decisive referendum in Scotland. A framework that ensured the decision on Scotland’s future could be taken by people in Scotland. Reaching an agreement on the process was a big moment in 2012.

    But now we are in an even more vital phase of this debate – discussing the substance, not just the process. What choice should Scots make?

    I do not believe in Scotland remaining part of the UK because of dogma, ideology or nostalgia, but because of what the UK means in the here and now and what it can deliver in the future.

    For too long successive Governments have allowed to go unspoken the contribution that Scotland makes to the UK – and we’ve been equally silent on the benefits that Scotland gets from being part of it.

    We all put something in and we all get something out: the UK – like the European Union – is greater than the sum of its parts.

    2013 was the year when the UK started putting the record straight.

    EU in the context of the debate:

    We embarked on an analysis programme examining the facts, reviewing the evidence and making the case for Scotland as part of the UK in a series of detailed papers.

    Last Friday we published the ninth paper in this series – our first in 2014. This examined the benefits for Scotland of being part of the UK in the EU and on the international stage.

    These issues are not esoteric. They matter for very practical reasons.

    Ours is an age where people derive real benefit from increased cooperation and being part of a global society. Where the logical direction of travel is to break down barriers and work together rather than to erect them and create difference. Scots, like all Europeans, gain from our status as European citizens.

    Membership creates employment, growth and prosperity across the UK thanks to the EU-wide single market. 1 in every 10 jobs in the UK is linked to the EU single market and nearly half of British trade, worth around £500 billion, is with other EU member states. 40% of cars and other vehicles built in the UK are sold in the EU. And 86% of British meat exports go to the EU

    Being part of the EU also helps to open up new markets for UK businesses around the world. The EU has trade agreements with over 50 countries including emerging countries such as Turkey, South Korea, Mexico and South Africa.

    And the EU is currently in negotiations for a free trade agreement with the US which is worth a potential £10 billion to the UK economy.

    Economic benefits

    These economic benefits cannot be underplayed. But all of us here today know that the EU offers our citizens more than an economic union.

    EU cooperation is crucial for tackling cross-border security threats to the UK such as terrorism, drug smuggling and money laundering. The European Arrest Warrant is a crucial mechanism for combating cross-border crime.

    Since 2009 it has been used in the UK to extradite over 4000 criminal suspects.

    The EU also plays a crucial role in tackling climate change, increasing energy security and creating the low carbon economy we need for our future. A united ‘Team EU’ approach was critical in establishing the Kyoto Protocol and the Durban agreement.

    And of course being part of the EU increases our individual opportunities: 2.2 million Britons live in other EU countries, working, studying or enjoying retirement.

    More than half of all UK nationals have a European Health Insurance Card which allows us to receive free or reduced cost healthcare when visiting another member state, benefiting the 24 million of us who holiday in EU countries each year.

    Of course, both the EU and the UK have been built over time and on the basis of shared interests and outlook.

    The UK family sits within the European family and each has its own set of values and institutions that have put down roots. Most British citizens feel pride in the National Health Service that we built together. In the BBC whose reputation for broadcasting excellence is understood at home and overseas.

    And in the sporting success we have enjoyed not least in the 2012 London Olympics where athletes from every part of the UK trained together, competed together and won together.

    As European citizens we can all take pride in an unprecedented Common Market that creates jobs and has made untold millions of goods accessible to our citizens.

    As a lawyer who is passionate about human rights I cherish a European justice system that protects civil liberties and has exalted human rights through the ECHR.

    And a set of institutions that has brought democratic accountability across a continent in a way that would have been unimaginable just a few short decades ago.

    Benefits of UK terms of membership

    But as part the UK Scots benefit still further from being one of the largest member states in the EU. We are able to use our UK influence to deliver on subjects that are of direct interest and importance to people and businesses in Scotland.

    We have secured ‘Hague Preferences’ allowing Scottish fishermen to benefit from higher quota shares. In the face of fierce opposition we secured protection for Scottish salmon from unfair trade from imported Norwegian salmon.

    And in negotiations on the EU’s Third Energy Package we secured a special provision for energy companies based in Scotland to enable them to comply with European legislation without needing to sell off parts of their business.

    We also benefitted from the flexibility that the European family has shown to our specific asks and needs. The United Kingdom was able to negotiate a permanent exemption from the euro.

    We have also maintained our own common travel arrangements with an opt-out from Schengen. And then of course there’s the UK’s budget rebate. As one of the largest net contributors to the EU budget, the UK has negotiated a refund on a proportion of its contributions.

    All three are at risk for Scotland if we leave the UK.

    An independent Scottish state would have no share of the UK’s rebate from the EU, nor be likely to secure an abatement of its own.

    The analysis we published last Friday shows that without its own budgetary correction even under the most optimistic scenarios Scotland’s net contribution would be at least 2.2 billion Euros higher during the current budgetary period than it would have been as part of the UK. That’s an extra 840 Euros per household in Scotland.

    Scotland gets to share in these benefits with people across the UK because we are part of the United Kingdom. If we choose to become a new separate state, we choose to leave the United Kingdom.

    And in doing so we would need to become a member of the EU in our own right.

    Law not politics

    That is not a question of politics – that is a question of law. We set out the clear, legal position in the first of our analysis papers.

    The EU is a treaty-based organisation and the UK – not Scotland – is the contracting party to the Treaties of the EU.

    In the event of independence, the remainder of the UK – England, Wales and Northern Ireland – would be the same state as the existing UK, with the same international rights and obligations.

    Its EU membership would continue on existing terms. The Scottish Government used to deny this of course.

    They used to assert that an independent Scotland would automatically be a member of the EU. And they used to say they had legal advice to back them up.

    But eventually – the truth was forced out of them (only after spending thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money I might add) There was no legal advice. There is no automatic entry.

    The Scottish Government now grudgingly accept that negotiations would be required for EU membership. But I’m afraid they still fail to tell Scots the reality about that process.

    Rather than applying in the same way that every other new member has under Article 49 of the Treaty of the European Union – seeking the unanimous support of the European Council; having membership approved through an Accession Treaty; and having the application ratified with the constitutional requirement of each existing member State – we are told by the Scottish Government in their White Paper that Scotland could become a new member of the EU by the ‘back door’.

    The so-called “Article 48 route” is held up by the Scottish Government as the super highway to EU membership. The fast track not only into the EU but also exactly the same rights and responsibilities that we currently enjoy as part of the UK. But in reality this is a dead-end.

    Article 48 has never been used to expand membership of the EU. There is no way round the law.

    A new state must apply, it would be no different for an independent Scotland.

    This is not to say a new Scottish state could not or would not become an EU Member State. But before the Scottish Government start excitedly quoting me on that, let me remind them that membership – and critically, the terms of membership – would have to be negotiated with 28 Member States.

    This isn’t just our view. It’s the view of the President of the European Council and the President of the European Commission.

    It’s a view expressed by some of those Member States that an independent Scotland would have to negotiate with including the Spanish Prime Minister.

    And it’s the view of expert lawyers like Jean-Claude Piris, the former director general of the EU Council’s legal service who has said “it would not be legally correct to try to use article 48”. The Scottish Government ‘vision’ of independent Scotland in EU is a mirage

    But it’s not just the question of process that’s at stake here. It’s the substance too.

    And here we’ve seen yet more rocking from front-foot to back from the Nationalists when it comes to the heart of this debate.

    Earlier in Alex Salmond’s leadership, Independence in Europe was the slogan for the Scottish National Party. And there was bullish rhetoric about a separate Scottish state, in Europe, punching above its weight.

    On fishing for example – a subject of the greatest importance to my own constituents in Orkney and Shetland – the Nationalists used to assert that a better deal would come the way of a separate Scotland.

    But now that the words require substance, the picture that Nationalists paint is not clear but blurred and patchy.

    I have said elsewhere that while the Scottish Government want people to believe that they have a vision, in fact what they proffer is a mirage. Like all mirages, the closer you get, the less real it becomes.

    Nowhere is this more true than on their position on EU membership. Their recent White Paper on independence demonstrates this perfectly.

    There is a cursory mention of the implications of independence for Scotland’s fishing industry.

    There is no mention of how an independent Scotland would avoid the recent cut to structural funds that has been shared throughout the UK. And despite their robotic assertions there is no explanation of how Scottish farmers could expect to do better under independence.

    Uncertainty

    In applying for separate membership, as a new state, there would of course be considerable uncertainty. This of course explains the curious mix of assertion and omission that stake out the SNP’s position.

    But let’s just think this through.

    Why would all 28 member states agree to reopen the terms of the Common Fisheries Policy to suit a new member with a small population and specific demands?

    Why would they agree to revise the structural funds formula so that their money is redirected to Scotland to compensate for the loss that comes with leaving the UK?

    And why would other member states that have had to phase in Common Agricultural Policy receipts over 10 years agree to an independent Scotland automatically receiving payments from day one?

    Not just that – but according to the Scottish Government – reopening the CAP deal and agreeing to give Scottish farmers increased payments too.

    That would mean newly joined countries like Croatia accepting to a deal that was never offered to them or their farmers.

    And on the Scottish Government’s timetable this would require all 28 Member States to rip up the hard-fought EU budget ceilings agreed to 2020 and reduce their share of the budget in order to give Scotland more money.

    Now that’s all before we even get to why those member states that have been required to join the euro and Schengen as a condition of membership – or that would like a rebate but have none – would now make special provision so that Scotland could have what they could not?

    All of these things that the Nationalists say they would want for Scotland in the EU: The exemption from the euro and Schengen, the retention of the rebate – reform of the Common Fisheries Policy.

    All of which as part of the UK, Scotland already has today, or is better placed to achieve them in the future.

    Leaving the UK means leaving the EU, then trying to fight your way back in seeking the same terms from a weaker position. This runs against Scotland’s interests.

    And we can’t afford to forget that the Scottish Government are seeking to rush all of this through in a flash. They have made clear that, in the event of a yes vote this September, they would declare independence in March 2016 – just eighteen months later.

    But they have also said that they intend to settle the terms of EU membership – and gain unanimous agreement from all 28 member states – in that timeframe.

    This would be a negotiation of record-breaking speed to obtain extraordinary terms.

    Little wonder that experts like Professor Adam Tomkins – Chair of Public Law at Glasgow University and David Crawley – a former representative of the Scottish Government in Brussels – have said that such a timetable is simply not realistic.

    Of course, in any negotiation, the more you give up, the more likely you are to reach a speedy conclusion. Equally the more emphasis you put on a deadline, the less leverage you have over the deal.

    European leaders will be aware of this; Alex Salmond should be too.

    The eighteen month timetable he proposes to place both on himself and the rest of the EU is a negotiating position of extraordinary weakness.

    One man’s obsession to deliver independence not just to a specific timetable, but to a specific day of the week…would not just undermine Alex Salmond’s hand in negotiations, but Scotland’s future in Europe.

    Instead of showing he has Scotland’s interests at heart, this obsession with a date rather than the deal reveals just how much of a vanity project this really is.

    Of course the reality is that the terms of membership could not be known until such a time as they were agreed.

    But the Scottish Government is morally bound to set out in detail what terms of membership they would seek and we are all entitled to assess just how likely this is to happen.

    That clarity of terms is being denied by a party whose head is buried in the sand – and that hopes that other European leaders’ are likewise. The terms that they seek are by turns unclear and unrealistic.

    The process they propose is flawed in legal terms and destined to fail in the cold hard light of political reality.

    Tactics

    Let no-one think that the Scottish Government has a vision for its membership of Europe. As in all areas it has tactics.

    Not tactics to secure a good deal for Scotland. Just tactics to minimize the risks and uncertainties of independence in the eyes of Scots. Not just about the EU – Scotland’s place in the world is stronger as part of the UK

    I’ve focused my remarks on Europe – but we all need to remember that this is not just a question of EU membership. The UK is at the heart of all the world’s most influential organisations.

    We use our diplomatic global network to help others and to represent Scotland worldwide, promoting the interests of businesses based in Scotland and looking after Scots who get into difficulty overseas.

    The Scottish Government claims that Scotland holds international priorities and values that are distinct from the rest of the UK – this is simply not true.

    The UK has played a leading role in strengthening the rule of law, supporting democracy and protecting human rights around the world.

    Scotland – as part of the UK – was one of the founding members of the United Nations. We have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council helping to take decisions on major foreign policy and defence issues.

    Together, we can make a bigger impact on global poverty. Pooling our resources, we have grown our aid budget and become the second largest donor nation in the world today.

    Put simply – as a United Kingdom, in Europe – we achieve more now, and will continue to do so in the future, if we stay together.

  • Alistair Carmichael – 2014 Speech on Scottish Independence

    alistaircarmichael

    Below is the text of the speech made by Alistair Carmichael, the Scottish Secretary, at Stirling University on 13th January 2014.

    It is a real pleasure to be with you all here in Stirling University today to talk about Scotland’s future.

    On 18th September this year we will take the most fundamental collective decision that a nation can ever be asked to take. This is a once in a generation decision:

    We have just over eight months to decide whether we stay in the United Kingdom family or go it alone. Eight months to choose between remaining part of this four-nation partnership that we have built together or to break away and to start from scratch. That is our choice.

    That time will fly by – but I’m determined to the make the most of every minute. Why?

    Quite simply because I believe in Scotland within the United Kingdom.

    I believe in the contribution we’ve made over the last 300 years along with our friends and families across England, Wales and Northern Ireland: our common effort to create and share something bigger and that serves us all well.

    I believe in the benefits we get from being part of this larger shared community.

    I believe this because I can see the evidence around me – at home in Orkney, here in Stirling, in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Manchester, Newcastle, right throughout the United Kingdom.

    Greater than the sum of its parts

    We all put something in and we are all getting something out: the UK is greater than the sum of its parts.

    Right now Scotland sees the benefit of this long shared history. Right now, we get the benefits from natural resources like North Sea oil – but we are able to manage the volatility in production and price as part of a much larger and diverse economy made up of 60 million individuals rather than just five.

    Our economy comprises four and a half million companies rather than 320,000 – a market with no boundaries, no borders, no customs – but with a stable UK currency that is respected and envied across the world; a single financial system, and a single body of rules and regulations.

    Because we share in these benefits, Scotland is best placed to succeed. We are the wealthiest area of the UK outside London and South East, and we have achieved that as part of the UK. And right now, all of this supports jobs here in Scotland.

    Jobs in industries as diverse as oil and gas, defence, food and drink and the new and emerging creative industries of the future.

    Let us not forget we get more back than we put in. Public spending in Scotland is currently 10% higher than the UK average.

    Yes, there are national differences across the UK – we are not a monolithic culture, thank goodness. That’s true of our economy and our society.

    One of things of which I am most proud in the UK is that we’re able to absorb, to protect and to cherish differences: differences of culture, religion, accent, origin and much, much more.

    But let no-one underestimate what we share together and how that helps us succeed together.

    Of course, our commitment to the UK family is not just about the facts and figures. It’s also about the values and ambitions we share.

    The hands that built the United Kingdom have created things of enormous value. They strike a chord of pride within us and remind us all of what we can achieve together.

    Institutions

    Together, we built a National Health Service.

    When William Beveridge identified the five “Giant Evils” facing post-war Britain – squalor, ignorance, want, idleness and disease – these evils blighted every nation of our United Kingdom.

    And when the UK Parliament established the NHS, it did so to fight those evils within the entirety of our borders. We faced the same problems, we felt the same outrage and we together we found the same solution.

    Today, people across the UK family take enormous pride in a National Health Service, providing comprehensive health services, free at the point of use for all UK citizens wherever they fall ill within our United Kingdom.

    Together, we built the BBC – three letters that stand for excellence in broadcasting at home and around the world.

    They invoke quality, depth and impartiality. It is the product of our shared wish for a national broadcaster that can educate, entertain and inform.

    It is funded by a flat licence fee that guarantees access to programming that is both UK wide and nation and region specific. It serves local communities with a local presence in places like my own communities in Orkney and Shetland. It provides national reporting and entertainment across the nation. Around the world people look to the world service as a source of truth and impartiality.

    It is unrivalled, unparalleled, and irreplaceable.

    Together, we have built a formidable sporting culture too. In so many sports, the nations of our UK family have different traditions, different strengths and different teams.

    But while we maintain a strong pride in our teams for football, rugby and so much more we also maintain an enormous pride in the sporting clout that we represent together.

    Whether that’s the British Lions, or next month’s Winter Olympics, or of course, our astonishing achievements in the London 2012 Olympic Games.

    At those Games, the UK won 29 gold medals. And over the Games, as the tally went higher, so did our collective sense of national pride.

    Chris Hoy, Jessica Ennis, Andy Murray, Mo Farah, Katherine Granger. Those outstanding athletes weren’t cheered on by parts of the UK, but by all of us.

    They were our representatives. They worked together, they competed together – many had trained together at facilities across the UK. Their success fed our pride.

    The NHS, the BBC, our sporting events, teams and heroes. These are just a few of the things that bind together our family in pride and endeavour.

    Shared values

    Shared values, shared effort, shared achievements. Why should we now break these things up? As separate states must.

    When we have achieved so much through our common values and labour, wouldn’t we go on to achieve so much more?

    The challenges we face today may be different but they are every bit as demanding as those we faced in the past.

    Together, we can afford the subsidies that will bring about a renewables revolution in this country. Cutting carbon emissions, tackling climate change, strengthening the green economy. Together, we can make a bigger impact on global poverty.

    Pooling our resources, we have grown our aid budget and become the second largest donor nation in the world today. Together, we can rebalance our economy and become more prosperous.

    Growing faster than any other G7 country, becoming the largest EU economy within perhaps just twenty years, providing the financial security that safeguards our banks and secures our currency.

    The motivation to prevent climate change, to protect the most vulnerable and to build a strong prosperous and sustainable economy. These values are common across the United Kingdom.

    And by staying together, we can build on those values to create a strong and secure future. Why should we now break these things up?

    2013 – the year of evidence

    I don’t believe in the UK family because of dogma, ideology or nostalgia but because of what the UK means to us in the here and now and what it can deliver for us all in the future.

    For too long we have allowed to go unspoken the contribution that Scotland makes to the UK – and we have been equally silent on the benefits that we get from being part of it.

    2013 was the year when the UK Government started putting the record straight.

    We embarked on an analysis programme examining the facts, reviewing the evidence and making the case for Scotland as part of the United Kingdom in a series of detailed papers.

    Soon we will publish our first paper of the new year. It will examine the benefits for Scotland of being part of the UK in the EU and on the international stage.

    The UK is at the heart of all of the world’s most influential organisations. As part of the UK we are one of the founding members of the United Nations and have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council – helping to take decisions on major foreign policy and defence issues.

    As part of the UK we can use our influence to help others – whether to give our home-grown businesses access to new export markets through our highly-developed embassy network; or providing support and assistance to other countries in times of crisis.

    Our paper will set out the facts about Scotland’s contribution and the benefits we get from being part of this world-leading partnership. We’re talking about a complex, detailed piece of analytical work.

    That’s because what we have in the UK is a product of years, of decades worth of cooperation and negotiation – both within the UK and with our neighbours.

    Academics, businesses and legal experts here in Scotland have read – and contributed to – the papers we’ve published to date.

    Facts and evidence

    They support the facts and the evidence we have presented.

    You’ll find no grandiose flights of fancy here – only the very facts of our United Kingdom:

    – our banks are safer

    – we have greater financial protection for savers and pensioners

    – greater levels of competition delivering cheaper mortgages and insurance for families and businesses

    – we invest in research, infrastructure and industry to remain at the forefront of new technological developments

    – we have a single labour market which allows people to move freely within the UK for jobs

    – we use our international influence to make a positive difference

    The list can – and does – go on.

    Together these facts to make a positive case for Scotland in the United Kingdom. And throughout the remainder of this year we’re going to keep making that case.

    But you don’t just have to accept the facts we’ve published, just take a look at some of the other contributions we’ve had so recently in this debate:

    We have heard the supermarkets talk about the benefit of being part of a single large economy where food and drink costs us, the consumers, the same regardless of the costs of production and distribution.

    We’ve heard the CBI – the organisation that speaks on behalf of business – say that the nations of the UK are stronger together and that Scotland’s business and economic interests will be best served by remaining part of the UK family

    We’ve seen the body that represents accountants in Scotland continue to ask questions about the Scottish Government’s proposals for pensions – questions that remain after the White Paper’s publication

    And we’ve heard legal experts describe independence as ‘a road to nowhere’

    It’s no surprise that the Scottish Government argue against all the evidence and the facts that we’ve presented – but their eagerness to shout down the experts from the worlds of business, academia and the law is worrying and regrettable. Other side of the argument – not being honest

    I don’t argue with the right of those on the other side of this debate to feel the way they do about the future of our country.

    But I do feel very strongly that those who want to break up our United Kingdom have a duty to listen to the experts and to make an evidence-based case of their own.

    It is not good enough to adopt the politics of ‘he who shouts loudest’. It’s not good enough to say, when challenged, “just because I say so”.

    For most of 2013 the Scottish Government told us in response to almost every question put to them: ‘wait for the White paper’; ‘the answer will be in the White paper’. But what we got in November was heavy on rhetoric and light on answers. It was a wish list without a price list.

    Promises

    On the one hand we got a set of promises that the Scottish Government can’t deliver.

    No matter what they say, it is not for the Scottish Government to dictate what deal a separate Scotland could negotiate with the rest of the UK.

    As Scots we all have to ask ourselves if we choose to leave the UK, why would those we’ve walked out on want to continue to share the things we have at the moment precisely because we part of the UK?

    If we stop contributing to the UK, why would we keep getting the benefits from being part of it?

    And that’s before we even start to think about the negotiations that would be required with all 28 EU member states, bilateral relations with countries around the world and international organisations.

    Yet on the other hand we saw the Scottish Government promising things post-independence that they could be delivering today.

    The Scottish Government chose to put the spotlight on childcare in their White Paper – something that it is within their power to do right now.

    Last week they finally acknowledged the folly of this approach and came forward with proposals to start the catch-up with childcare provision in the rest of the United Kingdom. In so doing they made the case for what we have – not for what they want.

    The Nationalists like to assert that they have a vision for an independent Scotland and that their White Paper is its articulation.It is not. This is not a vision; it is a mirage.

    Like all mirages, the closer you get the less real it becomes.There is no coherence whatsoever in this nationalist document – or any other – about the kind of country Scotland would be if we were to leave the UK family.

    This is not surprising. The Scottish Government has long been skittish and evasive about the model for an independent Scotland.

    They proffer whatever fits for any given audience at any given time. Then switch it for something else when the moment suits.

    Back in 2007 we were told that Scotland would be the free market Celtic Lion. Roaring to the sound of banking deregulation, and echoing across the arc of prosperity to Iceland and Ireland.

    By 2011 the tune had changed. Now we would be a Scandinavian-style social democracy. With social services and public spending priorities that looked east, not west.

    The White Paper couldn’t decide which way to jump.

    A promise to cut some taxes, and freeze others, clumsily grafted on to expensive commitments on nationalisation, public spending and a lower retirement age. All based on a single, solitary page of numbers and the wilful omission of data from 2008 – the inconvenient year of the financial crash.

    In every sense, it simply does not add up. Even in the best of times, no-one can have a low-tax economy paying for Scandinavian levels of social provision. If they could, Scandinavia – and others – would have done it.

    Lack of vision

    To say that they will do so with the backdrop of an ageing population and reduced oil and gas revenues, only adds insult to injury. There is no vision, just 670 pages of words.

    All things to all people, big on rhetoric, low on facts, it offers no true picture of what kind of country Scotland would really become.

    What currency would we use? What terms of EU membership could we hope to achieve? How much would independence cost and just how would it be paid for?

    It is for the Scottish Government to present a full, true and costed vision of what independence would mean. If they refuse to do that, what are people being asked to vote for?

    Positive case

    In 2014 my job – and the job of all those who believe in the United Kingdom – is to make the strong positive case for the UK and to make it loudly and proudly.

    We can do that confidently, because our case is supported by the experts. The substance of the argument is on our side and it has gone without meaningful challenge by our opponents.

    Now our job is to make sure that every voter is aware of these facts before they enter the polling station.

    Because ultimately this isn’t a debate that will rest on the production of papers by Governments, however learned and substantial they may be.

    This is a debate that must take place in the pub and in the bank – at the school gates and on the factory floor – our universities and in our supermarkets. This must be a debate in which we are all involved.

    We cannot leave this to someone else and hope they get it right for us. We must not let anyone tell us what we can and cannot think or say.

    In this debate, everyone’s voice matters. We all get one vote.

    The future of our country really is in our hands and we must take it, grasp it and decide for ourselves.

    So my hope for 2014 is this: in September I hope that all of us who can vote, do vote.

    And I am confident that people right across Scotland will make the positive choice and vote no. The positive choice to stay part of the United Kingdom family. The positive for a bright Scottish future as part of the United Kingdom.