Scottish Liberal Democrat President's address to conference

Speech by Malcolm Bruce MP delivered to Scottish Liberal Democrat Spring Conference, Aviemore on Sun 2nd Mar 2008

(CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY)

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.

ENDS