Richard Leonard
Scottish Labour · Scotland
“And yet we still hear calls, even during this stage 3 debate, in this, the third decade of the 21st century, in this Parliament, for the entitled voice of the laird and the privileged status of the landlord to be afforded their due place, as if they were a silent—they were an underrepresented—class in our society. If only they were.”
“It feels right to make my final speech in a debate led for Labour by Rhoda Grant, whose unswerving, loyal support to me in Parliament I have valued above all others’, and in a debate which, at its very essence, is about power, is about wealth, is about control and its ugly, unequal distribution.”
“Before I finish, before I leave for the very last time, I want to thank the outstanding people who have worked with me over the last 10 years: Billy McCauley, Thomas Mulvey, Craig Miller, Lesley Brennan, Lauren Harper, Linda Shevlin, Rich Simcox, and the one person who has been there from the very first to the very last, Mike Holmes.”
“So let me finish where it all began: two years after the very first crofters holdings act was passed, in direct response to the land raids, the forced Highland clearances, the battles against eviction—resistance often led by the women of the crofts—it was the crofters, led by their MP, Dr G B Clark, and the miners, led by Keir Hardie, who…”
“Eight years in the making, the Government has come up with a largely technical bill, which we will vote for, but it is the same formula that the Government has been habitually serving up—on the broader question of land reform, on a national care service, on community wealth building.”
“This is my last speech to Parliament as a member, after 10 years. As a back bencher and a front bencher, as a party leader and a committee convener, I have always tried to speak out not only for the labour and trade union movement who sent me here, but for all of those oppressed, denied justice, exploited, voiceless—and so, for those seas…”
The complete record
Every one of 399 lines we hold for Richard Leonard, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 8.
“I remind members of my voluntary register of interests. Scottish Water workers are on strike this week. On Tuesday night, Scottish Water’s chief executive turned up at pay talks with the trade unions for less than two minutes. If Scottish Water’s chief executive officer can scoop up almost half a million pounds a year, why can he not lead pay negotiations? So, will the First Minister instruct his acting cabinet secretary and direct the bosses of Scottish Water—whose inflation-busting salaries, bonuses, pensions and benefits he, as a minister, for more than a decade, personally supported and signed off—to do the job that they are lavishly rewarded for, enter meaningful negotiations this afternoon, make an acceptable offer and get this industrial dispute resolved once and for all?”
“To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions it has had regarding its support for humanitarian assistance, in light of reports of the increasing number of deaths in Gaza. (S6O- 04737)”
“To ask the Scottish Government how its policies to support Scottish culture and heritage ensure that the contribution of prominent figures, such as trade unionist, Michael McGahey, can be honoured. (S6O-04724)”
“We should have conviction in our politics and the courage of our conviction. These are questions not just about the future of this Parliament. These are not just operational matters. They are about the state of our democracy itself. History tells us that progress comes from below and that Parliaments have to catch up. I hope that this Parliament does catch up—with the people’s hunger for more active, popular democracy not just in our Parliament, not just in our politics, but in our economy as well. 15:27”
“We believe that diversity of background, of experience and of perspective strengthens parliamentary scrutiny, because the people who hold those in power to account should better reflect the people we are elected to serve. Here are some final thoughts from me, Deputy Presiding Officer. We have duties that we must discharge as representatives. I am elected on a party ticket—of course I am; I would not be a member of this Parliament had I not been a Labour candidate—but we were not elected to be robots, trembling before the party whips. Ultimately, we are responsible to ourselves, to our consciences, to our values, and that, in my view, should be better reflected in the way in which we conduct ourselves in committee and in this chamber. We are not managers or would-be managers. We are elected representatives.”
“That approach has been central to some of our most high-profile work—this week, once again, on the delays and escalating costs of the Glen Sannox and Glen Rosa ferries programme and, just last week, the publication of our report on the misuse of public money by the Water Industry Commission for Scotland. On the issue of elected conveners, our committee members held differing views, and we have submitted those individually, but on gender balance we were united. We support an end to single-sex committees. We would welcome positive action to ensure that a better gender balance exists across all the Parliament’s committees, but we also believe that this is about more than gender.”
“Instead, we hear principally from senior civil servants—the so-called accountable officers—from the Scottish Government and from public bodies. They are defined, incidentally, in the Scottish public finance manual as “accountable officers” whose accountability is to us—the Parliament, on behalf of the people—and not to Government. These are the people with direct responsibility for how public money is spent and how public services are delivered. That allows us, in turn, to ask questions about performance, outcomes and value for money without party politics dominating the room. It also helps us to focus on the evidence on whether service users—citizens—are getting what they have been promised.”
“Gaining expertise and building relationships takes time, but the experience that we have had in the Public Audit Committee is that only two of us are original members who have been there from the start of the session. That is not a criticism; it is simply an observation—and, for the record, I say to Mr Mason that it is not because of the unpopularity of the Public Audit Committee. Also for the record, it is not because those who have left have done so to take up ministerial posts—that might be a criticism, actually. In my view, the Parliament might wish to consider the benefits of locking in stable committee membership as much as possible. Our committee works differently from others in another significant way. Unlike most other committees, we do not routinely take evidence from ministers.”
“Stephen Kerr: Does that not highlight that the role of a member of the Scottish Parliament should transcend the party labels with which we are elected? Should we often not just junk the d’Hondt system? Should the jobs not be done by the best possible people to do them on behalf of the people of Scotland? Should that not be the criterion for the work of committees and for everything that we do as a Parliament? Richard Leonard: I will come on to discuss some of that at the end of my contribution, so I will hopefully answer Mr Kerr’s question with my perspective on that. Let me turn to something that has already come up and that I think is an issue. Low turnover in committee membership is, in my view, better for nurturing a collective and consistent approach.”
“The more popular committees—unlike his committee—such as the Education, Children and Young People Committee are the ones that everybody wants to be on. Richard Leonard: I am simply observing. In the previous parliamentary session, Mr Mason and I were both on the Economy, Energy and Fair Work Committee—Ash Regan was on it, too. It was quite a large committee and I have to say that, in the end, on quite a lot of reports, it broke down into tribalism and members voted along party lines. My experience on other committees in that session and on the Public Audit Committee in this session is that there tends to be much better cross-party working. I think that that is, in part but not exclusively, a function of the size of the committee.”
“It creates the time for more in-depth questioning of witnesses, and it helps to build trust and collaboration across party lines—something that is especially important in scrutiny work. With fewer voices in the room, we are able more easily to follow the evidence, and it allows committee members not just to ask one question, but to ask a second, a third or even a fourth follow-up question of the same witness. So, it leads to more thorough scrutiny and a more constructive tone. That is why we have said in our written submission that smaller, more focused committees could improve scrutiny right across the Parliament. John Mason: As Richard Leonard will gather, I, too, am a fan of smaller committees. How do we tie that in with party representation?”
“Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I will speak predominantly on behalf of the Public Audit Committee. The Public Audit Committee has submitted a formal response to the call for views in the SPPA Committee’s inquiry, but I want to take a few minutes to speak about the experience that the Public Audit Committee brings, because it does have a particular remit, it does have a distinctive structure and it does have a different way of working compared to most other committees in this Parliament. Let me begin by saying that our committee is smaller than most committees in the Parliament, with just five members, but we have found that not to be a weakness—it has proved to be a strength, because it gives every member the space to contribute properly every week.”
“I remain an inveterate and an unrepentant socialist, and I am convinced more and more that what we need is a social and an economic, not a constitutional, revolution; a challenge to landlordism; a revival of crofting; and a redistribution of wealth and power, instead of the perpetuation of this wholly unequal distribution of economic power and this wholly unequal distribution of wealth. I am convinced that all that people want from us, as members of this Parliament, is for us to act humanely, decently and democratically in the best interests of the people who sent us here, including all of those who live on our islands. 16:42”
“Kenneth Gibson: Is it not the case that all political parties supported the award of that contract in 2014, and what we have heard today is all about hindsight? Richard Leonard: No, it is not hindsight at all. When the Public Audit Committee of this Parliament looked into what happened around the award of the contract, it heard clear evidence that the First Minister stepped in at a point when the buyer and procurer—CMAL—was not happy with the terms of the deal. So, it is my contention—and, I think, the contention of the committee at that point—that the announcement was a premature announcement, and that is not the benefit of hindsight.”
“Nothing is more quintessentially Scottish than Scotland’s islands, and nothing is more important and necessary than a reliable transport service, a reliable ferry service—connectivity on and off our islands—and yet this Government cannot even get that right. As Rhoda Grant said, ferry disruption is growing, and the Government has only belatedly responded when there is a deep crisis. So, it is 18 years in office, and now 10 years since the bidding process closed on the two new ferries for the Clyde and Hebrides routes. In August of this year, it will be 10 years since the then First Minister jumped the gun, pulled rank on the then Minister for Transport and the Islands and announced the award as a “done deal” on a visit to the Ferguson Marine yard, even though “significant negotiations” were still to be concluded.”
“I hope that the conservative members of this Parliament, not all of them wearing a blue rosette, understand that we will never address these fundamental breaches of human rights—the right to health, to social care, to education, to be free of fuel poverty; the right to culture, to a home; the right to food, the clear breach of which is causing hunger, deprivation, even malnutrition on our islands in 2025—for as long as the rich remain so rich, because that is why the poor remain so poor. As many people have said this afternoon, Alex Rowley included, it is surely a central job of this Scottish Parliament and of this Scottish Government to focus on what is distinctively Scottish.”
“We know, as well, that there are still some old challenges to be overcome—illustrated all too vividly recently by the actions of the Clan Donald Lands Trust on the Isle of Skye. So, as the Labour amendment points out, island depopulation persists, and we now have a statutory island proofing policy. We have passed a law, but is it working? Kenny Gibson described it as a watershed but, as Beatrice Wishart reports, recalling evidence from SPICe, there is no record—no data—of island impact assessments being carried out. The Conservative Party amendment this afternoon refers to the excellent Scottish Human Rights Commission spotlight report into the Highlands and Islands, which concluded: “Across all rights examined, there is not a single human right that meets all the conditions of adequacy under international law.” Not one—not one.”
“Gigha, Eigg and Ulva are thriving in community ownership, and there is a co-operative tradition on our islands, so a community wealth-building approach, which we have not really heard of this afternoon, properly supported—properly resourced—by the Scottish Government could work. I would just say: look at the magnificent employee-owned Auchrannie resort on the Isle of Arran as an example. There have been cries this afternoon of “Islanders on the boards”, led by Fergus Ewing, but echoed by other speakers, Claire Baker included. I think that they are right and it is a perfectly reasonable demand to make, but, as Alex Rowley reminded us, simply having people on boards is not of itself sufficient. There needs to be a much greater level of islander engagement in decision making.”
“Well, there are risks as well as opportunities set out in this afternoon’s Government report. There are roadblocks on this road map, and they are listed: grid connection challenges; barriers to raising capital; funding delays and risks; shortages of labour, including of local tradespeople and skilled labour; insufficient local contractors; and the persistent concentration of land ownership question. All are set out clearly in this report. Now, in my view, these are not insurmountable. I was reminded just last night that 70 per cent of the population of the Western Isles now live on estates and land that are community owned.”
“Mr Leonard has to appreciate that we need the decisions on how, when and in what manner the scheme is progressed to be taken ahead of any funding discussions.”
“Climate change is not abstract or theoretical for the people and workers of Grangemouth; it is very real and its challenges are very practical. What we have heard this afternoon is that the Grangemouth scheme still has no confirmed Scottish Government funding and still has no access to the usual flood risk management funding mechanism. When can the Government give a cast-iron assurance that there will be sustainable funding for the scheme and an approach that sustains both the Firth of Forth special protection area, the Ramsar site and the site of special scientific interest, and the people who are living in the affected communities? Gillian Martin: I understand that members of the Scottish Parliament want cast-iron guarantees on an awful lot of things.”
“I remind members of my voluntary entry of trade union interests in the register of members’ interests. To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the economic impact of the closure of the Grangemouth oil refinery. (S6O- 04676)”
“On a point of order, Presiding Officer. My platform would not connect. If it had, I would have voted yes. The Deputy Presiding Officer: Thank you, Mr Leonard. I will make sure that that is recorded. [Interruption.] I can reassure Ms Baker that her vote has been counted.”
“It is no good saying, “We’ll carry out reviews and sort this out over the next five years.” We need a greater sense of urgency and an end to Scottish Government complacency. Otherwise, for these children and young people, it may be too late. We need to get it right for every child, but we also need to get it right for every child at the first time of asking. 16:09”
“We were even told that there is not a perfect correlation between deprivation and additional support needs, because “Orkney has high levels of ASN and low deprivation”,— [Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 7 May 2024; c 20.] which is to misrepresent, to distort, the overwhelming evidence that a link between poverty, inequality and learning is irrefutable and it is causal, and it is to negate everything that the Scottish Government has told the people and the Parliament for years about closing the educational attainment gap. We have legal obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, but we have enduring moral obligations, too. We need to get this right, because children are only five once, only eight once, only 11 once and only 15 once.”
“Yoshiko Gibo, a senior auditor, also told us: “The data that is currently available was designed as a way of monitoring whether the ASL legislation had been put in place as intended, not as a way of understanding children’s support needs.”—[Official Report, Public Audit Committee, 19 March 2025; c 8.] So, when the Scottish Government’s director general for education and justice gave evidence to the Public Audit Committee just seven days ago, he told us about the international experience. He told us that Scotland spends more per pupil than any other part of the UK and has lower pupil teacher ratios, but those are inputs, not outcomes.”
“Children in our most-deprived areas are twice as likely to need additional support for learning as children who live in the least-deprived areas, but as the Auditor General warned the Parliament when he gave evidence in March, “that is not reflected in how councils are funded for their education service”. Neither is it reflected in education planning, teacher training or class sizes. We learned, as well, that good-quality data does not exist. There are gaps and inconsistencies—in fact, to such an extent that Audit Scotland and the Accounts Commission could not undertake a full performance audit of additional support for learning in Scotland, as they originally intended, because the data was non-existent, inconsistent or unreliable.”
“Let me say at the very start that an evaluation of inclusion—of mainstreaming—two decades after the enactment of the Education (Additional Support for Learning) (Scotland) Act 2004 is one thing, but going back to the old systems of segregation, removal and exclusion is something we should not support. The presumption of mainstreaming is, in my view, correct. Equality, diversity and the comprehensive principle are correct—but, of course, there are some big questions. Over the past two decades, there has been an eightfold increase in the number of children and young people who need additional support for learning— some of it long term, some of it short term—and the need is not evenly spread.”
“The minister was asked about the level of farm incomes, but what about the distribution of farm incomes? When will the Scottish Government start to publish information about the end ownership and control of the recipients of farm support? Recipients and beneficiaries of public money should be a matter of public record. The minister must surely know that that was legislated for last year by Parliament. When will that finally be enacted by Government? Jim Fairlie: The distribution of farm support is a complex issue, because there are data protection issues. However, the distribution of £660 million into the rural economy will ensure that it has a bright future. Anaerobic Digestion Facilities 7.”
“To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to ensure everyone living and working in Scotland lives in accommodation that meets an adequate standard. (S6O-04597)”
“We have that granular level of detail, which allows us to triage an inquiry to understand what a business needs in order to progress—for some, it might be a site, and for others, it might be something else. Once we have identified that, we work round the clock to provide the support to accelerate any expressions of interest. As has been said, because we know that skills and knowledge are one of the aspects that those companies are most interested in, we want to ensure that, where there is interest, we can move at pace, so that people are re-employed as quickly as possible and the gap is shrunk. The Deputy Presiding Officer: That concludes the statement. To allow front-bench teams to change positions, there will be a short pause before we move to the next item of business. Motorists”
“I remind members of my voluntary register of trade union interests. Given that Petroineos has stated that it will not take forward any of the nine proposals in project willow, what contact, if any, has Scottish Enterprise had with new, serious potential investors? If there have been 66 related inquiries, how many of those will generate jobs, in what, and—critically—when? Kate Forbes: Of the 66 inquiries, which reach across the Grangemouth cluster, seven are willow technology-fit projects; 14 are non-willow technology-fit projects; three do not fit directly within willow projects, although we are still supporting any expressions of interest; one is an innovation project; and 41 are classified in other places in terms of different services, supply chain inquiries and so on.”
“I wrote down that the member asked another question about sustainable aviation fuel, but I do not recall what it was, so I will come to find him after this.”
“We do that by identifying the investable propositions as quickly as possible, securing any regulatory changes that are required, putting the money in and enabling new work to begin at the site as quickly as possible. That is possible, but it requires very clear prioritisation and focus. The member asked how many parties are interested in the site. I am afraid that I do not have the figures in front of me, but a report from SE and Petroineos indicates that the number of interested parties is above expectations, so there is more interest than they anticipated. I have also been engaging with a number of investors who have expressed interest. The issue is then turning the interest into specific proposals.”
“Kate Forbes: I thank the member for another series of questions, some of which I may not have scribbled down. On the first point, about the infrastructure, I think that Unite makes an excellent point, which is that we have seen previously that, when there is too long a gap in a site transitioning from one purpose to another, there are additional costs. That is why getting the project willow report published now, to give us an indication of where we might go, is important. It is an issue that we take seriously. The member knows that we have ensured that Unite the Union has been well integrated into project willow via regular standing committee meetings and so on. We are happy to continue to engage with the union. The member made a point about how we avoid a situation happening.”
“I remind members of my voluntary register of trade union interests. Yesterday afternoon, Unite the union was in Parliament, warning that, if the Grangemouth refinery is not repurposed, if it closes this year, the infrastructure will run down or disappear altogether, the workers will go and project willow, in their words, will be nothing more than a paper exercise. What action is the Deputy First Minister taking, even at this late stage, to prevent the refinery from closing down? Will she push Petroineos to co- operate with an urgent review of the assets at the refinery to see whether they can be converted to produce sustainable aviation fuel and, if so, at what cost? Finally, how many interested parties—I am not asking who they are—have now approached Scottish Enterprise about investing in the future of the Grangemouth site?”
“I remind members of my voluntary register of trade union interests. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on staffing at ScotRail ticket offices. (S6O-04530)”
“We can send a clear message to the UK Labour Government, which says that it is “committed to the continuous review” of NRPF, that it should not only support these measures but lift the pernicious ban on the right to work, and that it should scrap the no recourse to public funds rules completely. If it does not act, and if we do not act, the violence of this targeted austerity will continue to drive up the toll of human misery, destitution, sickness and even death. We can oppose this hostile environment. We can resist the politics of Nigel Farage and his imitators. We can move from defending alone to erupting with passion to break those walls down. We need to win this argument. We need to act. If we do not—if we give up—history will not forgive us. 18:08”
“That is why the new report by Jen Ang is so important: it concentrates not on what we cannot do under devolution, but on what we can do under devolution. We can provide free access to public transport. We can act under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 to create a Scottish hardship fund. We can ensure that those in need get access to legal aid. We can provide targeted housing and homelessness support. We can ensure that there is access to primary and secondary healthcare that is free at the point of need not only in theory but in practice. We can improve access to further and higher education.”
“At the point of the survey carried out for the 2024 report “Destitution by design”, 93 per cent of participants were experiencing homelessness; 97 per cent were destitute; and 82 per cent reported incomes of less than £60 per week. A third of all those surveyed reported that they had no income at all. They were eight times more likely than people in any other destitute cohort to be in temporary accommodation, and six times more likely to be sleeping rough. As the Scottish Refugee Council told me, they face violence and crime and, especially in the case of women, exploitation and prostitution. This is a stain on our society, and it is going on today—tonight—in this city and across this country, under our gaze. We cannot be bystanders.”
“It has been a standard visa condition since 1980, reinforced by statute in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, and doubled down on in the Social Security (Immigration and Asylum) Consequential Amendments Regulations 2000. When I met representatives of the Scottish Refugee Council on Monday, they told me that it means no access to housing benefit, universal credit or child tax credit, but so much more. Reporting from the front line, they said that there was anger, desperation and helplessness. It is no wonder that so many migrant families suffer from poor physical and mental health. Two thirds of those seeking safety and refuge are not permitted to work.”
“I thank Maggie Chapman for leading the debate, and I congratulate her on her recent election as the next rector of the University of Dundee. Linton Kwesi Johnson, in his poem “All Wi Doin is Defendin”, warns: “All oppression can do is bring passion to the heights of eruption”. What we are witnessing in the asylum system in this country are state-sponsored oppression, state-sponsored homelessness and state- sponsored destitution—destitution by design. These are deliberate political choices—not public finance or economic choices, but political choices—and those responsible should hang their heads in shame. It even has its own recognised abbreviation: NRPF—no recourse to public funds. It is even statutory, having been first established in legislation in the Immigration Act 1971.”
“It is up to local authorities to decide where they spend their money. Our building department colleagues have been discussing the matter with them on a regular basis, and we set up the Scottish building standards hub to listen to what they are saying on that point. On Mr Leonard’s point about evacuation, we have been working very closely with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service on person-centred risk assessment, as I mentioned in my statement. One of the key things is communication with residents on that point. The SFRS also carries out operational quality assurance visits to every high- rise domestic building in Scotland to check features such as fire doors, lifts and stairs. We continue to work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service on the point that Mr Leonard mentions.”
“It is a basic human right that people feel safe in their own homes, and yet the awful facts are that 40 per cent of people with a disability who lived in Grenfell tower died that night in 2017 and a quarter of all children who lived there died in Grenfell tower that night. To avoid a repeat of this tragedy, we need investment in not just building standards but building control. Local council departments that deal with this have been decimated, so how does the Scottish Government intend to ensure that, in line with the Grenfell tower inquiry phase 2 report recommendations, building control is properly resourced and supported to do its job? Paul McLennan: On the funding for that, there has been an increase in Government spending this year, with funding for local authorities increasing by a considerable amount.”
“We know that the UK Government has invested more than £50 million in Teesside through its advanced fuels fund. With sustainable aviation fuel being a clear recommendation in the project willow report, and with the support of Richard Leonard, I think that the UK Government needs to ensure that Scotland has the resources to manufacture SAF in Scotland. A couple of weeks ago, I was in London speaking to Michael Shanks precisely about policy changes that can be made in short order to accompany the funding that is being made available in short order.”
“Although the project willow report sets out some technologies that will take a little longer to develop, there is an opportunity now, and I repeat that the Scottish Government’s £25 million is there to be invested as quickly as possible. We have been pressing the UK Government to ensure that its £200 million is also made available as quickly as possible. Clearly, there are some projects that are near term, some of which I listed in my answer to Stephen Kerr. The UK Government has indicated its intention to bring forward a price certainty mechanism for the development of sustainable aviation fuel, which needs to be done with urgency. It is not just funding that needs to be made available as a matter of urgency; some policy changes also need to be made and can be made quickly.”
“I remind members of my voluntary register of trade union interests. Many of project willow’s outcomes are set in the medium term and even the long term, but, as Keynes said, “In the long run, we are all dead.” Four hundred and thirty-five refinery workers face immediate redundancy, and nearly 3,000 workers in the supply chain are at risk. Will the Scottish Government be prepared to start investing to save these jobs now, and will it work with others to convert the existing refinery to a sustainable aviation fuel and biofuel site now rather than wait to build from scratch? These workers, this community and our economy cannot wait—we need decisive action now. Kate Forbes: At the risk of agreeing with too many people, I agree with Richard Leonard that the challenges are being faced now.”
“Before MacDiarmid moved to Brownsbank cottage, he and Valda lived in the laundry cottage on the Duke of Hamilton’s estate at Dungavel. Dungavel, to our shame, continues today to be run as a detention centre for asylum seekers—a so-called immigration removal centre. I hope that, tonight, in this debate, we can resolve that, as well as keeping open Brownsbank, we also pledge to do everything that we can in the name of our common humanity to close down Dungavel and regain, in the words of Hugh MacDiarmid, “the grounds of our being”. [Applause.] The Deputy Presiding Officer: I again ask those in the public gallery not to applaud. This is a meeting in public, not a public meeting. I invite the cabinet secretary to respond to the debate. 17:33”
“There are anti-imperialist writings that bleed dangerously into an intolerable anglophobia but, as the late Stephen Maxwell put it—members of the SNP and Alba should heed this— MacDiarmid’s was a nationalism “to transcend nationality and to present Scotland not as the possessor of distinctive national qualities, but as an exemplar of universal intellect and aesthetic qualities, which rendered trivial all lesser distinctions.” I am pleased to support the motion and the Brownsbank cottage project, because we need to keep that flame of intellect and culture burning. Whether we consider MacDiarmid to be a communist at heart, a nationalist in his soul or simply one of the greatest poets of the 20th century, we need to remember him and celebrate him and the values that he stood for. That leads me to my final point.”
““Physical power”, he wrote, “Is a rough substitute for patience and intelligence, and co-operative effort in the governance of man”, and “killing is the ultimate simplification of life.” “The Kind of Poetry I Want”, MacDiarmid proclaimed, is “a poetry that stands for production, use, and life As opposed to property, profits and death.” He was at once an idealist and a realist, famously combining the two in the poem “Glasgow 1960”, published in 1935, in which he imagines crowds packed tight on buses and trams travelling to Ibrox stadium not for football but to watch a debate between intellectuals.”