Malcolm Bruce MP, President of the Scottish Liberal Democrats
Speech to the Scottish Liberal Democrat Spring Conference in Aviemore.
2 March 2008
Where stood Scotland 500 years ago? At war with the English and trying to
retake Berwick. Not much change there, then. Except a lot has happened in
the intervening period that has been for the better.
Throughout the years there is one thing we in this party and its
predecessors have always stood for – Home Rule for Scotland in an outward
looking Liberal United Kingdom.
Of course our core values have been rooted in Liberal freedoms – freedom
from oppression and exploitation and freedom of expression and the means
to self improvement.
That is why we support business and enterprise tempered by strong
competition policy to prevent monopoly and by care of the environment and
partnership between employer and employed.
It is why we support strong, high quality public services fairly
distributed and accessible to all on the basis of need.
As John Donne said, no man is an island. By the same token the mainland we
live on is Great Britain, and Scotland, while including many islands, is
not an island and has never been insular.
All of us are shaped by our relationships – especially with family and
neighbours in our communities, work place or other institutions with which
we engage.
Of course we also define them very subjectively inventing sometimes our
own relationship myths – like behind every great man is an astonished
mother-in-law.
That is also true of our national character. Scots define themselves by
selective recollection of our history. Many people believe, for example,
that we were conquered and subjugated by the dominant English - rather
than 'bought and sold for English gold – such a parcel of rogues in a
nation.'
My eldest daughter has been researching our family tree. On my father's
side we were ordinary folk closely connected with fishing and ships – two
centuries and probably more of Fifers.
My mother's side was more colourful – consisting of traders and merchants
around Angus, Perthshire and Stirlingshire although there is also a direct
line to Dutch farmers who came over with William of Orange.
I guess the ancestry of most of us is similarly mixed yet we choose to
remember it selectively.
It was the Scots who forced Mary Queen of Scots to abdicate for being to
Popish and too French. It was the Scots who then enlisted the help of the
English to drive out the remaining French yet we prefer to remember the
Auld Alliance.
There were more Scots on the side of the King at Culloden and Flora
MacDonald was no Jacobite just anxious for Charles Edward to leave
Scotland as soon as possible and spare further embarrassment. Her family
were loyal to the Crown in the American war of independence and returned
to Scotland once the colonies were lost.
The Act of Union was controversial but it was thoroughly debated and voted
on in the last Scottish Parliament and by the burghs.
It was the Union of two sovereign nations motivated by business
opportunities and a mutual desire to secure the Protestant succession. The
end of an auld sang.
It paved the way for the Scottish enlightenment: a partnership of Scots
and English in the development, trade and administration of the Empire to
which and from which Scots contributed and benefited disproportionately.
Throughout that period Scotland preserved its distinct identity, with its
own legal and education systems, and established Presbyterian church. The
cross-fertilisation of people and ideas was energising for the whole UK.
It was in recognition of this, and the rights of the Irish and the Welsh
whose role in the Union was not the partnership the Scots enjoyed, that
Liberals stood out for reform, extending voting rights and the case for
Home Rule as a means of delivering a Union paradoxically strengthened by
devolution from the centre.
That is also entirely compatible with the recognition that, just as some
aspects of sovereignty deliver better results if devolved, so pooling
sovereignty with other nations extends our reach, opportunity and
influence.
Our party called for Britain to be a founder member of the Common Market,
and still today will argue the case for the UK to be a fully participating
member of the enlarged and transforming European Union.
Yet in some quarters it is fashionable to poor scorn on the Union, its
achievements and its still positive dynamic, which would weaken us all if
it broke up.
A bit like the dolphins leaving earth in the Hitchhikers Guide to the
Galaxy with the parting shot "so long and thanks for all the fish",
nationalists say good riddance to the empire. It's Scotland's oil,
goodbye.
Well just haud the bus and consider what that means.
Of course over the centuries not all of Britain's actions have been noble
or right but they have been collectively taken.
Last year we marked the 200th anniversary of the abolition of slavery in
the British Empire. It is true and we were all happy to record that
Glasgow abolitionists played a large part in the campaign against slavery.
But we should also acknowledge that some of the largest plantations
belonged to Scots who were among the largest slave owners in the Americas.
As post war Britain liberated its Empire Scots were as prominent as they
had been in its acquisition
In the liberation of Europe from fascism, Scots forces played a heroic
role within the British forces and alongside our allies.
More recently, this party voted together against the invasion of Iraq and
we have been vindicated.
Nevertheless, we did support the action in Afghanistan and the prospects
for that poor war-torn country would certainly have been brighter today if
we had not been distracted by Iraq.
There has been wall-to-wall media coverage of Prince Harry's active
service in Helmand. While attention is focused on him let us remember
thousands of his fellow service men and women, including many from
Scotland, have been deployed with dedication and courage, risking, and
sadly in some cases losing, their lives, and we unreservedly salute their
bravery and dedication.
The transformation of the UK from an imperial power to a post industrial
service-led economy has not been easy, and has brought pain and change to
many parts of Scotland.
But there is a new dynamic which has seen population decline reversed and
new energy spreading to many parts of the country including the once
ailing Highlands.
Internationally, Britain has recovered from its sick man of Europe
identity and is watching as France and others have to face up to the
challenges we have already confronted.
As someone who travels internationally as part of my Parliamentary
responsibilities, I can confirm that, although we have been damaged by
Tony Blair's unquestioning support for the Bush administration Britain is
seen as a regenerated nation, with a genuine commitment to tackling
inequalities and poverty in the world and at least through some of its
agencies a beacon for democracy.
Through the Department for International Development, the UK is now one of
the world's largest bilateral donors for development. We are the largest
contributor to the World Bank's International Development Association
programme and World Bank administered trust funds.
Almost half of DFID's UK staff is based here in Scotland at East Kilbride
– around 560 people - and many Scots are active in country development
programmes in 65 of the poorest countries around the world.
Reducing poverty is a huge challenge as so many factors are at play.
Today is Mothers' Day and the International Development Select Committee
marks it with the publication of a report on Maternal Health in developing
countries.
While there is concern in the UK about the shortage of midwives and the
high level of Caesarean births, this pales into insignificance when
compared with the horrors facing expectant mothers in many poor countries.
In Niger, for example, 1 in 7 women can expect to die in childbirth
compared with 1 in 8200 in the UK.
Globally, international agencies cite a figure of 536,000 maternal deaths
a year. Yet, research carried out by an internationally-backed team led by
Aberdeen University, suggest the figure could be nearer 872,000.
And for each woman who dies 30 become disabled, injured or ill as a result
of their pregnancy. This means millions of mothers suffer death,
disability or illness as a result of pregnancy, making it a truly
frightening experience.
DFID is a leading agency in seeking to tackle this scourge. Millennium
Development Goal 5 – to reduce maternal deaths by 75% by 2015 - is the
most off track of the UN's 8 millennium development goals, and this has
implications for others such as child mortality, education and poverty
reduction.
Yet it doesn't have to be that way. Mothers-to-be need skilled birth
attendants, access to emergency obstetric support and basic drugs and
equipment.
Unsafe abortion and lack of contraception are major causes of deaths in
pregnancy so it follows that denying women access to contraception and
safe abortion is effectively condemning millions of women a year to death
and disability.
In International Development, the UK is seen as one of the best players
having untied its aid from UK commercial or foreign policy interests and
concentrating on what will reduce poverty and achieve the United Nations
Millennium Development Goals.
We are on target to achieve a contribution of 0.7 per cent of GDP in aid
by 2013 – behind the Nordic countries but well ahead of the other G7
players both in quality and quantity.
Another unique British institution is the British Council, committed to
extending the English language as it is spoken on this side of the
Atlantic and British culture and learning – in association with our
universities. No wonder an increasingly monolithic, Kremlin-manipulated
Russia doesn't like it – proof in itself of the relevance and the demand
for its services wherever it operated and requests for it to open where it
does not.
Our armed forces, small and overstretched as they may be, are professional
and dedicated in the difficult theatres we choose to deploy them, where
others fear to tread. I don't mean Iraq, from which we are rightly
withdrawing but the Balkans, Afghanistan, Cyprus and Sierra Leone.
The BBC, for all we moan about its London-centredness, is still the envy
of the world. We rightly call for more creative capacity to be developed
in Scotland, and we should promote that, but Scots and Scotland are
important components of the BBC.
In the theatres of international diplomacy and influence the UK is a
significant player, with weighted voting rights in the EU, a permanent
seat on the Security Council and influence within the Commonwealth of
which the Queen is head.
Similarly, the UK has diplomatic representation in many more parts of the
world than Scotland could possible aspire to. Many Scottish businesses
will testify to the value of services they can access through British
Embassies, High Commissions, Consulates and Trade Centres.
Together, we must police the borders of our island state, manage
immigration and share our defence and foreign policy needs.
To break up the United Kingdom is to put all this and more at risk and for
what purpose? To enable Alex Salmond to strut and swagger on the world
stage like a tartan peacock?
We would reduce the impact of every citizen of the United Kingdom. Because
the population of England is around nine times that of Scotland many of
these institutions would continue but they would be smaller and
qualitatively poorer without the input of Scots.
For many in Scotland the horizon of opportunity would be foreshortened and
opportunities reduced.
So let us consider where the SNP wants to take us.
Economically they have acknowledged that they would keep the pound for an
indefinite time – so our currency and interest rates would be managed by a
foreign Government which is also our prime market.
They haven't told us what our defence and foreign relations capability
would be or what it would cost. They wouldn't join NATO (a departure from
their usual comparison with the Norwegian example).
The SNP attitude to Europe is as confused and inconsistent as it always
was. They campaigned for a NO vote in the 1975 referendum. They
subsequently claimed they wanted independence in Europe and have no voted
against the Lisbon Treaty which would have the effect of marginalising us
in European councils.
Of course there is room to improve the EU and its engagement with
citizens. The debate over Britain and the EU is mind numbingly repetitive.
We believe that the UK must be a fully participating member arguing the
strength of our case. If the majority of the people don't want that they
should vote to leave and face the consequences.
A Scottish Broadcasting Corporation, a Scottish Council, or a Scottish
International Development Department would all require separate
administrative overheads and yet, even if we could afford them, they would
never match their British counterparts.
Yet our new minority administration buoyed up by a 'here's to us wha's
like us' attitude would trample all this underfoot in the rush to a
spurious independence.
They will seek gratuitous fights with London.
Mr Salmond continues to protest at the negotiations between the UK and
Libya for mutual return of prisoners, brushing aside repeated assurances
by UK Ministers that individual decisions rest with the Scottish
authorities and ignoring the fact that Mr Magrahi is currently pursuing an
appeal against his conviction and could if he wins return home anyway.
Watch out for the progress of the SNP's plans for Scottish Futures Trust.
First they scrapped all new PPP projects (while claiming credit for those
going ahead which were approved by the previous administration). They
offered minimal access to alternative capital grants and forced local
authorities and other agencies to put many urgent developments on hold.
Aberdeenshire, for example, urgently needs new schools and leisure
facilities. It is no good the SNP calling for swimming lessons for all and
smaller class sizes while making it impossible to provide new facilities.
And what happens when the Treasury says no, as they have indicated they
will? Messrs Salmond and Swinney will blame what they call the London
Government.
Grandstanding by the SNP in their mission to destroy the UK – for which
they have no mandate – is no substitute for delivering the essential
facilities our children and local communities need.
Ah, but you support an independent Kosovo and Estonia, why not Scotland?
Well there is one vital difference. Kosovars, Estonians and others need
their independence to be free people. Scotland is a free society.
Independence is not needed. Bill Anderson, when he spoke at our
conferences, always concluded by saying what Scotland needs is more
independent Scots not more Scottish independence.
Just as we believe that there is room to improve the EU we want to
continue to move towards greater home rule within the UK –we especially
want the Scottish Parliament to have a significant share of the taxes in
Scotland.
But devolution shouldn't stop at Holyrood. Local authorities and health
boards should not be in thrall to central control from Edinburgh. By
itself, replacing council tax with local income tax will not change the
fact that local authorities are heavily straitjacketed by Ministers in
Edinburgh.
A freeze on council tax comes at a price of cuts in services.
As Nick Clegg said on Friday, devolution should not stop at Edinburgh. As
a party that champions local income tax, let me suggest we go a radical
stage further.
Instead of all taxes, bar the discredited council tax going to the
Treasury to be top sliced, wasted and lost. Let us keep more of the taxes
where they are collected.
What councils and health boards need is their share of taxes paid in their
locality, raising their access to income from local sources to 75 or 80
per cent of their total budget, leaving the grant from Holyrood for new
services and to adjust for income inequalities.
This would offer us a new cause for campaigning – local taxes for local
services.
That is the opposite of the SNP's 'one Scotland' approach.
Our commitment to Home Rule is deep seated and long lived. It is not a
response to nationalism, it is driven by a desire for reform and to make
Government more transparent and closer to the people.
This contrasts with Labour, which has had to be led down the path of
devolution driven by fear and trepidation.
Even now they are in a state of confusion. Gordon Brown seems like one of
the Lost Boys who can't find his way to the Wendy House – perhaps because
of Cairns pointing in the opposite direction.
Perhaps he would be more comfortable taking UK-wide initiatives that would
broadcast the breadth and depth of the Government's commitment to the
Union and Scotland's place in it.
Why not have the vision of the French and build high speed trains to all
parts of Great Britain, bringing us all closer together? Paris to
Marseilles is approximately the same distance as London to Aberdeen yet
the journey time of the former is three hours three minutes compared with
seven and a half hours.
Such a service would easily switch much freight from road to rail,
benefiting both the environment and our balance of payments.
Similarly, also to the benefit of Scotland and the Union, would be support
for robust interlinks for transporting energy to enable Scotland to
deliver its wealth of renewable resources from tidal power in the Pentland
Firth through wave, wind energy and even solar.
So come on Gordon – don't get lost, get real.
Let us face up to it. The SNP are hell bent on one mission alone – to end
the United Kingdom. Labour are unfit to respond. They are confused and
scared and simply cannot handle Home Rule.
The Tories have sold their previous strong commitment to the Union for a
pretty short tartan-crested spoon to sup with the nationalist devil.
No wonder the Liberal Democrats, under Nicol Stephen's leadership have
become the effective opposition. We are determined to expose the
inadequacies of the SNP's bluster and spin over promises broken because
they were never intended to be kept.
We alone have the Federal vision and the Liberal flair to offer an
alternative which matches the aspirations of the Scottish people far
better than tiptoeing along the precipice of separation.
If you want Scotland with Home Rule, and greater freedom for citizens and
communities to set their own priorities, if you want a federal, liberal
United Kingdom with external relations of which you can be proud not
ashamed, you know where to turn.
I share Nick's view that there are many more people who share our Liberal
aspiration than have yet voted for us. Our task from now to the next
election is to go out find them and bring them home to the Liberal
Democrats.
