20/04/2013 Scottish Labour Party Conference

Ed Miliband came to Inverness to declare that the Labour Party is on

its way back. In his conference address he

branded the coalition as heartless and hopeless and called for a new

economic settlement. So one day become an says, we're all

Thatcherites now, I have news for him. We are not. A pause. -- a

pause. He's said Labour would unite the

country, the Tories and the SNP were divided, that Alex Salmond was

pursuing... A narrow nationalism that plays for Tory success,

because he thinks it's the only way to convince the people of Scotland

they should leave the United Kingdom. Can you imagine it?

Miliband has made very clear what Labour is against. When it comes to

the referendum, he has yet to explain what Labour is in favour of.

What its alternative is to Alex Salmond's plans for independence.

Johann Lamont's commission on Holyrood powers has proposed

And on the subject of MPs, I would say to those unnamed colleagues

spitting their dummies out this week, get over it, and engage in

particle cetacean. Mr Miliband kept his views to himself. Are you for

Against the full devolution of income tax? Have you reached a

view? If Labour is on its way back, it still has much work to do on

setting out its alternative. I am joined by Professor John

Curtice of Strathclyde University, and our political editor Brian

Taylor is in Inverness. Good afternoon, Brian, thank you for

joining me. As we head towards the independence referendum, this is a

fairly critical Conference for Labour? Yes, but it is curious,

because the commissioned reports is definitely the dog that didn't bark,

or if it did, it is barking very gently. They are not discussing it

on the floor of the conference. I think there has been difficulty

over the nature of the launch. It is being stressed, and those who

are behind it stress this point, it is an interim document, the first

step, not the end, perhaps that wasn't fully understood, they feel,

by the critics. The debate or discussion will get under way now.

You have the concern about the nature of the launch, that will

dissipate, it will really go. But then you have concerns amongst some

MPs, particularly the older generation, perhaps, those who were

there before devolution, that their status might be reduced in some way

if the remit of Westminster over Scotland is reduced. Even numbers

might be reduced in some way. Then there is the second concern, that

is that if you do for all of income tax to Scotland, would there be a

cut in the spending available, with the formula, under question, would

it be abolished? That is a genuine concern held not just by MSPs...

Not just by MPs and party people in Westminster, but across the party

more generally. I think once the kerfuffle over the nature of the

launch has died down and they all engage in the debate, that is what

will feature. There is another element, the party has to decide

how far it wants to go in making an offer. It knows it has to make some

form of offer to pre-empt or to counter independence, it must be

saying no, but, with an offer. It is whether they need to go so far

down the road that there is a substantial devolution of powers,

or whether only a small scale change would be sufficient. Hearing

what Brian has been saying, what does this mean for Johann Lamont as

a leader if she tries to exert her authority in the party, not just in

Edinburgh but in London? Certainly it is adjusting to the fact that

her party dominates Scottish up under Ming Campbell with a

proposal for, indeed, substantial devolution of taxation. Now, the

Labour Party, if you read the detail of what is in the interim report, it

is similar to what the Liberal Democrats has suggested but the tone

of the presentation has been very, very different and you have seen the

Labour Party struggle for so. Reasons that Brian has outlined to

actually go behind. This is something they wish to endorse and

demonstrate enthusiasm for. Perhaps also beyond this, there is another

question the party has to answer, which in a sense is: If indeed more

taxation such as income tax should be devolved what would Johann Lamont

and her colleagues want to do with T here is an obvious gap between

Labour's position and the Conservatives. Ruth Davidson in

coming up with her own commission has been clear. She says: I wish

Holyrood to have tax powers, particularly over income tax, so I

can go in a Scottish re-election and say - I think it should be reduced.

She has a clear link between her social and economic agenda and what

she's suggesting for constitutional powers. The Labour Party not willing

at the moment to say - if we do have these powers, what will it want to

do with it? How might Scotland be improved as a society, if it had

these taxation powers that the interim report talks about. We see

the delegates filing into the hall behind you there. You said that this

is the dog that didn't bark in the night. Do you think she'll retlect

flect this debate in her speech? think there will be a reference to

the Labour's constitutional commission, it was Johann Lamont who

set it up in the first place. But you have something of a tension

going on here between the various elements. This is not Labour's

natural agenda. I know they were the party who legislated for

self-Government, but the moving on from that to enhanced devolution is

not really where they want to be. They want to be talking about social

justice and social justice within the economy but they are

recognising, I think the more intelligent and astute among them

are recognising they cannot wish away the referendum on independence,

however much they would want to do so. Why? Because they got beat. They

got beaten in 2007. They jot thumped in 2011, reflecting the views,

again, of senior strategists. Here. They must address that question at

the same time as allying it to social justice. The point John made

about what you do with the tax powers is intriguing. It is the

intrinsic logic of the Conservative position that they require a

substantial tax base upon which you can Prince Edward gate a credible

offer of tax cutting -- you can predigate.

It is too limited, too little to allow a credible tax cut to be

proposed but if you have the full control of income tax you could do

that. That's the discussion that Labour is also having, what you want

to do with the powers of Holyrood. One union said here that Labour was

getting the debate all around the wrong way. They should be going

first with what they want Holyrood to do in terms of social justice and

fit powers to match that. Thank you very much.

We mentioned Ed Miliband there, yesterday he devoted much of his

speech to reviving the economy, let's listen in a little more to

let's listen in a little more to what he had to say. We have huge as

a country. They are the challenges we have to rise to and we have to do

so in difficult and different time from a past. A time when there is

from a past. A time when there is less money around. Toast he at task

of the next Labour Government. The way we do that is with a simple

idea. A simple idea which expresses who we are as a party We understand

that the way countriesed succeed, the way economies succeed is when

you have a recovery and an economy, an economy made by the many not just

the few at the top. When you back the people who put in the hours, who

do the shifts, who get up in the morning before George Osborne's

morning before George Osborne's curtains are open. And get back home

at night after his curtains have closed again for the night.

They are the people we need to back. You know, they are the forgotten

wealth creators of this country. So, how do we do it? The first thing we

have to do, and you know this here in Scotland, is we have to tackle

the decades-long issue of the way our banking system works. It's

our banking system works. It's simple: we need banks that serve our

businesses, not businesses that serve our banks. That's why our

plans are to establish a regional bank in every part of this country,

in every part of Britain, serving our small businesses. Banks serving

their communities, getting back to the old principles of banking,

principles we should be proud of and principles we should restore in the

banking system of the United Kingdom.

APPLAUSE We need to tackle the decades-long

problem of short termism. What is hae that about? It is about the

businesses that want to plan for five or ten years ahead but find

they can't because of the short-term pressures on them. He with should

get rid of the quarterly accounting rules that force those businesses in

the short-term decisions and do something else. We should prevent

the takeovers, where the hedge funds and speculators swoop in for a quick

profit, not actually to help the businesses. We've got to tackle the

decades-long problem of vocational education in this country. It is

what I want to do with a Prime Minister of Britain, looking with

the new First Minister Johann Lamont. We know there is a huge

challenge. We must reject the idea. Frankly, it has been an ideal in our

culture for so long, that university is best and vocational education is

second-best. To every young person, we need to give them high-quality

real apprenticeships to aspire to in this country.

APPLAUSE We need to tackle the decades-long

problem of not building enough homes in Britain. Which puts

home-ownership out of reach. And puts fair rents out of reach, too.

That is why we said we should be using the money from the 4G spectrum

auction for something very simple: To start building homes again in

Britain and putting construction workers back to work. That is what

this Government should be doing. And you know, you know, to have a

recovery made by the many, everybody has to contribute, if they can do

so. You know what is really interesting, for all this

Government's rhetoric about welfare reform, for all their cuts, do you

know that the costs of economic failure are just going up and up?

Because they haven't got the growth Because they haven't got the growth

in our economy. And there is one party only in the British politics

that is actually saying -- let's tackle the scourge of long-term

unemployment. And it's the Labour Party. A compulsory jobs guarantee

for the nearly 7,000 young people in Scotland who have been unemployed

for more than a year. And for all of those over-25, the 15,000 who have

unemployed more than two years. Real jobs with real rights to work and

real responsibilities to do so. And friends, let me say this - you know

that in some communities there are a minority who can work and aren't

doing so. And we should put them back to work. But you also know this

- that in many, many communities, there is a very vast majority who

are desperate to work. And what I'm never going to do, as leader of the

Labour Party, is say to the young person in Inverness, desperately

searching for a job, or the older person in Ipswich, desperately

looking for employment, that somehow, they are a scrounger a

We know the way countries suck veed is by uniting them and not dividing

them. There is something else we have to do, you cannot have a

recovery made by the many, if family budgets are just squeezed year on

year on year. You have to tackle the living standards crisis that your

country faces. That's why we are in Government now. We would be

cancelling that millionaire's tax cut and protecting the tax credits

cut and protecting the tax credits that make work pay.

that make work pay. Would be introducing a 10p income

tax rate, and we would be breaking the stranglehold of the big energy

companies in this country. That is how we start to build trust. That

is how we start to turn Arie economy around and build a new

economy which we need for the future. What about Alex Salmond?

What about the SNP? As we plan a new economic future for the country,

Alex Salmond wants to draw a line through our country. And, you know,

it's the same device of politics as the Tories, it's just a different

poor -- form of division. They want to set those people in work against

those out-of-work, the public sector against the private sector.

Those people in trade unions against those people outside trade

unions. That is what the Tories want. What does he want? To divide

the people of Scotland and the people of the rest of the United

Kingdom. It is wrong, friends, because countries succeed when they

unite, and not when they divide. The Labour leader, Ed Miliband,

speaking yesterday. We will be heading back to Inverness soon for

Johann Lamont's speech, but Professor John Curtice is still

with me. What does Johann Lamont have to do this afternoon?

crucial thing she needs to do is indicate that she has authority

over her party, and an ability to give its strategic direction. We

have already talked about the argument inside the party about the

interim report on devolution, she needs to give a clear indication of

how enthusiastic she is for this. Under the controversy which has

surrounded her in recent months was the speech back in September worse

she suggested that perhaps the Labour Party would no longer --

where she suggested that perhaps the Labour Party would no longer

endorse the idea of free universities, personal care and bus

passes for people. We are told that she will talk about education and

she will talk about how the funding that has gone to universities has

her to further education. I wonder whether she will indicate that the

Scottish Labour Party agrees with beginning to charge for Higher

Education. Here is Johann Lamont receiving her APPLAUSE, a standing

ovation, just before she begins her speech. That is live from the Eden

Court Theatre in Inverness. Are, she is hugging Anas Sarwar, Berg

Deputy Scottish leader of Labour. She is taking to the podium to

begin his speech. There was a reference back in the

arrangements committee not to hear me, and after me putting my best

suit armour as well! Conference, I want to start by

saying thank you. Thank you to my beloved family, thank you to

everyone in this hall and the many people beyond it who have gone out

of their way to support me as we rebuild our party. In the language

of my forebears, can I just say, SPEAKS IN GARLIC. I relish this job,

every part of it. It is wonderful to be in Inverness in such a

beautiful weekend, to see those who say that the sun will only shine

after September 2014. APPLAUSE.And I want to thank my deputy Anas

Sarwar and my old and dear friend Margaret Curran for their support,

too. I have asked them both to go on a charm offensive, Anas Sarwar

can supply the charm and Margaret can play to her strengths, too!

LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE. Margaret and I have been making jokes at each

other's expense for more years than I care to reveal, but in all

seriousness, her friendship and support has made the hugest

difference to me in the last year. Thank you, Sister. APPLAUSE.

The early days of my attendance at Labour Party conference were

dominated by anger, revulsion and determination to rid Margaret

Thatcher and the Tories from office. Never then did I imagine that one

day I would be addressing a Scottish Labour Party conference as

leader in the week when she was buried. Her death has reminded us

all of the damage she did to our country, the pain she brought to

too many people throughout this land and the legacy of division she

has that. I have been struck with the dignity of the communities -

the miners, the shipyard workers, the steel workers - as they

recalled the vandalism she wrought, not least the dignity of David

Hamilton MP, himself a former miner, who spoke of his regrets that the

only time Margaret Thatcher shed 80 a forehead job lost was when she

lost her own. -- shed a tear for a job lost. I remember the truth, not

just that her era was ushered in by the SNP bringing down a Labour

government but that it was our failures as a party when we divided

against each other that allowed her to prosper. We will never allow

that to happen again. APPLAUSE.I'm not asking anyone either to forget

or forgive what Thatcher did. We never will. I also remember that

Nelson Mandela, after 27 years jailed in Robben Island, forgave

his jailers before he walked out to freedom. And it made me think this,

Conference, let our party, let our movement, be shaped by our

political heroes, not villains. APPLAUSE.

Let's define ourselves by what we are for, not what we are against.

Because our vision of how our country could and Shelby is so much

richer than the narrow, negative views of Arab opponents. -- how our

country could and will be. -- narrow, negative views of our

opponents. Last year, we were badly beaten and

we had to change, we have changed and we will continue to change. In

local elections from Aberdeen to Edinburgh, Stirling to Renfrewshire

and, of course, in Glasgow, the Scottish Labour Party had stunning

victories. Our party is changing - changing how we do policy, changing

how we communicate, changing how we select our candidates. Our new

general-secretary will see through that change, and I have every

confidence that together we will deliver a modern, 21st Century

Party which truly represents the people of Scotland. I know we still

have a long way to go but I believe we can achieve our goals for

Scotland. We have breathed life into our party when many of our

opponents had written us off. This year, I believe our job is to

breathe life into Scottish politics. Currently, we are trapped in an

argument of narrow nationalism. The SNP have chosen to use the majority

not to improve Scotland but to put it on pause until the referendum.

The bedroom tax, they don't see it as a opportunity to show how

devolution can protect Scots from a Tory government, not a chance to

help people, but instead as an opportunity to be aggrieved. I ask

them to abandon that now. By pledged to work with the SNP to

protect the poor and vulnerable from the injustice of the bedroom

tax. We can and must protect them. Scotland can stand united against

the Tory cuts, and I call upon the SNP to work with us. If they truly

believe in social justice, we can work together. But sometimes I ask

what is the case? Well, if you are a tax exile, the SNP will tell you

they will cut tax in an independent Scotland. If you are Rupert Murdoch,

come to Scotland because you will pay less. At the same time as they

say Scotland will be a tax haven for the rich, they claim we will

have Scandinavian levels of public spending. Scotland will be a low-

tax, debt-free, high public spending country. Rupert Murdoch

and Tommy Sheridan will embrace! LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE.

And I shall be a size 10 with George Clooney on my arm!

LAUGHTER. Even I know that doesn't add up!

What the nationalists are having is not a conversation with the people

of Scotland, it is an attempt to chat Scotland up. Band, let me tell

you, Conference, their chat-up lines are mince! The people of

Scotland are going to give them one hell of a knock back! Their story

doesn't stack up. But what is our story? What is my story? I grew up

in an discerning Glasgow, my family were crofters, married to the land,

my father a merchant seaman, wedded to the sea. I saw in my upbringing

and the beauty of our land and felt both the warmth of community and

the harshness and brutality at times of trying to make a living

here. I had the privilege to grow up in a family of love, but one

where my family -- mother always reminded me that what we ate, what

we war, where we lived was all the product of the sweat of my father's

brow, earned at sea. I respected that. I grew up respecting hard

work, in a world where people were valued. I saw the unfairness of a

world which did not value work back. A father who retired without a

pension, a father whose employer cared not for him after he left,

but he was until his dying days cared for by a health service, the

Labour Party's greatest creation, an expression of our collective

belief that individuals deserve better. The family did not feel

hard done too, did not blame others will feel entitled, but we thirsted

to improve ourselves and the people we called Neighbours. As a child of

Anderson and my rural upbringing, I was never the type of person who

could expect a university education, but I got one, not because it was a

Scottish tradition but because Labour made it a Scottish tradition,

that if I worked hard enough, I could achieve. The likes of me, if

we are good enough, could get there. That is the Labour tradition. We

could marry that tradition to another Scottish tradition, and I

could sit by my mother in a public library and study for my Highers as

she studied by her daughter's site for no other advancements than her

own intellectual pride. And what did I decide to do with my

university education? I decided to use it to throw open the gateway to

others that had been a dream for me through education. I did it in

schools, where I met children as I had been, working-class, proud,

eager but blighted by the joblessness of Fatah's Britain. I

did it in schools where children did not have the privileges I had

had in Anderson, the privilege of a mother and father who got you out

of bed in the morning, the privilege of parents who knew the

value of education. And I did it in schools where it was an achievement

for some children simply to get over the door of the school in the

morning. I did it to look into the eyes of those children, children

who did not have the benefits of the working-class values instilled

in them, and search foreign ember of hope, something to be breathed

upon, cherished, made a flame, something we could fight against

together, to burn against the dying of the light before they were even

fully formed. That was my call to public service. You know, I went

back to one of my old schools recently. The old building

completely rebuilt by a Labour government, the dilapidated houses

I looked out upon from my staffroom are now rebuilt thanks to a Labour

government and a Labour council. But the fear of decay returning as

the slump continues. Our national shame conference -- our national

shame, Conference, is that Margaret Thatcher may begun, but their

children in this country whose chances of success are as bad as

those of the children I taught them. That has to change, and that is why

we exist, to fight injustice. As Nelson Mandela said, education is

the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world. And so,

friends, were we going to the next Scottish election, we will have

plans not to just changed education over one term, but a vision which

will look forward 20 years. Because of our schools, colleges and

universities will be the best in the world. We need that length of

vision. And we will not pay for the opportunity for some while denying

opportunity for others. The savaging of the college system to

fund universities has been a learning at school, college or

university. I want and we need a Scotland which has education open to

all. I want us to return to a policy of life-long learning. That's not

just a matter of social justice. It is also an economic imperative in a

fast-changing world. Let others talk of an oil boom. Our greatest

resource will always be our people and if we're to give people the

chance to fulfil their potential, it's a second education boom that we

need in Scotland. We will make Scotland a fairer, more

just country. That is why we seek just country. That is why we seek

power. Conference, this weekend we have published the interim report of

our devolution commission. I believe it is a good piece of work. It's

radical and challenging. I'm grateful to everyone who contributed

to it, whether they represent Scottish Labour Party in our

councils, in Europe, Hollywood, trade unions or party members. What

it is, is a starting point of where we agree how devolution is to be

developed. What it is not, is an attempt to appease the SNP. I am

well aware that you don't appease lions by throwing more Christians at

them. APPLAUSE

And I will not walk an inch down the road to independence. We will have

plenty of time to debate it throughout the party and we'll

consult with all of Scotland on it. But let's do that within this con

context: Our debate is not power for power sake. It is to ask where best

should power lie it make the best of people's lives. There are two

principles within that that I am determined to protect. One, is to

deliver power to our people, not to institutions. The current SNP

Government is one of the most centralising since Margaret

Thatcher. APPLAUSE

This isn't just a question of devolving power from Westminster to

Holyrood, but beyond to the people best-placed to make the best of

people's lives. I want to reinvigorate democracy at council

level and beyond it, in our communities. The second point I make

is this: Sovereignty lies with the Scottish people. We choose to be

inner partnership with our neighbours and that means we should

be respectful to our neighbours because it is a partnership. I do

not want a settlement that reduces Scotland's inyou flens in

Westminster one iota. -- influence. Let's be clear what is on average.

The SNP want to allow us to separate ourselves but allow Westminster to

desued what we can spend and borrow without one Scott at wells. I want

Scotland to play a full part with a full Scottish representation at

full Scottish representation at Westminster.

Westminster. APPLAUSE

that is what is in Scotland's interests and that is why we are the

party of Scotland. The SNP say we are on a home rule journey. Pity

they didn't join us when we started they didn't join us when we started

APPLAUSE Labour created the Scottish

Parliament because we believe in devolution. And we've continued to

lead the debate on devolution. We have begun a dialogue with the

people of Scotland about what powers the Scottish Parliament should have.

But, Conference, can I tell you today what powers I really want?

They are the powers that Alex They are the powers that Alex

Salmond already has. APPLAUSE

The power over Scotland's education. The power over Scotland's health

service. That way we shape the schools that will give every child

an opportunity to reach their potential. That way, we support the

colleges that will give people a chance to learn the skills needed to

get a decent job. That way, we will build the universities that will

pass on the knowledge to the people who will drive our economy in the

future and that way we will provide future and that way we will provide

the care for the six and -- sick and elderly that they need and deserve

and that way, we can empower our children to make healthier choices.

We know it is not the union that prevoents us from achieving our

ambitions for Scotland. -- prevents us. So why do we have to wait until

after a referendum to get on with realising them? The man Alex Salmond

put in charge of our schools, Mike Russel, said in a speech that he

wants to bring about a chak in education that will transform

schools. -- change. But, he said, he can only do it after independence.

Well, if he can not bring about that change now, my message to him is to

move over and let someone else who can, get on with the job.

Because, in the Labour Party, we know how to get on with the job.

Labour in Government had a childcare strategy within months of coming

into office. We introduced child tax credits to supplement child benefit,

and introduced paternity and extended maternity leave. We lifted

hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. We don't need the

Council of Economic Advisors to tell us what a difference investing in

education and childcare can make. I know, only too well as a teacher and

a mother. A few weeks ago Alex Salmond stood on his Conference

platform and promised a childcare revolution. Yet, he made the same

promise of 600 hours care for three and four-year-olds as he had made in

2007. Six years on and families are still waiting. Only 1% of

two-year-olds will be guaranteed early learning and care. We are

massively behind the rest of the UK, never mind other countries in the

world. Families of pre-schoolchildren need help and

action now. Families of primary school-aged children need help with

out of school care and wrap-around care. Is Alex Salmond concerned

about the families who pay more for childcare than they do a mortgage?

Or was it a cynical attempt to persuade the women who oppose him to

change their minds, when what we want to do is change women's lives?

APPLAUSE Conference, you can make up your own

mind, but this time, I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt.

If he is serious about supporting the families who are struggling with

childcare costs, then let's make it happen now. And I challenge Alex

Salmond to meet me next week and to bring his budget. I will work with

him to ensure we can deliver the childcare that a modern family

needs. We have worked up proposals. I'm sure he has, too. We can agree

what our priorities should be and how we are going to deliver it

within his budget. within his budget.

APPLAUSE I came into politics to ensure

people could achieve their full potential. That is why I joined the

Labour Party. Changing people's lives for the better is what we are

in the business of. We will work with anyone who shares our values

and who wants it make a positive difference to people's lives -- to

make. Because what is exciting Conference, is that we can support

people to change our lives and people can change their own when

they are empowered to do so. Last year I sue community ownership first

hand when I was at an estate trust on the Isle of Lewis. You would be

surprised and impressed about what the community organisations there

are delivering much house-building. Developing renewables, investing in

population decline and reinvigorating their area. Community

assets is a powerful vehicle to tackle not just social injustice and

inequality but it also delivers economic growth. It gives power to

the people and allows them to transform their communities. It was

a Labour executive that brought in the land reform act. It has allowed

remarkable progress to be made in the number of communities that now

own their land. But despite that, Scotland's landownership patterns

are significantly out of line with what is the norm in much of Europe

and much of the world. Just 16 owners have #10e % of Scotland's

land and get tax breaks for doing so. -- 10%. I have to say that land

reform has stalled under the SNP. If we want to have any real hope in

changing the current land own hership in Scotland we have to be

bold and radical. -- ownership Scotland, we'll extend

rights for community purchase of land and for those rights strike

across Scotland. If if it is in the public interest, communities will

have the right to purchase land, even if the landowner is not a

willing seller. Now that is a power worth devolving.

Times maybe hard but we can still make change. Last year I started a

debate on what our choices should be on a time when money is tight.

People ask why I made that speech in September. I will tell you why.

Because we know, what every family in the country knows, that times are

hard. Until there is economic recovery there are choices to be

made. We know, but the SNP admit only in private that the finances

are power and with an ageing population the demands on those

finances will increase. I believe we need to be honest about the

challenges we face because only by being honest can we be true to the

values we all hold. I was told at the time, by some, that I was right,

the time, by some, that I was right, but that it was bad politics. Well,

I think that to wait until the day after the referendum to tell the

truth about where we are is rotten politics.

APPLAUSE I believe the only sort of politics

which is good politics is honest politics and my ambition is to marry

the debate we have in the Scottish Parliament, in the TV studios and in

the newspapers, with the lived reality of the people we represent.

When I called for an honest debate about spending priorities, many

criticised me and misrepresented my motives. Conference, let me tell you

why I said what I said. A few weeks before I spoke, I met with a group

of care workers who told me about their experiences of the job. Good

people, who work hard at a difficult job for little reward. They

explained how they were asked to task and go. That they were

instructed not to speak with the people they cared for because they

had to be in and out in 15 minutes. They told me how difficult they

found that process, because it goes against their instincts to care and

help. I was convinced that the truth about their working lives and the

lives of those they cared for was not something that could be finessed

or ignored. We could not pretend that this system was working. It

made me realise it is simply obscene for politicians to celebrate

policies which bear no relation to what is happening on the ground. It

is time politicians were honest with the public about hard choices. We

can't afford a cartoon debate when older people are being tucked up in

bed by 6.00pm because it fits in a career's precious schedule because

You know, the SNP claimed I was attacking the principle of

universial benefits, which I was not. What I was asking was the

central question for anyone who believes in social justice. How do

you deal with social Jews disin a time of scarcity not of plenty. --

social justice. They revealed two truths. We in Labour start with the

beliefs of the people. We see what how we can deliver the needs and

commune Kate it to them. The SNP start with the slogan. The slogan is

part of the policy and people's needs come last. That is why in this

country Alex Salmond says we have free personal care, but in truth we

have vulnerable and elderly people getting 15 minute visits by careers

who are instructed not to talk to them because a conversation would

take up too much time. Fro personal take up too much time. Fro personal

care! -- free personal careful. Free personal care, says Salmond, but a

career is told not to say anything to a pensioner in need. He has the

slogan but people are suffering. Let me talk about one of the great

achievements of the Labour Government. The bus pass is a great

thing but it doesn't really work if there isn't a bus to get on. That's

there isn't a bus to get on. That's Around the country, services cut,

routes going. In part of my constituency, this week we were

told there would be no buses in one area after 6pm. That is why I want

to debate about our nation's priorities. As my Bevan said, the

language of priorities is the religion of socialism. One trade

unionist said that contentious issues such as the continuation of

universal entitlement must be continued to and conducted

transparently, rather than in the current polarised terms. That is

why I asked a finance experts to conduct an evidence-based reduce --

and evidence-based view of what we can afford as a nation. But when I

was asked -- when I asked for the debate I was publicly derided by

the SNP. John Swinney says there is a crisis in public spending - in

private, at least. The Scottish cabinet will talk amongst

themselves about the spending crisis we are facing, while denying

it in public. John Swinney even questions the affordability of a

state pension in a separate Scotland. Let me tell him, Labour

is keeping the pension he thinks we And I make this pledge to the

people of Scotland, I will be straight with you about what we can

and cannot do. We won't say one thing in private and then tell the

public something we know to be untrue, because we know the reality

of people's lives, and they deserve the truth. The biggest issue for

people right now is the economy. People are hurting, unemployment is

unacceptably high, growth is too slow. Many of those lucky enough to

stay in a job are forced to accept reduced hours. Many finding a job

for a first time are accepting temporary contracts. For too many,

wages are falling and prices rising. This is the real world, and it

needs to change. We need an economy that works for the many, not the

few. We need an economy that equips us to compete with the emerging

powers of China and India. We need any economy fit for the 21st

century, and we won't be able to do that with a low-skill, low-wage

economy. Participating in a race to the bottom will mean finishing

bottom of the race. APPLAUSE this, of course, is not

the view of the Conservatives of the SM -- or the SNP.

They are wedded to the policies of the past and oblivious to reality.

The Conservatives are still committed to rewarding those at the

top while the majority are left to feel the pain. This month, people

earning over �1 million a year received an average tax cut of

�100,000, a policy four millionaires -- a policy for

millionaires, signed off by a cabinet of millionaires. Alex

Salmond favours a low tax and lightly regulated economy. Remember,

he spoke of the need for lighter touch regulation of financial

services just before the crash? He needs that the way to attract

global investors to Scotland is his ultra-low Corporation Tax. This is

extreme short-termism. The economy needs to be built on strong

foundations. When making long-term investment decisions, we want a

skilled and educated workforce, skills at all levels, not just

graduates, investment in basic and intermediate skills, areas where we

compare badly with our major competitors and a major reason for

our low levels of productivity. This is why the SNP cut of 120,000

college places is not only unjust, it undermines our long-term

economic potential. David Cameron and Alex Salmond don't realise that

the era of trickle-down economics is at an end. We need any economy

that works for people, not against them, an economy built from the

middle out, not from the top down. The key factor in economic growth

is the strength and size of the middle. Inequality encumbers growth.

Ken McIntosh and Catherine Jamieson are working hard in developing a

Scottish Labour alternative economic strategy. It will much as

before one parliamentary term, they will focus on how we can build an

economy which meets long-term challenges. They will be examining

how we can build an economy from the middle, our approach to

taxation, meeting the productivity challenge, strengthening exports

and building economics services. Labour's enduring causes to help

and protect the vulnerable, to make sure the old, the sick and the poor

have serenity and dignity in their lives. Our mission is to write the

social arithmetic, to give a voice to the voiceless, hope to those who

feel hope is wrong -- gone, to give security to the insecure. We will

never walk past on the other side. APPLAUSE.

And, Conference, there is no greater cause than child poverty.

Its existence diminishes us all. A child is not to blame for the

circumstances into which they are born. As a society, we have a moral

obligation to ensure that every child can fulfil their potential.

Progress in reducing child poverty in Scotland has stalled under the

SMP. Today as I speak, 27 out of 32 local authorities have council

wards where over 20% of children living policy for -- poverty. The

spectre of child poverty looms for the first time since the early

1990s. This should be treated as a national emergency, but it is not.

The SNP instead choose to ignore reality. Three weeks ago, Alex

Salmond delivered a speech in which she referred to Iraq 10 times.

Independent, 25 times. But the word poverty was never spoken. The

difference between him and me is very clear. He entered politics to

re-erect borders, I came into politics to tear down barriers.

We know Alex Salmond is no friend of the poor. Under Labour,

substantial progress was made in reducing shell property and we are

rightly proud of this, but we must now meet the challenges of today --

in reducing child poverty. We want to ensure that social justice is

woven into the fabric of everything we do. The challenge paper

published today set out our policies, and offers many answers

that the SNP choose to ignore. I did not come into politics to

debate the constitution, I came into politics to end poverty.

APPLAUSE. Today, though, we find a Scotland

suffering from the Tories' failed economic plan, and an SNP

administration who could not care less about protecting Scotland from

it. An SNP administration happy to spend thousands of pounds

commemorating historic battles and cutting college places. And in that

you can see why they don't get what is great about Scottish history.

Our greatest moments were and when we out-thought our neighbours, it

Our enemy is poverty, with all the evils that brings. Alex Salmond

would have you believe that the enemy is our neighbours. He wants

to have a debate with David Cameron, but he won't abate me. That is why

-- because he wants to deceive people into thinking this is a

question of Scotland versus England. It is not. The fight is Scotland

versus summoned, in cities one that Scotland is going to win. --

Scotland versus Alex Salmond. And I make this solemn promise to

you, I will do everything in my power to restore honesty to

politics. We in this party, this movement, will fight for this

country we love. Let me tell you what my job is about. It's about

making sure this party response to the needs of Scotland, about

fighting privilege and inequality whenever we find it, about fighting

poverty and opening up opportunity for all. It is about creating a

fairer, better, more prosperous Scotland. It is about leading

Scotland and that, Conference, is a job by a minded to do. Thank you.

-- it is a job I am minded to do. A standing ovation there. The

Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont began with a critique of

Margaret Thatcher. She mentioned the SNP a lot, saying they have put

Scotland on pause until the referendum. She's at the savage

cuts in the colleges have been a disgrace, she tried to defend her

something for nothing speech and said but she was trying to restore

honesty to politics. I am joined in the studio by a process that --

Professor John Curtice of Strathclyde universities. Watching

Johann Lamont, what was your reaction? The speech was a speech

in which Johann Lamont exhibited a willingness to tackle her demons.

There were two in particular she was dealing with, one was this row

over the last couple of days about this interim paper are more

devolution for Scotland. In a sense she said, look, I am behind this.

But in so doing she was very careful to try to appease the

critics in her party. So claiming, although I think many commentators

would question it, that she was not trying to imitate the SNP, not

trying to do this because of the threat of independence, but giving

has very firm commitment that she didn't want Scotland's

representation at Westminster to be cut, that was a very clear image --

message. It was interesting when she went on to sell why her party

is keen on devolution, she seemed much keener to sell the ability of

the party to use the existing powers of the Scottish Parliament -

of education, health and social care - they are wanting to talk

about what they might want to do if Holyrood had control of taxation.

The second demon which she mentioned and dealt with was the

controversial speech last September up in which she raised questions

about the current policy, and she tried to explain a bit more about

it, in particular that it was not her opinion that it was good to

have a universal service of the quality is not very good. That said,

she did not take us any further in giving us an indication of what the

Labour Party might end up doing all wanting to say by 2016 about how to

reshape public service in Scotland. She criticised the funding cuts for

further education colleges and said they had lost out to universities,

but there was no indication that universities might be selling

something that some people should have to pay for. Brian Taylor is in

Inverness. Interesting what John was saying, Johann Lamont trying to

fight those demons. I suppose in some way she had a lot of

explaining to do. She did, to some extent. I thought it was a very

good speech, very personal. She is up against a very charismatic

leader in Alex Salmond, the head of the SNP, so she was trying to set

out her own personal background and very personal motivations for her

political decisions. I take John's point, there was a lot of counter

thoughts about what she is against, she was concerned about the nature

of care and the provision of education, she did not really

provide details. But as John also notes, 2016 would be the manifesto

during which those would be detailed. I thought the staging was

intriguing. If you look at the large stage behind her, a great,

huge salt air behind Johann Lamont, obviously trying to reclaim the

patriotic position from the SMP. On that quite remarkable phrase at the

close, it was not Scotland versus England in the constitution debate,

rather, it was not Alex Salmond verses England, it was Alex Salmond

versus Scotland. One understands why she makes that point, but I

think Alex Salmond might be having a bit of a wry smile when you

consider you won an overall majority in the 2011 Election

amongst the people of Scotland in a voting system designed to prevent

his party from doing that. delegates are filing out, and I

gather you wish to -- was speaking to Margaret Curran earlier? Yes, I

spoke to her raising some of the issues which arose in the speech,

and raising with her the ideas and thinking that she had on the

is important that we look to the future. Unemployment is a huge

problem. We have deep problems for long-term unemployment. Scottish

Labour need to offer a vision for the future. I'm very pleased that

John McFall, who did so much during the banking crisis and helped

challenge that, is helping to chair that taskforce, joined by an

entrepreneur in Mrs Rainey who is a very steely businesswoman. They are

both working at us to look at were spects for the future to create new

opportunities for employment. -- prospects. But we had the figures

showing that the position in Scotland is better than the rest of

the UK on unemployment and employment. Don't you give the

Scottish Government, the SNP Scottish Government some credit for

that? No, I don't because the marginal difference is from time to

time, depending on when different figures come out. Whatever those

figures r there is a deep problem with unemployment in Scotland,

particularly long-term unemployment. But nevertheless. They are making it

better. The point I'm trying to make, is get out of talking about

the day-to-day political debate. We need to look to the future, look to

the new industries and opportunities. We need to change the

Scottish economy. The Scottish Government say they are doing that.

I don't think they are doing enough and as a country we need to think

much more deeply about where the new opportunities are coming from which

is why I have high-profile and thoughtful people doing this work

for us. Labour wants it offer a new vision for the country, as we move

forward to the rev rechlt -- wants to offer. It is a big decision and

big debate. I'm in the complacent but we need to look ahead. What

Scotland will we have? Let's create new jobs and look to the new

industries but we need to do that now. You say you are not complacent

but are some in the party almost grudging about the existence of a

rev rechlt it is not the fight they want to have. You hear them saying -

this is not our issue we want to talk about social justice and

unmroichlt well, tough t you lost, there is going to be a rev rechlt --

-- and unemployment, well, tough, you lost. I think I have come to

terms with that. We lost the election, we are having a referendum

and now I'm quite excited about it. Let's have that debate with the

people of Scotland. It is a huge opportunity for people like myself

to put our plans to them to talk about the kind of Scotland we want

to have. I think passionate and and believe Scotland is the best place

when we work with our fronds and neighbours across the UK to put the

case we want. -- friends. I think the grudge has passed and now we

embrace the opportunities it presents. Is the grudge passed? You

have a behind the scenes battle. That's perhaps overstating t a

behind the scenes squabble at this Conference about the document that

dare not speak its name. The commissioned report you don't debate

on the floor of the Conference. You had MPs saying they weren't

consulted and union leaders saying the first they heard about it was

when they saw it in the papers. cannot win. Nonetheless, this is an

interim report which is the start of a debate which is maybe why some

people feel they have not heard it before. Should you have consulted

more widely with your MP colleagues? This is the start. This is the start

of what we are doing. It is an interim report. Do you accept it was

badly-handled? I don't think people realised it was an interim report if

I was being honest but many now feel reassured we have made that clear.

It is an interim report. There is a real opportunity for people to

participate. There will be different views, I ak knowledge that. Actually

I would encourage different views. -- I acknowledge that. You have got

them The core is what is in the best interests of the Scottish people.

You have to link tax to what you spend. To how it helps grow your

economy and becomes a political debate. That's what we will do.

are the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. Are you personally

supportive of devolving income tax to the Scottish Government? I want

to look at the arguments my test will be what works best for the

Scottish people. The report said there was a strong case and if the

commission was minded, you were a prominent member of that, are you

minded to devolve income tax for Scotland? There is a case for it and

I want to assess the case. What is the downside? Can we link it to

proper spending in Scotland? Can we make sure it grows the economy? How

does it link to the rest of the UK? We have a very integrated economy.

Those are the kind of tests we need to look at and we need to have those

debates. Why rule out other, it is a like corporation tax and North Sea

oil revenues? We don't want a race to the bottom. You don't want

competition. Another phrase for race to the bottom is competition. No,

you create a frame where the only direction is bottom. That's the

problem. Sometimes that doesn't , depending on what you create. Labour

have created a fair tax system where you put in and you get out. But it

has to be fair and effective. We know this is a big decision, it

needs a lot of thought. It is not a done deal. We have have those tests

and debates going ahead in the future. And one thing that your MP

colleagues at Westminster, the Scots MP colleagues are concerned about,

is that if too many tax powers are shifted to Scotland, there is

perhaps an argument that the remit is less at Westminster and fewer MPs

from Scotland at Westminster. They are worried about that. I don't

think they have terrible cause. We have clear that there is a knead for

strong Scottish representation at Westminster as I will make very

clear. There are big issues such as welfare and macroeconomic issues

that need strong, effective representation. And we believe in

the partnership of Britain. We know that we need strong representation

at Westminster. Let's turn to that question of welfare, an issue to the

foreat this conference, the underoccupancy surplus or subsidy,

otherwise known as the bedroom tax. -- an issue to the fore.

Would Labour scrap it? One of the points in my speech today is the

bedroom tax is one of many changes coming through the welfare system.

There are many problems coming down the line, real challenges. In

particular I would draw your attention to what is going to happen

to disabled people. The Universial Credit policy, the flagship policy

of this Government is in deep trouble. It is chaotic in

implementation. Independent commentators are questioning its

survival, it has been so badly implemented. Labour will come

forward with an alternative to this Government's programme on welfare.

I'm in the hearing an answer there. I'm in the hearing you promise you

will scrap the bedroom tax. What we are saying to you, Brian, is the

bedroom tax needs to fit into the context of the other welfare changes

this Government is implementing. I'm dopely worried about the Universial

Credit system, I think it could fall over. -- deeply worried. You will

know we are doing very new and interesting thinking around the

contributory principle. We will do that, when we are ready to produce

that policy. I'm still not hearing an answer. A previous Labour

opposition would, for example - another charge which had two names,

the community charge, AKA poll tax, you would have said, it is wrong,

hateful, it'll G you are saying of the bedroom too, it is wrong,

hateful, you are not saying it would go. -- bedroom tax. That's bus it is

part of a broader Universial Credit. We need to look at the impact on the

Universial Credit and how that would be implemented. There might be some

form of challenge. We would not have introduced the bedroom tax. But we

want to be honest with the British people. We will produce an

alternative to the entire Tory Government's welfare system I have

to say, I think that's better for some people campaigning on one

element of it, making no commitments on the rest of it that are so

pernicious. Hang on a sevenlingted Labour has made a huge issue. --

Labour has made a huge issue. -- hang on a minute. Ed Miliband made

an issue in his speech, yet you are still not saying you would scrap T

I'm clear, the Government's entire welfare programme, of which the

bedroom tax is part, is in trouble. It is deeply pernicious in terms of

what it is going to do to disabled people. We'll not isolate one and

say that's the only one we will look at. We'll come forward with a

comprehensible alternative. I think that's a much better deal rather

than looking at one campaign. We need a genuine alternative. Welfare

really matters for people. Not only for those who receive it but also

for those who contribute to it. We need to be honest with the Scottish

and British people and say - when we meet your questions about welfare,

on whichever side of the debate you are on, we will give you a

comprehensive answer, not the answer on one political aspect of it.

you very much. Shadow Scottish Secretary, Margaret

Cower A we shall cross back to Inverness. -- par great Curran.

-- Margaret. We're joined now by Johann Lamont.

During the speech you spent a great deal attacking the SNP, one of the

things you picked them up on was the so-called American way of public

services, low American tax rates, high Scandinavian public services,

but was it not Tony Blair who started this by cutting taxes and

improving services funded by improving services funded by

unsustainable borrowing? Look, what I was clear about is we need to have

honesty in politics. We need to learn the lessons of what happened

in a financial crisis and now we need to make sure we address those

problems and the point I was making about the SNP is they have have

power right now to make a difference. To make a difference to

people's lives and they are not doing that. They are having a debate

instead about the constitution in some wonderful world after

independence rather than addressing the issues now. I want us to talk

about unemployment, care for the elderly and childcare and I'm made

an offer to Alex Salmond to sit down to see if we can agree to playing

that difference. Education was also -- make that difference. Education

was also a key point. You said in your speech you had benefited for a

free education at university which is what the Scottish Government

provide at the moment for Scottish students. Are you in favour of

bringing back tuition fees? Is that the nearest we got to a policy

announcement as Nicola Sturgeon has said? Well, what I said was I

benefited from an education. I got to university, very many of my

contempries are not awe we are in a different place now. Contemp yaries.

Every level of education matters. You don't invest in one at the

expense of the other which the SNP have done and the challenge of

children in school has to be addressed. We are currently in a

position where we are spending �79 million a year funding European

students to come to Scottish universities when constituents like

mine, with the best of qualifications can't access a

university place. We need a mature discussion about that. We need to

look at why our access rates are poorer than the rest of the United

Kingdom. Our drop-out rate is poorer than the rest of the United Kingdom.

We know that education matters. I want an honest, mature debate, not a

dividing line between myself and other political parties. That was

one policy area you picked up on but you also had to explain a another

couple of areas. One was the Devolution Commission which you

called radical and challenging, but it has been pretty disastrous for

this Conference. You have created a rod for your own back with MPs not

rod for your own back with MPs not turning up and so many against it.

You are obviously not here. If you were at this Conference you would

know huge amounts of energy, very upbeat because we understand that we

are in a place where we are changing and people again are policening to

us and yes we will have a debate about devolution because we care

deeply about it. -- people again are listening. This is not a platform

the Scottish people to separate from the rest of the UK. The Scottish

Parliament is a way you can protect people in tough times. My challenge

to the SNP is to use the powers they already have to make a difference.

We will, through the Deef lulings Commission and beyond -- Devolution

commission. Talk to people about how we can get power in the best place.

It is not about a narrow political, party political debate. It is about

something far more serious. Another thing you had to explain was your

something for nothing speech and you said you were not attacking the

principle of universial benefits which left a few journalists in the

hall looking rather confused. demanding honesty. It is not

sufficient to have a slogan. You have to have a policy that's funded.

I talked about the gap between the free bus pass and no bus available.

The gap between the free personal care and an elderly person tucked up

in bed at 6.00pm. Everybody with a family across this country, knows

there is a gap between what has been said by the Scottish Parliament,

Scottish Government and reality. I want to bring these two things

together. Actually when I was talking about it and derided by the

SNP. It turned out they were talking about it as well. The only

difference was they were talking about it private because they don't

believe you can trust the people of this country with that conversation.

I want it out in the open and let's have a genuine debate about how to

protect people in tough times. How we address child poverty and how we

ensure our educational institutions ensure our educational institutions

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 66 seconds

The former Chancellor Alastair Darling attacked the SNP union for

eight -- plan for a currency union with the rest of the UK as a

straitjacket. The economic argument is the

question of currency. There is a pattern emerging with the

nationalists, the more you ask questions, the more you find their

arguments fall apart. Look at Europe. They told us, hand on heart,

they had a legal opinion which said we would automatically remain

members of the European Union. What happened? When pressed, we found

there was no legal opinion, Scotland had been quite

deliberately deceived into believing nothing would change,

where the reality is that we would have to apply again to become

members of the European Union. The same thing with NATO. Critically,

when they come to the question of the currency, they are being

evasive and not straightforward with people. In the past 12 months

alone, they have gone from being in favour of the Euro, about as

popular in Inverness as it is in Essex, to using the pound like

Panama uses the dollar, where you would have no central bank, which

would completely undermine the financial services industry in this

country, to now they say they will have a currency union. Thinking

about it, the practicalities, if we have voted to leave the UK, we have

left the bank that prints the currency that we currently use.

Pound sterling is the currency of the United Kingdom. It is not a

currency union at the moment. In order to keep the pound, the

Nationalists say we would have to enter into a currency union.

Yesterday, Nicola Sturgeon said that, of course, with a currency

union, we could do what we want it with no constraints, spend money on

anything you want. That is utter nonsense. You don't need to imagine

what would happen. Look at what has been going on in the eurozone for

the last four or five years. In a currency union it is the larger

economies that call the shots. We also know that a currency union

would mean that another country, what would then be a fine country,

would have to approve our budget, tax, spending and borrowing. That

is not freedom, if you vote for independence you are boating into a

straitjacket from which you can never escape, and the consequences

would be very bad for Scotland. pause. -- APPLAUSE. When we start

facing the challenges of the rising ageing population in Scotland, if

there was a drop in oil prices or another banking crisis some time in

the future, you are on your own. The burden, far from being shared

across the UK, for some 6 million people living in Scotland. Where is

the sense in that? We are better and stronger together. Some

nationalists have twigged this. Some of their supporters and

academics now realise the blind alley we are going down and they

are saying, let's have our own separate Scottish currency. Every

time you visit somebody south of the border, you'd have to change

your currency. Every time your granny, encore auntie came appear

they would have to get currency to visit you. Businesses trading with

the rest of the UK would have to factor in the cost of the exchange

rate. Launching a new currency now and are to be the most turbulent

economic times in modern times, it is truly courageous, in YES

MINISTER terms. -- in the Yes Minister terms. You would be

gambling on oil prices, it is a ridiculous policy. It would be

gambling with Scotland's future in a way that I think is totally

unacceptable. Alex Salmond has said he will debate the currency with me.

The reason for that is used -- is he does not have the answers. But

he cannot hide for 17 months. Scotland is entitled to an answer.

What currency would we use? What what the consequences be? Scotland

is entitled to believe that the nationalist stance on this, as on

so many other things, is incredible and is falling apart. I believe

there is a much better choice for our future than separation. The

last thing we need at the present time is more uncertainty and

division. If we walk away from the UK, we give our children a one-way

ticket to a deeply uncertain destination. That, to me, is

totally unacceptable. We know there is nowhere better, but we

understand there is something bigger. That is why we are better

and stronger together. Thank you very much.

Alastair Darling. Anas Sarwar is the Scottish party's Deputy Leader

and chief co-ordinator of labour's 2014 referendum campaign. He joins

me from Inverness. -- Labour's 24 to referendum campaign. Let's look

at Scottish Labour's offering in the event of a "no" vote, of course.

With the devolution commission, presented at this conference, the

interim report, it seems like there was utter confusion about what

Scottish Labour want. Only you could describe an honest

and frank debate amongst colleagues as confusion. If they want to have

an open and frank conversation right across Scotland, experts in

all sectors of Scotland, to find a devolution settlement which works

best for Scotland. How do we celebrate being part of the United

Kingdom and recognise we have rights and responsibilities as part

of the UK, while making sure we have policies to make sure we can

deliver the kind of society we want to live in, a socially just comical

and fairer society. I think there has been confusion. One MP said

there has been a great deal in the way this has been handled. No one

knew what was discussed, he said on Reporting Scotland, yesterday.

have an interim report setting out key areas we want to look at, key

recommendations. We have said nothing is set in stone, there are

no fine conclusions. We recognise we don't have all the answers and

we want to have an open dialogue within the party. Yes, with

colleagues, but, more importantly, with Scotland. We are trying to

genuinely create a devolution settlement which is not in the best

interests of the Labour Party but in the best interests of Scotland.

You say you're still to arrive at various conclusions. Income tax,

for instance, what is the reasoning? It seems to be unclear.

What we have said as there are no final conclusions, there is a

strong case for devolving income tax, especially to increase the

accountability of the parliament. It is right we look at the big

questions to make sure we are not adding administrative burden two

companies are individuals. How do we get a model which works in the

best interests of Scotland? That is the key point of every

recommendation. It is not power for a reason, to get from one building

in London to another in Edinburgh, it is powers that be will Purpose

for a fairer, more just Scotland. As the devolution commission has

pulled apart by your own people, it looks like Better Together is being

pulled apart by the unions. I think that some of them are getting upset

about Conservative involvement and they want a more Labour oriented

campaign? I think you should not fall for the SNP spin machine. The

only people suggesting pulling apart is the Yes Scotland campaign,

and the SNP. What we and the unions recognise is that when the work

together, we are stronger to get than generally win together. The

challenge for the Labour Party and the Labour movement is to make sure

that not only does our devolution settlement work, but also how we

create the policies and ideas in Scotland, making sure we are only

doing it types of things that Johann was talking about, fighting

inequality and poverty, not just in Glasgow or Inverness but across the

UK. That is a Labour strength and that is why I am sure the trade

unions will get behind us to keep part of the UK and to return at a

UK Labour government in 2015 and Johann Lamont as First Minister in

2016. You want all the debate to be above board heading towards the

referendum, but you have had a grievance over the past two weeks

about the Ian Taylor donation. The SNP set to hand it back, we did not

be easier if you did and you could lay the matter to rest? SNP and Yes

Scotland don't have the big answers. Let's focus on what type of

Scotland they want to live in, and so the unanswered questions. We are

about exposing the myths in the debate and revealing the facts.

Let's not go on about petty debates which do not matter, let's talk

about the issues which affect people every day. I want to live in

a left of centre, socially just Scotland, and I think we can

deliver it. What is the SNP vision for an independent Scotland? We

still don't know. Thank you for joining us.

Labour have used the conference to hit out at the SNP economic

policies, saying let's get his government ministers have presided

over a low economic growth and mass unemployment. The Party finance

spokesman claimed there was so much more that Labour could do if they

were in power. What are you going to do when you

grow up? What are you going to be? We have all been asked this or

asked ourselves. When you're young, you don't always know the answer.

For most of us at least, you imagine yourself in a job. For

200,000 Scots, there is no answer to that question. For one in every

six under 25, there is no job to dream about. A decade and a half

after the Labour Party battle to rid this country of youth

unemployment, this blight on so many lives is back. The problem is

worse than ever. When we talk about the Labour vision for Scotland's

future, it is not an abstract concept, it means building a

healthier, happier and more confident Scotland, tackling

inequality. Above all, it means employment - for ourselves, our

families and everyone around us. I don't pretend there is a magic key

to unlock the door to individual and social prosperity, but I think

having a job comes close. It is not just having an income, although

goodness knows how many families in Scotland could do with more money

right now, but a job can give you pride, self-worth and respect. If

we can get Scotland working again, we can tackle proper -- poverty,

improve health, give people a stake in society and a sense of shared

purpose. Instead, what do we see? The Tory government failing the

economy and with a deliberate and calculated objective of reducing

public sector employment by half-a- million. And accompanying them, an

SNP government making further wrong choices of their own but content to

say it is all the fault of Westminster. I don't know how many

times I have said that I don't blame the SNP for all the ills in

our economy, but I hold them responsible for their own actions.

I hold them responsible for the college lecturers who have lost

their jobs, the police support staff and carers laid off, but

thousands of nurses and teachers who cannot find work because posts

have gone. I blame them for spending �800 million putting

people at the door, money that could have been better spent hiring

1500 teachers, 1500 nurses and 1500 police officers in each of the last

five years. There is a line in John Swinney's infamous leaked cabinet

paper which talks about the importance of managing the public

sector workforce. In case that is not immediately obvious, that his

job cuts, to you and me. As the euphemism for the unpalatable, it

is on a par with his latest description of the Scottish fiscal

deficit as a relative surplus, or when the First Minister says, in

terms of the debate - in other words, don't trust a word he says.

Conference, let us never forget that the SNP have been in power in

Scotland now for six years. Six years of no economic growth, six

years of rising prices and falling incomes, six years of mass

unemployment. Ed talked last month about this being a lost decade. For

me, he has summed up my fears about government in this country. The

truth is, both the SNP and the Tories have resigned themselves to

that last decade. They have turned their back on the problems of today.

The SNP have left us in a state of limbo. Failing to use the problems

of devolution to make a difference, failing to have any additional

sense of purpose for our nation, and failing to get this country

working again. Opposition is an exasperating plays Boris to be, but

we can take some heart, because where Labour has led, the SNP have

followed. We called for a young person's guarantee for 16 to 18

year-olds out of work, we call from apprenticeship scheme to offer

thousands the opportunity to learn a trade. Be called for a dedicated

youth unemployment Minister. The SNP has at least tried to follow

Labour. If we were on power, there are so much more we would be doing.

The subsidy scheme would be in place, getting people into work.

Industrial manufacturing strategy would be getting the economy moving

again. Our community benefit causes would be making better use of the

huge resources of government procurement. We would be supporting

the construction industry with investment in housing, not cuts. We

would be using the knowledge and expertise of our colleges to offer

hope to those who need to retrain or learn new skills, rather than

slamming the door in their face. We now know that there are 168,000

fewer people studying in our colleges than when the SNP came to

power. 168,000 fewer students. A third of all those college places

for people with additional support needs have gone, and all the while

the SNP have spent �45 million pushing college lecturers and staff

people on our side, to develop our transport and infrastructure. Let's

leave constitutional politics for another day. Let's tell people of

our focus on getting all Scots a our focus on getting all Scots a

job. job.

Thank you. Ken Mcuntosh there. I'm joined by Labour's infrastructure

spokesman, Richard Baker. Thank you very much for joining me, live from

the conference. Hearing what Ken Mackintosh was saying, a great

critique of the SNP's record in power, so he thinks, but actually

when we saw the figures today, the largest increase in employment in

Scotland for 12 years and GDP figures showing Scotland's economy

continuing to outperform the UK. Unemployment in Scotland has fallen

over the last five monthly releases and is below 200,000 in the first

time in four years. Not an accurate critique from Ken Mackintosh, is it?

It is an accurate critique, Andrew. I should say good afternoon. The

fact is these figures fluctuate. Other times we've had unemployment

higher than the rest of the UK and have lagged behind in terms of

growth. We've seen recent improve thes and they are welcome. Any

improvement in these figures is welcome but we are starting from a

very low base of low growth or no growth at all. We are simply saying

as Scottish Labour that we have to be more ambitious than that. That's

why we are putting forward different proposals, for example, investing

more in housing, a different approach to public sector

procurement to get more people back into work. I don't think anybody

surely could say those figures you have quoted are good enough and

should be good enough for Scotland. Scotland also saw GDP grow in the

final quarter of 2012 where it fell for the rest of the UK, this is

because the Scottish Government have a smaller settlement from the UK

Government What I'm saying to you, is where we have better figures than

the rest of the UK that's welcome, but what we are still talking about

is extremely low levels of growth indeed. Fractional levels of growth.

With you comparing minuscule differences in terms of low or no

growth. -- you are comparing. In other years, only recently, we have

seen that we have been behind at other times. I'm afraid if things

currently continue on the current pat and no change of policy from a

Scottish Government, even with continuing the strong economic at

Westminster, we are starting to do very much better here in Scotland

either. -- we are not doing very much better. Rather than cutting

housing budget by 40% and having big drops in construction employment as

a result we have put forward plans to invest 330 million more in

building more housing, addressing social needs and giving people in

the construcks sector those jobs. I don't think it is a be unreasonable

proposal. You are talking about policy areas. One key policy area to

try to get growth is public were curement, trying to filter out that

money -- procurement. Trying to filth ter down to small and

medium-size m-sized businesses. -- trying to filter down. Nicola

Sturegon was laying that out in Parliament in the week. But they

haven't. If you look at cross, they were awarded on the basis of being

marked 90% against price and 10% like other aspects like community

benefit. In Wales, the same contracts are awarded 60% on price,

and 40% on wider community benefit and, for example, awere tisships,

paying a living wage, all those other issues. -- apprenticeships.

And to benefit local firms, not just multinationals but local firms

employing locals. The Scottish Government have got that wrong. It

is not just me, organisations say they have got it wrong. I hope they

are listening and will change course and tact. But they have to do that.

They have not been getting it right so far. Thank you very much. We'll

have to leave it there. Now, Professor Curtis is still with

Now, Professor Curtis is still with me in the studio. John you were

hearing that critique from Ken Mackintosh and Richard Baker's

argument, considering the figures we saw this week, are they correct or

is the Scottish Government correct? I think you saw a certain amount of

difficulty, in pursuing the critique be given the recent figures but

there is a wider problem in pursuing arguments on SNP's stewardship of

the Scottish economy which, of course, that many of the key powers

that Government has in terms of dealing with the economy, do not lie

in Holyrood's control. It might have been slightly more interesting,

perhaps, if this critique of the S NP's position was Allied with an

argument about - well how indeed if the Holyrood Parliament did indeed

have responsibility for income tax, how then the Labour Party might

think those poufrs could be used to ensure that Scotland's economy was

stronger. -- those powers. And thereby produce a better

outcome. I think the problem at the moment with all the arguments about

saying that ask the land isn't doing better or worse, is in truth given

that sof doesn't rely on the Scottish Government's remit and we

are talking about the Government with a fixed amount of spending, so

if it spends more on construction, it has to spend less anywhere else.

I think then it is difficult to pursue this particular argument with

a degree of of inteactual credibility. We heard Johann

Lamont's speech, we were talking about the substantive points. But

when it came to the style, what did you make? At times her speech was

ragged when it came to the applause? One of the things for which Johann

Lamont has a lot of good commentary is her ability to deal with the

First Minister in First Minister's Questions and often her wit and

humour and quick-wittedness has resulted in her getting rather good

notices. I have to say, how farever, it does look like she still has to

master the art of giving a Conference speech. -- however.

The essential Wass two-fold. I in a sense am the not the right person to

say this, her delivery was too quick. She was saying them too

quickly. She was reading a speech, as many politicians do, off the

so-called sincerity machine, whereby it is projected to screens in front

of her that aren't visible to the audience. One still got the sense

she was reading. She needs to learn to pace herself. She still needs to

learn to change her tone, so even though the speech might be in front

of her, it sounds as though it is coming from the heart, rather than

being too prepared. So, in truth, yes, there is still work to be done

there. I think, perhaps, particularly unfortunate given what

Brian said, this was a speech in which she really was trying to sell

herself as a person. She has quite good opinion poll ratings, and she

is trying to build on that, but I'm in the quite sure if this speech

would have worked so far as that is concerned. I will turn to my

sincerity machine and read that we will hand back to Inverness to Brian

to has been joined by delegates. I have not dump -- I have indeed. We

have Willy Bain. In Scotland they shorten your name

at every opportunity. Serious matter bhashgs what did you make of the

speech? -- serious matter, what did you make? Fantastic.Very personal.

It identified the problems we have, skills, childcare, our education

system in big reform and she dealt with those. I think she showed us

you can deal with those if you have the right vision, and within the

powers that the Scottish Government has. We know childcare assumes so

much more in terms of people's after-tax in terms of the UK and

Peters of Europe. We need real action on childcare now. She showed

she is up to the challenge. She was identifying the problems, you might

say, but I didn't hear many of the solutions with regard to those

issues, she was saying free personal care, it is a slowing an but isn't

working. I didn't hear Labour's answer. -- it is a slowing an. I

didn't hear university budgets. think she was changing the terms of

the debate. She was saying that this afternoon the real power in politics

lies with ideas and not wither power, whichever level of Government

it is at. She opened the gates, I think, this afternoon for the ideas

to come through. She set our priority and she is saying that our

challenge is poverty, while Alex Salmond is actually doing nothing

with the powers that he has. She Saud this afternoon that the powers

she wants are the powers Salmondsome has and is doing nothing with. --

that Alex Salmond has and is doing nothing with. That was very

powerful. But a key amount of politics was the economy. Wouldn't

it have been honest to have given some credit to the Scottish

Government since the unemployment figures and employment figures are

et abouter than the rest the UK? seemed to me what came out of the

speech was about honesty and power and responsibility and about

devolving it down to local Government but more importantly from

local government down into communities. I this think that's

what came out for me. What we are doing now, the Scottish government

can get on with tackling poverty, looking at children, education, land

reform. These issues we can get on with now. What seemed to me for the

next 18 months all we are going to talk about is the referendum rather

than what matter to the people I represent. Let's come to Gerry. They

would say, the Scottish Government if they were here in mine tierial

form, that they are getting on with those in as much as they can within

the constraints of a tight budget set down by Westminster and they

would also say they hear from you the additional spending plans, they

don't hear the alternatives to find the money. You say that but just

look at the legislation pushing through Holyrood at the moment. The

post-16 I thinkcation Reform Bill which they say is about widening

access. The paragraph about widening access, at the heart of her speech

today, the paragraph is that long, it is nonspecific. How long do you

want the paragraph to be? Well, what I'm saying. If it is in there, it is

in there. There are no specifics in it. It is warm words. They are

saying they are doing something on wider access, as far as I can see on

the legislation they are not doing anything spe Secretary of. Warm

words. She said today that we need the action, and the ideas and the

powers that the SNP have. A promise is being made but not the details on

where the money would be found. Let's be clear on the economy.

Long-term unemployment is going up and wages are going down. The SNP

are not using the powers they have, the powers that they could do, to

introduce loof-long learning which she talked about in her speech

today. -- life-long. That's one of the drivers to get people's wages

increase. Only when we see people's wages increase will we see the

economy... But that's not given by the Scottish government, it is

driven by government policies. are a range of issues. Making sure

that people have the ability to progress within a job, to move on to

a higher category within a job, to get the skills to move on to even

better employment, it is krutical in raising peep's wages, the SNP do not

have an agenda. -- it is critical. She also talked about the commission

on devolved powers. Some of your colleagues are leery. Are you among

the ones who say transferring income tax to the Scottish Parliament is a

step too far. We are already transferring part of income tax

through the Scotland Act that was passed last year. Those powers come

on snreem 2016. The principle of devolving income tax is one of the

UK Parliament has been happy to do. - all of income tax. In terms of the

plans the commission has set out, this is a beginning of a dialogue

with the Scottish people. We need to take this out to every community.

This is not just a discussion for MPs and the Scottish Parliament. We

need to have the discussion about where the proper balance between the

taxes lies. Presumably you were at the meetings of MPs on Tuesday in

which they were he is coraited. were not. Are you going to tell me

that there was a full and frank exchange of views. There was. There

was expression of the idea that as the party of devolution we are in

the best place to take it forward to uts next stage. The Commission

plans, a good or bad idea? I think you infer vfr a proper conversation

unless you throw a grenade in to open up the debate. You guys have

been speak being this for the last couple of days. It is now an open

conversation. It is not being debated in the Conference hall. That

would be open. That would be presuming the Scottish people are

going to say. Johann Lamont will be leading a conversation in our

communities and wider Scottish society. She will belies enening to

our people the powers they want. I think monthly matching those with

ideas, and that's what she committed to. Your take on this? It is

important that as a Commission, within the next year, we don't speak

just within the Labour Party but we get out into communities and we can

engage with them. In Edinburgh that's what we did with the

manifesto for local government. We speak to residents groups and

community #2k3wr0u7s groups. I hope this Commission will do that. --

residents groups and community groups.

I Hope we'll gr out and say, how do you see the future, here are some of

our views, we want to put it to you, here are our views. We want you to

come back with your views. Do you frank, could the launch be

better-handled? Launches perhaps suit people like yourself but what

is important is what we do out in our communities. How we engage with

our communities, residents groups and community groups and people

and community groups and people and community groups and people

Can you work with other parties or groups? What purpose would these

policies serve? If we were going to consider devolving further tax