Stephen Kerr
Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party · Scotland
“My first priority is to prevent crime before it happens and, as a consequence, to reduce the number of victims. Therefore, the Government will continue to intervene early to steer people away from crime and focus on areas such as substance dependency, health, poverty, homelessness and employability, which are all significant contributing…”
“Alongside more places, a smarter approach to custody is needed, and I remain committed to using all levers at our disposal, including continuing to expand the use of home detention curfew, which supports reintegration of individuals by providing for their structured return to the community.”
“I expect HMP Highland to be completed in spring 2027— which is later than planned, due to construction issues—and HMP Glasgow, which I visited last week, is due to be completed in 2028.”
“I recognise that the proposed changes are bold, and I hope that they can contribute to a thoughtful debate today on the consequences of not addressing the rise in our prison population. The outcomes of any sentence for a crime committed should be that justice is served and no further reoffending happens.”
“That is why my priority is the prevention of crime and further reoffending behaviour. That approach makes financial sense: every prison place costs us more than £52,000 a year; this financial year, we are spending nearly £510 million in resource funding for the Scottish Prison Service to run our jails.”
“Yi-pei Chou Turvey sums things up very well. This whole issue has been at the bottom of the to-do list—that is exactly where we are. The title of the Government’s motion, which is the subject of today’s debate, is: “Achieving a sustainable prison population”. We can all share that perfectly reasonable objective.”
The complete record
Every one of 1,212 lines we hold for Stephen Kerr, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 25.
“We might be requiring an individual to undergo invasive and risky medical procedures that they had made a conscious decision not to undergo—I know that Daniel Johnson would not wish that to happen. On the inclusion of the term “suffering intolerably”, I am concerned that the definition is somewhat subjective and appears to be limited to physical pain.”
“I understand Daniel Johnson’s intention, but I am concerned that his definition includes a requirement that treatments that are “reasonably available and acceptable to the person” must “have lost … beneficial impact”. I acknowledge that amendment 1 would place emphasis on what the person finds to be acceptable treatment. However, the requirement that those treatments have lost “beneficial impact” would mean that, if someone wished to refuse treatment such as chemotherapy because they no longer found it acceptable due to the side effects, the fact that the chemotherapy might still have a “beneficial impact” could mean that they might not be deemed eligible for an assisted death.”
“15:00 I say all of that as a preamble to, I hope, softening the blow of confirming that I cannot support his amendments in this group. I remain of the view that the definition of terminal illness as set out in the bill is appropriate. Adding subjective terms such as “suffering intolerably”, as amendment 136 would do, is likely to add confusion. Jackie Baillie’s concerns are probably valid in that respect, too. That is perhaps illustrated by the attempt to define the term in amendment 1. The terms “advanced” and “progressive” are well understood by medical professionals, as the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee heard in evidence, and there are good reasons not to circumscribe those terms.”
“I also thank my own team, which has been supporting me and—over recent days and throughout the process—other colleagues and their offices in relation to the bill. I reciprocate Daniel Johnson’s generous comments by thanking him for the constructive engagement that we have had on the issue throughout the process. As he has ably demonstrated, he might be able to lay claim to being the only member of this Parliament who has read the legislation not only from the Australian Capital Territory and New Zealand but, I am fairly sure, from New South Wales, Western Australia and Oregon as well. He has lodged amendments at stage 2 and now at stage 3 that have enabled debate and allowed Parliament to take a view on some pretty key issues, and for that I am grateful.”
“We intend to provide an assessment of the bill as amended ahead of that final vote—as we have done at the stage 2 and stage 3 amending stages—and to provide commentary only on areas of legislative competence, legal or deliverability challenges and major financial implications. Now that I have given that explanation, I confirm that I have no specific comments on the amendments in the group. Liam McArthur: I start by echoing Pam Duncan-Glancy’s comments about the way in which colleagues across the board, irrespective of their position on the bill, have engaged with it over the past four and a half years. I also echo her thanks not just to the legislation team but to the non-Government bills unit, which has been performing heroics.”
“Can the cabinet secretary confirm that the use of a section 104 order means that part of the bill will be subject to secondary legislation? Neil Gray: How the section 104 process is to be delivered depends on the vehicle that is decided on. That could potentially be through secondary legislation, but it could be through other means. It depends on the vehicle that is negotiated on and on what the UK Government agrees to by negotiation, if the bill is passed. Although amendments that are lodged are not required to be competent, I encourage members to consider our responsibility for ensuring that legislation is within our competence. As members are aware, there will be a gap between the stage 3 amendments being debated and the final debate and vote on the bill next Tuesday.”
“We will not change the global climate by hollowing out our industrial base, but we will make ourselves poorer, more dependent and less secure. Energy policy is not simply an environmental issue. It is about national resilience, economic strength and security of supply, and we need a reset. 16:18”
“[Interruption.] I am being a bit loud, but if we cannot get excited about what is happening to our economy because of the arbitrary targets that have been set, what can we get excited about? The whole basis of our country—our economy, our society and our public services—depends on our willingness to ensure that our economy is well founded and that it grows. I am well over time. Am I being told that I must close? The Deputy Presiding Officer: You should begin to wind up. Stephen Kerr: I will—[Interruption.] That is a separate matter. I will finish by saying that the Scottish Conservatives are not in climate denial, as Keith Brown suggested. We are calling for responsible government. Scotland accounts for a tiny fraction of global emissions.”
“The reality is that we are deindustrialising our economy while we are industrialising our countryside. We see turbines, pylons and substations spreading across rural Scotland, yet we import the steel, the turbines and the workers to install them. That is not green prosperity—we are exporting value and importing dependency. Other members have mentioned the cost of electricity—indeed, I mentioned it in an intervention on Douglas Lumsden. I wanted to intervene on the cabinet secretary, too. She was not wrong in what she said about the cost of electricity. We have the most expensive electricity in the western developed world. How is our business base—our industrial base—expected to prosper?”
“I am happy to give way to my fellow committee member Sarah Boyack. Sarah Boyack: I absolutely agree that we need more investment in industrial capacity. Does the member agree that we need to have the ability to produce components for wind farms in Scotland? There were huge opportunities to build turbines. We had one plant, which closed. We need more such plants, because we must create more joined- up economic opportunities if we are to build the country that we need. Stephen Kerr: Sarah Boyack is right. We keep saying that the opportunity will lie in the onshore supply chain, but it is not there. We keep saying that we need to have an onshore supply chain, but we do not take the public policy decisions that are necessary to drive, invite and attract such investment into our country.”
“Members should ask the workers at Grangemouth or Mossmorran, or those in the oil and gas sector in the north-east, whether that feels like a just transition. They see their jobs disappearing faster than any serious alternative is being created. That is what Professor de Leeuw said in his letter to our committee. I hope that I may share what he said with the chamber; I have been told that I am not supposed to have a prop. He said that Scotland was losing more of its supply chain and workforce capacity than was being replaced by offshore wind and carbon capture and storage. He argued that strategic investment at scale, ahead of final approval of projects, was now required. He observed that, between now and the early 2030s, the majority of wind activities would not be in Scotland but in the rest of the world.”
“By the way, David Thomson of the Food and Drink Federation Scotland said that his members “would probably struggle to see … a link between the plan and the actions, whether financial support, policy support or legislative support”.—[Official Report, Economy and Fair Work Committee, 7 January 2026; c 11, 20.] They are not joined up. The targets may well be clear, but the pathway is not. Let us be honest about how Scotland—this goes for the UK, too—has reduced its industrial emissions. Since 1990, emissions from industry have fallen sharply, but not because we have cracked the code of industrial decarbonisation. The primary reason for that is that, all too often, plants such as steelworks and paper mills have been closed. Now, refineries and chemical facilities are shutting. Emissions have been cut by shutting down industry.”
“It is light on detail, heavy on assumption and dangerously detached from economic reality. One of the memorable pieces of evidence to our committee was given by Professor Paul de Leeuw, who I think summed it up rather well when he said that, when he was reading the plan, he had “a little Ikea moment. I know what the starting point is, which is a flat pack, and I know what the end point looks like, which is net zero, but what I am missing is the instructions and the plan in the middle.” That was a very succinct and to-the-point comment that summarises all the evidence that we received as a committee in relation to the plan.”
“I think that the only party that is not represented is the Liberal Democrats—everyone else is represented. What does it say in here? Let me tell members what my conclusion from the document is— The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Kerr, I will give you a little latitude, but would you stop waving your props around? Stephen Kerr: I am not allowed to use props. Underneath this lectern, then, I have in my hand a letter that contains the report of the committee. We were told that the climate change plan is a serious blueprint for delivering net zero by 2045. However, after the evidence that we heard in the Economy and Fair Work Committee, I cannot accept that description. What we have is not a credible climate change plan; it is an emissions reduction wish list.”
“Since he was watching “Debate Night” last night, he will know that I asked whether the Conservative Party still—or again—believes in climate change and the need to address it. Stephen Kerr: We have never disguised the fact that—it is in the name of the party, actually— we believe in conserving our natural environment. Of course we do. However, we are saying that we need to wake up and look at the arbitrary targets that we set and what they are doing to our economy. That is what I want to get on to—that is the thrust of what this debate should be about. The debate is about the draft climate change plan that we have been reviewing. I have in my hand the Economy and Fair Work Committee’s submission, which is an excellent piece of work by all the committee members, including those from other parties.”
“He comes from a position of angst about the state of what is happening in the north-east’s economy. Keith Brown: Will the member give way? Stephen Kerr: I will come to Keith Brown in a moment. Actually, Douglas Lumsden was only quoting the words of John Swinney, who used that very term in First Minister’s questions. We thought that that was slightly at the edge of things; we have not forgotten it and nor shall we. I give way to Keith Brown. Keith Brown: It is interesting that we have a new floor for parliamentary language and that, once again, that floor has been set by the Conservatives. I go back to the point that Stephen Kerr made. I did not realise that he was my number 1 fan and was following my media appearances, but I thank him for that.”
“Stephen Kerr: The Conservatives had a plan to end it, and the Scottish Conservatives had a plan to end it for very much longer—something that, at the time, we made very clear through our then leader and our collective voice. I am sorry for Kevin Stewart—I know where his constituency interests lie and I could see the pain that he felt when I brought up what Keith Brown, the deputy leader of the SNP, said on “Debate Night” last night about being against exploration licences and extracting the energy resources that are right there within British territorial waters—the same energy resources that Norway is successfully making the best of. I could also sense that members were upset because my friend Douglas Lumsden called the SNP a “disgusting” party.”
“Kevin Stewart was among them, and he often gets up to say, “Oh, the EPL is a terrible thing.” They were the ones who wanted it, and they were the ones who wanted to extend it, but we are the ones who have been clear for a very long time that we want it ended. Kevin Stewart: I remind the member that it was a Conservative Government that introduced the energy profits levy, at a time when energy profits were extremely high because of the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine. Times have changed dramatically. That was supposed to be for the short term, but that short term is now long term. The EPL needs to go. The Conservatives should have ended it; they did not. Now, Labour must end it to save jobs in Aberdeen, the north-east and beyond. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Mr Kerr, I can give you the time back.”
“Thank you for allowing me around six minutes, Presiding Officer. I know that we get slightly overexcited on this side of the chamber on certain subjects, but nothing quite triggers Conservative MSPs like listening to SNP members wax lyrical, with great virtue oozing from their pores, about the energy profits levy. SNP members must think that we have no memory. We remember—in fact, it is recorded in the Official Report—that they were clamouring for an excess profits levy on the energy companies. They were clamouring for it. In fact, not only did they want an excess profit levy on the energy companies, they wanted such levies on a bunch of other companies in other sectors as well, such was their desire to tax the capitalist organisations that were making money.”
“will be far more expensive and damaging to the public finances than investing in net zero ... it is simply not an option.””
“Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention? Gillian Martin: I am over time, so I will go to the end of my speech. We have consistently raised the issue that we are already getting on with delivery. That is why the Scottish budget allocated record funding of more than £5 billion for activities that have a positive impact on Scotland’s climate change goals. The budget also included new measures to reduce carbon emissions and ensure that the polluter pays, including through a new tax on private jet use. That demonstrates our commitment to delivering a just transition. It is not just about the associated costs. It is not even just about the cost benefits. I end with the words of Graeme Roy, the chair of the Scottish Fiscal Commission, who said: “not responding to the challenge of climate change ...”
“Shirley-Anne Somerville: The Scottish Government very much encourages people to get back to work, which is one reason why we have a lower unemployment rate in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. My colleagues were shouting “human beings” because we need to remember that these payments go to some of the most vulnerable individuals in our society. It is important to have the context in this. The proportion of the Scottish Government resource budget that is needed over and above the funding that is received from the UK Government through the block grant adjustment to meet the Scottish Fiscal Commission’s forecast will be around 1.7 per cent each year from 2026- 27 to 2029-30. Renewable Energy Infrastructure (North East Scotland) 2.”
“That nonsense is all too predictable from Scottish National Party members and ministers. Let us look at the facts. There is no sustainable way to fund— [Interruption.] I do not know what they are shouting “human beings” at. They just want to spout about independence, and I want to talk about helping people get back into work, because there is currently no sustainable way to fund the ballooning costs of benefits. The SNP spends £1 in every £7 on welfare. By 2030, the cost will hit £10 billion, with 1 million Scots receiving benefits by that date. Should the Scottish Government not have some ambition to help our country get back to work by planning to reduce the benefits bill and to help people get back to work?”
“To ask the First Minister, in light of the recently published commission on school reform manifesto warning that the curriculum for excellence has been poorly implemented and is harming long- term prospects, what the Scottish Government’s position is on whether a lack of clear, nationally specified curriculum content and standards has contributed to declining attainment and inconsistency across Scotland’s schools. (S6F- 04723)”
“We need a joined-up approach to mental health management, so that police officers do not become de facto mental health practitioners. They are not trained to do that. I hope that Neil Gray will accept the reality that, as his party has been in office for nearly 20 years, ministers cannot default to defensiveness. Leadership means facing hard truths. It means capacity and workforce planning and dealing with the future, not just today’s crisis. We have seen the numbers for today—there are record levels of waits in A and E. We must see change; we must be grounded in realism; we must take responsibility; and, collectively, we must encourage the Government to have the courage to change course. 17:48”
“However, that policy does not work in practice. If a parent cannot find an open pharmacy, they will—as is rational—go to A and E. We need round-the-clock access to pharmacies, clear signposting and a public campaign to shift behaviour; otherwise, A and E will remain overwhelmed. I will raise one more issue in the time that I have. A small minority of people behave disgracefully in our emergency departments—they intimidate the staff and harass other patients. That is unacceptable. Abuse and violence must carry visible consequences. Zero tolerance must mean zero tolerance. My colleague Sharon Dowey raised another subject, which was also raised by the chief constable yesterday. Too many police officers are stationed in emergency departments for entire shifts to deal with people experiencing mental health crises.”
“I saw professionalism under strain; I saw calm, decency and commitment; and I saw staff doing their absolute best in circumstances that would stretch any workforce in any setting. They deserve our gratitude, but appreciation is not a strategy. As has been repeated by a number of colleagues in the debate, the central issue is flow. Bed occupancy is persistently high; patients cannot move on; treatment areas are backed up; ambulances are queueing; and corridor care becomes normalised. Bed occupancy should be treated as a front-line accountability measure. If hospitals are routinely operating beyond safe margins, ministers must answer for that. There is accountability. The pharmacy first approach needs to be reinforced. Pharmacists are highly trained clinicians and, for minor conditions, they are the right first call.”
“Stephen Kerr: That is what our constituents expect of us, and I hope that the cabinet secretary accepts that we are expressing a genuine level of concern on our constituents’ behalf. Those constituents are not just patients and not just staff; they are staff and patients. Tim Eagle was right to say that we are not seeing enough change. We should not pretend that there is change when there is not change. He pointed out some of the ridiculous executive decisions that have been made about, for example, reducing the presence of minor injuries units in parts of Scotland and closing community hospitals. Over Christmas and new year, I spent several hours in the emergency department at Forth Valley royal hospital with a family member. I have spoken directly to the senior leadership of NHS Forth Valley about what I saw.”
“I made the point about the narrative because, last week, Paul Sweeney, Gillian Mackay, Clare Haughey and I were in a meeting with senior medics and medical representatives about workforce planning and the future of the medical workforce, and one of the asks that was made of all politicians was for a more respectful narrative about our health service. That is why I said that it is important that we do not scaremonger. Of course we need to address the challenges—I will come to that in my speech—but that is why I made the point that I did to Jackie Baillie. Stephen Kerr: I dispute the suggestion that we are scaremongering. We are bringing the voices of our constituents to the chamber, and that is exactly what they expect of us. [Interruption.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: Cabinet secretary, please let Mr Kerr continue.”
“I say well done to Jackie Baillie for bringing the debate to the chamber, but I am incredibly disappointed with the cabinet secretary. I like Neil Gray—I hope that he knows that—but I have to say that he let himself down with his intervention on Jackie Baillie. Trying to police the language that we use or the subjects that we debate is not the way forward; he is better than that. Neil Gray: Will the member take an intervention? Stephen Kerr: I will, but the cabinet secretary does not need to be so defensive about the issue. Part of the way to deal with it is to be completely open about what is happening and the fact that we are in a crisis situation. Neil Gray: I accept Stephen Kerr’s point, as I do Jackie Baillie’s point: that there are too many people waiting for too long in accident and emergency departments.”
“She tells me often what a demanding, difficult and high-level job it is, but she does not often recognise the negative political discourse that she hears in the Parliament. The lesson of that for us is that we all have to come together—both the governing party, whoever that is, and the Opposition parties—and work together to find solutions to what is a very difficult issue that is affecting A and E departments everywhere in the UK, not just in Scotland. We need to make our A and E departments better, and we need to do so by working together. 17:24”
“The situations in which people attend A and E—I have had cause, in the past year or so, to be in A and E with a family member—can be quite frightening, and they can be busy and difficult places. There is a lot going on, and people may be seen in different places in an A and E department. They are difficult places, but there is a lot of good stuff going on in the national health service in Scotland in general that I think will bear fruit for A and E departments as well. As the cabinet secretary said in his intervention, we cannot forget the absolutely fantastic staff who work in A and E under pressure. One of our good family friends has been the head of A and E at Wishaw general—another NHS Lanarkshire resource—and I have had many discussions with her over the years.”
“Will the member give way? Fulton MacGregor: I have quite a lot to get through. It depends on how strict the Deputy Presiding Officer is going to be with time. The Deputy Presiding Officer: A lot of members want to speak, and I am keen that they all get a chance to have their four minutes. Fulton MacGregor: I will continue on just now, then—sorry, Mr Kerr. We also need to be more innovative with new solutions that are out there to enable people to look after their own healthcare. Those are all things that the Scottish Government is doing. Sometimes, in my view, people think mainly about A and E when they think about healthcare, because it is perhaps the only place, other than their GP surgery, that they access.”
“Any award proceeds following the completion of detailed legal, commercial and subsidy control assessments—that is a fairly ordinary, normal part of the work that Government does, and engagement with the CMA forms part of that process. We are setting out today our proposal to directly award four new vessels to the yard, so that is not really up for debate.”
“Kate Forbes: I can unequivocally say that the orders are not dependent on the distribution of the £14.2 million, but we know that that can run alongside the projects. In my earlier answer to Edward Mountain, I was referring to the fact that we need to be able to demonstrate income if we are going to provide funding—that is a fairly basic element of subsidy control. We cannot simply give funding without there being an obvious source of revenue for the yard. That is the point that I was making—it is not that the vessels are dependent on the £14.2 million. With regard to the announcement today, I have announced our proposal to directly award four new vessels—to which I have referred—to Ferguson Marine.”
“I am not entirely sure what we have heard in the announcement, because so much of what the Deputy First Minister has said seems to be uncertain. Indeed, she did not properly answer Jamie Greene’s question. It sounds to me like a statement of the direction of travel, or some kind of indication of an intention, rather than the announcement of an actual award. That is probably down to the fact that the £14.2 million is subject to subsidy control and the orders are dependent on that funding. Can the Deputy First Minister assure members that this is not yet another false dawn for Ferguson Marine and that there is not legal advice that may yet block the intention from becoming a reality?”
“To ask the Scottish Government for what reason the March 2025 memorandum relating to the Peter Murrell case was not referenced by the Lord Advocate during her appearance last week when answering an urgent question from Michael Marra MSP regarding her briefing of the First Minister.”
“The Fraser of Allander institute has warned that underlying deficits “cannot be relied on indefinitely.” Those are not ideological critiques but economic realities, and Scotland deserves better than drift. 17:21”
“Without growth, there is no sustainable funding for public services; without productivity, there is no rising prosperity; without enterprise, there is nothing to redistribute—yet the Government continues to assume that wealth can be shared before it is created, taxation can be pushed higher without behavioural consequence and structural deficits can be managed indefinitely through short-term adjustments. Ivan McKee: Will Stephen Kerr give way? Stephen Kerr: I would love to take that intervention, but I think that I have only 30 seconds left. Echoing the words of Liz Smith and Craig Hoy, I say that independent voices are warning us that one-off fixes will not correct the permanent pressures that are built into what is a reckless budget.”
“As I have mentioned, our country is the highest- taxed part of the United Kingdom. Businesses operate in an environment of increased complexity and uncertainty. Investment decisions are made with one eye on the tax differential and another on regulatory risk. This is a Government that likes to meddle. That is not how to build the most competitive economy in these islands. Growth is not an optional extra but the foundation of everything else.”
“What is the Government’s response to the situation that I have set out? The budget does not represent reform, renewal or a serious plan for growth. It is a continuation of the model that prioritises ever-rising spending, ever-rising taxation and an ever-expanding state without a credible plan for how it will all be paid for in the medium term. Welfare spending continues to rise sharply. We all accept the duty that we have to support those who are in genuine need. However, when commitments grow faster than the tax base that funds them and long-term liabilities are locked in without structural reform, that is not compassion secured but a bill deferred—and deferred bills always come due. That is what the independent economists are pointing out to the SNP Government.”
“It says that Scotland will continue to run an underlying deficit and that the current approach “cannot be relied on indefinitely.” Those are the words that I think that my colleague Craig Hoy referred to earlier. While I am talking about my colleagues, and given that everyone is giving congratulatory nods in different directions, it would be completely remiss of me not to mention Liz Smith, whose speech in this debate was a masterpiece. She forensically handled the detail of the budget bill, as she has done on all the occasions that she has spoken on the public finances in the Parliament. She will be badly missed when she leaves the Parliament. None of us knows who will be in the next session of Parliament—that is a fair point— but some people who we know are leaving will be sadly missed.”
“Equality of opportunity is the bedrock of the Conservative Party’s position in respect of economic growth and the opportunities that it will create for all the people of Scotland. The red warning lights are very real, and the warnings are not coming only from us. Jamie Hepburn might wish to listen to this, because it is not the Conservative Party speaking about this; it is the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Maybe he does not respect the Institute for Fiscal Studies, but I certainly do. It warns of a “significant slowdown in funding growth” and cautions that repeated reliance on carried- forward funding is a problem. The Fraser of Allander Institute reaches the same conclusion.”
“By the way, the Government’s position also used to be that the way to reduce child poverty and all forms of poverty is to help people into good jobs. It remains the Conservative Party’s position. There are alarm bells and red warning lights— Jamie Hepburn: Will the member give way? Stephen Kerr: I will, but please be brief. Jamie Hepburn: Why, if the Conservatives’ priority is to get people into good work as the means to alleviate poverty and get children out of poverty, did child poverty increase under the previous Conservative Government? Stephen Kerr: We can have a big debate about what has happened in the past. If that is what the member wants to talk about, that is fine, but I want to talk about the budget and the state of our country. I want to talk about the inequality of opportunity in our country.”
“John Mason: Does the member accept that, in comparison with other European countries, this is a low-tax country? Stephen Kerr: I am comparing our country with the rest of the United Kingdom, of which we are the highest-taxed part. That creates an economic disadvantage for Scotland as a place in which to live, work, build a business and employ people. Those are real issues in the real economy that the party of Government ignores. Let us talk about the benefits bill, which is spiralling. Public services are under strain and the economy is stagnating but, instead of tackling those core challenges, ministers boast about increasing welfare spending. The Conservatives believe that the way to help people out of poverty is by providing them with the means to work. We believe in employment.”
“Well, that was phony rhetoric from Jamie Hepburn. Of course we recognise the excellence of the college sector, but we also believe colleges when they tell us that there has been a 20 per cent real-terms cut in their budgets in the lifetime of this parliamentary session. That is what we, as Conservatives, reject. This issue is all about priorities. The SNP might not like to hear this, but I am afraid that government is about choices. Let us look at what we have because of this budget. What do we remain with? High tax, low growth, rising spending, shrinking ambition—that is certainly the case from the SNP when it comes to Scotland—and absolutely no willingness to confront the structural weaknesses in our public finances. The country, and especially its finances, are in a mess of this Government’s making.”
“We will remember them, and we will not forget what they secured for us—our freedom. 18:51”
“Some 35,000 people were left homeless, yet, the next morning, people dug, rescued, cleared and began to rebuild. The crew of the Polish destroyer that was docked at John Brown’s yard for refitting manned their guns that night and fired back. They stood their ground. That generation understood evil, because it fell from the sky on to their homes. They knew what Adolf Hitler and his gangsters represented— tyranny, racial hatred, the crushing of liberty—and they defeated it. They endured the bombs, they buried their dead, they rebuilt their town, they refused to be broken. We stand here today because they did that. We honour the 528 people who were killed that night in Clydebank. We honour those who were injured. We honour the homeless. We honour a generation that faced down violence and terror and prevailed.”
“Their home was obliterated—brick, timber and dust filled the air, and a fractured pipe began to flood the shelter. My mother told me and my sister many times how she sat in the darkness, hearing the crash of masonry above her, and kept saying to her mother, who was praying for the family, “Pray louder, mummy. Pray louder.” For six hours they were buried in the rubble, and, when they were finally dug out, cold and soaked, my grandfather, who had been on duty as an air raid warden, was there in what had become a smoking ruin. She remembered being lifted from the rubble and passed into his arms. She carried that night with her for the rest of her life— interestingly, not with bitterness but with gratitude. Clydebank endured that horror on an even greater scale.”
“Incendiaries were dropped first, to set the town ablaze, followed by high explosives and parachute mines to finish the job. That was calculated and deliberate—it was the work of a regime that believed that terrorising civilians would break a nation’s will. It did not. For me, this commemoration is personal. My mother was six years old when her own street in Birmingham was bombed from 19 to 20 November 1940. She lived in a small back-to-back house beside St Andrews football ground. That night, there was no siren and no warning. She remembered her mother suddenly shouting, with absolute authority, “Get out—into the shelter.” There was no visible threat, but she and the other children in the family obeyed. They hurried into the Anderson shelter at the back of the house and, moments later, the bomb struck.”