The Rt. Hon. Sir John Major KG CH

Tag: Scotland

  • Mr Major’s Speech at the 1996 Scottish Conservative Party Conference – 11 May 1996

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech at the 1996 Scottish Conservative Party Conference, held on 11th May 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I want to touch first on two issues of great concern.

    When last I came to Scotland, I went to Dunblane. The events there were a horror, almost unimaginable – a mad act that robbed innocent children of a happy future.

    Michael Forsyth and Michael Howard have already announced an amnesty on illegal guns to gather them in.

    Lord Cullen – one of Scotland’s most senior judges – is to advise us on what further action is needed.

    Should legislation be necessary – and it may well be – I can promise you we will move speedily. We have already set aside time in the Parliamentary programme for this purpose.

    I intend that we will do all we can to ensure such a crime cannot happen again.

    Secondly, beef.

    The European ban on beef has caused frustration and anger.

    Not just amongst farmers, but amongst everyone.

    Certainly here in Scotland, as Scottish beef is a by-word for quality.

    The ban is totally unjustified. It’s the result of panic, not science. And it must be removed.

    The ban turned a problem into a crisis, not just in Britain, but across Europe where beef markets have also been hit.

    Next week, the first steps towards lifting the ban are going to be discussed in Europe. I hope that progress will be made.

    For the ban was introduced by the Commission. And it is the Commission that has now unanimously recommended a partial lifting of the ban.

    Against that background, our European partners must understand the level of resentment that will be created if they fly in the face of scientific arguments and the Commission’s recommendations and continue to damage our beef industry.

    But let us be frank. Even when the ban has been lifted, we will need to rebuild consumer confidence to regain our markets. We need to make the case for quality again and again.

    Many beef herds have never had a case of BSE. So, while we aim to get the ban totally lifted, we’ll also be pressing to get rapid exemption for specialist beef herds.

    Such a move across the UK will particularly benefit Scotland, and the premium, grass-fed beef herds for which Scotland is rightly famous.

    We’re already consulting on proposals to get mature, prime beef from these herds back on the market in Britain.

    But to regain our markets around the world, we must – in our own interest – look at any sensible proposals to speed up the already rapid decline of BSE throughout the UK.

    I met with the Scottish NFU this morning, and heard from them first hand of the fears and anxieties of their members. I promise you this – we will stand by this industry.

    We have already committed huge resources. In addition to that, I am confident that we can deliver significant extra help for beef producers within this year’s European farm settlement. And, to help the exporters, we’ve agreed to pay more money to those whose stocks were destroyed or devalued in the initial crisis.

    I pay tribute to the leadership which the NFU has given over this difficult period, and to the effective and influential role they have played.

    We’ve made a start in tackling this crisis but we need to remove the threat of BSE once and for all. British beef is the best in the world.

    It’s good to be back in Scotland and to find you in such good spirits.

    So am I.

    I always enjoy coming to Scotland. Not least because you always doctor my water in a most agreeable way.

    We’re now within a year of the next General Election.

    And, when it comes – next year, I expect – we Conservatives are going to win that election – by working together, north and south of the border.

    It’s a good Tory word, “together” – and especially so here in Scotland.

    It emphasises that ours is a United Kingdom.

    And we’re the Conservative and Unionist Party.

    We believe in working together, north and south.

    And, so long as there’s a Conservative Government, that’s how it will remain.

    Some people say to me – why? Surely, if Scotland breaks away, England will save on public spending and can have lower taxes? And surely, it’ll be easier to win elections without the SNP, Labour and Liberal MPs from Scotland?

    True. But the United Kingdom as a whole would suffer. And so would Scotland.

    And we Conservatives put the United Kingdom first, even though it’s not to our Party advantage. That’s not the way Labour behave. Their devolution plans put the interests of the Labour Party first. We put the country first. And that’s the difference.

    For months, Michael Forsyth and his team have been taking the argument to Labour, exposing their flawed plans.

    Showing how they would wreck Scotland.

    Showing how the devolutionists are laying a false prospectus before the Scottish people.

    I have a message for you Michael. The battle you’re fighting for Scotland is as important as any that has been fought before.

    Fight hard. Punch hard. Punch often.

    And you’ll have from me all the support you need.

    When I became Prime Minister I spoke of a classless society.

    Many scoffed that this had happened without my noticing it.

    Others said it was a preposterous and even undesirable aim.

    Well, there have been remarkable changes in British society over the last 50 years. Indeed, I’m a beneficiary of them.

    But don’t tell me that a child brought up in deprived circumstances – and given an inadequate education – has the same prospects as one from a more prosperous background with a good education.

    There are many who achieve good results from bad beginnings. But one of our principal risks as a Government – and as a Party – is to ensure that fewer and fewer of our children have those bad beginnings. And that’s what our education reforms are about.

    We don’t believe that people in difficulties always have only themselves to blame. Don’t forget I’ve been poor and unemployed. And I know that our Party has done more than any other to relieve poverty and to finance the National Health Service and social security.

    It was practical compassionate Conservatism that marks me a Tory and millions like me.

    And it’s values like that that have underpinned the last 17 years of Conservative Government.

    17 years.

    Some people on the cocktail and chattering circuit think it’s time for a change. As though Government were a game of street cricket with everyone having a bat in turn. But what sort of change?

    Labour wouldn’t bring to Britain the sort of changes we’ve brought.

    Taxpayers. Cuts for everyone. The lowest basic rate for 50 years. Change that?

    Homeowners. Lowest mortgage rates for 30 years. Gas, telephone bills falling. Change that?

    Workers. More of our people in work than any major country in Europe. Change that?

    Savers. TESSAs and PEPs flourishing. Scotland is thrifty. It saves. And now it has a 20p rate of tax on savings – a new low. Change that?

    Businessmen. The longest period of low inflation for almost 50 years. Why change that?

    Parents. More choice than ever before. We shouldn’t change that – and Labour agree.

    Not only do they agree, they welcome our change and take advantage of it.

    You don’t believe me. Check with the Blairs. Ask Harriet Harman.

    Pupils. More going on to higher education than ever before.

    Patients. More being treated than ever before.

    The changes we’re brought about are changes for the better.

    Thanks to them, Britain is the best performing economy in Europe. The world’s leading companies are pouring in investment and jobs.

    Britain, with her unique heritage of trading links, and a mother tongue that’s the world’s common language, is winning new markets around the globe.

    Today, Britain stands on the threshold of a new era of opportunity and prosperity as a global trading nation. A small island that’s an international success.

    Of course, there’s much we have to do. But look what we’ve done.

    Take our schools, for instance.

    We inherited a system that had become a secret garden, overgrown with so-called progressive theories.

    Today, children are taught the basics. Labour called that a “fanatical doctrine”.

    We’re going to make sure that children are regularly tested. Labour said tests “encourage a climate of failure”.

    Exam results are published. Labour called that “political propaganda”.

    Schools can now govern themselves. Labour said that was “wrong”.

    Wrong? It’s precisely the kind of education parents want. That’s not wrong. It’s just commonsense.

    The same goes for crime. We’re been turning back the tide of political correctness that excused the criminal and forgot the victim. It meant once again taking on the so-called progressive establishment that dominates Labour thinking.

    Well, we took them on.

    For example, we increased the maximum penalty for cruelty to children. For dealing in drugs. We gave the police new powers to stop and search suspects.

    And right the way down the line, Labour opposed almost every change.

    If Labour had won their arguments, dangerous criminals who are in prison today would be out – walking the streets.

    So, change? Change back to that? Surely that would be folly.

    Some of the changes we’ve made have been painful. They’ve hurt people. And they have hurt us politically in by-elections and local elections.

    But although it hurt, it worked.

    And when we look around us we can see life getting better and our country becoming more prosperous.

    So when people talk of change, ask them “What kind of change do you prefer?”

    “Higher inflation? Lower taxes? More jobs? Tougher laws under the Tories?”

    That’s the kind of change you and I want. And it’s the only way to meet the challenge of the future. A change to Labour would be a change all right – a change for the worse. Don’t let it happen.

    Mr Chairman, before these changes, British companies and British businesses were fighting just to keep their heads above water. Now they are fighting to lead the field.

    And that’s especially true in Scotland.

    Which place in the UK do you think has gained most from our reforms of the last 17 years?

    Seen living standards grow by over a third?

    Grown faster than the rest of the United Kingdom over the last five years?

    Exports 40 per cent more per worker than the United Kingdom average?

    Brought unemployment down to its lowest rate for almost fifteen years?

    You’re right: that country is Scotland.

    Could this remarkable success story have happened without the Union?

    It’s out of the question.

    Labour or the Scot Nats would never have given Scotland the changes she needed. Instead of sunrise industries we’d have had sunset industries, propped up by subsidy, but doomed to disappear. The only question was when.

    Our way has delivered the private investment that’s the key to Scotland’s success.

    In one year alone, almost 100 projects brought Scotland over one billion pounds worth of planned investment, creating or protecting over 12,000 jobs.

    International companies – like Motorola, NEC, BT – they’re all investing in Scotland.

    And they’ll continue to do so as long as they’re sure Scotland will stay in the United Kingdom and income tax will not rise above those in England.

    But, if either of these things do happen, they won’t. They’ll go elsewhere.

    That’s the choice for Scotland.

    One of the reasons they come here is that a Conservative Government has built an economy that encourages investors by controlling expenditure and keeping inflation down. That’s meant we’ve been able to cut interest rates and keep taxes low.

    Again – yes, it hurts. But it has worked. It’s making life better. Don’t throw it away.

    Enterprise has many elements. But high among them is something that goes right to the heart of running the country – and dips into the pocket of every family in the land. Tax.

    Tax is always a battlefield between the parties because we have different instincts.

    We believe in low tax because it stimulates initiative and enterprise, fosters personal independence, and helps the country create enough wealth to help those in need. So we cut taxes when we can. But, as Ken Clarke said yesterday, when, and only when, it’s sensible to do so.

    Labour’s instincts are different. They increase spending.

    So, as Roy Hattersley put it, “Labour now has a clear choice. It can either be the party of higher taxation and proud of it, or the party of higher taxes which it is ashamed to describe, afraid to admit and incapable of calculating with any accuracy. It cannot be the low taxation party”.

    For once, he’s right. People will have a clear choice, a party whose instinct is for less tax, or a party whose instinct is for more tax.

    That’s why our opponents don’t like talking about their tax plans.

    But there’s no honest reason why Labour shouldn’t come clean about them. Britain’s books are open.

    After all, I’m perfectly happy to talk about our tax plans. They’re quite simple.

    We’ll cut taxes whenever we safely can.

    Labour are the exact opposite. Believe it or not, I’m told there are actually people who say Labour are addicted to the politics of envy and want taxes for that reason. And New Labour too. Shocking isn’t it?

    Be that as it may, one thing is certain. Whatever Labour say for public consumption, people know from past experience they’d be worse off under Labour.

    Tory scare tactics, the spin doctors who rule Labour till say. Is it?

    For example, any family with a sixteen to eighteen year old child who is in education had better watch out. Under Labour, their child benefits could disappear.

    Let’s call it a Teenage Tax – a tax increase of up to £560 a year for families whose children are 16 or over and at college. For some families, that’s the same as an increase of 5p on income tax.

    Under Labour, anyone who earns more than Clare Short would be easy pickings for the taxman. Clare’s salary is about £35,000. Many people would love to earn that much. But thanks to Labour’s ThirtySomething Tax, they’d be worse off.

    There are other taxes lurking.

    And, of course, anyone living here in Scotland would be hit by the Tartan Tax. But if they don’t need it, let them reject it now.

    Think how it would damage Scotland to pay more tax than the rest of the country. Who’d be hit most? Not those on high incomes, those on low ones. Someone earning, say, £76,000 a year would see his tax bill rise by 9%. At the same time, someone on £12,000 would see it rise by 14%.

    And this from a Labour Party that has the nerve to talk about ‘fair tax’.

    Before the last election, Labour published their plans. They said they’d increase spending, so naturally Labour would raise taxes to pay for it.

    The New, unscrupulous, Labour Party are different. Whenever Mr Brown threatens honesty on taxes, Mr Blair contradicts him. And Mr Prescott tries to keep up, but doesn’t quite know what’s going on. Well, I can tell you what’s going on.

    Labour still want to spend more of your money, that’s what’s going on. They can’t kick the habit – it’s a sort of reflex action. So they’d tax more. They always have. They always will. And nothing is going to change them.

    I sometimes wonder what on earth Labour stand for these days.

    Their leadership is trying to shed all its history, philosophy and creed with one contemptuous shrug and replace it with – what? A burning desire for office.

    But a lust for power is not, and never has been, a qualification for being entrusted with it.

    But it’s not just taxpayers who’d be worse off.

    Parents would be deprived of a choice of school for their children.

    Patients would see hospitals turned upside down as Labour tried to turn back the clock.

    Shareholders in privatised companies would find their shares threatened.

    But don’t just look at what Labour would do to our reforms. Don’t just think about how Labour would hit the pockets of the people. The real danger is to the very fabric of Britain itself.

    By their own admission, Labour say that they’d bring in the most extensive package of constitutional reform our nation has seen.

    Mr Chairman, this constitution of ours has run like a thread through this land for centuries. It’s been our backbone and our heritage. And without so much as a qualm, Labour would cut it in two.

    I wonder sometimes if they have any idea what their plans would mean?

    Labour would change our United Kingdom for good. Or rather, not for good. Palpably, flagrantly for the worse.

    If we were to let Labour tear this ancient island of ours apart, it could well be impossible to put it together again.

    Labour has tried the devolution gambit before.

    And now they’re at it again. A Scottish Parliament here, a Welsh Assembly there, regional assemblies heaven knows where. Will they never learn? What a way to mark the Millennium by tearing up the United Kingdom.

    Mr Chairman, this fiddling by Labour is a wild and dangerous game. No one can say where it would end.

    No-one can answer the questions it raises.

    No-one, least of all Labour – can tell how such totally irresponsible and disruptive plans would affect this nation and the real concerns of all its people.

    Would it help the Scots if they paid more tax?

    Do the Welsh think a talking shop would improve their lives?

    And when was the last time you heard people saying, “What Britain needs is more politicians in regional assemblies”?

    And all this would be just the tip of the iceberg.

    Proportional representation. No government ever able to take decisions without backroom deals.

    A Bill of Rights.

    Elected mayors – to do what, for heaven’s sake?

    A whole raft of constitutional doodling. That’s Labour’s irrelevant manifesto.

    Would it mean more jobs? Yes, for bureaucrats and politicians.

    More investment? Well, no actually – probably less.

    More prosperity? No. Just more taxes.

    Would Britain’s voice carry more weight in the council chambers of Europe if we divided her into three? No, much less.

    Mr Chairman, the changes Labour plan, no matter how slickly packaged and presented by their media gurus, would destroy in years what has been built up in centuries.

    Nor are the dangers Labour post restricted only to devolution. Their European policy is demeaning and disastrous.

    Now, I fully understand that the European issue raises the most passionate feelings. Who, in this country, would know that better than me? It’s a central issue of our time. But that shouldn’t distract us from a cool, dispassionate assessment of what is truly in our nation’s long-term interests – and what is not? That is my guiding principle. Getting the balance right for Britain now and in the years to come is the key to our approach to Europe.

    Yes, Britain must be a part of Europe, and a partner of Europe. But a Europe of nations, not a united states of Europe. Not a federal Europe. When people say “Let’s have a referendum on whether we want a federal Europe”, I say “why?”

    Because, Mr Chairman, there’s no need. Once again, I make this pledge. While I am Prime Minister, if others should opt for such a Europe, then Britain will not be part of it. We don’t need a referendum to know that we don’t want a centralised Europe.

    But let no one doubt that Labour would accept such a Europe. Already they’re committed to sign up to the Social Chapter. To give more powers to the European Parliament. To re-negotiate our rebate. To undermine our veto.

    So on both counts – what Labour would do to Britain at home and what Labour would do to Britain abroad – the whole future of this nation is at stake.

    Mr Chairman, come the election, the future we’ll be fighting for is a Conservative future.

    One where everyone feels that they belong.

    Where all our people, no matter what their background, have a chance to realise their dreams.

    To go to a good school, university, get a job, have a home of their own.

    To do what they think is best for themselves, their families, their children.

    To enjoy more of what they’ve earned and saved.

    These are the building blocks of the future.

    They’re what drive the people of our country.

    A people independent of spirit, proud of their past. Who look to a future of enterprise encouraged and work rewarded.

    Who want to protect the freedom and responsibilities of the family against the intrusions of the state.

    Who believe in the rule of law.

    And who love our country.

    Mr Chairman, at the last election, when I said I would fight to protect the United Kingdom, I was accused of wrapping myself in the Union Jack. It was meant as an insult. But I didn’t take it as such.

    You don’t have to dislike other nations to be proud of ours and I am proud of ours. I never feel more comfortable than in defending our nationhood and our unity as a Kingdom.

    The Union Jack in the flag of this United Kingdom – and we Conservatives, by nature a kindly Party, need to be ruthless, remorseless and relentless in defence of that Kingdom, as we always have been when that unity has been under threat.

    It is so once again today. Labour’s slick world of the soundbite and the over-simplified solution to problems of immense complexity has nothing to offer to bind this nation together. The superficiality of their policies – many of them disingenuous and ill-thought out – is breathtaking. What’s more, they bear little or no relation to the reality of government.

    When you walk through the door of Number Ten, reality walks in with you. Reality on a world scale. Over the years a Conservative Government has faced that reality and learnt how to handle it. So let me give you, here in Scotland today, this assurance.

    We Conservatives have the confidence and the tradition and, yes, the experience to guide us as we take our nation forward, out of this troubled century and into the next.

    That’s why we’re going to win the next election.

    Why we deserve to win that election.

    At stake is more than just our achievements. More than just the strongest economy we’ve seen for decades.

    This election will decide the very future of the United Kingdom itself.

    The future of our Parliament, our Union, our Country.

    It’s a fight for our Nation’s Future.

    And it’s a fight we’ll win.

  • PMQT – 9 May 1996

    Below is the text of Prime Minister’s Question Time from 9th May 1996.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Engagements

    Q1. Mr. Matthew Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May.

    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

    Mr. Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s policies, especially on child benefit, the youth training programme and the lack of a minimum wage, give the youth of this country tremendous opportunities? Does he also agree that, given that it wants to abolish child benefit and the youth training programme and impose a minimum wage, Labour has nothing to offer Britain’s youth?

    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Opposition have illustrated the case by their actions over the past few days. Today, they are going to try to retain child benefit for people coming from abroad at precisely the same moment that the shadow Chancellor is trying to abolish it for every family in this country whose child is taking A-levels. Frankly, I find that inexplicable.

    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister recall saying that, if the provisional allegations of the district auditor in respect of Westminster city council were confirmed, he would condemn those involved absolutely and unreservedly? The provisional allegations have been confirmed. Will he now condemn those involved unreservedly, as he promised that he would?

    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is misquoting. Let me make three points. First, both I and my party are in favour of the highest possible standards in public life. I condemn wrongdoing in any quarter.

    Secondly–I am surprised that I have to say this to a distinguished lawyer–I believe in justice. As the auditor’s report makes clear, the individuals have the right to appeal against the auditor’s decision. I understand that they vehemently contest the auditor’s report and that they have said that they will take the matter to court. In the face of such a clear-cut protestation of innocence, I think that any sensible and cautious person would be wise to await the outcome before making a judgment.

    Thirdly, with the trail of waste, inefficiency and corruption in Labour councils up and down the country, the right hon. Gentleman is in no position to lecture anyone.

    Mr. Blair: He said that, if the provisional allegations were confirmed, he would condemn those involved, and now he fails to do so. May I point out that of course they have the right of appeal–for heaven’s sake, the Home Secretary is in the appeal courts most days of the week. I also remind the Prime Minister that some of us remember how he stood at the Dispatch Box and condemned the Monklands council of my late right hon. and learned Friend, and predecessor, John Smith in the middle of an inquiry when the allegations were then dispatched.

    Does the Prime Minister not recall that the allegations are about putting homeless people into asbestos-ridden flats and appalling bed-and-breakfast accommodation? Will he not take this opportunity to fulfil his promise as Prime Minister and now condemn what any reasonable person would condemn?

    The Prime Minister: I am quite prepared to condemn cases of proven malpractice and those who have been found guilty in a court of law. I saw no condemnation from the right hon. Gentleman after Lambeth was found guilty of malpractice. I saw no condemnation when it was thought that between 400 and 500 officers in Lambeth were receiving fraudulent payments. The right hon. Gentleman knows well that the matter must go to the courts. The people challenged in this matter have declared their innocence in very clear-cut terms. I am surprised, in the face of that, that a lawyer would decide before the matter has gone to court to make a judgment about the outcome of that matter. I think that that is a contemptible way for the right hon. Gentleman to behave.

    Mr. Blair: I believe that what is contemptible is what we have just heard from the Prime Minister. As for saying that the allegations are not proven, they have been proven–that is precisely what the district auditor has proved under legislation set up by this Government. Is not the Prime Minister’s real problem that this was not a maverick group of obscure local councillors, but the flagship Conservative council? They carried on their activities with the knowledge and approval of the Conservative party. If the Prime Minister fails now to condemn what has been described as disgraceful and improper conduct, will it not be crystal clear to the British people that there are no depths to which the Conservative party will not stoop to gain re-election to any office that it holds?

    The Prime Minister: I suppose that it was only a matter of time before the Leader of the Opposition tried to widen the smears that his party has been making.

    We have learnt that Labour Members take a smear, spread a smear and hope that it will stick. That is what the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have been doing for the past two or three years.

    If the right hon. Gentleman is so pious, will he tell us whether he condemns his colleague, who sits on the Labour Benches, who is a surcharged councillor? Will he tell us why he appointed to his shadow Treasury team someone who encouraged people not to pay the council tax, against the law? Will he tell us whether he agrees with the comments of his deputy leader? He said:

    “In a local authority situation you obey the law or not obey the law. We”–

    presumably that is the Labour party–

    “don’t have any firm principles in the Party of how we might deal with the problem.”

    Against that background and the record of his party and his party’s councils, I shall take no charges from him about a matter that must go to court and is not yet proven.

    Sir Peter Tapsell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the great majority of my constituents would wish to mark Europe day by suspending all our net contributions to the European Union–which cost the taxpayers of this country £4 billion last year–until such time as all threats to our historic position as an international trading nation have been withdrawn?

    The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend is concerned about the supremacy of British courts, but I must tell him that, if we decided to withhold payments to the European Union, that decision would be struck down in the British courts and not in the European Court of Justice. I must also tell him that, because the net under-payment in the European Union this year will be less than the net payment by this country, there is unlikely to be the draconian effect that some of my hon. Friends anticipate.

    I believe that it is right for us to press, in the European Union, for this matter to be speedily resolved. That is what we intend to do, and that is what I intend to press day after day. I want a solution to the problem, not an institutionalising of the problem so that beef farmers suffer longer, or no solution is reached.

     

    Q2. Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Illsley: Given the Prime Minister’s refusal to condemn certain Westminster councillors for their corrupt conduct, will he take this opportunity unreservedly to condemn those Conservative Members who have failed to register their parliamentary incomes of millions of pounds?

    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should be aware of what Madam Speaker said about this problem. She said that, if an hon. Member has a complaint about the registration of interests by any hon. Member, he should write to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and not raise it on the Floor of the House. That is not my view; it is the ruling of the Chair.

    Mr. Dover: Does my right hon. Friend remember that the Leader of the Opposition stated that one of the Opposition’s few policy decisions was that they would allow homosexuals into the armed services? If it is true that the Opposition are today allowing a free vote on that issue, does not that smack of very poor leadership and lack of direction?

    The Prime Minister: That is a matter for the Leader of the Opposition. We will discover the views of every hon. Member later today.

     

    Q3. Mr. Pike: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May.

    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Pike: The Prime Minister will recall that, on 21 February 1991, he said:

    “We should be happy to have Dame Shirley’s advice”.–[Official Report, 21 February 1991; Vol. 186, c. 432.]

    In view of the condemnation of the six councillors named as guilty in the report that was published today, will he recognise that there was advice from the policy unit at No. 10 Downing Street, and from the Department of the Environment, on the turning of a blind eye when Westminster council was committing those illegal and disgraceful acts? When will he condemn those who were guilty? When will heads roll–or will he bite the dust as Prime Minister and fall at the general election before this sordid affair is sorted out?

    The Prime Minister: Everything the hon. Gentleman has said is nonsense. Not only is it nonsense, but, as it happens, the quotation he has just given the House is entirely out of context, to make a dishonest point. If he had read the question, hon. Members would know that my reply related specifically to Westminster’s success in holding down local taxation. That is in sharp contrast to the performance of Labour councillors. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will now do me the courtesy of reading the quotation and placing an apology and a correction in Hansard.

     

    Q4. Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 9 May.

    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

    Mr. Hughes: On my right hon. Friend’s visit to Scotland, will he take with him the message that establishing a Parliament in Scotland, but still allowing Scottish Members of Parliament to vote on English and Welsh matters, would be deeply resented by English and Welsh people and that allowing Scottish Members of Parliament that double set of rights would be gerrymandering on a very large scale?

    The Prime Minister: It most certainly would. My hon. Friend highlights a fatal flaw in the Labour party’s plans. Labour Members have no idea how they would answer the question first posed by the hon. Member for West Lothian, now Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The position of Scottish Members in this House would be untenable. That is the view once set out clearly by the shadow Foreign Secretary.

    The reality is that I cannot imagine that the Labour party has properly thought through or understood what it seeks to do in establishing a tax-raising assembly in Scotland, which would provide a staging post for the leader of the Scottish National party to try to take Scotland out of the Union. I oppose that, although it is not in my party’s interest to do so, because it is against the interests of Scotland and against the interests of the United Kingdom. Opposition Members support it because they see it as being in their own party, partisan interest.

    Mr. Radice: On Europe day, will the Prime Minister put the case for British membership of the European Union?

    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman cares to read the speech that I made to the Institute of Directors a week or so ago, he will see the case put clearly. I have made it clear from the Dispatch Box time and time again that it is in the interests of this country to be in the European Union, arguing for the sort of European Union that is good for this country. That is my position, it remains my position and it will remain my party’s position. What is not my party’s position is that, as a result of that, we agree, and slavishly follow, the views of each and every one of our European Union partners. It is not our view that we will “never be isolated” in Europe and will therefore follow the caravan wherever it might lead. If Europe goes in a direction that is not suitable for this country, we shall reject that direction and not follow Europe.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to 1995 Scottish Conservative Conference – 12 May 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Association Annual Conference at the Royal Concert Hall in Glasgow on Friday 12th May 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Let me turn first to those Conservative councillors who lost their seats in Scotland last month and in England and Wales last week.

    From my time as a councillor, I know how bitter defeat feels. I know the disappointment when a good local record is swept aside by national politics.

    So let me say to them: you served local people ably and well. You served local democracy well. Your defeats were none of your doing. And I am proud of what you achieved.

    There are two things we can do after such a defeat. We can grumble and be disillusioned.

    Or we can fight back.

    We can work to make sure that the councils our opponents won this spring come back to us at the first opportunity.

    So we will keep an eagle eye on them.

    We shall set up a “Council Watch” to see how they keep their promises. To see how they spend your money. To see how they put your council tax up.

    We must put disappointment aside. Go out into local communities. Work. Work. Work. Begin now to prepare for the next elections. And when they come we will take back those councils, each and every one of them.

    Politics is in a strange mood at the moment.

    Curiously this is partly because we have won the battle of ideas and forced Labour to deny some of their ancient prejudices.

    We’ve won the battle for an enterprise economy.

    For individual choice. For consumer power.

    We’ve defeated the old socialist ideas of state control and public ownership.

    Of course, Labour still hanker for them in private. But in public they’ve been forced to claim that they disown all the values they once believed in.

    All gone. The Socialist cupboard, we are told, is bare after the most comprehensive philosophical wipe out in British political history.

    Well, I am a bit suspicious about that. Some changes, yes.

    But if Labour could shed so easily the values they held for so long, how deep is their commitment to values they’ve lifted from us likely to be?

    I’ll tell you. As deep as electoral convenience needs it to be. Labour know that the electorate wants Tory values. So they have an extraordinary election cry.

    “We were wrong all the time. The Conservatives were right. But trust us to behave ourselves in future. Oh, and by the way, please don’t ask us about policies.”

    We’re very generous hearted, we British, We always forgive sinners who repent and Labour is benefiting from that at the moment. But we’re also discriminating and I think people will ask “if they were wrong before, why should we believe they’ll be right in future?”

    It’s a good question – and we’ll go on asking it.

    The extraordinary thing about our Party is that, after 16 years in government, it is still fizzing with ideas.

    In this week alone we have announced measures to:

    – cut electricity bills

    – make our Post Office more competitive

    – and crack down on drugs

    And before, the Commons rises for the summer we will:

    – publish a Housing While Paper

    – launch a major new national volunteering programme

    – invite the first private Sector bids to run British Rail services

    – announce a fares policy to help commuters

    – publish a second Competitiveness White Paper

    – consult widely on ID Cards

    – and announce a bold expansion of nursery education.

    We already have a range of ideas which will keep us moving forward for years.

    But it is right for us now to discuss with you, the bedrock of our Party, what you want to see in the next Manifesto.

    A Manifesto grown from our grassroots, as we build the next phase of Conservatism.

    I came from the grassroots of the Party.

    I know the wealth of talent and experience our supporters have to offer.

    So I will be the first leader in our Party’s history to give every member in every constituency an historic opportunity.

    An invitation to help shape the policies of the future.

    I have already set up Policy Groups on more than 30 policy areas, chaired by senior Ministers, and including representatives of all parts of the Party. Their first reports will reach me by the end of June.

    Now it is right to unveil the next stage of this unprecedented exercise in consultation.

    From this summer to next spring there will be a series of discussions across the party and across the country.

    Each discussion will be around the Five Themes set out last month:

    – how to secure economic prosperity

    – how to improve further opportunity and choice for everyone

    – how to improve decent, commonsense values in law and order

    – how to deliver first-class public services

    – And how to build pride in the nation.

    These discussions will be detailed and genuine. They will take place on an agenda which will be shaped by the work of the relevant Policy Groups.

    I want Conservatives up and down the country to take part in this.

    CPC groups – as ever – will form the core of policy discussion at constituency level. But we intend to involve as many party members as possible.

    These discussions will be followed by Conferences here in Scotland, Wales and across England, where we can bring these ideas together.

    The developing agenda – not detailed Manifesto points – will begin to be unveiled at next year’s Central Council Meeting in Harrogate.

    I will play an active role in leading this process, together with all my colleagues.

    The Conservative Party has always listened to the people.

    That is why we were the first party to support the Right to Buy.

    The first to introduce Trade Union democracy. The first to give parents the right to know about their children’s schools.

    So we will begin this massive consultation exercise within our party, and then will broaden it to engage and enthuse the public as a whole.

    So I am going to go out and about. To meet you, to talk to you and to listen to you.

    To build a People’s Policy to bridge the gap between the doorsteps of Britain and the Corridors of Power.

    I’m going to share with you the hopes I have for this country of ours. The problems we face. The opportunities we have. I’m going to talk about the long-term as well as the short-term.

    And when we’ve reached a policy conclusion, I’m going to ask the nation for a majority sufficient to put it into operation.

    I believe that the commonsense of Conservatives up and down the land is the best guarantee that we will enter the 21st century with the right policies for our nation’s future.

    Let me turn to two or three of the five themes. First, policies to spread economic prosperity and security.

    People feel secure when:

    – their jobs are secure

    – their living standards grow steadily year after year

    – and they can be confident that their children will have a better future. I know of no-one who doesn’t want that.

    But it doesn’t happen by magic.

    If we’re really determined to build security and prosperity for all – as I am – then we must continue to build an enterprise economy. And to get that we must take the tough decisions to create it.

    Sometimes they’ll be unpopular. Because it means resisting the clamour of every interest group for higher spending.

    It means clamping down on inflation, however loud the protests. And it means cutting state borrowing, whatever the moans.

    We’ve been doing that. And it is the right thing to do – and to do what is right, however, difficult, is not a bad creed for politics.

    And, as a result, we can now look forward to the best and most prolonged period of economic recovery for decades.

    This is no ordinary recovery. What we may be seeing – provided we can carry it fully through – is the reawakening of Britain as a growing economic power.

    And before our critics scoff let me give them some examples.

    When we came to office, Scotland was the home of dying industries, poor productivity and mass trade union power. Frankly, it was an economic mess.

    Today Scotland is in the forefront of new technologies. Scotland makes more than a third of all the personal computers manufactured across Europe and over half of all Europe’s cash machines.

    Scotland is attracting inward investment from companies in Germany, Japan, the United States and across the globe.

    They are attracted here by the enterprise culture built by the Tories, the corporate tax structures, designed by the Tories, and our lack of the Social Chapter insisted on by the Tories.

    Since 1980 Scotland has seen self-employment increase by two-thirds.

    For the first time in decades, the United Kingdom is increasing its market share of exports.

    And we are now paying our way in the world.

    For years we looked enviously at the industrial competitiveness of Japan. So we attracted their investment. Now Japanese companies based in Britain are exporting their products from here back to Japan.

    And now, just think about this. Today, when you put visible and invisible trade together, the UK is in surplus with Japan.

    How many of us ever thought we would see that happen again? That transformation is remarkable.

    And it’s been achieved by implementing the Conservative agenda of reducing burdens on business. Cutting back the power of shop stewards.

    Getting Whitehall off the backs of our companies. Lowering corporate taxes. Resisting unnecessary regulations from Brussels.

    And above all, by setting free the talent and skill of individuals right across this country. No serious observer can doubt these changes.

    And yet the country had better be warned: every aspect of this transformation would be reversed in one term of Labour government.

    We were told that by changing Clause IV Labour showed they were reformed: they no longer believed in nationalisation. At last, they were a modern party.

    But what have they spent the last fourteen days doing?

    Pledging themselves to reverse rail privatisation – even though it will produce lower rail fares.

    Promising to end compulsory competitive tendering – even though it has saved council taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds.

    Threatening new controls on privatised companies – even though their increased efficiency has produced a much better deal for consumers.

    And trying to block the privatisation of the nuclear industry – even though it will cut electricity bills right across the country.

    What this shows is that there is still a yawning credibility gap between what Labour says and what Labour does.

    Do real Labour honestly worry about the profitability of our companies at ward meetings in Govan and Monklands?

    Do they agonise about the “insecurities” of the middle classes in Constituency Labour Parties in Tayside?

    Do delegates at Labour Conferences rack their brains to propose new policies to help private enterprise?

    Of course not. You only have to ask the questions to know the answer.

    If they were really serious they’d stop supporting the Social Chapter.

    They’d drop their ideas to force employers to recognise trade unions.

    They’d abandon their commitment to a minimum wage.

    They won’t, of course. Because their commitment to the market is skin-deep. Were they to be in government, their Party would resurrect the calls for Socialism.

    Daily our warnings are being proved right.

    We always said the minimum wage would be damaging to jobs. And this week has proved it

    First the CBI made it clear that they believe that any minimum wage would destroy jobs, drive away investment and cripple our companies.

    And now we learn of a huge row within the Shadow Cabinet.

    John Prescott attacked Gordon Brown’s figures on the minimum wage.

    Gordon Brown attacked John Prescott. So in the end, decisive New Labour could only agree not to publish a figure at all.

    Let me help them out of their dilemma. A minimum wage would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs and hurt most those who are most vulnerable.

    And that is why we believe it is wrong.

    This little cameo creeping out from behind the mask shows how utterly unfit for office Labour still are.

    They have ideas aplenty on how to make companies less competitive but none on how to help them win.

    That is why, next time as last time, the economy will be an area where we will win – and win well.

    I want to say a word or two about crime.

    We’ve always stood for decent commonsense values and for strong law and order.

    We’ve always stood by the police.

    Our first thought has always been for the victim.

    And we’ve always believed in tough action against crime, And we’ve backed up our views with votes in the House of Commons.

    The battle against crime is constant. It’s never easy. It has to be fought consistently over years.

    Tougher penalties. New crime prevention measures. More powers for the police. That’s what we have been doing.

    The statistics show that crime in Scotland is falling. Good – but not good enough.

    So we have introduced measures which will have a significant effect on the fight against criminality.

    We are introducing a national DNA database to harness the advances of science against the criminal.

    This may prove to be the biggest breakthrough in the detection of crime since the invention of fingerprinting.

    From now on, those who break the law had better know that the best techniques of modern technology will be used to track them down.

    Just one drop of blood or tissue or hair at a crime scene could be enough to identify and catch a criminal.

    We have set up a national fingerprint register.

    And in the next few weeks a national database of criminal records will go live to provide a valuable new weapon against convicted and persistent criminals.

    From now on, if someone is arrested in Glasgow the police will be able to know immediately whether they have also been committing crimes in London.

    And our new Criminal Justice Bill in Scotland will give the courts and the police a wider range of powers than ever before to catch, charge and convict criminals.

    All these changes are designed to make our country safer and put more thugs behind bars.

    But we have fought this battle alone without Opposition support. Where have Labour been as we have waged this war?

    When we strengthened police powers to stop and search criminals, were Labour tough on criminals? No, they voted against.

    When we gave the police new powers to deal with riots, were Labour tough on rioters? No, they voted against.

    When we ensured that all prisoners serve at least half their sentences in prison, were Labour tough on prisoners? No, they voted against.

    And when we passed laws to fight terrorists who bomb and maim the innocent, were Labour tough on terrorists?

    Hazard a guess.

    No, they voted against.

    But most revealing of all, how did Mr Blair describe Michael Howard’s 27 measures to fight crime?

    Measures to crack down on young offenders. Measures to tackle bail bandits. Measures to stop professional crooks running rings round the courts. Measures called for by the police for years.

    Mr Blair called them “gimmicks”. Gimmicks.

    Well, I don’t call them gimmicks.

    The view I take of crime is quite straightforward. We are engaged in a war against the criminal.

    In that cause we should put the rights of the public first and the rights of criminals second.

    Most people are perfectly able to distinguish right from wrong.

    If people break the law, they should not be excused.

    They should not be pampered.

    They should be punished.

    That is what that people of this country expect. That is what this Party expects.

    That is what I believe.

    And that is what our policies will deliver.

    Let me just say a few words about policy on Europe. Britain’s future depends on us getting that right.

    The European Community gives our companies the biggest home market in the world.

    It has brought peace to countries which had fought for centuries.

    And it can increase the influence and prosperity of all the countries within it. It has many virtues.

    So I want Europe to succeed.

    But not at any price.

    And not at the expense of the nation-state.

    I am keen to co-operate with our European partners. But I will not deliver Britain to a federalist future.

    At Maastricht I negotiated long and hard for two key opt-outs against total opposition from our partners.

    Both were vital for our national interests. I secured them.

    I removed Britain from the Social Chapter – making this country a haven for foreign investment, and giving our companies a crucial edge over their competitors.

    And I reserved for us the absolute right to take our own decision, in our own time, about whether we join a single currency or whether we stand aside.

    There has been some speculation in recent days about what will happen to those opt-outs at the next Inter-Governmental Conference.

    So let me tell you.

    Those opt-outs will stay. They are permanent.

    And they are not negotiable.

    In any discussion about Europe’s future, I will always consider Britain’s interests before I decide,

    That is what this country expects. And that is what this party will deliver. Pride in the Nation is a phrase with a particular meaning here in Scotland.

    We have a deep instinct as Conservatives. We care passionately about the nations of the United Kingdom. Our feelings are emotional as well as intellectual.

    There is no other political party in the world whose history is so deeply bound up with the identity of one particular country.

    You couldn’t translate the Conservative and Unionist Party to any other country. Yet for 300 years, it has given voice to the people of a United Kingdom.

    I am proud of our Party. Of its history. Of its record. It has built Britain’s influence in the world.

    It has defended our institutions and our freedoms from threats without and within.

    It has worked unceasingly to spread decent values of democracy and push back the darkness of totalitarianism.

    In a rough, tough world, Britain has a high profile – at the UN, in the G7, in NATO and in Europe.

    We have real influence as we approach the 21st century.

    So it would be a disaster if we of all nations imploded into nationalist divisions of our own.

    Labour’s devolution policy is a shambles. With one speech last year, I forced a U-turn on regional assemblies in England. Since then, Ian Lang and I have asked a series of simple but important questions of Labour’s leaders about their ideas.

    Questions like how much would it cost? They don’t know. What would happen to the Scottish Office? Difficult one, that. And what is their answer to the West Lothian Question?

    Mr Blair said that “The answer to the West Lothian Question is the answer that we’ve always given”.

    Unfortunately for him, they’ve never given an answer.

    In that at least it’s consistent with the rest of Labour’s Scottish policy. There are lots of questions, but rather fewer answers.

    Labour’s approach to devolution is as elusive as the Loch Ness Monster but a good deal more dangerous.

    Nessie brings jobs to Scotland. Devolution would drive them away.

    So, why do Labour support devolution? It’s a good question.

    Not because they really care about the constitution of Scotland. If they did care, they would have found answers to these basic questions.

    Not because they think it make Scotland more prosperous, they are tartan taxers. They accept that it would put Scottish taxes up – and they know that the Scottish business community think it would drive away investment.

    No, the simple reason why Labour support devolution is just to lure votes away from the Scottish Nationalists.

    Yes, they are ready to play with the very survival of our United Kingdom for party political advantage.

    It is the most cynical policy of modern times.

    There could be no clearer demonstration of the difference between parties which talk about convictions and values – and those who live them.

    I scorn such cynicism. And I will never take any lectures from people such as these on the importance of principle in politics.

    And what of the Scottish Nationalists themselves?

    At least they have thought their policy through. It would be profoundly bad for Scotland but it is thought through.

    They admit that if you fiddle with the powers of the United Kingdom Parliament you will ultimately destroy the unity of the United Kingdom itself.

    The SNP aren’t Tartan heroes. They should be seen for what they are.

    They are socialists. They are unilateralists. And they are politically extreme.

    Their message is a contradiction of all Scotland really stands for. A denial of its historic role. Inward looking and introverted.

    They thrive on negative resentment, the culture of criticism. They kick traditional institutions just to feel good. It’s a dangerous game to play.

    The SNP’s approach boils down to one phrase. Socialism in one country.

    It has never worked. It can never work. And our task is to make sure that it is never tried.

    Scotland would pay a high price for independence.

    Taxes here would soar and soar again.

    Independence would be an unpriced menu.

    But I do not rest my opposition to independence solely on that.

    For Scottish independence would hurt not only Scotland, but the rest of the United Kingdom as well.

    All of us – Scots, English, Welsh and Northern Irish – would find ourselves citizens of a lesser county, with a smaller voice in the world, and with less chance to influence our future.

    So we are and will remain the Conservative and Unionist Party. We believe in the Union and in Scotland’s place in it.

    I believe the Union is in the lifeblood of our party and our nation. It’s our duty to stand up and defend it. We won’t shirk that duty.

    So long as I have heart and voice I will defend the Union against all who would weaken it.

    In the interests of all our country some causes are bigger than the transitory rancour of politics. And this is one.

    Those who would seek to marginalise Scotland must be defeated. And with the help of those in this hall they will be.

  • PMQT Written Answers – 24 March 1995

    Below is the text of the written answers relating to Prime Minister’s Question Time from 24th March 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

     

    Scottish Parliament

    Mr. Davidson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the sources and calculation behind his statement in January on the extra amount that a Scottish Parliament could cost the average Scot.

    The Prime Minister: I have no intention of introducing a Scottish Parliament which would undermine the integrity of the Union and make Scotland the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom. As I said in January, a tax-raising Scottish Parliament able to raise income tax by 3p in the pound could cost the average family on Scottish male average earnings £6 per week. I am arranging for the basis for this calculation to be placed in the House library. Moreover, if identifiable public expenditure in Scotland were to be reduced after the establishment of a Scottish Parliament to the same level per head as the United Kingdom average, the shortfall to be made up by Scottish taxpayers would be equivalent to at least an extra 19p in the pound on income tax. The basis for this calculation is also being placed in House Library.

    The proponents of a Scottish Parliament should have calculated the cost to taxpayers in Scotland before they committed themselves to its introduction.

     

    Bank of England

    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Prime Minister whether he will ensure that the replacement for the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England in a senior industrialist or trade unionist who understands manufacturing economy and its needs in competitive industry.

    The Prime Minister: The Government will ensure that the person appointed to this post will be the one best qualified to fill it.

     

    Scott Report

    Mr. Bermingham: To ask the Prime Minister how soon after the publication of the Scott report the minutes of evidence will be available; and if he will make a statement.

    The Prime Minister: The transcripts of the public hearings of Sir Richard Scott’s inquiry are available in the House Library and Westminster city library. In addition, Sir Richard Scott has made it clear that he will publish as soon as practicable following the publication of his report as much as possible of the documentary evidence submitted to the inquiry, including witness statements and the questionnaires sent by the inquiry to the witnesses.

  • Mr Major’s Focus on Scotland Speech – 24 February 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s Focus on Scotland Speech, delivered on 24th February 1995.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Tonight I want to tell you about three things that matter to me. First about securing lasting peace in Northern Ireland. Second, about the interests of Scotland in remaining part of the United Kingdom. Third, about building economic strength for the long term.

    Peace, a United Kingdom, building prosperity. That is the sort of country at ease with itself I want to build.

    Let me start with the proposals I launched this week in Belfast.

    Terrorism and sectarian violence have cost 3,000 lives in Northern Ireland over the past 25 years, and have touched the lives of everyone in the Province.

    That threat has not been ended by six month of ceasefire. The paramilitaries have not yet put away their weapons. Even when they do – as they must, if they are to enter normal democratic life – scars will remain.

    But Northern Ireland now has an unprecedented opportunity. A chance for stability and lasting peace which has not existed in 70 years.

    We made three main proposals in our Framework Documents:

    – For a new Assembly with responsibility fairly distributed between the parties.

    – For new North/South institutions, under the Assembly’s control.

    – And for a new agreement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland.

    These three elements combined can help us to meet the aspirations of both traditions in Northern Ireland.

    The greatest opportunity of all, of course, is to build a lasting peace.

    We have already made more progress than was thought possible.

    In Northern Ireland everyday life has been transformed.

    People can now choose:

    – Whether to remain in entrenched positions, Nationalist or Unionist, and to shy away from new ideas and a new accommodation;

    – Or to help us build the best chance of progress in 25 years through serious, constructive discussion of our three-stranded approach.

    It is a choice between drifting back to sterile misery; or moving forward through free negotiation, underpinned at every stage by the principle of consent.

    Many difficulties lie ahead. The road to a comprehensive settlement will be a very hard one, but it can now be travelled and the prize for Northern Ireland is very great. A lasting peace, a secure future and the possibility of laying to rest for ever the enmities that have scarred Ulster for too long.

    Constitutional debates have arisen right across the United Kingdom. They have one thing in common. At the end of the day, the Sovereign will of any part of the United Kingdom must prevail. That is true for the people of Northern Ireland. It is true also in Scotland. If the people of Scotland ever decided they wanted to leave the United Kingdom, they would do so. We could not stop them. But what we can do, and what I shall do tonight is to argue that it is not in Scotland’s interests to embark upon a route that could lead to separation.

    People ask – “what’s the difference between Scotland and Northern Ireland?”

    Self-evidently there are differences. The risks are different and the rewards are different. Let me set some of these out.

    Northern Ireland has been riven by a deep sectarian divide. The history of Northern Ireland has been 250 years of suspicion followed by 25 years of killing. In Scotland, the last three centuries of union have been years of peace, prosperity and growing influence in the world.

    Sectarian divisions in Northern Ireland mean that none of the main political parties in Northern Ireland are mainstream political parties in the UK. In contrast Scotland has more than full representation in the UK Parliament.

    The voice of Scotland is well represented throughout the mainstream political parties on both Government and opposition benches at Westminster. It is from its strength in Scotland and Wales that the Labour Party derives its potential claim to govern the United Kingdom. That is not true of the parties in Northern Ireland.

    The legislation which affects Northern Ireland is enacted almost exclusively, not through the scrutiny of Parliament, but by order in Council. And there is only the most limited degree of local government at present in Northern Ireland, whilst Scotland has a well-established tradition about to be reinforced with new single-tier councils.

    But the differences are wider than that.

    A significant minority of the Northern Ireland population wishes, not to be independent, but to be part of another – foreign – country – the Irish Republic. In that context the idea of an assembly offers a chance of stability – and harmony. But no one in Scotland wants to leave the UK in order to be subsumed in a foreign country. In Scotland separatists see a Scottish Parliament as a means to achieve their ultimate goal of complete independence.

    Another difference is that in Northern Ireland the assembly may have legislative powers, but crucially, it will not have the tax raising powers proposed for a Scottish parliament.

    So let me turn to the dangers of a devolved Parliament for Scotland. My case for the Union is both emotional and pragmatic.

    Emotional because of the ties of history, of blood and shared experience over many centuries. These ties are strong. They speak to me and to millions of other people in Britain. They matter. And because of that they cannot just be tossed aside as bits of old dead history which have no power to stir the hearts of our generation. Lord knows we see enough examples in this country of the damage that is done when our traditions are ridiculed and the lessons of the past ignored. Our generation does not have all the answers.

    That doesn’t mean there can be no change to the relationship between England and Scotland. Of course they can. The great strength of the Union lies in its diversity and flexibility. It is a Union based on consent, not repression. That diversity has given us incalculable benefits. Our differing talents and approaches have made ours a more open and tolerant and more prosperous society. We’ve used our separate strengths to create a stronger whole.

    Of course in the end we can’t hold a Union together against the wishes of its people. But as Prime Minister, I must point out the dangers and the true issues at stake. I want to spell out the damage that devolution could do. It is not England’s interests or the Conservative Party’s interests I’m talking about. It’s Scotland’s interests. I don’t want to see the Scottish people sleepwalking into a decision which will damage and weaken Scotland and throw away all the opportunities you have earned over the past two decades.

    Suppose a Scottish Assembly has been set up with tax-raising powers. For starters we know it would have powers to make the Scots pay an extra 3p in income tax as a down-payment for the privilege of being Scottish. That’s 6 pounds extra for the typical family every week. But, of course, that’s only the beginning. Like Oliver Twist, it would ask for more – and it would get more. Whenever Scotland wanted more expenditure, the Westminster Parliament would probably say ‘Yes – but you raise it in Scotland.’

    How would Scottish business react? The days when Westminster could control spending and taxation throughout our country would be over. With wage demands higher because taxes are higher; with business shackled by the Social Chapter and minimum wage, where would be the incentive to come to Scotland? Would such policies in future bring such sound investment as Motorola, NEC and Digital to Scotland? Would such policies keep such investors in Scotland?

    Let me tell you my fears. A devolved Parliament in Scotland would inevitably come into conflict with a Westminster Parliament. There would be disputes over taxation and spending. There’d be disputes about the representation of Scots MPs at Westminster.

    There’d be disagreement over how much the Scots should benefit from taxes raised across the United Kingdom. Before long the majority in a Scottish Parliament would clash with the majority at Westminster. And that would harden attitudes, and lead to bitterness and resentment which would not be easily quelled.

    These squabbles are inevitable. And who would gain from them? The people who would gain from them are the very people arguing for independence.

    Let me offer you a quotation:

    “The proposal is that we can have unity without disunity. The proposal is that the best way to stand up to the nationalists is to lie down in front of them. That characterises devolution”. Not my words, but those of Mr Neil Kinnock. I could hardly have put it better myself.

    Devolution, in the context of Scotland, is the Trojan Horse to independence.

    I have always stood up in defence of the Union. At the time of the last election, some people wondered why. It was, after all, far from obvious at the time that “playing the union card” as some people put it, would benefit the Conservative Party in electoral terms.

    But for me it was not and has never been a matter of political calculation. Scots are patriotic. So am I. I have travelled the world but this is home, this United Kingdom. For me, it is above Party, above politics. If I were seeking mere party advantage I should welcome change at Westminster. To remove a large proportion of Labour MPs by consigning them to a Scottish Assembly might mean near perpetual Conservative majorities at Westminster. The truth is we sometimes pay a heavy price electorally for standing up for the Union. But that is not the point. The point is the unity of the United Kingdom. And that is worth the fight.

    I know – in the debate about Scotland’s future constitution, there is a tendency to brush economic considerations away, as if they were somehow irrelevant to the debate. But the economy matters, as we’ve seen in the last few years as we’ve wrestled our way through the recession.

    So let me turn to the Scottish economy.

    Something very remarkable has happened in Scotland over the last 16 years. Five years ago, people thought Scotland would suffer in the recession just as much as England and Wales. Yet, that didn’t happen. Overall, while output fell elsewhere in Britain, in Scotland it hardly fell at all.

    Some said it couldn’t last. Scotland would have its recession later.

    But they were wrong. Of course some businesses have found the going tough. But overall Scottish businesses emerged from the recession far better than any one expected – and far more strongly than the rest of Britain. In every year from 1988 to 1993, the Scottish economy did better than the rest of the UK. Before 1992, Scottish unemployment was higher than in the rest of Britain. Since 1992, its been lower – for the first time since records began. And the economy is still growing strongly.

    Why did the forecasters get it wrong? Perhaps they couldn’t raise their eyes to understand the change that has come about as a result of 16 years in which the right decisions were taken for Scotland and for the United Kingdom. Union reforms, privatisation, tax cuts, opening markets to competition, and policies which have now put us on a path for steady and sustained growth with low inflation for many years to come.

    Consider – and this is remarkable – consider the change in Scotland’s manufacturing base. Once more Scotland is making things and selling things of high quality all round the world. Not so many ships, not so much steel, but 11% of Europe’s semiconductors, 35% of Europe’s personal computers, over 50% of Europe’s automated banking machines and nearly 60% of Europe’s workstations. All of this with just 1.5% of Europe’s population.

    In the last quarter the number of people working in manufacturing industry rose for the first time since records began – in Scotland and in the rest of the UK. Our manufacturing base is widening. And when you consider the consistent decline in manufacturing employment we have all experienced since the Second World War, that really is a change around.

    I want that to continue. In the next two years, the Scottish economy is forecast to grow by nearly 5.5%. It will continue to grow providing we stick to our policies to keep inflation down – providing we stick to the course we have set to reduce Government borrowing – a course which brings us closer by the day to a time when we can get back to our agenda of cutting taxes once again.

    What are the results of all these changes in Scotland’s prospects?

    There’s an old stereotype in Scotland – the young man, fresh out of school or university, the world at his feet, talented, ambitious. What does he do? He leaves Scotland. In the old days he built the British Empire. He came down South too. You’ll find talented Scottish people well represented in virtually any profession of business in England. Even in Whitehall and Westminster.

    Scottish talent used to be Scotland’s biggest export.

    But all that has changed. The world today really is an oyster for young people. Yet in Scotland people are voting with their feet in a quite remarkable way.

    In the 1970s, Scotland lost 5,000 people per year to the rest of the United Kingdom. Since 1989, they’ve been coming back. The balance has swung the other way, 8,000 more people a year have chosen to live in Scotland from the rest of Britain. 13,000 more people every year choose Scotland, who would otherwise have stayed away or moved elsewhere. We’ve reversed the long term decline in Scotland’s population.

    People are flooding back for one simple reason: jobs. Not just any jobs, but jobs with a future in industries of the future, industries that will provide their children with jobs. Jobs that give them security, enabling them to live better lives, build up wealth, own more, do more, achieve more.

    The prospects before us are better than for generations.

    That is why – from the bottom of my heart I say – this isn’t the time to scratch and infect the sore of separatism. This isn’t the time to stir ill feeling between the different parts of the United Kingdom. Let’s resist this negative instinct to turn our backs on our closest neighbours in sullen and isolationist resentment.

    Over 300 years, it is the Union that has given Scotland its standing in the world and its prosperity. And now it is within the Union that Scotland is becoming one of the most successful modern economies of Europe.

    We should be raising our eyes and building on that, not risking throwing it all away in a constitutional maelstrom.

    You are a success story. The Union is a success story. The rest of the world admires you and all that you have done. Don’t throw it away because someone tells you the grass is greener on the other side.

    Let the successes continue and grow.

    Be bold, be confident and focus on Scotland and build its greatness in the United Kingdom.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Scottish Devolution – 23 February 1995

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Scottish devolution, made in an interview in London on Thursday 23rd February 1995.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why Scotland was being denied a legislative assembly which was being offered to Northern Ireland].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I see why at a very superficial level people can say that, but the reality is that the circumstances are quite different in the case of Scotland, as opposed to Northern Ireland, in a range of very important areas. Perhaps it would be helpful just to spell out some of the areas. In Northern Ireland, the Assembly would not be a tax-raising assembly, the assembly being proposed for Scotland would be a tax-raising assembly, that is a very dramatic difference. In Northern Ireland there are different circumstances as well, there has been 300 years of strife in Northern Ireland, that sort of sectarian divide does not exist in Scotland.

    QUESTION:

    [The questioner commented that Scotland had a history of sectarianism].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Not remotely of the sort you have seen in Northern Ireland, and I do not think anyone who has any familiarity either with Scotland or Northern Ireland would argue that case. But I could add some other points to it as well and will if you permit me to do so. In Northern Ireland none of the main political parties are likely on their own to form the government, that is not the case in Scotland, two of the parties in Scotland, the Labour Party and the Conservative Party could conceivably form the government, and of course the Liberal Party might well be part of a government, that is another material difference. In Northern Ireland there is no real local government. In Scotland there is a very well established traditional form of local government that has a wide range of local accountability and responsibilities – another difference. In Northern Ireland, because of its history there has been a history of an assembly, that is not the case in Scotland.

    QUESTION:

    [The questioner commented that Scotland had its own Parliament].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Many, many years ago. In Northern Ireland a proportion of the Northern Irish population would be prepared to leave Northern Ireland and become part of a foreign country, that does not apply in Scotland. Those are a whole range of very material differences between the circumstances that apply in Scotland and those that apply in Northern Ireland. The question is, should Scotland have more control over its affairs, that is what underpins all this. And I acknowledge that sometime ago, and I think one will see over recent years, there has been a remarkable devolution of authority to the Scottish Office, both before, during and subsequently to the stock-taking exercise that I launched before the last general election.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Devolution – 26 October 1994

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on devolution on Wednesday 26th October 1994.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why he was against devolution in Wales but more supportive in Northern Ireland].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    When the issue was presented to the people of Wales before they voted 4-1. The relationship with Northern Ireland does not run. Northern Ireland has no proper system of local government in the sense that it exists in Wales, there is no local democracy in Northern Ireland, there is local democracy on a fairly significant and entrenched scale in Wales so there is a sharp difference between the two.

    The reason I am concerned about devolution is really twofold. The first is constitutional. There are two elements to that argument; firstly, more in the case of Scotland, it has to be said, than Wales, there is a risk that devolution will be the beginning of a slope that would lead to a separate country and the break-up of the United Kingdom, that is the first point; the second constitutional point is simply the quantum of government, we already have borough councils, district councils, parish councils, county councils, parliament, the European Council, another tier of government as well does not seem to me to be very attractive, and another tax raising tier of government and extra bureaucracy seems to me to be very unattractive indeed.

    If you asked the people of Wales, not do you want devolution, but asked them what it really means – do you want another tier of government, do you want someone else levying taxes – then I think you might get a very different answer from the one that you get when you just generally and casually ask the question. You would in fact get the answer that you got when you had a referendum some time ago, in 1979.

  • Mr Major’s Edinburgh Press Conference – 5 July 1994

    Below is the transcript of Mr Major’s press conference, held at the Royal Botanic Gardens in Edinburgh on Tuesday 5th July 1994.

    QUESTION:

    [Indistinct] the King and Queen of Norway here today. Can we take it that perhaps the cost of State Visits [indistinct] well, it’s rumoured that the cost of State Visits in London is prohibitively expensive. Are there going to be more coming out of London perhaps to other cities around Britain, to Edinburgh, again?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I don’t think cost is a material factor. Edinburgh has marvellous facilities for a State Visit. I think it’s a very attractive idea to have State Visits or, indeed, other ceremonial occasions outside the capital.

    QUESTION:

    Can we expect to see more in the future?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I very much hope so. I think Edinburgh did a magnificent job when we had the European Summit at Holyrood House. It couldn’t have been done better and I don’t think anyone who saw today would suggest it could have been done better either. It’s been a lovely day.

    QUESTION:

    You brought the European Summit to Edinburgh, Mr Major. Do you see any further role for the capital of Scotland in terms of Scottish Government?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, I think you know our position on that. I don’t favour a devolved Parliament for reasons I’ve set out before. I very strongly favour the Union. I think that is very much in the interests of Scotland and I think it is very much in the interests of the United Kingdom. It’s a two-way mixture. The rest of the United Kingdom needs Scotland as part of the United Kingdom as much as I believe Scotland benefits from being part of it. So, I don’t favour anything that might put that at risk.

    QUESTION:

    Do you see the need for new policy initiatives in Scotland given your poor performance in Monklands East and in the European and Regional Elections in Scotland?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Oh, I think it’s been a very difficult time, clearly, at the end of a very long and very difficult recession for people. I think that is clear. What is becoming increasingly evident as week succeeds week is the changed economic environment. That does take a time to take roots. It takes a while before people actually feel the impact and see the impact in their own lives with falling unemployment and better job prospects.

    QUESTION:

    But the poorest by-election performance by the Tories for 50 years must surely cause you more than a little concern?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think you know, as well as I do, there were pretty special circumstances in the Monklands By-Election.

    QUESTION:

    What were the circumstances? There was a lot of criticism of how the campaign was run.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think, not our campaign there wasn’t, no. There may have been a lot of criticism of the way the campaign was run between the Labour Party and the Scottish Nationalist Party. think there was a great deal of criticism about that and very probably justifiably. But what I think happened was that a large number of Conservatives voted tactically in order to keep the Labour candidate.

    QUESTION:

    How significant are the changes we’re likely to see in you reshuffle? Is Mr Lang going to be staying put? Also the suggestion today, Mr Rifkind?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Yes, I see all those rumours. I read them with some interest but the first people to know about the re-shuffle will be the people concerned.

    QUESTION:

    But, how extensive is the re-shuffle likely to be?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    And the first people to know how extensive it will be, will be you and your colleagues after it’s announced.

    QUESTION:

    Do you see your own position having been strengthened in recent weeks? Do still think there’s a possibility of you facing a challenge later this year, or do you think the fact that you perhaps blocked the elevation of Mr Dehaene has somehow strengthened your position?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    I think, as you know, I’ve been unperturbed about that for a long time. I’m not concerned about that. I’ve got a series of policies I care about. I propose to pursue those policies simply because I believe them to be right. Now, that is so whether some criticise them or some don’t, so I will continue doing that.

    QUESTION:

    But aren’t you likely to face difficulties with your European partners in the coming month? There are suggestions today, for instance, that the French are thinking in terms of blocking the import of British beef.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    No, I think that’s a mis-reporting of what’s happened. I think there’s a great deal of misunderstanding about the position of British beef. The first point I would make is that we are quite certain on the scientific and health advice that we are given that British beef is safe. Safe for the British and safe for others. If the Germans do proceed to block it unilaterally that will be an illegal act and I’ve heard today that the Commission would proceed to prosecute Germany if they decided to proceed illegally. France have not said they will do that. France have made no threat, whatsoever, to illegally block the exports of British beef. What they have said is that we have to look at the scientific evidence and that, of course, is what we’re doing here.

    QUESTION:

    The public, Mr Major, are becoming increasingly fed-up, I think it’s fair to say, with the rail strike and how it’s carrying on. How would your Government solve it?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Well, we’re pretty fed-up with the rail strike. I’d like the rail strike to end. But, I don’t think all those people who’ve helped put us back into a secure economy by taking relatively low wage settlements over the past two years or so – millions and millions of people, who will watch this interview, have taken low wage increases in the past two years – I don’t believe they would think it right for Rail Track to concede an 11% increase to the signallers without any productivity improvements, without anything else at all. I just don’t think that is a credible way to behave.

    QUESTION:

    Today, we’ve had David Hunt talking in terms of full employment, which seems to be going further, perhaps, than Cabinet Ministers have done in, recent months. This, according to Labour, is further proof that you’re endeavouring to steal their policies. How big a battle are we going to have in the policy initiative front?

    PRIME MINISTER:

    How can we steal policies they don’t have? It’s extremely interesting to hear that. I’m not sure what the Labour Party’s policies are. They haven’t spelt any out. I’ve heard a great deal of pious platitudes but I’ve seen no concrete policies about how they would get people back to work. We have policies. We’re quite clear that deregulation, supply side reform, and holding down the costs of employment will help get people back into work and that is why, uniquely, in Western Europe, we are now seeing quite a significant drop in unemployment and other countries are seeing it rise. If you take the nearest comparative nation in size to us – France – they have the same working population that we have; they have 12 3/4% unemployment and rising; we have 9 1/4% and falling. Now, I think you have to answer why? And the answer is the policies we’re following.

    QUESTION:

    If it comes to a re-shuffle perhaps you could do worse than find a place in your team for Jack Charlton? [Laughter]

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Oh, I congratulate him and the Irish team. They did very well indeed. I’m sorry they lost. They put up a very brave performance. They can be very proud of it.

  • Mr Major’s Speech to the Scottish Conservative Party Conference – 14 May 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s speech to the 1993 Scottish Conservative Party Conference, held on 14th May 1993 in Edinburgh.

    PRIME MINISTER:

    Mr President, I’ve not come to this conference to talk just about Scotland. I’ve come to the Conservative and Unionist Party to talk about the whole of the United Kingdom. I hear you had some singing as well as some talking this week: the Secretary of State sang to you; Lord Sanderson sang to you, and this evening there’s a band in this hall – but you’re spared, I promise you. The last time we met was before the General Election. Do you remember? The Conservative Party? No chance, they said. Scotland? You’ll be wiped out, they said. The Union? A lost cause, they said. How wrong they were. Mr President, we stuck to our guns; we stood by our principles; we saw it through, and against all the wise men’s odds we won when the votes were counted. Aberdeen South from Labour. Kincardine from the Liberals. We won seats in Scotland and we won power right across Britain, thanks to you, the work that you did, the leadership that you gave here in Scotland. We proved faint hearts wrong. I’d like to say tonight how much we owe to Russell Sanderson, for on one worked harder than him to bring about victory. He’s been a tower of strength in Scottish politics for almost as long as any of us can remember. A very trusted friend, and a very wise owl, indeed. Russell, we owe you a very great deal and we’ll miss you. But bless you for all you’ve done. But we’re fortunate in Scotland: in Micky Hurst we have a worthy successor. A tough campaigner, a fighter, an old friend: just the man we need in 1993. A very welcome appointment. I offer my best wishes for the future.

    At the Election our opponents got quite a lot of things disastrously wrong. One of them of course was Galloway and Upper Nidsdale. How confident they were! It was all in the bag: they were measuring the office for curtains for a new Nationalist Member of Parliament. But they don’t need that office, and it was curtains of a different sort for the SNP. And, today, you can fit all the SNP Members of Parliament into a telephone box. Appropriate, really. The number they required was unobtainable and they had trouble getting through. They should have asked: I would have told them. Ian Lang’s a good operator and he reversed their charges. lan, you’re leading a renaissance of Conservatism in Scotland. It started with the General Election. It went on at the District Council elections. It’ll continue right the way through this Parliament. And I will tell you the next target for lan’s winning team: more Conservative gains in next year’s European elections.

    So, Mr President, we Conservatives know all about fight-backs, and today, once more, we’re coming out fighting: fighting for what we believe in. Mr President, we are not going to change our objectives. We are going to do what the Conservative Party has always done: the right thing at the right time for our country. That is the way to carry the British people with us. This is a five-year Parliament. Last week, at the end of the first year we had a serious setback. There’s no point in fudging the issues. The local election results across England and Wales were bad: worse than we thought they’d be; and, so, too, was the by-election at Newbury. We shouldn’t ignore that, but neither should we over-react to that. We’ve been here, before, you and I. And this time there are four years to the next Election. Four years to take through our programme of modernising Britain and building up its strengths. We don’t have a large majority, at present, so we cannot always grandly sail ahead oblivious to all. We may have to tack a little here, manoeuvre a little there. That’s politics. We can’t ignore the Parliamentary arithmetic. That would be plain stupid. But we cannot, and will not hold back from our objectives. So don’t expect a bland, Parliamentary programme: there’ll be red meat aplenty, and don’t expect us to shrink from controversial decisions because we won’t do that in the year ahead.

    We won’t be Nationalists, Liberal, Labour by imitating them – pale pink and poisonous as they are. I mean, of course, the policies. We are Conservatives. We must think like Conservatives. We must act like Conservatives. And we’ll win by carrying out policies that are distinctively Conservative. Conservatives are rooted deep in every part of the country. Draw on that strength.

    Let’s tackle first the problems people fear most: inflation, unemployment, crime, but there are other reasons why people look to the Conservative Party: for strong and modern industry; for better public services; for lower income tax; getting the state off people’s backs; wider ownership of homes, of shares, of pensions. A solid, sound schooling for the young, and yes, devolution, Conservative devolution: devolution of choice to every family throughout the United Kingdom. Mr President, that’s the modern Tory agenda. My agenda, your agenda, the agenda we will win on right the way through this Parliament. And I’ll you how we’ll do it: by remembering who we serve and what we stand for. By seeing the right policies through. Mr President, we’re at a turning point after a time of great difficulty for our country. We have had a war; a recession; a tough General Election; and international events have crowded and during this time there have been three matters that have dominated my concern. The first was to get inflation down and keep it down. That is the only way to bring down unemployment and create jobs. We forget too easily the fear and uncertainty of rising prices. The second was to put our country where it can play a leading role in shaping European policy. We must shape it and not be shaped by it. I don’t want to see Britain sidelined and dragged along behind the ambitions of others.

    And the third concerns the very future of the United Kingdom: a threat too little recognised before the last General Election. We had to waken our fellow countrymen to the scale of the danger and then face it down. Mr President, cutting inflation has meant hardship for many people. They want to know why and they deserve to know why, so let me explain. For many, the 1980s was a time of prosperity: Conservative governments brought home ownership within reach of millions who’d never expected to enjoy it. We all became too confident. We took our eye off the ball. We allowed inflation to creep back. People who’d worked hard, who’d borrowed money to start businesses or buy houses were caught up in it. Inflation had to be brought back under control. We had to do it. Left unchecked, it would have threatened everything that we had worked so hard to create. Doing that meant higher interest rates, higher unemployment, it lead to bankruptcies and home repossessions. I would have given all I had to avoid it, but if we hadn’t done it, people would have suffered all those things and we would still have had the inflation. That is the heart of the matter. All our hopes for the future depended upon the conquest of inflation. It was a huge responsibility and a huge challenge. It took determination. It took skill. It took guts, and Norman Lamont has shown he has all three in the difficult months through which he has come.

    But curbing inflation is only the first, the first, but indispensable step to recovery and growth. Since the General Election the fight for recovery has gone on, but people’s patience, even British patience is not unlimited. They have been hurt out there, they are reacting, and although we can see that recovery is underway, it isn’t obvious in the pay packet, it isn’t obvious in the Job Centre – not yet, but it will be. Mr President, the recovery has started. It is soundly based. Inflation is under control and we are going to keep it that way. No more boom and no more bust. We’re going for steady, non-inflationary growth. The British people have earned it and this Government are going to deliver it.

    Mr President, the second issue I faced when I became Prime Minister was a troubled relationship with our partners in Europe. Let’s be frank: we have an ambivalent attitude to the European Community: as a nation we don’t love Europe. We’re too British: too Scottish, English, Welsh, Irish for that. But we know its importance to us. We know our prosperity depends upon it. We, in this Party, want more cooperation in Europe between freely trading sovereign states. That’s what we’ve been fighting for these last two years. The kind that has led to hundreds of millions of pounds of inward investment pouring into Scotland: nearly one hundred thousand jobs depend upon that. And Britain’s hard, economic self-interest depends on having influence in Europe; on winning arguments in Europe; on building alliances in a Europe we can live with and be comfortable with. Mr President, you cannot build such a Europe if you denounce it daily; mis-represent it hourly; and poke suspiciously at it by the minute.

    It’s easy to play ‘John Bull’ in a china shop: attractive even. There is popularity to be gained by it, but it is not in our long-term interests as a nation to do that. If we cut ourselves adrift from the mainstream arguments about Europe, we would soon be sidelined, and five years from now the bitter, hardest of that short-term policy would be found in collapsing exports; in collapsing prospects; in collapsing companies, and in growing unemployment queues from one end of the United Kingdom to the other. There are great issues at stake: open Europe markets are vital for Britain; inward investment is vital for Britain. I am out to win both. I will do nothing that will put them at risk; I will do everything I can that will help to make Britain grow. Some of you may feel that we’ve heard rather a lot about principled opposition to Europe. I want to hear more in the future about principled support for Europe. Those, like me, who want Britain in the centre of European debate are not crying out for a federal state; not seeking to end a thousand years of British history; not seeking to undermine the essential individuality of our island. We are seeking a wider Europe, a Europe with less bureaucracy and without federalism. I know of no Conservative Member of Parliament who cannot support that sort of Europe, and I believe that vision is shared by almost everyone in this country and in this party. So let us put the arguments behind us – better to battle together, better for Britain, better for our Party and better for our future.

    The final great issue that faced us when I took office was the very maintenance of a United Kingdom. No other Party but the Conservative Party was going to fight for it, and I was determined, come what may, that we should. Some said the strategy was crazy, but you in the Party in Scotland, you never had any doubts. The Union was our great cause, and I spoke about the Union in every meeting I went to from the Tamar to the Tay. England needs Scotland, every bit as much as Scotland needs England. The United Kingdom is united, today, for one reason above all because the Conservative and Unionist Party won the last General Election. Mr President, we chose to put the Union right at the heart of our Election campaign. We spoke of the historic choice that faced our nation between a united and prosperous Britain, a force for good in the world, or the path to separatism, the path to disintegration and insularity. And we spoke about the Union, about our long history and achievements together, we spoke from the heart. We said the right thing at the right time for our country. It was instinctive and it was heartfelt, and the people responded. Mr President, for me, that was perhaps the sweetest victory of all in April of last year.

    But, now, now we must build on that victory. The separatist tide was turned but it’s not yet beaten. And that’s why Ian Lang’s proposals to bring the Union alive are so important: the will improve Government in Scotland; they will give Scottish people a stronger say. They mean change, yes, but we are changing to preserve the Union, and let me make this prediction: some time in the future we will look back at the last Election and say this: that was the moment of greatest danger to the Union, and that was the moment the Scottish people spoke up for it and saved it.

    Mr President, on these great issues we’re now winning through. It would have been easy to give up but we didn’t. And we won’t give up on our reforms in health, education, railways and public services; despite difficulties and setbacks, we intend to carry them forward. We had no intention of giving up – give over, I would say to those who think we might give up. Mr President, I know that some people say from time to time we’ve spent the whole year talking about Maastricht. Sometimes it feels like that to me, as well, but the truth is, we haven’t. During this last twelve months we put a series of radical, reforming Bills to Parliament: the Housing Bill, an Asylum Bill, a Lotteries Bill, an Education Bill, an Employment Bill – all key Conservative measures, all solid Tory objectives, and all in the first session of Parliament.

    That’s what Conservative governments are for: to extend choice to parents, to extend freedoms to trade union members, to give new rights to tenants, more opportunities to people to own their own homes, more chance for parents to know how their children are doing at school, and that is what we have been doing in the past year. And not a lot of people know that, but it is a massive programme of reform that we have carried through Parliament in the last twelve months. Mr President, these policies are building choice in every city, in every town and every village. Choice is power. We are taking choice away from Government and giving power back to the people. That is where power belongs. I want to see minimum control by Whitehall and maximum choice for every family. All this has been rolling forward: radical changes, far-reaching changes, stretching out and reaching forward to the year 2000. Mr President, there are ancient echoes in all of us that whisper: we’ve done enough. We should now opt for the quiet life. It sounds tempting. But if you start down that road, you soon bump up against a hard fact, and it’s this: unless we face up to change, change will overwhelm us. Year by year, all around the world, the pace of discovery quickens. We cannot just stop the world and get off. Mr President, it’s when the Conservative Party is on the side of reform that we win. That’s when we prosper. We Conservatives must have the confidence to go forward; confidence to test the market; confidence to trust the people: that is our duty, that is our strength, and that is our programme.

    So, let us keep our eyes on the bigger picture; on the key challenges of the next four years. And let me share with you some of my own priorities and the direction in which we must go. I’ve spoken already about some of the key themes, but there are other fundamental issues that demand to be heard. We must build a stronger, manufacturing base. We must take regulation off industry’s back – large industry and small industry. We must make public services truly serve the people’s needs. And we must provide the best possible education in all our schools. And, Mr President, critical to millions of people in this country, we must win the war against crime.

    It is upon these issues that we will take our stand. They will dominate our thinking and our law-making, so expect action on deregulation, expect action on education, and expect action on law and order right at the very heart of what we do. Ken Clarke’s package, yesterday, was just an instalment, so we will have a full programme and a busy autumn. Mr President, unless British industry is competitive abroad, Britain will be weak at home. We have to get the basics right for business: inflation, interest rates, tax, they’re all uniquely favourable to British industry today. Exporters haven’t seen a combination like that for very nearly forty years. The signs are right. Manufacturing output is up; investment is up; productivity is up: excellent signs, every one. Retail sales; construction orders; car sales – all of them are up – all very good signs. And Scotland – Scotland is leading the way: another very good sign, not least with whisky exports – Scotland’s liquid gold: rivers and rivers of scotch pouring down foreign throats. And not only foreign throats! I cannot tell you how much I’ve been looking forward to this part of the speech. That’s the way to get overseas businessmen to sign. And look at that – Ian Lang smiling, as well! That’s another sign: a Scottish sign, a marvellous sign, an Auld Lang sign! I know, Mr President, the joke was awful, but the whisky was great.

    And the future looks good: we’ve turned the corner. But for British industry the challenge is still enormous. For them to succeed they need a workforce with skills and with imagination. It’s they who’ll carve out success for Britain. So our children must be taught the skills they need. That’s why we need the basics at the very beginning of schooling. It’s why we need good, vocational education. Why we need proper information on how children are doing. And, yes, Mr President, that’s why we need tests in schools, as well. Mr President, we might as well face the truth, only quality will win in today’s world. As a small boy, I grew up like many of you, I suspect, looking at a map covered in pink with a huge British Empire spanning the world. Like many people I’m nostalgic about that. I wish the world was still a captive market for British exports, but it isn’t. And it’s no good our dreaming that it is and pretending that things haven’t changed. Our businessmen have to operate in the most competitive world we’ve ever seen, and so we must give those businessmen every bit of help that we can. And that’s why this Government must be, and I promise you it will be, right out there in the thick of the fight, right out there alongside British industry – manufacturing matters. And, Mr President, wherever I travel around the world I’ll tell you what I want to find. I want to find goods with that magic label, ‘Made in Britain’, all around the world. We’re going to win in the export markets of the world, and to those who said that Scotland can’t play its part in that, I say: this is James Watt country, Baird country, McLaren country, Bell country – doers. Doers who took destiny by the scruff of the neck and changed it. And it’s the country of Adam Smith, the arch priest of enterprise and choice. So, I make you this promise, here in Scotland, and where better, we’re not going to let tin-pot regulators who can’t see beyond their office door tie down the genius of a nation.

    Mr President, choice: choice is central to Conservatism, It is its very heart. Without choice there is no freedom. Without choice there is no achievement. It is a basic fact of human nature. When people choose of their own free-will, they become committed. They don’t just stick to the contract. They give that little bit extra. They become inventive. They make things happen. That’s the spirit we want, and not least in our public services. And, so, since the Election, look what has happened in some public services. In Scotland’s health service: not just the seventeen new trusts, but much more besides. Look what Scotland’s hospitals are achieving: better patient care; shorter waiting times; tough targets exceeded. That is the power of choice at work, today, in Scotland. And when others abroad were beginning to write about re-inventing government, we, in Britain, were putting it into practice. That is what the Citizen’s Charter is all about. The most far-reaching programme for raising standards in public service ever seen. Some said it was irrelevant. The cocktails grenadiers sniped and sneered, but then they don’t rely on public services. But millions and millions of British people do. And what has happened in these last two years? Real changes – real changes enhancing real lives, the time taken to deal with pension claims cut by a third; every hospital eliminating waiting lists of two years or more; ninety-five percent of Scotland’s parents now getting their children into their first-choice primary school, and every parent in Britain receiving an annual report on their child’s progress in schools. Some people always took such things for granted, but not everyone. And now the Charter’s opening out old narrow privilege. It’s making first-rate service a natural expectation of everyone. So here’s a slogan for Whitehall: competition reaches the parts of the civil service that memoranda cannot reach! We are changing the age-old practices of the public sector: making pay relate to how good they are, not how long they’ve been doing the job; giving the private sector the chance to compete. Mr President, we are still only at the beginning. Over time, there will be no part of the public service that will not be touched by these changes: from the dustman at your door, right up to the office of the Cabinet Secretary himself. And, I daresay, he’ll soon be asking my Private Secretary precisely what I mean by that. I’ll be very surprised if he doesn’t!

    Mr President, I want now to turn to another matter of huge concern. And let me say this right at the outset: I refuse to accept there is nothing to do about crime, and I’m not going to turn my back on what I know is a growing worry for millions of people. The great majority of decent British people know it’s the duty of everyone to uphold the law: no ‘ifs’, no ‘buts’. But I’m afraid there are a far too many who do ‘if’ and ‘but’. Who do criticise the police. Who do devote their energies to explaining crime and justifying it. And there are those who boost the self-esteem of young criminals by giving them the chance to swagger on television and radio. To them I would say: just think. Just think, then stop, That way you can play a part in this country’s fight against crime. Mr President, I don’t underestimate the challenge. There is a huge battle ahead, and it involves all of us. If we fail to teach children the difference between right and wrong, we are fostering crime. If we turn away or close the curtains, we are helping crime. If know what others have done and don’t say ‘no’ but say nothing, we are aiding crime. The police and Government, we will do all we can, but we cannot do it all. We are on the side of the public, but we need the help of the public. Society may not be to blame for crime, but it can certainly play its part in clearing it off our streets. I’ve been encouraged by the recent figures in Scotland showing a downturn in many types of crime. But Peter Fraser made it clear to you this afternoon, that we are far from complacent. We are putting more police on the beat. We are clamping down on late-night drinking, and we are reviewing Scotland’s criminal justice system to see how it can be improved further. Many of you will have been here at this conference all day, so let me say this, to ‘Judy of Edinburgh’ who spoke so eloquently and so bravely in this debate this afternoon, I heard what you said in that remarkable speech. Not only did I hear what you said, I got the message, and so have the whole Cabinet. Judy, you didn’t just speak for yourself. I believe you spoke for the whole country in what you said this afternoon.

    South of the border, we’ve been busy, too. There are too many young criminals offending and re-offending, and laughing while they do it. So, we’re giving the police and courts the powers they need to deal with them. There are too many people who’ve been committing new crimes while out on bail, so we’re going to crack down on them, as well. They will face stiffer sentences and, in my judgment, quite right too. And on too many occasions we’ve seen pedestrians killed by drunken or dangerous drivers, so we’ll be doubling the maximum sentence for them. And we’re removing artificial restrictions on the English and Welsh courts. They’ve resulted in some absurd sentences recently, and they’ve prevented magistrates from giving people with long criminal records the punishment that fits their crime. Mr President, that is wrong. I am not having policy driven by the size of the prison population. I am having policy driven by the safety of the population at large. And another thing, Mr President, we want our police to use their time as efficiently as they can. We want to help them do the job they want to do: beating crime. We don’t train, and equip and pay our police filling out forms. I don’t want policemen fighting paper on their desks: I want them fighting crime on the streets.

    Mr President, we are in the midst of a decade that will see greater change than any decade, even the most venerable person in this hall will have lived through. Change is accelerating, not just in this country, but in countries all around the world: inventions we’ve never dreamed of; social and other problems we’ve never yet faced lie not very far ahead of us. If ever there was a time when governments had to take a long view rather than a short view, you and I, today, are living through that time. We cannot afford just to cast our eyes on the problems of tomorrow, next week, or even next year. We have to stop and think and plan; and often take decisions that may seem strange, today, but are geared at the problems or the opportunities that we can see five or ten years ahead. It seems a long way away, the next millennium. It isn’t. It’s eighty months away. We need to start preparing for it now; thinking for it now; planning for it now; putting our industry and our nation in a position to compete for it in the most competitive world we’ve ever seen, Those are the matters that crowd on in governments, on Ministers, quite apart from the day-to-day problems that one reads about day-to-day in the morning newspapers and watches day-to-day on television.

    We need to stand back sometimes and re-assess where we are, where we’ve come from and where we need to be. I joined the Conservative Party, above all, for one reason: because I believed it had the clearest philosophy and the clearest instinctive ‘feel’ for the ambitions and hopes and dreams of individual people of any political party in this country; and it had a history that was unique. No other political party in any part of Europe, in any part of the world, has served so long, so well, so often in government for its nation.

    We are a remarkable political party: the most formidable fighting force when roused that western politics has ever seen. We have had our good days and our bad days; our highs and our lows; our opportunities and our difficulties, but it is in that unity, that philosophical unity of belief, that instinctive feel for what our nation is and what it wants that Conservatives draw their greatest strengths. It is at times of difficulties that they go back to those ancient instincts, draw out that strength again, and prepare for the years ahead. We’re a party that thinks beyond one generation. We can afford to do so. We were governing this nation long before the Labour party was ever a nightmare in anyone’s mind. And we’ll be governing it long after they’re dead and gone as a political party, provided – provided we maintain that instinctive connection with the cares, the concerns, the hopes and the aspirations of the British nation. That is the genius of our party. That is the genius, I suspect, that drew all of those, however we may have thought of it, in this great party, and kept us here through the years,

    So, let us put aside temporary problems and temporary difficulties. Let us keep our eye on the far distance as well as the near future. Let us plan not just for what we’ll be doing tomorrow or next year, but for the sort of society we want our children and our grandchildren to grow up in. That is what I ask this party of ours to do, both today and in the future. So, at the moment, after recent difficulties, we are fighting back at this conference. Fighting back for our ideals, fighting for what we believe in. Fighting for what brought us in to the party and what will keep us bound in this party, even in the most difficult of days. We have been through tough times, tough for this party, more important, perhaps, tough for millions of people across the land. But at the last General Election those millions of people supported us: fourteen and a half million more votes than any political party had ever received at any Election in this country, and they did so because we set out simply and clearly what we stood for and what we were doing. We set out where we were going and why we wanted to go. And from one end of the country to another they listened. We touched a chord in their instincts. They trusted us to do what was right for Britain and to see it through.

    Mr President, that is what Conservatism is about – your Conservatism, my Conservatism – to offer a fuller life; to stand up for Britain; to keep our United Kingdom whole and strong. Today, I sought to spell out where we stand and what our policies are. Our ambitions are, as they ever were, the ambitions of millions: to build a prosperous Britain. A Britain which sends its goods to every part of the world; a Britain where people feel safe on our streets, and secure in their homes. A United Kingdom, where effort is rewarded, where choice is ‘king’ and where everyone has the chance to succeed. Mr President, that’s the Britain that I want, and that is the Britain that we are fighting to build, and I invite you all to join me in that fight.

  • Mr Major’s Comments on Scotland – 30 January 1993

    Below is the text of Mr Major’s comments on Scotland, made during his visit to Scotland on 30th January 1993.

    QUESTION:

    [Mr Major was asked why jobs were coming to Scotland, and whether it was related to the Social Chapter opt-out].

    PRIME MINISTER:

    It’s an attractive place to live, it’s an attractive environment to do business. We’ve one of the best corporate and company taxation systems that you’ll find anywhere in the world. And you mention the Social Chapter. I strongly suspect the fact that we are not going to implement a Social Charter which, in practice, puts extra costs on jobs and employment, is one of the reasons that there will be an extra 450 jobs in Scotland.