Michael Anderson and Graeme Roy on Scotland's Populations

Professors Michael Anderson and Graeme Roy spoke at the David Hume Institute on “Scotland’s Populations”. They discussed how our demographics have shaped our country, and the challenges they present in the future. 

Professor Michael Anderson is Emeritus Professor of Economic History, University of Edinburgh, and an expert on Scottish demography. Last year, Oxford University Press published ‘Scotland's Populations: from the 1850s to Today’, which explores population growth and decline, rural settlement and depopulation, and migration and emigration.  

Professor Graeme Roy is Director of the Fraser of Allander Institute and Head of Economics at the University of Strathclyde. Prior to joining Strathclyde University he was head of the First Minister’s Policy Unit. 

A copy of the slides from each presentation is available for download here:

Please see below for the audio recording of this event.

Jonathan Portes on Immigration policy: challenges for the UK and Scotland

Professor Jonathan Portes spoke at the David Hume Institute on “Immigration policy: challenges for the UK and Scotland”.

Professor Jonathan Portes is a Senior Fellow of the Economic and Social Research Council's "UK in a Changing Europe" initiative, based at King’s College London, which promotes high quality research into the complex and changing relationship between the UK and the European Union. His current research concentrates on issues related to immigration and labour mobility, both within the European Union and outside; and the economic implications of Brexit. Jonathan's latest book is called 'What Do we Know and What Should We Do About Immigration?'.

He has spent most of his career working as a civil servant, serving as Chief Economist at the Department for Work and Pensions from 2002 to 2008 and Chief Economist at the Cabinet Office from 2008 to 2011. He led the Cabinet Office’s economic analysis and economic policy work during the financial crisis and on the G20 London Summit in April 2009. From 2011 to 2015, he was Director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research.

A copy of the slides from Jonathan’s presentation is available for download here:

Philip Rycroft on Brexit and the Union: what next for Scotland in the UK?

Philip Rycroft, recently retired Permanent Secretary of DExEU, the Department for Exiting the European Union, gave a lecture at the David Hume Institute on “Brexit and the Union: what next for Scotland in the UK?”. 

Philip Rycroft worked at DExEU between March 2017 and March 2019, from October 2017 as Permanent Secretary. He was responsible for leading the department in all its work on the Government’s preparations for Brexit. From June 2015 to March 2019 he was head of the UK Governance Group in the Cabinet Office, with responsibility for advising ministers on all aspects of the constitution and devolution. 

The text of his lecture is available for download here:

Scotland's Evolving Fiscal Landscape

Dame Susan Rice, Robert Chote and Alyson Stafford spoke about how the Scottish Fiscal Commission and the Office of Budget Responsibility work both individually and together and the setting in which these institutions exist and operate.

Robert Chote has been Chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility since 2010, having been reappointed for a second five-year term in 2015. He also chairs the OECD’s network of parliamentary budget offices and independent fiscal institutions, as well as the external advisory group of the Irish parliamentary budget office. Previously, Robert served as Director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies from 2002 to 2010, as a senior advisor at the International Monetary Fund from 1999 to 2002, as Economics Editor of the Financial Times from 1995 to 1999, and as a writer at the Independent and Independent on Sunday from 1990 to 1994. Robert is chair of the Royal Statistical Society’s advisory group on public data literacy. He is also a member of the Finance Committee of the University of Cambridge and the advisory committee of the ESRC Centre for Macroeconomics, and is a governor of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR).

Dame Susan Rice DBE has been Chair of the Scottish Fiscal Commission since 2014 and was reappointed for a further four years from July 2018. A Chartered Banker, Susan is, inter alia, Chairman of Scottish Water, President of the Scottish Council of Development and Industry, a non-executive director of J Sainsbury and the Banking Standards Board, and a lay member of Court of Edinburgh University. Susan is a published medical researcher and has previously served as senior Vice President at NatWest Bancorp in New York, dean at Yale and Colgate Universities, Chairman and Chief Executive of Lloyds TSB Scotland plc and Managing Director of Lloyds Banking Group.

Alyson Stafford CBE is Director General Scottish Exchequer, with responsibility for the overall Scottish Budget including tax, spending and measuring performance, and for advice, support and systems on finance and procurement. Alyson joined the Scottish Government in 2005, previously serving as Director General Finance and Director of Finance. Prior to joining the Scottish Government, Alyson led strategic, operational and corporate services in the Health Service in England and Scotland as a Chief Executive and Director of Finance.

Willie Rennie: 2018 Politicians and Professionals Series

For our 2018 Politicians and Professionals Series we asked each of the  major Scottish Party Leaders to speak on the theme of ‘Scotland After Brexit’.

Richard Wyn Jones and Michael Keating on Welsh and Scottish perspectives on Brexit

Professors Richard Wyn Jones and Michael Keating considered the major challenges Brexit poses to the 1999 devolution settlements; the role of the devolved governments in negotiations; the allocation of competences currently shared with Europe, and related issues.

Richard Wyn Jones is Director of the Wales Governance Centre at Cardiff University, and Michael Keating is Director of the Centre on Constitutional Change.

The event was chaired by Dame Mariot Leslie on 21 November 2017. 

Nicola Sturgeon: Brexit could mean a loss of powers for Scotland

Nicola Sturgeon discussed some of the key issues facing Scotland for the future. This speech was made on 28 February 2017.

Podcast extract of Nicola Sturgeon’s speech to the David Hume Institute on 28 February 2017:

I value – as I am sure all the party leaders do – the opportunity to discuss with you some of the key issues facing Scotland for the future.

When I first spoke here as SNP leader in 2015, it was in the aftermath of the independence referendum. Last year, it was during the run-up to the Scottish parliamentary elections and the EU referendum. And so I hoped – as I suspect many of you did – that 2017 might be a slightly quieter year in Scottish politics.

However, as you have probably noticed, things haven’t quite turned out that way. Within a month, we expect the UK Government to formally trigger Article 50 – setting the United Kingdom on course towards leaving the European Union.

And so this evening – perhaps not surprisingly – I want to talk about that. I’m not planning to concentrate on the likely impact that leaving the EU and the single market would have on Scotland – although as you know, I believe Brexit’s effects would be profound, long-lasting and damaging to our economy and our society.

Instead, I wish to concentrate more specifically on what Brexit means for democracy in Scotland – how it has exposed the democratic deficit which still exists at the heart of our governance, and what options we have for addressing that.

But I want to begin by looking back. This year marks the 20th anniversary of another referendum – the one which led to the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. That referendum confirmed overwhelming support for devolution – it was supported by almost ¾ of those who voted.

And it’s maybe worth thinking back to why the decision was so resounding. The campaign for a Scottish Parliament was based – above all –on the idea that we faced a democratic deficit. Decisions were being taken for Scotland – so often by governments we didn’t vote for – rather than by Scotland.

The late Canon Kenyon Wright made the argument well in 1989, on the first day of the Scottish Constitutional Convention. He was speaking two days before the poll tax came into force in Scotland. And he said this about the UK Parliament

“Again and again…it has debated measures which have affected quite fundamentally Scotland’s national institutions and the quality of life of our people. Again and again the elected representatives of the Scottish people have voted….against these damaging policies. Again and again and again parliament has imposed these on Scotland.”

The poll tax wasn’t the only example of this democratic deficit. Many social and economic policies of the 1970s and 1980s – such as the way in which deindustrialisation was handled across many parts of the country – would also stand as examples.

But the poll tax – perhaps more than anything else – came to exemplify Scotland’s democratic deficit. It was implemented in Scotland despite overwhelming public opposition. And perhaps the overriding reason that so many people in 1997 endorsed the idea of a Scottish Parliament, was to prevent that – or anything like it – ever happening again.

In many respects, of course, the Scottish Parliament has been a very significant success.  It is now firmly established as the centre of Scottish public life – the institution which people expect, and most trust, to reflect their priorities, values and dreams.

Devolution has enabled us to pursue a different approach to politics. Now, I don’t want to overstate this case. Scottish politics – and I’m being polite here – is never knowingly non-tribal!

But at the very least, the modern working practices of Holyrood are far removed from some of the more arcane rituals of Westminster.  And the fact that we have proportional representation means that a search for consensus – a degree of give and take and negotiation – is part and parcel of the Scottish parliamentary system.

But of course the contrast between the Scottish and UK Parliaments isn’t just one of approach; there have also been significant differences in policy.

Early Scottish Parliaments saw measures such as world leading homelessness legislation and a ban on smoking in public places. The Government I now lead reintroduced free university tuition and set the most ambitious climate change targets in the world. It has legislated for a minimum price for alcohol – although that’s a measure still held up in the courts. It has mitigated the impact of UK Government welfare cuts such as the bedroom tax, and expanded early years education and care.

All of these are significant achievements of devolution.

And let me stress, they belong to more than one government and more than one party.

One of the areas where that contrast with the UK Government has been most obvious in recent years, has been our approach to universal benefits. The Scottish Parliament has chosen to provide, defend and extend certain core universal services, rights and benefits.

That decision helps households across the country. It helps, for example –

• Students who benefit from higher education without incurring £9000 a year of debt for tuition costs;

• Older people who are entitled to concessionary bus travel and who are eligible, if they need it, for free personal care.

• Commuters who no longer pay bridge tolls for their journey into work.

• Families who benefit from a health service which is free at the point of delivery. Before 2007, more than half a million people who earned as little as than £16,000 a year had to pay for prescriptions.

Now, as you know, the Scottish Parliament decided last week that higher rate taxpayers in Scotland should have a different tax threshold from taxpayers in the rest of the UK.

Instead of following the UK Government with a hefty increase in the higher rate threshold – one of the policies that the Resolution Foundation has said will take the UK back to levels of inequality not seen since the days of Margaret Thatcher – we decided to freeze it.  As a result, we are asking people who earn more than £43,000 a year, not to pay more than they do now, but to forego a tax cut of approximately £7.70 a week: less than the price of a single prescription in England.

There has been a lot of misleading analysis of that decision. It has been reported that it makes Scotland the most highly taxed part of the UK. But that argument simply isn’t true.

It completely ignores the fact that the Scottish Government protected households across Scotland from council tax increases for 9 years. That didn’t happen in the rest of the UK.

Average council tax charges in Scotland are significantly lower than in the UK as a whole – to the tune of around £300-400 a year. Even now, the level of council tax increases in Scotland – a maximum of 3% – is lower than the 5% increases permitted in England.

And of course the argument about tax shouldn’t simply be about what you pay in; it’s about what you get back. For many households – if they have children at university, or parents who need personal care, or if they themselves need prescriptions – the benefits of living in a country with strong universal public services far outweigh the benefits of a £7.70 a week tax cut.

I’ve stressed that principle of universality – partly because it has become a key point of distinction between Scottish and UK Governments, but also because it reflects a bigger principle. Universal services are part of a social contract between the government and the people.

We invest in public services to help provide a secure, stable and inclusive society for everyone who lives here. We believe that by doing so we can encourage people’s talent, enterprise and ambition. We can help to ensure that Scotland will be a place where people want to visit, invest, work and live.

And as part of that, we don’t try to divide society between one mass of people who contribute taxes, and another group who receive benefits. That doesn’t actually reflect reality. We help and support everyone to contribute to society; and we enable everyone to receive some common services or benefits.

In my view – though again, I don’t want to overstate this – one possible reason why the result of the EU referendum was different in Scotland than elsewhere in the UK, is that we have been able to demonstrate a more progressive, inclusive approach to social and economic policy.

That doesn’t mean that everything here is perfect – of course it doesn’t. And it certainly doesn’t disregard the fact that a very substantial minority of people in Scotland – 1 million in total – voted to leave the EU. But it may mean that the sense of being left behind or ignored – which is often perceived as a factor in the wider UK’s Brexit vote – played less of a part here.

In addition, the institutions established by devolution command – certainly in relative terms – widespread confidence.  According to the most recent figures, 73% of people in Scotland trust the Scottish Government to act in Scotland’s long-term interests. That is more than three times higher than trust in the UK Government. It’s maybe worth being clear about that – it’s not three percentage points higher, it is actually three times higher than trust in the UK Government.

So in my view, the distinctive approach to politics which has been pursued by successive Scottish Parliaments may well be – at least in part – responsible for the different EU referendum results in Scotland and the rest of the UK.

However it is that distinctive approach that is also now challenged by the outcome of the EU referendum.

Having our own national parliament and a government located here in Scotland has unquestionably made the governance of Scotland more democratic, more representative and more responsive to the people.

But after 20 years of progress, devolution in Scotland is now facing a grave threat from the Conservatives at Westminster.

The democratic deficit which fuelled the demand for a Scottish Parliament in the 1980s and 1990s has opened up again.

The Brexit process has emboldened a now powerful Westminster faction, which perhaps never fully embraced devolution, and which now sees an opportunity to rein in the Scottish Parliament.

In place of a multinational United Kingdom democracy, they see Brexit as the way to claw back ground.

This direction of travel is clear for all to see when we examine what happened before, during and after the Brexit vote.

In the 2014 independence referendum, a key plank of the Better Together campaign was the assertion that a Yes vote would put our EU membership at risk and a No vote would secure it.

However, in no time at all after Scotland voted to stay in UK, we faced an EU referendum – even though the Tories whose policy it was returned just one MP in Scotland at the General Election.

The Scottish Government argued that 16 and 17 year-olds should have the vote – but Westminster said No.

We also argued EU citizens should be allowed to vote – but Westminster said No.

And we also took seriously the UK Government’s argument – one which was made repeatedly during the independence referendum campaign – that the United Kingdom is a partnership of equals. We proposed, on that basis, that the United Kingdom should only leave the EU, if all four countries within it voted to leave.

After all, if the UK truly is a partnership of equals, that should be reflected in the reality of legislation, as well as the rhetoric of campaigning. But Westminster ruled that out too.

A clear pattern of Westminster closing the door on any compromise with Scotland and closing their ears to the democratic voice of Scotland was already emerging.

That pattern has continued.

When the vote itself came, Scotland voted by a decisive 24-point margin to remain in the EU.

Every single one of the nation’s 32 local authority areas voted to remain.

The Scottish Parliament then voted by 92 votes to zero to mandate the Scottish Government to explore options for protecting Scotland’s relationship with the EU, and our place in the single market

Now, the party I lead was very clear in its manifesto for last year’s Scottish elections. We said that the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold a referendum “if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.”

However, a referendum on independence has not been our starting point. I didn’t decide on 24 June last year to immediately exercise that mandate. Instead, since June, the Scottish Government has consistently sought to find common ground, or areas of compromise, with the UK Government.

During the autumn, we argued that the UK Government, notwithstanding its exit from the EU, should remain inside the single market. We still support that solution. In my view it remains, overwhelmingly, the obvious compromise solution for the UK as whole.  It would reduce the worst economic and social consequences of Brexit.

And it would also be the most democratically justifiable option. After all, 48% of those who voted chose to remain. So did 2 of the 4 nations of the UK. Even in Wales, which voted to leave, the Welsh Government and Plaid Cymru are now jointly arguing for continued single market participation, which they say could include remaining part of the European Economic Area.

But again, the UK Government said No. The Prime Minister’s speech last month confirmed the policy of a hard Brexit, outside the single market. I think it is important to note that even though she said shortly after becoming PM that she would seek to agree with the devolved administrations a UK wide approach to triggering Article 50, something I was very heartened by at the time, her speech – ruling out continued UK membership of the single market – was made without any prior consultation whatsoever with the Scottish Government or the other devolved administrations.

Now, as things stand, there remains one further opportunity for compromise. The Scottish Government has proposed that as part of its negotiations the UK Government would seek an outcome that would allow Scotland to retain single market membership, even after the rest of the UK has left. That would mean that we would continue to benefit from free trade and free movement of people

Single market membership under these terms is not an ideal scenario for Scotland. For example, it seems almost certain that we would be inside the single market, but outside the European Customs Union. Our proposals address the technical issues which arise from that.

But although elements of our proposals are complex, and less than ideal – that is inevitable. As we all know, everything about Brexit will be complex, and less than ideal.

We have already seen that the UK Government – rightly – is considering special measures to ensure an open border is maintained in Ireland. Gibraltar’s circumstances will also require particular attention. And there has been talk about specific deals for specific sectors of the economy.

These times require open mindedness, fresh thinking and flexibility. The Scottish Government has tried to bring those qualities to our discussions with the UK Government.

But so far the UK Government has refused to commit to putting our proposal forward as part of its Article 50 aims.

Again, despite its promise to listen and to seek agreement, whenever Scotland’s voice is asserted, the reaction of Westminster is to say No.

I mentioned earlier, that we were told repeatedly during the independence referendum that Scotland was an equal partner in a family of nations. But the EU referendum last June was the most important UK-wide decision of my lifetime. When the Scottish Government made proposals on how the referendum should be run, we were ignored. When people in Scotland voted to remain, we were outnumbered. Now – when the Scottish Government is doing everything we can to seek a compromise – it looks as though we are being disregarded.

There are those who argue that, as the vote was a UK-wide one, the result in Scotland is essentially an irrelevance, of mere academic interest.

However, to do so is to deny a long-established constitutional and political tradition in Scotland, one that goes well beyond the confines of my own political party.

Namely, that Scotland – as a nation – should always have the right to determine its own destiny, and that the people of this nation should be able to determine the form of government best suited to their needs.

The UK Government and Parliament, to their great credit, accepted that principle back in 2012 in the Edinburgh Agreement and the legislation that followed. After the independence referendum, it informed the work of the Smith Commission, and appeared in its final report.

But the actions of the Conservative Government in relation to Brexit and the devolved administrations seem to disregard it. And they go further than just a lack of partnership in forming a common position with regard to Article 50 – they actually threaten the existing basis of devolution.

Because, far from the promises of the Leave campaign that a Brexit vote would automatically see swathes of new powers repatriated from Brussels to Holyrood, there is not yet any real guarantee from the Tories that the Scottish Parliament and the other devolved administrations won’t be stripped of some of their powers.

In my view, the post Brexit landscape would demand a fundamental rebalancing of powers across the UK. It would be time to consider whether, for example, employment law should be devolved instead of left at the mercy of a UK Government that has already threatened a race to the bottom if it doesn’t get its way in the EU talks. And surely, it is time now for a real debate about where power over immigration should lie and whether a one size fits all policy is any longer fit for purpose.

But far from being open to these discussions, it seems that the UK Government wants to go in the opposite direction. It is clear from their statements that even elements of farming and fishing policy – which have been wholly devolved competences from day one – now risk being taken back to Westminster.

That would be utterly unacceptable.

It would betray the claims and promises made during the EU referendum campaign.

And more profoundly it would fundamentally undermine the basis of the existing devolution settlement.

The Scotland Act 2016 supposedly enshrined in law the principle that the Westminster Parliament should not normally legislate in devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.

But in the recent Supreme Court case the UK Government went out its way to argue that its own legislation was in fact worthless and that the Westminster Parliament could legislate at any time on any matter whether devolved or not.

So what we have is in effect an attack on the very foundations of the devolved parliament we voted for 20 years ago.

It is being made by a UK Government which speaks the language of partnership but which in reality is paying scant if any heed right now to Scotland’s democratic voice. The question we face, is how to respond to it.

I began this speech by talking about the 1997 referendum.  That referendum, of course, gave rise to the 1998 Scotland Act, which in turn led to the establishment of the Scottish Parliament.

After it had been passed by the Westminster Parliament, Tony Blair gave Donald Dewar a signed copy of the Scotland Act. It’s now kept in the Parliament building at Holyrood. The Act was inscribed to Donald with the words “It was a struggle, it may always be hard; but it was worth it. Scotland and England together on equal terms!”

The Scotland Act was a significant achievement – a lasting testament to Donald Dewar’s career in public service. And Tony Blair’s sentiment was undoubtedly a generous one. But it wasn’t quite accurate. Scotland is not on equal terms in the United Kingdom. The EU referendum has demonstrated that more clearly than ever.

The entire process, so far, has echoed those words of Canon Wright from 28 years ago: “Again and again the elected representatives of the Scottish people have voted… against these damaging policies. Again and again (the UK) parliament has imposed these on Scotland.”

There are no easy answers to the situation Scotland finds itself in – it is one which is not of our making or choosing.

But the basic question we face is actually quite simple – what sort of country do we want Scotland to be and who gets to decide?

The policies of Scotland’s elected parliament, since devolution, provide some sort of an answer.  They suggest that the people of this country overwhelmingly believe in a Scotland that is progressive, internationalist, outward looking, connected and compassionate.

Those values and priorities are threatened by the type of Brexit which the UK Government appears to be pursuing – one which is inward looking, regressive and which ignores Scotland’s views time and time again.

The UK Government still has an opportunity to change course before it triggers the Article 50 process.   I very much hope it does.

However if it doesn’t, it will show that the democratic deficit which people voted to end in 1997 doesn’t just endure – it continues to cause harm to Scotland’s interests, to our international relationships, to our very sense of our own identity.

And so if those circumstances arise, proposing a further decision on independence wouldn’t simply be legitimate, it would arguably be a necessary way of giving the people of Scotland a say in our own future direction.

It would offer Scotland a proper choice on whether or not to be part of a post Brexit UK – a UK that is undoubtedly on a fundamentally different path today than that envisaged in 2014.

And in the absence of compromise from the UK Government, it may offer the only way in which our voice can be heard, our interests protected, and our values upheld.

As a result of the Brexit vote, we – Scotland and the UK – stand just now at a crossroads. Decisions taken in the months to come will reshape our economy, our society and our place in the world – in short, they will shape the kind of country we are going to be. The question is should we decide for ourselves which path to take or are we willing to have that decided for us?

We may all offer different answers to that question. But surely the choice should be ours.

Video clip courtesy of ITV Border here

Willie Rennie: second independence referendum not the way to keep Scotland in the EU.

Willie Rennie, Scottish Liberal Democrat leader at the David Hume Institute for the Politicians and Professionals Series 2017.

Podcast extract of Willie Rennie’s speech:

The Politicians & Professionals have been an amazing series of presentations that bring onto your stage, one by one, the leaders of Scotland’s political parties.

It does, perhaps, tell us something about the times we live in that the series was originally conceived as being a very important single occasion in view of the turbulent constitutional time that existed in 2014: yet it has been held every year since.

And it doesn’t look as if turbulence will drop off.  So put it in your diary – same place, same time, next year.

And that is in the nature of things. You won’t ever hear an economist or an academic suggest, “that’s it. We know enough. We can stop thinking.”

I have had a look back across my remarks from the previous years.

Last year I set out the case for a diverse economy that nurtures and enables the talents of everyone. I argued for more investment in education and mental health to make the most of the people who live in Scotland. I would argue that the economic and education indicators since then make those directions of travel more important this year than even last. I will say more on that later.

In 2015 I set out the case for using the economic stability and employment growth that had come from the UK Coalition Government to build a fairer future where opportunity is available for everyone no matter their background. I have more to add on that later as well and show how important that is for the economy.

It was with some horror that I looked back to 2014. My presentation was entitled “In Britain. In Europe. In work.”  I argued that “each relationship has been placed fundamentally at stake”.

The horror is that it’s really happened.

Tonight I will combine the themes of previous years.  I will argue that the economy needs a liberal, internationalist, open and enlightened approach that recognises the value of partnership with our neighbours, and the need for investment to nurture the talents of our people, so that everyone participates in the success of that economy.

I will argue that, because of the change in their international posture, the economic philosophy and credibility of my political opponents has been shattered.

However, I will also argue there is hope.  Hope that the cause of a liberal, internationalist, open and enlightened approach can win again as we seek to challenge those who wish to establish a new orthodoxy.

The EU

The Conservative Party gambled.

Its confidence was high after claiming victory in the AV referendum, the independence referendum and the 2015 general election.

Yet the EU referendum gamble – hastily proposed, recklessly run and arrogantly assumed – was a roll of the dice too far.

The defeat was David Cameron’s downfall but the impact on the country has been far greater and more important.

The Conservative Party is now gambling again – risking the fragile economy, built back after the recession, now plunging into a pit of economic risk.

Britain is a great country.  It has achieved so much in the world but it has done so by building global organisations together with others.  Churchill laid the foundations for the EU after the war. Britain was a leading country in the formation of the League of Nations, now the United Nations.  We are a major contributor to NATO.  And more recently we have led the world on international aid – building the structures and the credibility of that effort.

I know that from my visits as a member of the House of Commons Defence Select Committee to countries across the world that our nation matters.  We can be a force for good.  We have a role in the world that is positive.

It has been an internationalist posture that has assisted in the generation of a positive view of our country globally.  That internationalist posture means we are, and are seen as, a powerful trading nation with a compassionate heart.

But now the isolationist fringe of the Conservative Party has taken over our government.

With attempts to cut the aid budget.

With a charm offensive on Donald Trump, who is no fan of NATO or the United Nations.

And the decision to leave our partners in Europe.

This is probably the biggest change of our international posture in a generation: from partnership through global organisations into a futile attempt to build our own power base in the world.  For want of a name you could call it the British empire.

But it is the Labour response that depresses me more.

Of course we must respect the referendum result.  But political leaders have got a responsibility to lead.  And leadership is what this country is missing at one of the most significant periods in modern political times.

Labour through the referendum and since has shown an astonishing level of indifference to the fate of our country.  No challenge, no questions, just compliance.

They have turned the fine tradition of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition to Her Majesty’s Compliant Opposition.

It would only be right for the British people to have the final say on whatever deal is agreed by the Conservative Government with the EU.

A Brexit deal referendum would be the right and democratic thing to do.

When they look back at this time our grandchildren will be perplexed that we did not take our time and ask ourselves the question if we really wanted this.

If the Brexit deal is damaging to jobs, the economy, our environment and the country’s security why would we not ask the British people a new question?

Liberal Democrats will provide the focus for that democratic mandate.

The public have only witnessed the Brexit shadow-boxing so far. When we see the real consequences of Brexit the punches will be felt.

Carolyn Fairbairn, the head of the CBI, was left reeling from the Prime Minister’s hard Brexit speech. She worried about how it was possible to trigger a big-ticket house-building programme at the same time as shrinking the UK labour market by 9 per cent if you cut out EU-27 nationals.

In 2014 I said our relationship with the EU was “at risk”. I said how “we are part of a European market with 500 million customers” worth trillions. I warned that the border effect between the United States and Canada had reduced trade by 44 per cent.

Now a whole series of reports has put the price of leaving at more than £5bn of GDP by 2030 and the cost of leaving the single market as high as £200bn over 15 years.

That’s a high price that surely is worth a simple question for the British people.

I look back 14 years and see the opinion polls on the invasion of Iraq. In April 2003 people wholeheartedly supported Tony Blair’s government. People would howl in the street at Charles Kennedy. But opinions changed.

Political leadership is sometimes about persuading people, not just repeating what the last focus group told you. That is followership.

That is why I will continue to argue for a public vote on the outcome and to lobby the EU to make sure they are open and ready for a public change of heart.

And if people say, “The Brexit Bill doesn’t contain provision for a public vote”, that doesn’t mean it won’t happen.

If you think about the fuel duty protests in the year 2000. There was a UK Government with a majority of 179 in the House of Commons. It didn’t have to have an election for two years. But it still changed its policy in response to an evident change of public mood.

So when the jobs are lost, the mortgages rise, the prices in our shops increase, the foreign investment declines.  When that happens I suspect the mood, the view, the opinion of the merit of Brexit may go into reverse.

SNP could leave us outside the EU

Whilst The Conservatives have abandoned the internationalist posture this country has built, and the Labour party timidly accept that approach, the SNP wish to compound the break-up of Europe with the break-up of the UK.

The response to the horror etched on the faces of people on the 23rd June should not impose greater sorrow in the hearts of Scots who value the relationship with our friends in Cornwall, Newcastle, Southampton, Swansea and Ballymena.

They didn’t all vote to leave.  In the rest of the UK ten times as many people voted to remain as in Scotland. Why do Nationalists seek to diminish the 15 million remain voters in the rest of the UK?  Surely they are worth standing with as we seek to persuade the rest.

Independence is not the economic or the emotional answer to Brexit.

That is why I will stand for Scotland in the UK as much as the UK in the EU.  I will not compromise on deep rooted principles of internationalism, openness and liberalism.

But it is noteworthy that Scottish National Party’s commitment to the EU has been compromised.

Recently I asked Mike Russell whether it was true that the SNP would fail to propose that an independent Scotland would be a full member of the European Union. He refused to answer.

When Alex Salmond was asked the same he issued a non-denial denial. It is unusual for Alex Salmond to be so careful with his reaction.

We, perhaps, should not be surprised as one third of their supporters favoured Brexit.

I meet them every week on the doorsteps.  Brexit supporters who backed independence in 2014 but are opposed now because of the independence in Europe policy.

Desperate to keep them on board for an independence referendum the SNP are prepared to sell out Europe to get their dream of independence.

But in doing so they are compromising with an isolationist agenda – just like the Labour Party.

The SNP would sell their granny on Amazon if it would win a few more votes for independence.

Some liberal-minded people have thought about whether, perhaps, Scottish independence is the best way to stay in the EU. They are prepared to put aside the innate rejection of nationalism that is inherent in the liberal approach.

But they are going to be disappointed.

You haven’t heard any senior nationalist say “the only way to keep Scotland in the EU is to have independence”.

They used to say that all the time. Now they don’t.

They now say that their dissatisfaction with the UK Government “transcends the issue of Europe”.

So the risk of their proposal is that it leaves Scotland outside the UK and outside the EU.

What a disaster that would be.

So that makes a full set. This isolationist bent, this international posture, now being adopted by the three parties to various degrees will damage our economy.

Putting up barriers – whether regulatory or tariff, through independence or Brexit – will be bad for business.

It will signal the start to a race to the bottom on tax, a race to the bottom on wages, and a low skill economy.

It will force us to be more dependent on President Trump or on Chinese investment. It will mean we are a pawn rather than a world leader and it will be bad for business.

And it will happen if we leave the single market of 500 million customers with the common, decent standards for employment that are part-and-parcel of the whole way it works.

Because, for all the complaints from Nationalists about Philip Hammond’s suggestion of a race-to-the-bottom on tax post-Brexit, they would have no choice but to follow suit.

I looked back to 2014 and this is exactly what I was warning about right here at this lectern.

There was a placard on display in a recent demonstration in Washington DC.  You may have seen it. It read, “I can’t believe I still have to protest this stuff”.  That is the sanitised version of the poster.

It’s how I feel sometimes.

In 2014 the SNP said they would undercut George Osborne on corporation tax, however low he went, to try to boost growth.

Now, post-Brexit, Philip Hammond says he will cut corporation tax to boost growth.

And it is clear that an independent Scotland would have to follow suit or else.

Three years ago the Conservatives said the Nationalists were nuts on a race to the bottom.

Now Nationalists say the Conservatives are cruel on their race to the bottom.

And I stand here and say, for yet another year, that a race to the bottom is wrong.

And, as I said back then, a strong economy needs “businesses that grow by being the best at what they do, making sure everyone knows it and everyone buys it in Britain, in Europe and across the World. Strength in the long run is by being the best, not by being – temporarily – the cheapest place on one tax”.

I will end my remarks in a moment by describing more widely a positive economic future for our country.

But I want to add one more thing to the observations I have about isolationism.

People sometimes cheer the idea of not being shackled to the EU or UK and able to make our own way in the world with all the other countries with whom we can strike up relationships.

And you then have to go and literally hold hands with Donald Trump to try to get a deal.

And that means we will have to take his bleached chickens or his hormoned beef or whatever, because he won’t sign a deal that’s not best for America.

Or you have to grab at any passing Chinese player like Sinofortone who have led a merry dance for people, first in Port Talbot and Anglesey, then Scotland, then Kent, then Liverpool.

The risks of trying to build a business in China are felt keenly by those businesses who have struggled to protect their intellectual property rights in China.

Positive about the Scottish economy

So, after three years, and into my fourth David Hume Institute winter series, I am still saying “In Britain, In Europe, In work”.

The experience my party had in the UK Government was important:

Tackling the deficit; bring it down so our international standing on money was sound.

Stabilising the economy – to an extent that it is hard to remember the anxious calls from British business made over the first weekend in May 2010 when the country looked like it might have political gridlock;

GDP growth back on track; leading the G8 group of countries.

Employment up to record-breaking levels, up 1.7 million jobs;

Doubled production of renewable energy, in the face of Conservative cabinet ministers who were real-life climate change deniers. Some £37billion invested, supporting 460,000 jobs, reducing our carbon emissions and improving Britain’s energy security.

Making work pay by cutting tax for those on low and middle incomes through the rise in the tax threshold.

That was the real, positive progress towards a strong economy with the Liberal Democrats.

Scottish productivity – participation

I want to describe to you a better vision for the long term future of Scotland.

I want to focus on productivity.

There was an SCDI report in 2015 – From Fragile To Agile – about the Scottish economy. It identified three elements: productivity, internationalisation and innovation.

I will take the first in some detail and speak about two elements within productivity.

The first is education and skills.

That won’t surprise you. I argued here last year that investment in Scottish education had to be the top priority for the Scottish Government. Everything that has happened since has made me even more convinced.

Brexit casts doubt on our economic future. The international education rankings published in December showed Scotland slipping to just average again. Action is urgent.

The report last week from the Sutton Trust shows a gap equivalent to more than two years in schooling for science, reading and maths between pupils from less well-off backgrounds in the top 10% of achievers nationally, compared to their equally clever but better-off peers.

That’s a lot of wasted talent. That is a loss of participation and productivity and innovation that is being missed.

It’s why I have been badgering the Scottish Government for three years to put a Pupil Premium into every school in Scotland. It would give the extra help – the one-to-one tuition and extra equipment -that children from less well-off backgrounds need to succeed.

I have partly won that argument.

The Scottish Government has now changed its policy and has a Pupil Equity Fund similar to the Pupil Premium.

I am only partly satisfied. The amount is much lower than the Pupil Premium in England which had proven success.

And the SNP has spent the last three years complaining about the Pupil Premium, and so I will need to work hard to make sure they bring it in to maximum advantage in Scotland.

On our costed list of budget proposals, we also sought an investment in college education for part time courses that would benefit thousands, including women and mature students.  It would be a return to the lifelong learning philosophy of the late 1990s that helped grow our economy by creating a well-trained, better educated and agile workforce at all ages.

It would repair the damage to that tranche of the education sector inflicted in the last few years with the reduction of over 150,000 college places.  It would assist employers to get the skilled workforce they need. And it would give hope to people over the age of 24 that they had a contribution to make to the success of our society.

We need educational ambition. Every child should be able to see how far and how high they can go.

Scotland needs the skills and talents of everyone to be a long term, productive and successful place.

It is about investing in people.

That’s why I have also put a priority on investment in mental health: we can’t afford for anyone to be left out.

Through my detailed Budget talks with the Finance Secretary Derek Mackay it became clear that the SNP are much further behind than we feared on mental health.

The Scottish Government’s last mental health strategy expired in 2015 and they don’t have a replacement. They haven’t started to recruit the big numbers of extra staff needed for the transformation of the service.

This all has an economic impact as well as the impact on individuals and their families.

More than 643,000 working days will be lost to Scottish businesses through depression alone this year. That’s a cost of £54million just for that aspect of mental ill health.

Conclusion

So that is my story on the economy.

I have set out a unique position of being pro-UK, pro-EU, and investing in people, and how that is good for business.

I have shown how the SNP threaten the UK single market and are now going cold on Europe.

They have taken Scottish education from the best to just average and failed to invest in mental health services.

The Conservatives want a hard Brexit and a race to the bottom on tax, low skill and low wages, unable to afford quality training and abandoning support for mental health.

Labour simply do not know what they are doing and have little interest in the economy while they circle amongst themselves.

I have argued that it is my intention to be part of a liberal fightback that turns back from the isolationist or nationalist positions being taken up across the world.

It is an international, optimistic, open and tolerant approach that is attracting growing support.

Brexit: what are Scotland’s options and choices?

Professor John Curtice, the UK’s foremost expert on opinion polling talked us through the following – what are the likelihoods of a second referendum on the EU, or a second referendum on independence for Scotland? And what about an early general election? 

Drew Scott, Professor of European Union Studies at the University of Edinburgh, and Co-Director Europa Institute spoke on the legal and constitutional options for Scotland and the UK.  Drew is a member of the First Minister council of European advisers, but will be speaking in a personal capacity. 

Professor Christina Boswell, Director of Research, School of Social & Political Science, University of Edinburgh, covered the part immigration might play in the Brexit negotiations.

Nicola Sturgeon: An education system for everyone – the foundation of a fairer Scotland

Nicola Sturgeon: An education system for everyone - the foundation of a fairer Scotland

As part of the Politicians and Professionals Series 2015, the First Minister spoke to the David Hume Institute on 25 February 2015.