David Mundell
MP for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale · Conservative · United Kingdom
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan), not just for her thoughtful contribution but for securing this debate. It is so important that we take every opportunity we can to shine a light on this conflict.”
“Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds). I am sure that the new Minister, whom I welcome to her post, will do likewise. Nevertheless, as I said, Sudan remains chronically under-reported.”
“I absolutely agree. I—and the Minister, I am sure—would like the Quad that was established to be more effective in relation to the involvement of the United States and neighbouring countries, with those neighbouring countries playing a positive role rather than supporting the protagonists in the conflict. As the right hon.”
“As UN Security Council penholder, the UK has a distinct moral and diplomatic duty to lead these negotiations at the upcoming UN General Assembly and press relentlessly for a humanitarian truce, a permanent ceasefire, robust civilian protection, civic engagement and unhindered aid access.”
“I recognise that the Minister and her colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office must navigate delicate regional dynamics, but the Government must not shy away from forcefully challenging the covert actions of some of our Gulf allies in Sudan, both publicly and in private diplomacy.”
“We saw the horrific realities of the crisis just two weeks ago with the totally unacceptable attack on a World Food Programme convoy in Kordofan. Civilian personnel were injured and lifesaving aid was destroyed.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,497 lines we hold for David Mundell, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 66 of 70.
“I am pleased to have secured the opportunity to mark in the House the 250th anniversary of the birth of Thomas Telford. I see this Adjournment debate as a contribution to the celebration of the life and legacy of an outstanding man, not just of his time but as one whose work has shaped his profession to this day, and many of whose engineering feats are still in use centuries later. There is absolutely no doubt that Scotland would not be the place it is today without Thomas Telford. His work literally opened up the highlands with more than 900 miles of new roads, hundreds of bridges and ferry landing piers, and dozens of churches. Indeed, the work enabled the transportation of goods and people across the whole of Scotland, facilitating many aspects of the industrial revolution.”
“It will be an honour for me to hand over a copy of Hansard from this debate to be kept in the Telford room of Langholm town hall as a record of this debate, as just one of the many events marking the 250th anniversary of a truly remarkable man.”
“A Telford family history day will be held and a piece of music to mark the anniversary has been commissioned and is being composed by Jamie Telford—no relation—which will be performed for the first time at a concert to be held on 8 September in the Buccleuch centre in Langholm by the Langholm pipe, flute and brass bands. I am sure the Minister will join me in applauding the considerable volunteer effort being put into the project to commemorate the anniversary at Telford’s birthplace. To conclude, in his will Telford left moneys for the establishment of libraries in both Westerkirk and Langholm, and both are still there today.”
“Back in Eskdale, in the muckle toon of Langholm and the parish of Westerkirk, the Langholm and Westerkirk Thomas Telford anniversary group, under the able stewardship of Margaret Sanderson and supported by the Langholm Initiative, are to be commended for having raised funding of more than £30,000 to organise a number of events, including holding a church service, creating a Langholm and Westerkirk Thomas Telford trail, which includes a cairn and plaque to be unveiled on 9 August at Glendinning, Westerkirk, a brochure, new interpretation boards, an audio guide created by Langholm Academy pupils, and a new web page.”
“Yesterday, a Telford conference took place in Edinburgh, addressed by His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. Shropshire has already paid its greatest tribute to its first county surveyor from the 1780s by naming a town and several schools after him. Local communities there are holding many events over the summer to mark the anniversary, and I applaud particularly the work of the Telford and Wrekin council and was pleased to sign the early-day motion lodged by the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright).”
“Special activities for students this year include a series of new engineering teaching resources, and debating scenarios for citizenship lessons, involving political and ethical civil engineering issues. Apparently, the scenarios include the case for and against road pricing. In Scotland, both in Eskdale and as part of the “highland promise” project, a touring scale model suspension bridge with a span of 30 ft is assembled by groups of pupils, who get a real sense of construction and of the engineering principles behind the bridge. It is appropriate to recognise the other work that the institution is doing to mark the 250th anniversary. There is an informative website, an exhibition at the Guildhall art gallery between 19 July and 2 September, and a wreath-laying ceremony at Westminster abbey.”
“He also held sway in the House, not least because of his reputation for delivering road and bridge-building schemes on time and to budget—a lesson that many politicians could learn. It is clear from the minutes of Select Committees at the time that Thomas Telford’s professional opinion was given significant weight when it came to the allocation of public funding. As a largely self-taught man, Telford was passionate about education and supporting training, and he was a strong advocate of apprenticeships. That is reflected in the extensive education programme promoted today by the Institution of Civil Engineers. The institution is looking to highlight Telford’s contribution to engineering over the past 250 years, but it also seeks to inspire a new generation of engineers for the next 250 years.”
“The suspension bridge over the Menai Strait to Anglesey is a world-famous structure that still carries heavy traffic today, and it was a remarkable achievement at the time. The Caledonian canal is 60 miles long and stretches from Inverness to Fort William, and it is recognised as one of the great waterways of the world. The canal was instrumental in the development of the highland economy, and it facilitated trade between east and west, as well as with Germany, Holland and the Scandinavian countries. Telford’s work can be seen outside the United Kingdom in the Gota canal in Sweden—a project that he surveyed in 1808 and instructed a team of engineers to carry out, via correspondence. It was completed in 1832. Telford was consulted by Governments, including those of Russia and Austria, for help in planning new roads and bridges.”
“I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. As I said, Telford was truly a great Briton; his works extended to Wales, to London and Portsmouth in England, and to the highlands of Scotland. Indeed, one of his great works was to ensure a mail route from London to Ireland. He was referred to as “pontifex maximus” for his considerable proficiency in building bridges, and in 1820 he was appointed the first president of the Institution of Civil Engineers. He held the post until his death in 1834. He built his reputation on craftsmanship, as is demonstrated by the variety of projects that he undertook. Those projects include the Menai Strait and Conway bridges, the renovation of Shrewsbury castle, the Caledonian canal, St. Katherine’s dock, which has been mentioned, and the stunning Pontcysyllte aqueduct over the River Dee.”
“May I associate Conservative Members with the Secretary of State’s comments about Lord Ewing? I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that one aspect of the Act of Union to be particularly celebrated is the retention of Scotland’s distinct legal system. So like me and Jack McConnell, was he appalled by the Prime Minister’s apparent willingness to ride roughshod not just over the Scottish legal system but over the whole devolution settlement in seeking to agree a prisoner exchange deal with Libya? What hope can we have for the continuation of the Act of the Union if the First Minister and the Prime Minister do not even communicate?”
“Is it not about time that the Secretary of Scotland showed his commitment to the Union in deeds, not words?”
“What is not consistent with the devolution settlement is the discourtesy that was shown to the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive by the Prime Minister in failing to raise this issue before he began the discussions. Does the Secretary of State agree that the best way to celebrate the Union is to demonstrate our commitment to it in all our actions? Surely that means that when a memorandum of understanding is signed between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations it should be adhered to; that when a joint ministerial committee is set up, it meets; that when Scotland elects a First Minister, the Prime Minister speaks to him; and that if the intergovernmental relations as previously envisaged are not fit for purpose, they are revised.”
“The Minister will be aware that the subject of the elections was raised at First Minister’s questions in the Scottish Parliament on 31 May, when the First Minister referred to his telephone discussions with the Secretary of State. Although I am pleased to learn that they were cordial, the First Minister also indicated his intention to push for “a more thorough and independent inquiry”—[ Scottish Parliament Official Report , 31 May 2007; c. 316.]— into the Scottish election debacle. Will the Secretary of State and the Minister accede to that request?”
“Instead, the Secretary of State has sought to use the Jack McConnell approach to the cost of the Scottish Parliament: everybody is to blame, so nobody is to blame.”
“The House will recall the statement by the Secretary of State on 8 May about the conduct of the Scottish parliamentary elections. That statement proved to be wholly inadequate, not least because the Secretary of State failed to take responsibility for the conduct of the elections. He also failed to give the apology to the people of Scotland that I, and many on both sides of the House, demanded. I could not have agreed more with the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine) when he described the conduct of the elections as “an embarrassment” and added: “we owe the people of Scotland an apology.” —[ Official Report , 8 May 2007; Vol. 460, c. 33.] That apology is still not forthcoming.”
“It would be remiss of me not to use this first opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on his appointment as First Minister of Scotland and to wish him and his new Scottish Executive well as they discharge the responsibilities devolved to the Scottish Parliament. As I have said before, I believe that the Secretary of State for Scotland will rue the Government’s failure over eight years to put in place appropriate mechanisms for dialogue and interaction between London and Edinburgh. However, that debate is for another day. I understand that today the First Minister is expected to make a statement on his programme for government. I shall watch with interest to see whether he makes any reference to the conduct of the Scottish elections, given his previous support for an independent inquiry.”
“I beg to move, That this House considers that the rejection of 146,097 votes in the constituency and regional elections to the Scottish Parliament, the equivalent of over 1,000,000 in a UK general election, to be totally unacceptable and an affront to democracy; notes that the number of rejected ballots exceeds the winning majority in several constituencies and that different formats of the regional ballot paper were used in different parts of Scotland; further notes that serious concerns have been raised about the issuing of postal ballots for the elections and the electronic equipment and processes used for counting votes; further notes that repeated advice not to hold the local government elections under the newly introduced single transferable vote system on the same day as the Scottish Parliament elections was ignored by the Scotland Office and the then Scottish Executive; calls upon the Secretary of State for Scotland to accept responsibility for the failures in the conduct of the Scottish Parliament elections and to apologise to the people of Scotland; further notes that the Electoral Commission is to carry out an inquiry, but considers that such an inquiry should be independent of the Commission, which had a significant role in the conduct of the elections, if public confidence in the electoral process in Scotland is to be restored; and accordingly further calls upon the Government, working in conjunction with the Scottish Executive, to instigate such an inquiry.”
“If the hon. Gentleman believes that the Government have set up an independent inquiry, he is mistaken. They have not; they have referred the matter to the Electoral Commission. We regard this debate as one about an issue of great importance to the people of Scotland. During questions on his statement, the Secretary of State seemed to suggest that the then figure of 100,000, cited in the media as representing the number of rejected ballots in the Scottish elections, was too high. In fact, the figure turned out to be too low, by nearly 50,000—there were 146,097 rejected ballots, the equivalent of 1 million in a UK general election. If that is not an important issue and an affront to democracy, I do not know what is.”
“I agree that there is a differentiation to be made between spoilt and rejected ballot papers. One thing on which Members across the House will agree is that the guidance to returning officers on what is a rejected ballot paper must be much clearer. Since the Secretary of State’s statement, further information about the use of different ballot paper formats in different regions of Scotland has come into the public domain. We Conservatives believe that the case for a fully independent inquiry is now even more compelling if public confidence is to be restored in the democratic process in Scotland.”
“They should apologise for it to the people of Scotland and hold a full and comprehensive inquiry, independent of the Electoral Commission and other stakeholders.”
“I conceded that the Conservatives did not object to the single ballot paper. However, I said that we made it absolutely clear that the ballot paper should not be used on the same day as another ballot paper on which people were encouraged to make more than one mark. That is clear. Today’s debate is a further opportunity for Members to highlight their concerns. It is also an opportunity for responsibility to be taken and an apology to be made. We do not seek to score political points, but there are clearly deep concerns on both sides of the House. We are not calling for the elections to be rerun; nor are we calling for the Secretary of State’s head, as others may have done—at least not yet. We simply want the Government to accept responsibility for the debacle on 3 May.”
“As the right hon. Gentleman will know, any costs would be a subject for the discussions—now regular, I understand—between the Scottish Executive and the UK Government. To date, the debacle has cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pounds. The matter must be put right if we are to restore integrity and confidence in the electoral system in Scotland.”
“I am thinking of the operational aspects of the elections and the holding of two elections on the same day under completely different voting systems.”
“As the hon. Gentleman knows but may not accept, the UK Government are responsible for the conduct of the Scottish elections and the Scottish Parliament is responsible for the conduct of the local elections. My view, and that of my party, is that this Parliament and the Scottish Executive should work together, and not in conflict, on such issues. As I was saying, the purpose of such an inquiry would be to determine why so many electors were disfranchised from having their votes counted, why there were significant delays in the issuing of postal votes and why the arrangements for the counting of votes were so unsatisfactory. Most importantly, we want to ensure that this ludicrous situation is never allowed to happen again, in Scotland or anywhere else in the United Kingdom.”
“That the Electoral Commission issued that document at least restores my faith in the impact of Parliament in requiring the production of that information. The hon. Gentleman does not understand the point of our motion, however. The point of this debate is that we want the inquiry to be independent of the Electoral Commission.”
“The Electoral Commission also ran the “Vote Scotland” campaign jointly with the then Labour and Liberal Democrat Scottish Executive to ensure that people knew how to vote correctly. Before the elections, the commission repeatedly appeared in the media to reassure people about the process, especially the issuing of postal votes. Only an inquiry that is not conducted at the behest of a stakeholder will satisfy the desire for an impartial investigation into how many people were disfranchised.”
“The basic premise of natural justice dictates that the same organisation should not be responsible for all lines of investigation when, as I have said, it played a significant role in the elections; in particular, setting out recommendations for the design of the single ballot. The Electoral Commission employed Cragg Ross Dawson to undertake research that was used as a basis for deciding on a single ballot paper. It could certainly be argued that the commission put an over-positive gloss on that report in its letter of early August, seemingly omitting to disclose the finding that the single paper option was more likely to lead to errors, and thus contribute to a higher number of invalid votes. If the Secretary of State has actually read the report, perhaps he will use this opportunity to clear up the media speculation in that regard.”
“Such figures strike at the heart of the United Kingdom’s reputation for the conduct of elections, which was an example of best practice to the rest of the world before the Labour Government began meddling with the electoral process. Compared with many countries throughout the world that want to hold democratic elections, Scotland and the UK have the expertise and technology needed to conduct elections in a successful and professional manner, but only when the advice of professionals is taken and adhered to. It is self-evident that the Electoral Commission has a duty to report on elections and its statutory review of the Scottish elections is welcome—but as part of a wider public inquiry, not instead of it.”
“I and others raised that issue with the Secretary of State and his predecessor on numerous occasions, but the response was always to brush aside such concerns and carry on regardless. There is no evidence that any one political party or candidate was disproportionately disadvantaged by the number of rejected ballots, but it cannot be satisfactory that the number of rejected ballots exceeded the winning candidate’s majority in more than 20 per cent. of constituency contests. In Edinburgh East and Musselburgh, for example, there were a massive 2,521 rejected ballots compared with a majority of 1,382. If “rejected” ballots had been a registered party in Glasgow Shettleston, it would have come third, with 2,035 votes—about 12.1 per cent. of the total votes cast.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. A further, specific point is that the Electoral Commission was a key stakeholder in the process and played an instrumental part in the design of the ballot paper. Nobody can argue that a 700 per cent. increase in the number of rejected ballots since the last Scottish parliamentary election is acceptable. There can be little doubt that the changes in the conduct of the election had a detrimental impact on the ability of electors to have their vote counted. The report on the London mayoral election, reinforced by the Arbuthnott commission, showed that that was entirely predictable if two elections using different voting systems were held on the same day, especially when both ballot papers were in a new format.”
“In the new spirit in Scotland of parties working together, perhaps my party could discuss that issue with Labour. I was surprised that Mr. McConnell succumbed to Liberal Democrat demands to introduce the single transferable vote, when combined Conservative and Labour votes in the Scottish Parliament at the time could have defeated the proposal.”
“The hon. Gentleman and his party made it clear in their amendment, which was not accepted, that they support the role of the Electoral Commission in that process: we do not. We believe that the inquiry should be independent of the commission because it is a principal stakeholder in the process. [ Interruption. ] I have made that as emphatically clear as I possibly can. As I said before, although the Conservatives did not oppose the introduction of a single ballot, we never agreed to its use on the same day as another ballot paper on which the making of more than one mark was actively encouraged.”
“No, not at this point. Voters were told that they had two votes, but it appears that a large number of them interpreted that information as the need to mark two crosses in one column instead of one in each column, thereby rendering their vote invalid in each election. Is that really surprising when the explanation of the STV system was that it gave people more than one vote? Any inquiry must also address whether the use of candidate names in party descriptions for the regional vote may have misled voters into thinking they were voting for their preferred constituency candidate.”
“If the hon. Gentleman listens, he will hear me say that some people argue that it was a political masterstroke for the Scottish National party to designate itself as “Alex Salmond for First Minister”, but the question is whether the appearance of that designation on the top left of ballot papers was a cause for confusion. Whoever conducts the inquiry, they must address that issue.”
“Conservatives in the Scottish Parliament will continue to pursue the cause and will look to the new Scottish Executive for support this time around. The high level of rejected ballot papers in the local council counts compared with the last elections—the level almost tripled—is also unacceptable. The system is certainly not the great triumph that the Electoral Reform Society or the Liberal Democrats would have us believe. The confusion, in terms of which councillor does what, has not even begun. Even if STV is accepted, what can be the purpose of holding such elections on the same day if, as was shown in the London mayoral elections and voting in Northern Ireland, having two separate systems in operation always exposes us to the risk of a disproportionately large number of people having their ballots rejected?”
“It would also reduce administrative complexity in the planning, management and counting of the elections, and enhance the transparency of the electoral process, especially allowing attention to be focussed on local issues.” It is ridiculous of the Secretary of State and his predecessor to argue that only the Scottish Executive were responsible for the date of the local government elections, when obviously holding those elections on the same day would have an impact on the Scottish Parliament elections. He may have no influence with the Scottish Executive now, but he did then. When I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament, I introduced the Local Government Elections Bill to do just what I have been talking about, but Labour and Liberal Democrat Scottish Ministers thwarted constant attempts to get the Bill through.”
“That is the view not just of the Conservatives or the newly appointed Scottish Executive, but of the Government’s own Arbuthnott commission, which recommended it. The Electoral Commission made the scale of the difficulties clear during the evidence that it gave to the Local Government and Transport Committee of the Scottish Parliament. The Arbuthnott commission summed up the arguments perfectly, saying that holding the elections on separate days would “reduce the complexity of voting, potentially reduce voter confusion and keep the number of invalid votes to a minimum.”
“It is ironic that postal votes arrived on polling day and that the only way to make them count was to take them to the polling station—if the elector was lucky enough to be at home to receive that vote. The Government have always known about, and encouraged, the trend of more and more people opting for a postal vote. The election date was hardly a surprise and there is no excuse for not putting arrangements in place to guarantee that, at least from an administrative perspective, postal voters received their postal ballots on time. There can be no doubt that the Government had a genuine opportunity to work with the Scottish Executive to reduce the possibility of voter confusion. The key to that would have been to decouple the two elections, as many people advocated.”
“We must ask ourselves the serious question of whether, after these events, e-counting can give everyone the confidence that the election count is being carried out appropriately. Many candidates complained in the media that they had no idea of the outcome of their election until a few minutes before it was announced—unlike what happens with the traditional hand count. May I deal briefly with postal ballots? Every right hon. and hon. Member from Scotland will have heard from constituents who were unable to vote owing to the late arrival of postal ballots. That is simply administrative incompetence striking at the heart of the democratic process. We may never know how many electors were disfranchised by the postal vote debacle, which saw probably hundreds of people unable to return their ballots in time.”
“Electronic counting was introduced as a means to an end. It was adopted initially, it was said, to shorten the amount of time taken to count local ballots, because counting votes manually under the new STV system would take days rather than hours. But it is quite clear that e-counting became a means in itself in Edinburgh and Glasgow, where, instead of altering the ballot papers by deleting instructional information, there should have been a manual count if the machines could not cope. The willingness to change fundamental aspects of the election process to suit the needs of electronic counting and DRS—its operator—has compromised the integrity of the electoral process.”
“Did he see the final variations in the ballot papers for all constituencies and regions across Scotland? Did he sign off the decision to remove the instructional arrows from the ballot papers in the Glasgow and Lothian regions? More importantly, what level of consultation did he undertake with political parties, candidates, returning officers, DRS and the Electoral Commission before making the decision? Why did he give precedence to the electronic counting process rather than to candidates and electors? I have no doubt that if market research had been undertaken on the final ballots, they would have been rejected outright—had the research documentation been read by the Secretary of State. No doubt the use of e-counting in the elections played a major role in the decisions to change ballot papers.”
“We regard that as entirely unacceptable—on a par with Florida’s hanging chads. As I voted in Moffat, I naively assumed that people voting in Edinburgh or Glasgow would be presented with the same form of ballot paper, but I was wrong. In the regions of Glasgow and Lothian, ballot papers had different instructions from ballot papers in other areas of Scotland. The arrows telling people in which columns to put their crosses were removed. Not surprisingly, those two regions recorded the highest number of rejected ballots: a staggering 7.85 per cent. in Glasgow and 5.2 per cent. in the Lothians. Only an independent inquiry can get to the bottom of those kinds of decisions. We need to know from the Secretary of State how decisions were made on the final design and layout of ballot papers.”
“I must make some progress because we have a limited time for the debate. There can be little doubt that the presentation of candidate names and party logos was compromised on many ballot papers. There was an attempt to accommodate the names of too many candidates on a defined size of ballot paper. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that the elderly and people with sight problems, in particular, struggled with the instructions. Worse still, ballot papers issued at polling stations in Glasgow and Lothian did not resemble the sample papers previously shown to parties. It is a fundamental tenet of our democracy that a person voting in Shetland, for example, has the same format of ballot as a fellow citizen voting in Linlithgow. It is now clear that ballot papers across Scotland lacked uniformity.”
“We want the serious issues that arose at these elections to be exhaustively investigated, independently of all stakeholders responsible for conducting them. We also want proper consideration to be given to decoupling the Scottish parliamentary and local council elections, to reduce both the possibility of voter confusion and the number of rejected ballots. I urge the House to support the motion.”
“The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. All the flaws of the STV system, which the Liberal Democrats advocate again today, were highlighted at the time of the introduction of the process in the Scottish Parliament. Just as Rhodri Morgan in Wales appears to be willing to accept that sort of arrangement, Labour in the Scottish Parliament accepted the introduction of STV. Whatever our view of the outcome, the conduct of the Scottish elections cannot be described as a success in any way, shape or form. That was and is the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland and no amount of trying to divide up the blame can hide that. It is time to take responsibility and to apologise. Our motion sets out a basis on which to restore confidence and faith in our electoral system not just in Scotland, but throughout the United Kingdom.”
“I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present for the statement, but we have never suggested otherwise than that we accepted the single ballot paper. We did not accept, however, that that ballot paper should be used on the same day as another ballot paper, on which people were encouraged to place more than one mark.”
“If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my earlier remarks and to remarks that I have made on numerous occasions in the House, he would know that I did not accept that the Scottish Parliament elections should have been held on the same day as the local government elections, when different systems of voting were being used. Nor do I accept that the Secretary of State for Scotland did not have a role to play in discussing with the Scottish Executive, with which he had some sway at that point, the need to ensure that those elections were not held on the same day, with the inevitable, entirely predictable confusion.”
“Given that defence is just one of the issues on which the new Scottish Executive will have to work with the UK Government, does the Secretary of State regret his complacency in not putting in place proper mechanisms for interaction between the Scottish Executive and the UK Government? Perhaps he can tell us now just what will happen when the prospective First Minister and his Lib Dem allies, in or out of coalition, seek to thwart the upgrade of Trident.”
“It is clear from that answer that no proper mechanisms are in place to enable the Scottish Executive to work with the UK Government when those bodies are led by parties of different persuasions. The Government have had eight years to put such a mechanism in place, and the fact that they have failed to do so is a reflection on them. Will the Secretary of State clarify what will be his Government’s relationship with the prospective new First Minister—”
“Perhaps the Secretary of State will also agree with me that the vast majority of people who voted for the Scottish National party did so not in an attempt to break up the Union but as an expression of dissatisfaction with the Labour and Liberal Democrat-led Scottish Executive. Does he accept, too, that Labour’s clunking fist approach to promoting, or rather brow-beating, Scots into supporting the Union failed and will he encourage the Chancellor and others to support my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) in his positive promotion of the Union?”