Scottish Labour Party Conference Scottish Labour Party Conference

Good afternoon and a very warm welcome to live coverage of the

Scottish Labour party's spring conference. Delegates have been

gathering in Dundee where they are awaiting the keynote speech from

their leader, Johann Lamont. The party has undergone a period of

soul-searching following the disastrous result in the Holyrood

election. Much of the focus of the conference so far has been keeping

Scotland in the union as debate rages on the referendum. Our

political Korek -- editor, Brian Taylor, is standing by in Dundee.

Good afternoon. A hometown event for you today. I usually ask you

what is the mood of the conference. Are labour in the mood to fight

back? It is a curious conference. They are bit apprehensive to say

the least. Since those elections, pretty well every speech by a

Labour leader has been prefaced by, we got a doing at Holyrood in May.

There will be a different tone from Johann Lamont this afternoon. She

will reflect on the heavy defeat but there will be a touch of,

enough already. She will say that the time is now to talk about how

you rebelled, and to remind delegates -- how you rebuild. And

to reminded delegates that they are still here, they are still the

Labour Party, campaigning for votes in Scotland. We will be hearing

from Johann Lamont later in the afternoon. What is the main thrust

of her speech likely to be? As Bryan talks about rebuilding.

least according to the advanced releases, it is going to be the

creation of a commission to look further at devolution and whether

powers will be transferred. I think that illustrates one of her

dilemmas. On the one hand she has inherited a party that indeed got a

serious defeat last year, because it is a party many voters felt

neither had a sense of direction, nor could be trusted to run the

country effectively. To that extent, she has one obvious major job, to

try to put the Labour Party back together again, and to persuade the

public to invest its faith as a potential future government.

Meanwhile, there is the debate about independence. The danger is

that the party is going do end up spending a lot of time working out

what his position is going to be in regards to the referendum, and

perhaps not spending enough time reviving the Labour Party itself.

As a politician, this is a key moment in her political career,

this major speech to Conference. is a major moment for have. It is a

big speech to make. I think I agree with John. Where having the Labour

conference here in Dundee, and -- we are having the Labour conference.

And up the road, there is the Liberal Democrat Conference. At

both of them, Alex Salmond's proposal. Labour don't want to be

in this position, they don't want to be in that situation of being

defeated in Holyrood. But they were defeated heavily and they have to

address Alex Salmond's challenge of independence. At the same time they

have to posit an alternative to that. The commission that Johann

Lamont is setting up will posit that alternative. She doesn't

swallow whole the proposals for devolution max, or devolution plus,

that we have described already. In an interview on the webcast, she

was very sceptical indeed about transferring substantial tax powers.

She felt it is only across the UK as a whole that you can equalise

resources and revenues and thus, help the poorest.

One of the key talking point is how Labour can seize the political

momentum from the SNP. Since their defeat to Alex Salmond's party,

they have changed leader and promised to listen more closely to

voters. What will that mean for the One by one, they fell. Labour

politician after Labour politician was unseated from once safe

political purges. May 5th 2011 saw the party which wants dominated

Scottish politics replaced by Alex Salmond's SNP. Johann Lamont is

elected as leader of the Scottish Labour Party. Labour reacted with a

new leader. Johann Lamont's challenge is enormous, to rebuild

her party, its support, and take on the SNP. All this as a

constitutional debate dominates got its politics. The result has been

to -- Scottish politics. Her -- the result is her opposition to

independence. We need to address the question of rogue landlords but

we also need to look at what powers can go further down into our

communities. The argument about good government is about how close

it is to people. John Mason, Scottish National Party SNP, 10,128

votes. One of the scalps belonged to Frank BT. He lost one of

labour's safest seats. He now thinks it is time his party

embraces its new powers. definition of what we want is

important. In the number of opinion polls, the vast majority favour

more powers for the Scottish Parliament, but not separation. I

think we should be in tune with the Scottish electorate. Will open

darling those discussions and we are clear that it is a process

about whether Scotland want to be part of the United Kingdom or ought

In the past, there has been a perception among some that the

party since its most talented people to Westminster, leaving

those at Holyrood looking south for instruction. It is daft to pretend

it wasn't a problem in the past and it was seen that the Holyrood

leader, the perception was that they all had to listen to London.

We have a post devolution at London leader in Ed Miliband, he is very

relaxed about it, the party is more relaxed and comfortable. We have

seen the election of an all Scotland leader in Johann Lamont. I

think we are moving into new territory. That his internal party

politics. The next test of public opinion will be made's local

elections. Labour could struggle to hold on to Glasgow, Scotland

biggest local authority. If Labour hold on to this place, it will tell

them they have stopped the SNP's momentum. If they lose it, it will

be a crushing defeat, and last May's crushing election won't be

the low point after all. Let's look at Labour's defeat. And

looking at Douglas Alexander, as he was trying to rebuild the party,

and not look defeat in the face again. How difficult a job is it

for Labour to try to rebuild? have a very difficult task because

they did suffer a very severe beating. I think it is pretty clear,

if one analyses the defeat, what the Labour Party has to do and the

mistakes that were made in the past. The first is partly an issue of

personnel. It is partly a consequence of historical accident

but it is also systemic. The SNP have their first 11 in the Holyrood

Parliament. It had very few parliamentarians before 1999 and

virtually all of them opted to go to holy writ. As a result, the

senior SNP politicians are there. In contrast, because the Labour

Party already had so many MPs in 1999, so few of them decided to

move across to Holyrood. Those who did sadly were not with us for very

long. I think the Labour Party ended up with a deficit. Voters

spotted this. It wasn't just that Iain Gray was felt to not be as

good as Alex Salmond, there was a broader question of confidence. The

question is, what can the Labour Party do to present to the Scottish

public what they feel is more likely to be an effective

government. The second thing they have to do, and this is where they

have to avoid being distracted too much by the independence referendum,

is to start to build a policy programme. Being great odyssey was

creating a whole series of policy commissions at -- Iain Gray told us.

But nothing happened. Indeed, the only major policy announcements

close to the election were imitations of the existing SNP

policies, such as the freeze on council tax. The Scottish Labour

Party has to start to work up its own policy programme. On top of

that, and this is what Johann Lamont's job is, it has got to give

people in Scotland some indication of the sense of direction that

Scotland would take under a late Scottish Labour devolved government.

The truth is that all of those things are missing at the moment,

they were not achieved under Iain Gray. That is a crucial task. In

eight short weeks, the Labour Party faces a severe electoral test with

these local elections, and it makes their job particularly difficult

because she is almost going to start on the back foot, before she

has had a chance to make much progress with any of these issues.

Let's turn to the support for more powers for the Scottish Parliament.

One parliamentarian said it is difficult to read in labour. What

powers the think Johann Lamont supports? Honestly, we are not

clear. We have one indication of one tax that Johann Lamont is

reluctant to see devolve, one that Alex Salmond had in his sights,

corporation tax. -- deceit devolved. If there were to be devolution of

corporation tax, it was set up competition between England and

competition. Not a competition as to who could have the higher tax,

but the lower tax, with a view to trying to get more businesses to be

relocated either side of the border. They are concerned there will be

this tax competition and as a result, revenues for the London and

Edinburgh government would be less as a result. One of the arguments

is that they still want to have a society in which public expenditure

is at least higher than some of the other parties would want. And they

are concerned that the tax competition would cut across that.

In other areas, we are not very clear at all. The mood of the

Johann Lamont is that may be weak want to do something but you have

to trust me -- maybe we want to do Although we are apparently going to

get a Labour commission, in some senses parallel to the Liberal

Democrat Commission, it would be starting with somewhat different

senses of direction as far as the leaders are concerned.

A man who has been a key figure in analysing what went wrong in the

Holyrood elections is the Shadow Foreign Secretary, Douglas

Alexander. He used his speech to say that the task of renewal is

under way, but he warned members would have to work hard to own

future success. He also suggested Labour should be open minded to new

tax powers in the Scottish Parliament. Stephen Duffy has been

assessing how delegates feel the party has elected -- reacted to

electoral defeat. In Dundee, change is all around.

Work on the way to prepare the ground for the new V&A museum on

the waterfront. The city centre, too, has changed beyond recognition.

Dundee had to change. Many of its old industries, no longer wanted,

were viable. Change is also needed in the Scottish Labour Party,

according to one of its leading figures. One more heave would

simply guarantee one more defeat, and then another, and then another.

The threats to Scotland are too great, and the risks, too real, for

Scottish Labour to settle for a quiet life of decline and defeat.

We need to change, and changed radically, not to disavow our

deepest beliefs, but to become a better expression of them. We need

to change how we identify and select candidates, how we organise

and fund campaigns, how we develop and communicate policies. We need

to change, so that people across Scotland, who share our values, but

would not now consider standing as a Labour candidate, will change

their mind and say, that's where I want to be, and who I want to stand

with. Douglas Alexander doesn't want to demolish the Scottish

Labour Party to start again. He Have he says Scottish Labour should

never abandon its belief and traditions. Dundee's added to a

university, a centre of excellence for the UK gaming industry.

Scottish Labour hopes it has picked a game changes in Johann Lamont as

I think all political parties in the political cycle go through

periods of being on the up and then won the down. Labour was on the

down last year. One in eight people voted for us. Yes, it is a process

of renewal, but that is the good thing about politics, the

electorate are always looking to us for good ideas, ideas that will

make their life better, ideas for the future. That is what we need to

do, to come up with new ideas and talk about them, and then voters

will win our trust. The pledge to stay true to the roots of Labour

throughout any change, reassuring to many. I regard the Labour Party,

ever since I joined, as the political end of the industrial

movement, rather than the other way around. It is important to keep

those links? Absolutely, crucially important. You don't think Douglas

Alexander is moving away from the style of politicking? I don't think

any Labour elected move a -- member would consider it moving away from

the trade union movement and I don't think that is what Douglas is

referring to. Douglas Alexander is one of many senior figures who

represent a Scottish constituency at Westminster. Margaret Curran

lost -- left Holyrood for Westminster Abbey last election.

Can the renewal of Scottish Labour be completed with so many

influential figures down south? Does it matter? I am from Scotland,

I am in Scotland, I am fighting for Scotland, as are all UK MPs. One

thing we learnt is that we are Scottish Labour. Our primary

concern is Scotland and the people of Scotland, I don't think they are

that interested in who sits on what institutions. Johann Lamont's plea

for the party to stop apologising for past mistakes will lay the

groundwork for the repairs to start, but like the transformation of

Dundee, it may take some time. Professor John Curtis is still with

me. It was interesting, hearing from Margaret Curran. She was one

member who went down to Westminster in 2010. We have been speaking

about how Labour should try to attract talent to Holyrood. But it

is difficult, if even key figures like her are heading down south.

Absolutely. The Labour Party had the misfortune to lose senior

people from Westminster. But the truth is, there has even been,

since then, traffic going from Holyrood through Westminster. Two

former Scottish Government ministers, now sitting on the

Labour benches at Westminster. I think the Labour Party is going to

The Labour Party has ended up with a lot of new MSPs, and far more

than you're MSPs than anticipated. Jenny Marra being one of them. We

are looking to see whether or not, perhaps to some degree by accident,

or perhaps by good fortune, whether some of these new MSPs do start to

fill the big boots that need to be felled. Otherwise, the Labour Party

will face this difficult task -- At the moment at least, there are

Westminster Scottish Labour MPs saying, yes, I want to go north of

the border. That is something the Labour Party will have to sort out.

It will have to make sure it has got the kind of people that people

would want to invest conference in, in terms of a government for

Scotland. Electoral strategy is key. It was pretty disastrous at the OU

at elections when big beasts like Andy Kerr did not appear on the

list -- disastrous at the Holyrood elections. The Labour Party had

something of eight innate reluctance to embrace the PR system.

Bake -- of an innate reluctance. They but that if people were

standing in the constituencies and also on the list -- they felt that.

And therefore if people lost but still got elected, that this was

losers still getting elected and they were reluctant to allow this.

In Wales they legislated against it happening. The Labour Party got

caught, as a result of this policy. It never expected that people like

Andy Kerr would ever get defeated. They did, and as a result, there

was no lifeboat for them on the list and they ended up with this

much greater turnover of MSPs than they anticipated. I think we can

anticipate that in future Scottish elections, that senior Scottish

Labour people will not just be in constituencies, they will also be

on the list, they will be at the top of the list and if they have

any sense, Johann Lamont will be at the top of the Glasgow list,

because the truth is, anybody will tell you that the way in which to

play a party list system is to put popular people at the top of the

list, because it helps to attract birds. One hopes the Labour Party -

Stephen Gough picked up on the issue of Labour staying true to its

roots and we had that from Ed Miliband -- Stephen Duff. Is that

the way Labour think is the key way ahead, to get back into their

heartlands? Behind the problems of the Scottish Labour Party, there is

a bigger question. The Labour Party is trying to sort out what

direction it is going to go in, after the collapse of New Labour.

That disastrous experience of the last three years in office under

Gordon Brown. The collapse of the New Labour deal, which was, we will

be able to do more for people, by living off the revenues of the City

of London. The financial crisis destroyed that model. In the wake

of that, the fact that the Labour Party did not succeed in reducing

levels of inequality, the Labour Party is having to think about what

it is its strategic direction. Under Ed Miliband, there has been a

sense that he has been wanting to say to his party, we do want to

look at those who are well off -- look after those who are less well

off. The squeezed middle is an important target, rather than those

at the lower end of the ladder. They are selling to people, this

has been part of Labour Party's traditional values in terms of

wanting greater equality, greater fairness in society. Johann Lamont,

you listen to her, somebody for whom a greater sense of justice and

greater fairness matters. The Labour Party is going back to

singing rather more familiar tunes. That is ironically a change. The

question that remains is how the Labour Party thinks it can deliver

greater fairness and equality in our society, and how it can convey

that message in such a way that the public will be willing to vote for

it, either north or south of the border. That is still the challenge

We can see the delegates taking their seats to hear this speech

from Johann Lamont. The stage lit in red lighting as opposed to the

pink it was for Ed Miliband yesterday F you speak to people in

the SNP they believe that the rot set in with Labour as early as 2003,

you could maybe trace that back to the Iraq war and that's partly why

Alex Salmond decided to stand again as leader in four because he

thought he had a good shot of being First Minister in 2007. When do you

think Scotland fell out of love with Labour? It's certainly true,

on both sides of the border, the Iraq war was a seminal event.

Although the Labour Party's popularity didn't decline that

sharply immediately after, the subsequent discovery that there

weren't the weapons of mass destruction upon which Tony Blair

predicated his reasons for going to war meant as a result of that trust

in Tony Blair in particular and the Labour Party in general was

undermined. Now in the 2005 general election Labour was able to escape

too much punishment from that because because the Conservatives

south of the border had also backed the war. The Liberal Democrats had

opposed it, they profited from that but they weren't able to do the

kind of damage to the Labour Party that only the Conservatives could

do under the UK electoral system. Iraq is important, but in truth one

should also bear in mind here that actually the SNP only won the

Scottish election probably in the four or five weeks immediately

before the 2011 election. Yes, undoubtedly this background problem.

There is no doubt the Labour Party in general there were doubts about

its confidence but it was the failure of that campaign that Ian

Grey himself led and of the lack of vision inside its manifesto and the

idea defending Scotland against the Tories wasn't sufficient of a

reason for people to vote for the Labour Party in Scotland, a failure

of all those things meant there was frankly this decline of confidence,

a rapid erosion of confidence in the Labour Party during the four or

five weeks of the election campaign which was remarkable. In contrast,

most people felt for all his faults Alex Salmond had done a fairly good

job. He is a highly charismatic popular politician and against that

Scottish Labour's challenge crumbled too easily. I think that's

- we saw Iain Gray, former leader there. There is some of the MPs as

well. Yes, there is Kathy Jaime is son. We are talking about Scotland

falling out of love with Labour. Of course, there was a 2010 general

election. Labour supporters would say there's a big caveat there. The

party did remarkably well. But disastrous in 2011. In a sense it's

a remarkable the degree to which we have forgotten the 2010 general

election north of the border and Labour success. Labour was

suffering hor end us defeat -- horrendous defeat. North of the

bored ter managed to hold on to its vote and regain those seats in lost

in general elections -- by- elections to the SNP. People in

Scotland because they didn't want to see the Conservatives back,

whatever their worries about the Labour Party Government, therefore,

they held on to Labour. That almost in a sense however gave Labour a

reassurance that proved so misleading, because from the

message they took from that that was that indeed people in Scotland

would be so concerned about seeing the Tories in power all be it in

coalition with the Democrats they would once again turn to the Labour

Party in 2011, in order the Labour Party could defend Scotland against

this Conservative Government. The problem always was likely to be

with that strategy indeed, yes, if you don't like the Labour and

Liberal Democrats north of the border at least there are two

choices you have got to express that point of view. One is to vote

Labour, the other is vote for the SNP. Of course, beyond that one of

their problems, if you say to people we are going to stand up for

Scotland's interests, against the Conservative Government, you have

got to persuade people that indeed you have got a strong personality

to do that. If you look at the polling evidence, the attribute

people most commonly associated with Iain Gray was weak. That's one

of the reasons why that famous long repeated event when Iain Gray met a

well known left-wing activist in Glasgow central station and he

ended up scuttling into a sandwich shop, that in a sense became iconic

of people's perception of Iain Gray that maybe for all the fact that

his heart was in the right place they didn't feel indeed he was the

person to stand up, whereas in contrast, of course, they had seen

the SNP Government over the previous four years being willing

on occasion to say where they disagreed with the Government,

whether it was Labour or the coalition, and therefore if you

were looking for somebody to stand up for Scotland's interests for

many people the answer to that was the SNP. Even though many of those

people in truth didn't necessarily want independence. I remember that

scrum very well, that day at the Subway sandwich shop. Talking about

the electoral strategy there and we had Labour having that rather

disastrous U-turn, relaunch two weeks to go before polling day and

yesterday Johann Lamont in a web chat with Brian Taylor was saying

we had an electoral machine that wasn't telling us the things that

were true. They were telling us things we wanted to hear. That's

something that really has to be addressed in the Labour Party,

doesn't it, when you compare it to the SNP's very well oiled machine?

Yes, I think there was always a clue that the Labour Party was

going to have a struggle with the Scottish election campaign F you

remember back in his speech, I think in the autumn, or might have

been the spring one, before the election, Iain Gray told us the

Labour Party were going to fight a doorstep campaign and at that

moment some of us said hang on, there must be a problem here. The

Labour Party we know is rather short of money. People were no

longer willing to give money to it following the defeat in 2010,

indeed long before that. Therefore, perhaps what he is saying to us is

unless my activists get out on the street we are not going to to be

able to fight a effective campaign. In part that was true. Having said

all of this, the truth is both sides were surprised in the end by

the result. The SNP undoubtedly did begin to pick up towards the end of

the campaign, the fact that they were doing relatively well and

indeed my own constituency, Paul even Neil's constituency, all of a

sudden in the last week or so the SNP began to mount a serious

campaign. There are examples of other constituencies where clearly

the SNP moved its campaign away from those seats it now decided it

definitely was going to win, to seats perhaps it never thought it

was going to win. Both sides were surprised. I think it's a mistake

to suggest that relaunch ten days, a fortnight before the campaign was

the cause of Labour's downfall N truth, that was the symptom of

Labour's downfall, acknowledging during the previous weeks there had

been that lack of confidence, this decline in Labour support. We

shouldn't be surprised the Labour Party was rather reluctant to take

on what was a rather sudden and unexpected movement of public

opinion. Well, we are waiting to hear from Joe lan -- Johann Lamont

at the conference. The delegates are filling the hall as we speak.

We saw some shots of them earlier. There is the hall again, bathed in

red light. The delegates waiting for Johann Lamont. There are some

delays at the paoeplt. People are - - at the moment. People are taking

their seats and getting ready to hear the speech. As she speaks to

the delegates there, she's speaking to the converted I suppose, but

there must be a lot of people there, a lot of Labour Party members who

feel that Labour had lost the way? Indeed. One of the crucial

questions to which they are hoping they're going to get the beginnings

of an answer this afternoon is does she has the ability and the vision

to show them the way forward towards success? Now one of the

things to remember is that people like myself and yourself maybe

spend a lot of time watching what she's been doing on First

Minister's questions and say not been doing badly so far, relatively

low expectations of her leadership have so far not not materialised,

but the most important opinion poll fact we know about Johann Lamont so

far is 40% of people do not know whether they are satisfied or

dissatisfied with her leader, rather more people dissatisfied

than satisfied. She as got to begin to impress herself on the wider

Scottish public outside the hall in Dundee, that indeed she is somebody

that they can begin to envisage as a potential First Minister. It's

worth bearing in mind here that one of the problems that Ed Miliband is

facing, truth is his current poll numbers are still seriously in the

wrong end, is that many people are saying we don't envisage you as a

possible First Minister. Now Johann Lamont quickly early on has to make

people think actually maybe she is an alternative to Alex. I may not

still think Alex is better, but at least think of her as being

credible. Not many people will watch this speech, but the way this

speech gets reported and the way to which people feel indeed does she

fill this hall? Does she begin to exude her personality and convey it

across, those things will matter in the public picking up the message

as to whether or not she is or isn't looking like a possible First

Minister. One of the things we used to say about Iain Gray, perhaps

unfortunate, we used to say Grey by name and by Nature. He never really

overcame that. The danger for Johann Lamont is she will begin to

become known as lamentable Lamont. That's something she needs to avoid,

the potential jibes are already out there and the truth is there are

doubts there, particularly even within the party and certainly

outside it as to whether again like Iain Gray, somebody undoubting with

a strong concern for social justice, but whether she necessarily has the

personality to convey her passion and to convey what she thinks

should happen for her country to the wider public. In truth, unless

you can do that, particularly against Alex Salmond, you are

always going to be struggling. these conference speeches are key.

It may be preaching to the converted a small audience and so

on, but they're key because as you say they do have repercussions out

there. We can think back and think of Iain Duncan Smith speaking to

the Conservative Party conference where it was pretty disastrous

because he didn't seem to be able to carry the hall, did he? That's

exactly right. At the end of the day, these party conference

speeches, although they're speeches to the converted, they're still the

speeches that reach out to far more people than any other speech that a

party leader will give at any other time of the year. This in truth is

probably going to be the only occasion in the next 12 months that

Johann Lamont will have a speech she makes covered live without any

interruption to the wider public. Of course t will appear now on the

web and be repeated etc. So to that extent at least it's an absolute

golden opportunity and because also - another crucial thing in politics

is that first impressions count. Because this is her first speech it

does therefore need to be reported as being a good speech. If people

begin to say well, you know what, actually it wasn't that good, you

know, then the doubts will begin to creep in and once the impression is

created that somebody isn't necessarily regarded as a good

leader it's very, very difficult to reverse. Things about the

leadership is it's very easy to lose popularity once you have got

it, but unfortunately, it's even more difficult to gain it,

particularly if you have never had it. Her leader south of the border,

Ed Miliband, is struggling against the fact he's never really been

popular. She's starting with somewhat negative poll readings.

She badly needs to get to positive readings sooner rather than later,

so that people begin to say well at least she's somebody who's

reasonably popular north of the border. We are hoping to hear that

speech fairly soon. There are some delays in Dundee still. We might

pop back to the hall for a look there. Putting Scotland first is

the logo up on the big television screen there. The hall is pretty

full, I think. Everyone is waiting for Johann Lamont at the moment.

People are sitting there waiting. Some still - still empty seats.

Delegates chatting away, waiting to see what she has to say. If we turn

to the more substancive elements of the speech, you were mentioning

earlier about her proposing a commission to look at more powers

for the parliament, but of course we are - the Scotland Bill is

making its way through the Houses of parliament at the moment. It was

in the committee stage of the House of Lords on Tuesday and of course

course that was from the Carman Commission. She's going to propose

another commission. One of the lessons of the last couple of

months is perhaps the increasing realise realisation amongst

unionist politicians, what was the reaction to Alex Salmond's first

success, in 2007, which was indeed and here Wendy Alexander was

instrumental, was the creation of the Commission that all three of

the parties put their weight behind and in truth are potentially quite

radical proposals for giving particularly greater financial

power and responsibility to the Scottish parliament. Most

immediately this Bill will mean that from about 2015-16 onwards

much of the income tax raised in Scotland will go directly to the

Scottish parliament t won't go via the Treasury. The Scottish

parliament will be able to vary the basic rate of income tax, up or

down in a much more effective way than the limited powers at the

moment and to that extent we are moving a situation away from where

for the most part effectively at the moment Holyrood is funded out

of a block grant out of Westminster, to one where Holyrood has to begin

to raise its own money. In the detail of this Bill in fact is also

potentially making the pathway for extending this further. This is

pretty radical because the truth is hitherto the UK Treasury, which

carefully tries to say that we are the people who are responsible for

taxation throughout the UK has been very reluctant to see any taxation

reserved automatically to any particular Governmental department

or organisation. That principle has been broken and the scan Bill will

-- Scotland Bill will seen certain will go north of the border. This

potentially radical step has never really been sold to the Scottish

public. One of the things the aoupbists -- unionists might want

to think about is that perhaps unless they are willing to get some

kind of public endorsement for whatever in the end the devolution

subject is meant to look like they're never really going to

ensure that the Scottish public have bought into whatever

constitutional settlement within the union that eventually they want

people to buy into. If you don't want two questions on the paper, at

some point when will the unionists put something to the Scottish

electorate is a crucial question. Thank you. Brian Taylor is in

Dundee at the moment. Brian, bring us news from the conference, a

slight delay at the moment. Yes, a very substantial delay. I went into

the hall to hear the speech but there was nothing happening, so I

thought I would come back out here and join you. What they've been

doing is shunting people into the middle of the hall, away from the

sides to fill up the main benches as much as possible. They're now

pretty full but not entirely full and that was what was going on. The

stewards were shuffling people into the centre of the hall I suppose to

give the impression of a packed audience and that sort of thing. I

am sure they'll start soon, or at some point. They were meant to

start 20 minutesing. -- minutes ago. We have been speaking about some of

the more substancive points around the houses almost, and John was

just saying about the offering of the unionist parties, when can they

almost come together and put forward a coherent view of unionism

to the people of Scotland? Well, they're tip-toeing towards it but

there is a real problem. They don't agree, they took two years to agree

on the relatively limited contents of the Scotland Bill that came out

of the Calman commission and yet now perhaps they're under pressure

to go more swiftly towards a common ground. Well, they don't agree on

the common ground. The Liberal Democrats are pretty keen on

transferring tax powers but they may not want the devo-plus, as set

forward by the organisation Reform Scotland. Tories are sceptical

about that. And Johann Lamont as we will hear if she ever makes her

speech, she will be saying she is sceptical of it as well because

she's concerned that if - she will say it's not a test to transfer tax

powers, it can cause problems, if, for example t only benefits large

companies and doesn't filter down to the ordinary working people

she's trying to defend. I was speaking to someone in the SNP who

was mentioning this to to John, it's difficult to read the rooms in

the Labour Party when it comes to more powers. How do you separate

them out. The ones who are pretty firmly against? The difficulty is

the real fundamental difficulty is this is not a position of Labour's

choosing. When a party is not in a position of its choosing then it

becomes a particularly difficult dilemma for them. Labour would

rather leave well alone. The Scotland Bill, in practice, would

be where they are, there are some who are evangelical for tax

devolution but the bulk of the party would rather leave it alone.

They know they can't do that because of those results in May

last year. They got beaten out of the park and therefore they have to

offer something in response to that statement from the electorate. It

was last May a vote for independence? It wasn't but it

wasn't a vote against it and in the final two weeks of the campaign

Labour majored every day on what they perceived as the threat from

independence, the voters heard that every single day from the Labour

Party and they paid not the slightest attention which indicates

to me that the voters are maybe not in favour of independence, we have

yet to judge that, but they're certainly not hostile to it or not

scared of it, which was the situation previously when the

unionist parties were able to make that pitch. So, the people in

Scotland have said they're not scared of it, they want to hear

some ideas. They're open to ideas. And it's now up to Labour to come

forward. Tpwou be fair to Labour they cannot be expected to produce

lake that an alternative to independence when the SNP have been

advocating their case for many years and Labour still feel there

is some uncertainty in that as well. I think you will hear from Joe lan

-- Johann Lamont, she will announce they will look at further powers

pwau sceptical look as well. Thank you very much. The conference video

is now playing, so you will want to take your seat in the hall. We will

be speaking to you later. John, interesting what Brian was saying

there, that the Labour Party almost being forced into this position,

and all three unionist parties are in this position. I suppose maybe

it's almost the Liberal Democrats who feel more at home with this

situation. There is no doubt the Liberal Democrats have long been in

favour of a form of federalism, form of home rule. Devolution is

something that they buy into automatically. The problem for the

Labour Party is that because many people in the Labour Party think

that social justice justice and greater equality is the most

important thing that the party is about and that's what they want to

achieve, they are then therefore worried that the more that the UK

fragments, that therefore the degree to which one part of the UK

is willing to help out another part is diminished and the resources to

ensure those who are less well huff -- well-off, that those resources

no longer necessarily be available. In a sense for them, one has often

heard say Labour politicians say what matters to people at the end

of the day is not constitutional tinkering, it's the issues of the

day, whether or not they've got a job, whether they've enough money

and that's always code for at the end of the day for most Labour

politicians it is indeed the issues of social justice and equality that

matters. It isn't necessarily constitutional tinkering and they

feel that therefore the United Kingdom is for the most part the

natural arena with which they want to operate. Of course, there is

another long-standing Labour tradition. Keir Hardy was in favour

of home rule and there's always been an element of the party that

felt that indeed it should also run with something of a smaller

nationalist dimension but it's attention inside the party and the

predominant view in the party has always been much more concerned

about social equality than about home rule. We are just about to go

back into the hall. I think Johann Lamont will soon be there. Yes, I

think we are just hearing the conference were playing a a video

in the hall. They're now applauding, I think that's the end of the video.

Now the delegates are waiting to hear from her. I ask you no to now

welcome the leader of the Scottish I think my children might say that

is taking attention-seeking behaviour just a bit too far, but

thank you anyway. Conference, this is my first speech to you as leader

of the Scottish Labour Party. I have had a look to see how leaders'

speeches usually start. They begin usually with a tribute to the city

hosting us, and yes, it is great to be in Dundee. Sometimes we pick out

a few colleagues to praise and I will happily do that later in my

speech. But conference, I need to -- time to start up Pollock -- tant

to stop apologising for the We know what happened, we looked

tired and complacent and we got the kind of beating we deserved. Now we

need to start building the kind of Scottish Labour Party which

Scotland deserves an which Scotland needs. We lost an election, we did

not lose our sense of right and wrong. We did not lose our values

and we will not lose the fight to make Scotland a fairer, more open,

more just place to live in, because that is why we exist. I

congratulate the SNP on their victory, but that victory did not

remove the right for us to exist. It made it greater. A party, a

movement, which speaks up for the voiceless, which fights for

opportunity, where there is none. A party which believes, which demands,

or which have the chance to fulfil potential Abbey the people they can

One which promises every parent that their child will have a better

chance than they had. I am a Scot and I love Scotland, but the love

of my country demands -- drives me to demand that it is better

tomorrow than it is today. My love of my country does not blind me to

injustice, it inspires me to improve and repair it. I will wear

these will tire of with pride but I would not bind it around my eyes so

I cannot see the injustice in my country -- I will wear the Saltire

I will not talk Scotland down, but I will not be silent while under

Alex Salmond, children suffer in poverty and he does nothing about

it. I would not be silent while he does Scotland down, while he uses

the powers of devolution, not to protect Scotland from a Tory

government, but to amplify every cut they make. Does anything feel

familiar, conference? We have lost, and we have a government cutting

services for the poor and the vulnerable. Blind to the needs of

real people, wrapping themselves in the flag. And, oh, backed by Rupert

Murdoch. We have been here before and we will do now, what we did

then. We will rebuild our party, reconnect with our country, win and

put social justice and fairness at the top of the agenda again. And

this time, we will do it better than before. Not you, Labour, --

not New Labour, not Old Labour, but real Labour. While Cameron and

Salmond play bad cop rotten cop over the constitution, there is

another reality. People the length and breadth of this country are

fearful of their jobs, worrying about how they will make ends meet,

whether their kids will get jobs. Watching as the public services

they need will -- are cut back. At Westminster we have a Tory lead

government which does not care. At Holyrood, we have a separatist

government lively passing on cuts, failing to seize the opportunity to

protect people. Instead, they see every cut not as a blow to Scottish

families, but as an opportunity to boost their separatist agenda.

Scotland needs a strong Labour Party, the one that will put

Scotland first. One that will put Scott -- jobs and communities first.

One born out of a desire to change a world bill divided. The SNP have

been in power for five years now. Last May, Alex Salmond told us he

would re- industrialise Scotland, and look what has happened.

Unemployment up, nudging 250,000. Youth unemployment, out of control.

400 women losing their jobs every day. Has Salmond tried to

industrialise Scotland? He bought a bridge from Scott left -- he bought

By bringing forward the Forth Road Bridge contract, he said it would

stimulate the Scottish economy, yet how does that money, �790 million

of Scotch taxpayers' cash stimulate the Scottish economy, when it goes

to Thailand, -- China, Poland and Spain and only 20 million goes to

Scottish companies. How is Salmond standing up for Scotland when

industry is ignored? When he is so reckless that it gets to the point

where Lanarkshire steel workers feel they have to write to a Tory

Prime Minister, a Tory Prime Minister, to ask for protection

from a Scottish first minister. When Alex Salmond says Scots don't

mind Thatcher's economics, he does not understand Scotland at all. I

can well imagine, the Tories would approve of the Forestry Commission

renting out its land to foreign companies so that those companies

can make hundreds of millions of pounds from Scotland's natural

resources. But what Scotland does not approve of is what Alex Salmond

is doing, exactly that. Allowing foreign companies to exploit

Scotland's natural resources for a fraction of what this country could

make if we did the work ourselves. Standing up for China, standing up

for Poland, standing up for foreign energy companies. Alex Salmond can

rightly claim to be doing all of that. But when it Scotland's second

largest company, Scottish and Southern Energy, says that his plan

for a referendum in 1,000 days are damaging their business, he can't

say that he is standing up for Scotland. He can't say he is

standing up for Scotland when one of our finest engineering companies

say his plans are damaging their business. He can't say he is

standing up for Scotland when Scottish engineering say his plans

are damaging the Scottish economy. Let me tell Alex Salmond something.

But things all tiers -- putting Saltires around his fireplace is no

plan that he is putting Scotland's interest first and there is one

think we are good at and this country, spotting a con man when we

You see, putting Scotland first means more than holding press

conferences in Edinburgh Castle. It means ensuring that Scottish

investment benefits Scottish workers. This is what I want. I

want the contract which the Scottish Government puts out to

tender designed to benefit Scottish firms. I don't want them bundled up

together to make deals too big for Scottish firms to bid for. I don't

want our rant our Aslan put out for rent for foreign companies to

exploit, when with greater imagination we could benefit more

I don't want you to think I want this just because I am Scottish,

waterproof how Scottish I am. I want these things because I believe

they are fair and just, and I believe if Scotland stands for

anything, it is fairness and social justice. But let me try to push the

phrase of social justice out of the pool of political cliches and telly

what I mean by that. I mean that when a mother gives birth to a

child, they hope they can feel their own ambitions as a real

possibility and not a pipe dream, snuffed out by the time they are

three. The hope and ambition of a child, suffocated by poverty. Poor

housing and a lack of opportunity. I mean a world where what you can

be is more important than what you -- way you come from. And I mean a

world where a politician's Budget matches the claim to care. I mean a

world where claiming for your loved ones is regarded as a common good

to be supported, not a welfare benefit to be cut. A world where

enemy is fear, and not our neighbours. Conference, our friends

and neighbours in England are currently being subjected to the

Alex Salmond road show, going around the lecture halls and TV

studios, dusting off old favourites that we know. A oil fund, a

currency union, a mobile Defence Brigade, it is like a greatest hits

set. Many of us have long been tired of Alex Salmond's fantasy

assertions and deluded deflections. It has provided a novelty for his

Ink his audience. -- English audience. He is an about and a file,

he wants the Bank of England to set interest rates in his beloved

My favourite line from his tour is that Scotland, as an independent

country under his leadership, will be a beacon for progressives.

Progressive is one of those words politicians use. I prefer playing,

simple fare. Is it fair that an elderly person has his care visits,

possibly his only contact with the outside world squeezed into 15 many

windows, because of their care worker is overstretched? Is it fair

that the teacher has to delve into there and wages to provide pencils

for their class? Is it fair that a vulnerable child in a chaotic home

is left at risk, and at the mercy of unfit parents, because

overworked social workers don't have time to carry out the proper

checks? In Alex Salmond's progressive Scotland, he took a 2%

cut from the Tories, double it and handed it to Scotland's councils.

We are seeing the consequences of these decisions in our communities

every day. Is it right that a young adult, who was not able to take

from school the qualifications he would have liked, is being denied a

second chance at learning, because colleges cannot guarantee him a

decent level of support? Is it right that a worker made redundant

misses out on the opportunity to retrain for a tough Labour market,

because his local college has to cut the number of courses it

provides? Is it right that in Fife, where 25% of school leavers go to

Adam Smith and Carnegie colleges, and 2.5% go to St Andrews, it is

college funding that is attacked. Colleges in Scotland are being

filleted with 20% cuts. Meanwhile, youth unemployment spirals out of

control. Is it acceptable that families are trapped in sub-

standard or inappropriate homes, because we cannot meet the

shortfall in housing demand? Is it acceptable that first-time buyers

are shut out of the property market, because of a lack of investment in

affordable housing? Is it acceptable that 30,000 construction

workers lost their jobs last year, because we are not providing work

for them? In Alex Salmond's progressive Scotland, the housing

budget was cut by nearly a third, while the waiting lists and the

dole queues get longer. They say that imitation is the sincerest

form of flattery. Well, conference, I can take no satisfaction from

seeing the SNP's pathetic attempts to place themselves as the party of

progressives. It was Labour at Westminster who introduced the

minimum wage, working family tax credits and the Winter Fuel

Payments. It was Labour at Holyrood who introduced concessionary travel

and transformed land ownership across Scotland. It was Labour who

delivered new schools, hospitals and housing. We are the

progressives. Labour understands fairness. Last May, in a rare

moment of self-awareness, Alex Salmond told Scotland, he doesn't

have a monopoly on wisdom. I couldn't agree more.

To get the progressive government which embodies its values, the any

party that can deliver that is the Scottish Labour Party. If we are to

get there, we must change. If we are to get the opportunity to serve

the people of Scotland again, we must renew ourselves. And we have

started at work. I am the first leader of the Scottish Labour Party,

so let me tell you the kind of Labour Party I am going to lead. We

have talent in this party, but my current structures, I believe, at

Stowe for much of that talent. They make it difficult for people to

Sturridge -- stifle much of that talent and make it difficult for

people to flourish. I am going to work with the party to find out how

we best change those structures, so the best talent the party has to

offer is made available to local parties with a real chance of being

selected. I don't just want to reach within the party. I want to

reach out to wider Scotland, to find the new talent which will

rejuvenate our party. Making us truly representative of all parts

of Scotland. And so it I have asked Anas Sarwar to work with Margaret

Curran and MSPs, to build Tasks for six to identify and bring in new

talent, so that we better represent those communities. We need to be

open to new members, and we need to be more open to our existing

members and supporters. And I know that many left us last May because

they felt we had let them down. So I will work with my trade union

colleagues, to re-engage with trade union members and demonstrate that

our cause is a common cause. We will listen to and learn from

communities the length and breadth of the country. My shadow cabinet

will, over the next 12 months, travel to every part of Scotland,

to talk to anyone interested in social justice and economy --

equality, and we will report back up to next year's conference on

people's priorities. The next 12 months will be a period of renewal

for our party in terms of structures, organisation and policy,

as we become a party fit to serve the people of Scotland once again.

And I want to use all the talents of this party. It is the people we

serve that matters, and the principles we hold, not the

institution in which we serve. If we believe in partnership, and we

do, then I want members at Holyrood and Westminster to work more

closely than we have ever before, to rebuild this party. Some say the

big beasts, or men as I call them... Only go to Westminster. But I know

that we have talent in both our parliaments and far beyond. And I

will build a team across the party which serves Scotland world. It is

asserted that no one -- Scotland well. It is asserted that none is

put in for the positive case for Scotland remaining in the United

Kingdom. -- that no one is putting forward. That is not true, we do.

But the SNP did almost every day. They did when they say that

Scotland is to keep Stirling. -- they do it when. They do it when

they say that our crucial energy sector needs the support of UK

consumers' investment to grow. They do it when they say our shipyards

would need a Royal Navy contracts to stay open. And my question is

this. If even the SNP acknowledge that Scotland needs the UK for a

stable currency, a growing energy market, and to keep our defence

industries, why would we The Scottish Labour Party is the

party which is radical on the constitution. The party which

delivered devolution. Remember, a referendum within four months of

being elected in 1997, and a Scottish Parliament open for

business two years later. And we have to wait a further 1,000 days.

We were the ones who fought for the greater powers we see now in the

Scotland Bill. Back -- but our test is different to the nationalists.

Our test is what is in the best interests of the people of Scotland.

They have no test. They just think, more powers for Alex is by

definition, a good thing. Our test is a lot more rigorous than that.

We cannot allow ourselves to be boxed into an Orwellian debate,

more powers good, anything else bad. We need to examine whether tax

competition is an interest for the people of Scotland. If it is

wasteful, if it leads to a race to the bottom, if it leads to less

money for public services, is that in more interest for the people of

Scotland? I will not be seduced into the place where which powers

to demand is a test of political virility. We are calling for

corporation tax -- where calling for corporation tax to be devolved

somehow made Shahada, or more Scottish, or even more progressive.

-- somehow makes you harder. It won't be in the interest of

Scotland if the many people the benefit are big business and it

would be more progressive if it means we spend less on public

services, caring for the vulnerable and giving opportunity to the

The debate on tax powers has to go beyond the cartoon politics of Alex

Salmond. And at heart, the SNP want to sell a skewed vision of where

Scotland is at. They want you to believe that Scotland is somehow a

pressed. That somewhere deep in the bowels of white wall is a little

box marked Scottish rights, and that somehow, only if we make

enough of a bus, will the box be opened and a few new powers

grudgingly tossed over the border. My view of Scotland and the

Scottish people is profoundly different. I believe that power

lies with the Scottish people, and it is for the people of Scotland to

decide how that power should be used in the interest of the

Scottish people. The question is not what powers Scotland should

claw back, but which powers should we share? How do we share power in

a way that best benefits Scotland. What do we share with our

neighbours to our mutual benefit. I question for example, whether we

should devolve power corporation tax, not because I don't think we

are capable of using it, because I want to see the detailed evidence

that will tell us whether it will be in our interest or not. Whether

pulling tax-raising powers is in our interest. We have as part of

our union, one of the richest international hubs in the world,

London. My question is this. Is it in the interest of Scotland to

enter into tax competition with London, or as someone who is a

progressive vision for Scotland, is it better to have a unified tax

policy which would distribute wealth to where it is needed most?

Will they be good for businesses we rely on to create jobs families

need? Will they help create wealth we need for public services we want

to build? Will they increase or decrease the stability we need in

our economy? I believe that one thing which should inform our

debate is the debate in Europe, the experience of the euro. I think the

euro teaches us two things. Firstly, taking deeply technical economic

decisions for purely political reasons leads to disaster. It was a

political ideal of a single currency which has led to the

economic disaster felt by all too many families in Greece, Ireland,

and Portugal right now. The second lesson is this: If you want

monetary union, you need fiscal union and a degree of political

union. The SNP acknowledge that a separate Scotland would need to

stay in monetary union but they want to break up the fiscal union

and political union which we currently have. So, while the rest

of Europe moves in one direction to avoid economic disaster, Alex

Salmond wants to move in the opposite direction and head

straight for it. It makes no sense. And we won't allow the SNP to

define our position and our aspirations constitutionally. For

it is not to say that the United Kingdom is perfect, that it should

not change. But once again I believe that we need to get what

the UK means and what Scotland's place is within it in proper

perspective. What would the UK be without Scotland? A country we

built with our neighbours over the last 300 years. Scotland was never

conquered or annexed by the United Kingdom. Since we have had proper

democracy in this country Scots have always chosen to live in it.

Our values have influenced the modern UK. Scottish values of

community where we believe that it is one part of the community is in

need, others should come to their aid. That is the essence of how the

UK operates. Scotland gets more of the UK resources, not out of

charity, or because of weakness, but because with less than a 10th

of the population, but a third of the land mass, we need more. So

when the Royal Bank of Scotland goes down, Scotland didn't have to

negotiate with foreign governments, we didn't need to have to endure

years of negotiations as the Greeks are now going through. The help was

automatic. Given within ours. We didn't have the indignity which

some of our neighbours had of seeking bail-outs from foreign

governments. What happened with the RBS bail-out wasn't about

Scotland's weakness. It was about And in a world of enormous economic

uncertainty, one where we see power moving from west to east, I believe

that if Scotland were independent today, a Scottish Prime Minister

would be looking to negotiate with our neighbours a union which shared

risks and rewards as a UK does. This debate, of course, will be

filled with meaningless soundbites, phrases without concepts, devo-max,

but the English language has many phrases which many nothing in

reality, you know the kind of thing, the cheque is in the post, I will

be straight home. LAUGHTER. Archie. Or, I was always backing you for

the leadership. APPLAUSE. Even, later on, loved your speech.

But let me tell you one phrase which really is meaningless, north

of the border. And here is another one, south of the border. Because

we have no border. We haven't had one for 300 years. Without a border

has Scottish identity flourished or diminished? We don't need a border

to be Scottish. We don't need a border to flourish. What we need is

a commitment to Scottish values, a commitment to our communities, to

equality, and to solidarity. I am afraid, Mr Salmond, that doesn't

mean a commitment to the low tax, low public spending ideaology which

at the heart of your politics. APPLAUSE.

I believe that being in a United Kingdom is good for Scotland, but

that does not mean it cannot change. We will look at ways devolution can

change, what powers are needed, what more powers are needed and I

will lead Labour's Commission on devolution. On that Commission I

want, not just Holyrood and Westminster colleagues, but trade

union colleagues and colleagues from local Government, too. Because

devolution can't just mean powers going from London to Edinburgh. If

we believe in devolution we must be more radical than that and ask at

which level should power lie if we are to serve the people best? That

means a radical look and not just what powers should the Scottish

Government have, but what powers does local Government need and

which should be devolved further to local communities to allow them to

shape their lives? Our values endure, but the way we express them

can never be static. We will come up with proposals which strengthen

definite definite -- devolution and by that strengthen the United

Kingdom and Scotland's place in it. But before we do that, we must take

to the country the case for Scotland remaining with the United

Kingdom. It must start with Labour's case for the United

Kingdom and Labour's campaign. I will lead that campaign, but I want

it to be a collective leadership with all of us working together. I

will draw on talents of all across our institutions, no matter where

people serve. But may I say I am delighted that Alistair Darling has

agreed to play a leading role and equally delighted our own Gordon

Brown will play his part, too. And we will also work with others

who want to keep Scotland in the United Kingdom, people from all

parties and none, the skills of the Labour campaign will be lent to an

all-party campaign when they're needed. But what we first have to

set out is what we want Scotland to be. Our greatest asset is our

people. But we still live in a country where our people cannot

make the best of themselves, we have parts of our country where

families haven't worked for generations, as much by their own

culture, as lack of opportunity. That has to change. I want a

society where there are genuine opportunities for all, an education

system that is a gateway to a better life for all. I want this

party to talk of the dignity of Labour again, the right to work

I want to create the kind of genuine enterprise culture in this

country which ensures our greatest export stops being our people,

because Scotland is a place they know longer have to leave to find

opportunity. A Scotland where we create the wealth to have the

public services we aspire to. A Scotland which leads the world in

education again, and where education really is open to all.

That is how I express my patriotism, not a separate Scotland, but a

better Scotland. But if you express your patriotism by finding

difference with others, rather than unity of purpose, go with the other

guy. Not with me. If you measure your love of your country in yards

of tartan, go with the other guy, not me. If celebrating your culture

and tradition has at its heart a desire to divide, not appreciate

diversity, go with the other guy, not with me. I ask everyone in this

party, everyone in our land to come with me, to celebrate Scottish

values and make them real, in a Scotland which is a land of

fairness, of equality, of solidarity, a Scotland of

innovation, invention and opportunity. We will renew our

party to rebuild our land and we will do it by being a better Labour,

a real Labour, Scottish Labour. Johann Lamont, the Scottish Labour

leader there, being hugged by her deputy, and standing ovation from

the crowd as our tpeurbs -- as her first speech as leader. She said it

was time for the party to stop apologising for the mistakes of the

past and start fighting again for Scotland. She set out the details

of that Commission to look at new powers for Scotland, and pointed

out that Alistair Darling would take a leading role in that and she

had a strong emphasis on social justice, as well. Attacking Alex

Salmond saying you can spot a conman when you can see one. We are

seeing those pictures live from Dundee there, with me in the studio

is Professor John Curtis from Strathclyde University. A lot of

substancetive points in that speech. The Commission and Alistair Darling

being two of the most interesting. Certainly in terms of the detail of

the speech, probably two things. First indeed is the Commission on

devolution that was linked to the press -- leaked to the press this

morning, indicating she was going to lead it. Perhaps the thing we

haven't been told this morning was interesting, the confirmation, long

been suspected, Alistair Darling is going to play a key role in

Labour's campaign in defence of the union, and indeed also the mention

that Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister, is also going to play a

role. In truth, the other thing she said which was important, though it

lacked detail, although there's this Labour campaign for the union,

she's acknowledging it's going to have to work with other parties,

though she wasn't going to tell her colleagues too much about the

detail of that. Perhaps she is paving the way we might for example,

see Gordon Brown and David Cameron on the same platform in defence of

the union. The other thing she was able to announce as an opposition

leader was how she was going to begin to change her party. Now, two

things there, the first was that indeed she was going to set up

taskforces to open up the party, to try and bring in new talent and

here was an acknowledgement, although she was defending her

party, that the party does indeed need to see if it can get people

who can acquire the confidence of the Scottish people those into

Holyrood. The other thing she said, she acknowledged the party needed

to develop in terms of policy, though how she was going to do it

we still remain to see. Essentially what she was saying is the - trying

to find out people's priorities. We have to wait and see in 12 months

what mansion to come out of that. Beyond that, however, I think the

perhaps interesting thing about this speech was that at the centre

of this was indeed social justice, equality, as we have been saying

before the speech. Anybody who was any doubt that that's what she

believes in could not now be in any doubt. I think the interesting

thing about it was the way that she was then trying to argue that those

values are not only important values, but that they are Scottish

values and that therefore that because the best way of promoting

those values is as part of the United Kingdom, she was beginning

to come up with an argument as to how somebody who might believe in

something that's better for Scotland, and in pride in Scotland,

how somebody with that disposition might still want to believe in the

union. I think one of the things that some of us have been arguing,

one of the things mising from the unionist campaign so far, has been

an ability to link of sense of Scottish paoeut -- identity to an

argument for the union. Now, I could criticise certain aspects of

the argument but undoubtedly as to here is an attempt to try to link

the Scottish identity to the union, in that sense her speech moved the

debate on from the kind of speech that David Cameron made, passionate

though it was,s with waupb that links -- one that links of

Britishness to the union rather than than ideas of Scottishness.

can go to Dundee now, where our political editor Brian Taylor is

standing by with sell gates who have rushed from the -- delegates

who have rushed from the hall to give reaction.

Strolled gently, rather than rushed! I have been joined

immediately by Ken McIntosh, the finance spokesman for the party. We

will be joined by others in a couple of seconds. Thank you very

much for joining us. Be careful of this, because Johann Lamont says a

phrase that doesn't matter is love the speech, none of you are allowed

to say love the speech by the way, you have to say it was awful over

something like that! She's attacking Alex Salmond for

withdrawing funds from public spending but surely he has no

option. He's working within cuts laid down by the United Kingdom

Government, he has no choice? contrast Johann was making was

between what Alex Salmond says and does. Because, he talks a good game.

He is always talking about defending Scotland. He talks about

bringing forward capital investment, talks about the difference the SNP

are making but actually what he is actually doing is passing on,

simply passing on the Tory cuts. What else can he do, he is working

within a fixed budget, he can't disinvent them, he can't make money,

print money. You can take a different approach F you take the

economy, one measure in particular unemployment, we should be doing

things like following wage subsidies. Labour's Scottish

futures programme. These are things Government has power and ability to

do now. These are choices they make. The SNP are in charge of a vast

budget here in Scotland. Choices... You talk about a jobs fund. The

speech criticises him for cutting spebing on the health service and

Government, has no option. He has to make these cuts. What you are

suggesting there is that he has no choice and therefore there's no

point having a Scottish parliament. We are joined by Margaret and Anas.

It was a great speech! On that point, he does have choices. The

grant cut by 2.2%. The Government has chosen to pass on a cut to 5.5%.

It's an SNP choice to double the cut for local Government. It's a

multiplied effect of spending. For example, if you invest in housing,

you then get construction jobs. People are spending and you get

people paying rents which is much better and keeps the economy

thriving. It's the effects he's failed to grasp. You accept that

he's working within a fixed budget laid down by the UK Government?

Perhaps then you are he could explain to me why he is voting

against the Scotland Bill which will give the Scottish Government

more borrowing powers. He's been arguing for borrowing powers but

his party is voting against it, that doesn't make sense for a party

trying to resist cuts, apparently. That will be fine except he himself

argues, he argues, that what he does in power has made a difference.

He keeps saying that plan as implemented by the SNP has made a

difference, has altered the course of the recession in Scotland. I

don't think it's true, but he argues that case. He says that what

he does makes a difference in Scotland. You can't have it both

ways, either it does or doesn't. Another issue, you have been tasked

by the leader with engaging with the party and bringing out the

talent and all that sort of thing. What's the problem at the moment

and the diagnosis? We want to be a party that's open to everybody, all

parts of Scotland. There will be no no no-go areas. We want the best

people representing News West Minister, local Government and

Holyrood. The best we can possibly find and that's what we are doing

in the years ahead. There was that announcement of the campaign to get

new candidates. The Commission looking at more powers for Scotland

and a big one that struck me, Johann Lamont to lead the Labour

campaign on the union with support from Alistair Darling and Gordon

Brown. Indeed, I think you will see there was a very positive response

from the hall on that. We are a unified party. We have purpose and

direction. We do believe there is broad support support for

maintaining the union but a particular Labour case for

maintaining the union and giving Scotland a better and brighter

future, which will now be directed under a strong vibrant Labour Party

under strong vibrant leadership. She talks about lending that Labour

campaign where necessary to... Lending it? She said that. She said

lending it to others, loaned to other parties. That's a bit

partisan, should you not join together in a common front? I have

said all along and many people agree that of course where you

share an agenda of people, we are not frightened of working with

others, of course but there is a distinct Labour agenda about the

future. We are not fighting for this union... A distinct Liberal

Democrat agenda. Good luck to them. They will articulate that and we

will join with them when appropriate but there's a very

proper Labour vision for the future of Scotland. We have not heard

enough about that, but now with Johann we will be stepping up and

taking that message to all parts of Scotland. I mean, it's a devolution

commission. It's reminding people we are the party of devolution.

Then, we will lend that support to those who want to oppose the

separatists and it was a good argument. Stick with the devolution

commission and it's to look at more powers and yet Johann Lamont and

other speakers, not least including Ed Miliband, very, very sceptical

about tax powers on the intellectual argument you would

then lose the wide tax base. starting point for the team is we

recognise that in the past people have looked at at - we want to look

at open to have the debate and discussion that what powers need to

be where, west Westminster, Holyrood and in the best interest

of Scotland and want to have that open dialogue across Scotland that

we recognise is a parallel process and answer that fundamental

question, part of the United Kingdom or separate from it. Let me

answer the point about the Labour campaign. There's positive cases

for the reason around politics, influence and ability around the

world, our security, safety and monetary union we have. There's

also a specific Labour case, a social Democrat case for being part

of the United Kingdom. We funmently believe in equality of opportunity

and distribution of wealth. It's only Labour that can make that case,

not The Conservative Party. I heard you say corporation tax. Many

people in Scotland are worried about, because every time Alex

Salmond talks about devolution of corporation tax he always talks

about reducing it and the implications for Scotland are

enormous. Now is the time for to us step up and question the details of

what's going to actually happen in Scotland. What about the transfer

of all of income tax, would you say that has that same concern perhaps?

Johann Lamont has made it clear to say we are open-minded about what

the future holds but we will put it under very specific scrutiny and

the key test will be help Scotland, will it help the Scottish people,

will it advance social justice in Scotland? Devo-plus, corporation

tax, income tax, not VAT, not national insurance. It's

corporation tax and income tax transferred to Scotland. You are

against that, aren't you? You know what the problem is, nobody really

knows what these terms mean. What devo-max means... Corporation tax

and tack incomes. --. And income tax. We will look at the case and

evidence and and argue on it, does help the Scottish people? Let me

try another thing with each of you, direct quote from the speech, I

believe power lies with the Scottish people. You believe that,

accept that? Why not put your proposition of more powers to the

people in a referendum? proposition on devolution? Yeah.

Well, I am not against that but you can't do it in the same time as a

separatist vote. Why not? The two would be contradict Torrey. If you

vote, for the sake of argument, 51% vote for independence but 98% vote

for devolution, what's going to happen? You can't then say there's

a majority in favour of of independence. Why don't you tput in

competition. Economy one, do you want change, question two what

change do you want? Again you are putting devolution in the context

of separation and there are two separate directions. Devolution

does not lead to independence, it There is a mandate for a single

question referendum. We are open to have the debate about devolution.

To be clear, where Labour will be in this process, the only vote that

kills the pollution as a concert or a process is the yes, no. So you

say no to put it on a paper alongside independence? There is a

big enough debate to be had. referendum is about making a

decision about our future. We need to have the opinion of this got is

that people and we can't do that if we separate from the UK -- the

opinion of the Scottish people. you come up with a radical proposal

for more powers, would you accept that that would require, on his own,

a referendum? We will see how that debate emerges and if it is

necessary. We have gone very far in developing devolution as things

currently stand. For example, the Scotland Bill. We have a big

decision to make about our future. Do we stay in the partnership, or

do we leave. That is the big question that needs to be decided

for us. Thank you to all of you. We have had the speech and the

reaction. We are not allowed to say that we loved the speech. We must

say it was moderate and intriguing and entertaining.

Thank you. Professor John Curtice is still with me. We have been

discussing this -- the issues but let's look at some of the style.

How did Johann Lamont do? She dispensed with some of the jokes at

the beginning and wrapped it up very quickly. Indeed. There were

three characteristics. Undoubtedly it was very passionate. I think

anybody who was watching for the first time would say, this is

certainly a politician who wears her heart on her sleeve. She has

got a very clear sense of values and things that she believes in.

That may, I think, helped to persuade the Scottish public to

take her seriously. That said. Alongside the passion, I think

there was perhaps too much earnestness or nervousness. I am

often criticised as speaking too quickly. I can get away with that.

A politician cannot. A politician giving a leader's speech has to be

able to pause. A politician who is going to build up an audience has

got to create those lines in which they invite the audience to applaud,

or maybe to cheer, so you build up momentum. In truth, it moved too

quickly. I think there were only three interruptions at most in

terms of applause. That is something she will have to work out.

There was an interesting visual question. One of the things that is

going do happen, people may not read the speech but they will see

the picture on the television or in the newspaper. She opted to wear a

blue dress. Here was somebody giving a very traditional Labour

message against a rake -- a red background but she decided to wear

a blue dress. I don't know if it was delivered, in trying to say, I

may be giving you some fairly passionate social democracy, but I

can still reach out to others, or whether it was a mistake. Shall we

say, it is surprising to see a Labour leader, won her first outing,

wearing a colour that is traditionally associated with the

conservative enemies. The speech writers, maybe you're hinting that

there wasn't enough texture. The rough and this move in terms of the

waves our - the rough and this move We had a section which was a

critique of the SNP, which I thought was important. One of the

things that has been missing has been to come up with a critique of

the SNP's record in office. That was prodded at the round of

interviews. It is important, particularly the idea that the SNP

are not doing enough for Scotland. This is trying to attack the SNP in

terms of the heart of his beliefs. There was an important passage

about social justice. We were then moving but but but these are

traditional Labour values, and whether the party needs to change.

The argument about how the party needs to change and her critique of

the Union, they -- their, the joint was not very clear. That bit, I

think, was rather more muddled. She didn't always give the signals to

the audience that she was moving from one section to another. Thank

you, back with you later. This week saw the launch of the devo Plus

campaign in Edinburgh. Brian Taylor is at the conference to talk about

that a little bit more. Patricia Ferguson and Richard Baker, thanks

both for coming. Devo max, devo Plus, independence, devo pass was

the campaign launched this week. To transfer control of welfare

benefits and corporation tax, but leave National Insurance and VAT at

Westminster. Duncan MacNeill is on there as an individual, what does

the party think of it as a party perspective? I think the party is

interested to hear what other people have to say, and that is why

Johann Lamont is setting up her own commission, to work out where our

position is in terms of what powers should beware in Scotland. Johann

Lamont is right, if we want to be radical, and we do, we have to

You want to be radical, and her opening remarks are as best in --

expressing reservations about further tax transfers. We want to

be radical about making a difference to the lives of people

in Scotland. She set out very well, exactly how we want to go about

doing that and the kind of Scotland we want to see. That is what really

matters, the kind of Scotland we want. Finance is your bag, it is

your area. Are you are attracted by the idea of tax powers being

transferred, or do you have this rival competing issue of concerns

about the tax base being narrowed? We said what the proponents of

taxpayers have to show is where the economic benefit lies in Scotland.

When we looked at corporation tax, it was going to cost hundreds of

millions of pounds, to achieve the cut in corporation tax which the

SNP wanted to see. The evidence that would attract the business was

extremely poor. That is why we did not support the case of corporation

tax, and we do have a concern. We will enter into debate around taxed

devolution. We have a concern about a race to the bottom. To be clear,

it applies to income tax as well as corporation tax? Not to such an

extent to income tax, but particularly corporation tax. There

is a concern which would need to be addressed. Explain the point about

tax competition. If Scotland cuts corporation tax, for example,

everybody is trying to get to the cheapest possible level in terms of

corporation tax and income is not coming in from tax revenue. It

creates a danger for Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

am struggling to see that if you start from a fundamental scepticism

about transferring tax powers, what is left, if you are doubtful of the

very least about tax powers? It is what you do with the money you have,

the priorities you said. We have seen Alex Salmond with one of the

biggest budgets the Scottish Parliament has had, in spite of the

cuts from Westminster that he tells us about every day. But we are not

seeing much being done to help the unemployed in my constituency, not

seeing much to reduce child poverty. Surely you accept is working with a

fixed and declining budget, that it could be 2027 before we are back to

the levels of 2010. It is even more important that you make the right

choices and have the right priorities, and that is our

overwhelming guidance. We want to make sure we make the right choices

for the right outcomes for people in Scotland. Thank you, and I can

back to the studio. With me, Professor John Curtice. Listening

to that, an interesting debate about the new tax powers, are

Labour in a difficult position? They are. In a sense what the

Labour Party are trying to do is to say to people in Scotland, who

makes the decision? It is not so important as what decision is made.

Either way, we think decision should be made in such a way that

promotes our understanding -- by the way. The problem the Labour

Party faces is that when you ask people in Scotland, who should be

making decisions about taxation and who should be making decisions for

Scotland about welfare benefit, the un said you get is -- the answer

you get is that around two-thirds of people in Scotland say, these

are the things that the Scottish Parliament should decide for

Scotland. The idea of devolving these things is almost as popular

as the idea of devolving health and education. That is the problem the

Labour Party faces, they are not necessarily where the public are in

terms of their perceptions of who should be making the decision.

Thank you. I am now joined by Johann Lamont, she has joined me

from Dundee. Thank you for joining me, fresh from your first

conference speech as leader. You have set out some very detailed

proposals in your attempts to refresh the party, you have said it

is time to stop apologising. What is the fundamental problem with

Labour and how do you hope to get Scottish people re-engaged with the

party? I think we have a strong message from people at the last

election that we had lost touch with them, they believed we were

not standing up for them, not standing up for Scotland, our own

interests were more important. We want to get out and speak to people,

but their priorities and concerns - - about their priorities. And we

want to change our party in order that we cannot serve people once

again. You have tasked Anas Sarwar with trying to seek out fresh

talent. Is the Labour Party full of dead wood? Far from it. It is clear

to us that you have to refresh and renew. You need to deal on all the

talents beyond our own party membership. I have said that on

occasion, our party has not been sufficiently well coming. We want

to make a well-supported -- a way of supporting people who have the

capacity to represent us, but also to open up the capacity for natural

Labour voters who have not yet made the next step. We want people to be

able to engage in the broader political debate and here Labour's

message more strongly. Labour have always had a problem with this. The

big beasts were normally the men. They have always been down at

Westminster. Even in the 2010 election, talent people like

Margaret Curran went south to stand at Westminster. What is the problem

with Labour at Holyrood attracting good candidates? I don't accept

that. We lost a lot of very good, highly talented people in the last

election. If you lose badly, you lose a lot of gifted people. Almost

by accident, we ended up with some very good people coming in. I want

it to be more rigorous. I don't accept that all of the talent lies

in one place. I recognise we need to open up our party, draw people

on, support them in order that they can represent us. I don't accept

the notion that people go to Westminster, and a lot of people

choose to go to Holyrood because they do things in a different way.

Our tests for candidates is that they have the highest standards and

commit themselves to working for the party and to representing the

people but they have been voted in by. He pointed out to -- that they

have been voted in by. He pointed out that you wanted an electoral

machinery that was fit for purpose. It was a massive failure in the