THE UNITED Kingdom is embarking on a constitutional revolution. Virtually every aspect of how we govern ourselves is being changed, in some cases fundamentally. And yet, there is a sense that the Government, lacking as it does a logical blueprint for reform, has embarked on a constitutional journey which has all the hallmarks of a mystery tour, to a destination unknown.

The effect of the constitutional changes in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London will inevitably increase their political bargaining power with Westminster. They will lobby hard to retain or increase the proportion of tax revenues which they enjoy. The consequence for the English regions is that - without the political clout which regional government would give - they will lose out.

If we accept that there is a strong case for regional government in the English regions, what form should it take, what powers should it have, and how should it fit in with other, existing levels of government?

We must begin by accepting that the UK's Constitution, even when reformed, will owe more to Heath Robinson than to a Jefferson or Hamilton.

This Government has no coherent vision for a reformed constitution. It is almost proud of the fact. And, in a sense, it is merely following a long British tradition of patch-and-mend pragmatism rather than logical or theoretical blueprints. If we accept a rolling programme of English regional government as part of the patchwork quilt which forms the British constitution, what would regional government in England look like?

The initial powers for regional assemblies would, I suggest, have many similarities with those of the Welsh Assembly, without the powers to make secondary legislation. They would have responsibility for health, education, housing, planning, transport, economic development, sport and the arts. This list immediately raises the question of the region's relationship with local government. There is a potential danger of conflict between the two, particularly if the Government proceeds to enable local authorities to have powerful elected mayors - and recent polling evidence gives strong support to this proposal. But I see the role of the region essentially to be to set out a regional strategy in the policy areas for which it is responsible, and to take over from the unelected and barely accountable regional offices of government departments the responsibility for ensuring that government expenditure is used to best effect. This would permit greater flexibility to respond to regional needs.

A regional assembly would of course be elected, and there are the usual compelling arguments for doing this by STV [single transferable vote] in multi-member constituencies. Should the assembly have tax-raising powers? The arguments for doing so are very strong. Tax-raising power is at the heart of all political power and, if regional assemblies really are going to have some degree of independence from Whitehall, an ability to raise at least part of their revenue directly has great appeal. The range of taxes which could be deployed sensibly at regional level is, however, quite limited.

The Scottish Parliament will be up and running in six months' time. Belatedly, English parliamentarians are scurrying round trying to agree the response. The Conservatives are half proposing a separate English Parliament which would mirror the Scottish Parliament. I would strongly oppose a new English Parliament. It would run the risk of becoming a depository of chauvinistic English nationalism of the worst kind.

Equally, I do not believe that it will be acceptable to English MPs - or Lords - to have Scottish participation in debates and votes on English (or English and Welsh) legislation. The resolution of this problem is, I believe, to be found using the model which Liberal Democrats use. Each debate at conference is either a federal or an English debate. When it is a Federal debate everyone can participate. In an English debate, only English representatives can. The same procedure should be adopted at Westminster.

How do we achieve regional government? It will not come without a struggle. This Government is not committed to it, and the Tories are opposed.

Some commentators are coming round. Jeremy Paxman, in his book on the English, concludes: "New nationalism is less likely to be based on flags and anthems. It is modest, individualistic, ironic, concerned with cities and regions as with counties and countries. In an age of decaying nation states it might be the nationalism of the future." But then, Jeremy Paxman is a Yorkshireman!

Lord Dick Newby warns on the dangers of the English (Independent, Tuesday, 5 January 1999)

I was the Liberal Democrat candidate at the 1994 Rotherham by-election where I was privileged to finally meet Richard Wainwright, who had been Liberal MP for Colne Valley. Back in 1977 during the first devolution debates Richard said "For a government to propose that some British people shall have two Parliaments to shout for them, while others are left with only one, is the last word in political debauchery".

During the same debates, the Tory George Gardiner made the following point: "What kind of argument would we confront from the Scots and the Welsh if it were proposed, instead of a Scottish or Welsh Assembly, to set up only an English Assembly, but still to bring the full number of English members to this House or even to increase their number proportionately, to continue to vote on Scottish and Welsh matters, which, in the case of England, had already been devolved to an English Assembly? We know very well that there would be uproar in Scotland and Wales."

Of course, things have moved on from then. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all now have Devolution. As Richard Wainwright put it, they all have 2 Parliaments to shout for them and their interests. The exception, of course, is England. **ENGLAND. Not the "remainder!"** [Andrew George MP had just described Devolution as having occurred to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland leaving only the "disgruntled remainder" and that we needed some means of dealing with the "remainder".]

We have gone past the point of John Major's campaign in 1997 that we had just "48 hours to save the Union". That anti-Devolution battle was lost. The Union survives. It is however still under threat, not least by the growing resentment within England at the second-class citizenship that has been foisted upon us without our leave. Because the people of England have been prejudicially disadvantaged post-devolution, in a way that the Scots and Welsh never were pre-devolution.

"At the very least, the English deserve the opportunity to decide. They should be offered a referendum, just as the Scots and Welsh were, on their constitutional future. Failure to provide that option would be a shocking display of disdain for nearly 50 million United Kingdom citizens". Not my words, those of the Conservative David Davis.

The current situation is not stable and won't last. Reversing Devolution is no longer an option, if it ever was. If the Union is to survive then a positive case for this must be made that addresses the conflicting desires of the people that make up the United Kingdom.

The Campaign for an English Parliament believes that this can be addressed by the creation of an English Parliament to stand alongside those of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

A federal Union will enable us to separate what divides us from what unites us. To get the best of both worlds. Independence on health, education, social policies, to plough our own furrow in a manner we find appropriate. But united as one voice when speaking on the world stage politically, economically and militarily, alongside the social solidarity to help each other out when dealing with such pressing matters as unemployment or the environment.

There is of course one other option for the nations of the United Kingdom, the one that will otherwise inevitably be chosen by default.

Breakup.

Many of you, like me, will have been watching the BBC's recent series of programmes on Scotland. "Dinner with Portillo - Why Should We Care About Scottish Independence?" was broadcast on BBC4 on the 15th September and had a number of well known people openly discussing the breakup of the Union. The majority were actually in favour of such a prospect. Portillo and Clougherty's opinion could best be described as 'Close the door quietly when you leave', an attitude which, if anything, infuriated the Scottish Nationalists even more than that of wanting them to stay and which Hardeep Singh Kholi described as "typical English arrogance".

Hardeep had something else to say as well.

"Why should the English stomach Scots MPs having a say on their political future when the Scots wouldn't for a moment accept the reciprocal arrangement, it would be unconscionable in Scotland?"

Indeed.

Henry McLeish, the former Labour First Minister of Scotland, and the man who saw the Scotland Act through Westminster, was also at that dinner. He has said that the English need a voice and that the current assymmetric devolution cannot be sustained.

The Welsh Conservative Assembly Member David Melding has just published a book Will Britain Survive Beyond 2020?. He says "The best way to preserve Britain as a multi-national state is to accept that the UK...requires a new settlement. This settlement will need to be federal in character so that the sovereignties of the Home Nations and the UK State can be recognised in their respective jurisdictions".

George Monbiot, speaking at the recent Plaid Cymru conference has also called for an English Parliament.

And so on.

Yes, there is plenty of thinking going on in all the major parties.

Apart from one that is.

A party that claims to be set up on a federal basis and which publishes manifestos for Scotland and Wales but not England. A party that has a Scottish Conference, a Welsh Conference, but not an English Conference. The party which has benefited greatly from the Proportional Representation elections to the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments and has the most to gain from an English Parliament that is likewise elected by PR - but which inexplicitly does not support such an outcome. The Party that in the past liked to claim that it was the "big thinker" on constitutional issues but which now sits on the sidelines and pretends that nothing has changed and thus nothing needs to be done.

YOUR Party.

Tom Nairn in his book After Britain said "Blair's Project makes it likely that England will return on the street corner, rather than via a maternity room with appropriate care and facilities. Croaking tabloids, saloon-bar resentment and back-bench populism are likely to attend the birth and have their say." Looking at the news reports of the English Defence League I would say that those are prescient words.

Here are some more, from Neal Ascherson:
"Yes, there is an emerging Englishness which is still thought to be slightly incorrect. Something is bursting to come out. But sadly, the English intelligentsia, or the liberal English middle class, which ought to be leading political developments, ought to be taking over this emerging feeling; saying yes, let's make a democratic, tolerant, forward-looking nation; is just sitting back and saying 'English nationalism, awful, horrible, leave it to the yobs'."

England is being reborn. Some of us are campaigning for that democratic, tolerant, forward-looking nation. For example, I have here some leaflets from the Workers of England Union, a Union recently set up to campaign on behalf of the ordinary working people of England. The back cover says "Join a union that cares for England and its workers". The front cover says "Putting the workers of England first". Yes, England is being reborn, with or without you.

And so my ongoing question to you is, Are you going to join us in that project, or remain with the reactionaries?

David Wildgoose, September 2009

Extract from the Liberal Democrats policy paper "For the People, By the People", Autumn 2007.

6.3 The English Question

6.3.1 During the 1980s, the Conservative Government used its majority in the House of Commons to force through highly controversial legislation that applied only to Scotland, despite the fact that Scottish support for the Tories had substantially declined. Scottish voters were effectively disenfranchised and increasingly frustrated by the government’s activities. This gave added urgency to the cause of Scottish devolution.

6.3.2 However, devolution to Scotland and Wales has resulted in a new anomaly. Scottish and, to a lesser extent, Welsh MPs can vote in Westminster on legislation that will affect only England. While sometimes the opposite applies, with English MPs voting on legislation only affecting Scotland and Wales, this is far rarer. The issue arises because of the asymmetrical devolution so far introduced in the UK, with the Scottish Parliament having significant law-making powers, the National Assembly for Wales having more control over its own law and policy (though mainly over secondary legislation) and the English having no equivalent separate body.

6.3.3 Some advocate giving powers to an English Parliament as a way of overcoming this anomaly. Others believe that while all MPs elected to the UK Parliament deal with UKwide business, it would be possible for those MPs who represent English constituencies to deal with England only business in a separate forum and as an additional responsibility. To work properly, however, both models would require a separate executive arm for England. Clearly, if a different party were to hold a majority of seats in England to that which had an overall majority in the UK, this would be politically as well as constitutionally imperative.

6.3.4 Such a change would alter significantly the role of the UK Parliament in the affairs of the UK, reducing substantially the policy areas over which it had competence. If an English assembly of some kind were to be established within Westminster, composed solely of UK MPs representing English constituencies, inevitably it would be that assembly which dealt with much of the legislative business. On the Scottish model, the new English legislature and executive would gain power over health, education and training, local government, social work, housing, economic development, many aspects of transport law and home affairs (including, the police and the emergency services), and some policy concerning the environment, agriculture, forestry and fishing, sport and the arts, as well as statistics, public registers and records.

6.3.5 Importantly though, if the English executive were to be established along these lines, UK fiscal, economic and monetary policy would remain with the UK Parliament, with UK MPs deciding the level of taxation for, and allocation of resources to, each part of the Union. It is likely that an English executive, governing a large proportion of the UK in such a wide range of areas, would argue strongly that the UK Parliament should not frustrate its policies by agreeing on a financial settlement which has the consent of the UK Parliament as a whole, but not of a majority of English MPs. We believe this problem would be particularly acute if an English executive were not coupled with the arrangements for fiscal federalism we outline in 6.4, and would still be significant even if it were. It is for these reasons that many feel that a substantial layer of English governance – based, as it would be, on such a disproportionate part of the Union – would bring into serious question the continuing role of the UK Parliament and, by extension, of the UK itself, to which Liberal Democrats in England, Scotland and Wales are firmly committed.

6.3.6 Liberal Democrats want to see, as far as possible, decisions made, and services delivered, as near to the people and communities concerned as possible. To this end our local government policy paper, The Power to be Different, states that local authorities should be “the basic building block of government and public service delivery in England”. However, in the case of decisions and services affecting a large number of communities, or those spread over a large area, it advocates central government handing over powers and responsibilities to regional government. We also state in that paper our support for directly elected regional government in those areas where the public want it.

6.3.7 To this end, there is a wider party and national debate to be had as to whether domestic policy for England should be determined at national level or regional level. For many, England has a distinct national identity and they argue that it would entirely justified for there to be an English Parliament or Assembly and an English executive. Others argue that to devolve power from the UK Parliament, which represents c.60 million people, to an English Parliament, representing c.50 million people, would fail to bring government closer to the people and that instead there should be devolution to the English regions or to even smaller units.

6.3.8 In light of these arguments we believe that further consideration needs to be given to the mechanics and implications of such a constitutional change, and that any proposed change would require the endorsement of the British electorate. That is why we believe that this matter should be part of the remit of the constitutional convention that this paper advocates in chapter 2. The convention’s proposals, which would include a solution to the English question, would then be put to the UK public in the referendum seeking endorsement of the wider constitutional settlement.

6.4 Financial Issues Associated with Devolution

6.4.1 A key challenge of further devolution will be changing the funding system in the UK. The current funding regime throughout the UK is based around grants from Westminster. In the case of both the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly their executives have considerable freedom over the use these grants are put to, while in England much of the grants given to local government are ring-fenced and have to be spent on policies defined by central government.

6.4.2 The amount of the grant given to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is decided by the Barnett formula, which was a temporary measure introduced ahead of the expected devolution to Scotland in the late 1970s. The Barnett formula does not redistribute wealth between areas of the UK. Rather it links increases or decreases in spending in England to proportional changes in the grants to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It does not decide the overall size of budget or take into account public expenditure need. Indeed it was assumed that devolution would result in the establishment of a more needs-based funding calculation, which never took place due to the no vote in the referendum on a Scottish Parliament in 1979.

6.4.3 Liberal Democrats believe that, as well as devolving political power out from Westminster, fiscal power also needs to be devolved from the Treasury if the UK is to have a genuine federal system. While others propose full fiscal autonomy for the devolved governments (where they would raise all the taxes and then remit an agreed amount to Westminster), no other industrialised country has opted for this for a number of reasons. Fiscal federalism, however, avoids the pitfalls of fiscal autonomy and should give the institutions to which power is devolved substantial control over the levers of power controlling funding. That means the devolved institutions should raise as much of their own spending as practicable, and be able to significantly influence the development of their economy. It would also mean establishing agreed rules on such things as prudential borrowing. An essential element therefore of fiscal federalism is for devolved governments to have powers of taxation. Liberal Democrats endorse the principles of fiscal federalism set out in the Steel Commission report, and believe that the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly should have more powers and freedoms to level their own taxes. We are also committed to increasing the percentage of revenue that regional and local authorities in England raise.

6.4.4 How fiscal federalism would work has been considered in detail for Scotland in the Steel Commission report. The Commission concluded that fiscal federalism in Scotland would mean the Scottish Parliament is given responsibility for all taxes except for those reserved to the UK, and that this would include the right to abolish and introduce new devolved taxes. Under these proposals the Scottish Parliament would have the ability to vary the rate and tax base for each devolved tax, and the power to borrow, subject to specific criteria. Were the Steel Commission’s proposals to be extended, the funding powers devolved to each nation and region would be a matter for each to decide and should be considered alongside work on the legislative and policy powers of the directly elected assembly representing it.

6.4.5 As the UK is a diverse country in terms of wealth, income and need, raising a greater proportion of taxation locally means there would have to be an element to redistribution in the interests of national unity and if poorer areas are not forced to have punitively high tax rates or sub-standard services. We believe the Barnett formula should be replaced by a new needs-based equalisation formula – the Revenue Distribution Formula – as set out in Policy Paper 75 Fairer, Simpler, Greener. This would take into account factors such as geography, how rural an area is, health, the state of infrastructure, poverty and deprivation and the cost of delivering services. The Formula would be drawn up by a Finance Commission of the Nations and Regions (FCNR). This would be made up of representatives of the UK government and representatives from the National Assembly for Wales, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the London Assembly, plus those from any English regional chambers or assemblies. It would reach its conclusions by consensus and any proposals would be ratified by the respective executive bodies. As well as agreeing the equalisation formula, the FCNR would also be charged with developing work on the whole agenda of fiscal federalism.

Transcript of Speech by David Wildgoose to the Liberal Democrat Fringe, 2008

The Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish have all been granted referenda allowing them to decide how they are to relate to the British State.

We believe the English also deserve that same right.

Our aim is an English Parliament.

We don't have a policy on where the Parliament should sit - because that is not for us to decide, it is for the people of England. The people who, whatever their original origin, identify with England and have made England their home and their future. The People of England. The English.

I used the phrase "identify with England" very deliberately, because that sense of identity is crucial. Nationalism is the expression of that identity, and it is important because the nation state is the largest grouping of human beings for which there is a definable "We". People are willing to pull together in the national interest in a way they are not prepared to do in the interests of any larger, more amorphous gatherings. Wartime is probably the most obvious and extreme example, but in these more enlightened times a better example would be the lesser sacrifices that are willingly made to ensure our poor, old and infirm are taken care of. The taxes we pay to educate our children, or to maintain our transport links are paid in the national interest because they are seen to benefit us all. And it goes without saying that when our taxes are handed over to improve roads, infrastructure and so on elsewhere, for example in ...Europe..., then there is widepread resentment. They are "other", they are not "us".

This is a powerful sentiment, this idea of "We", "Us" as opposed to "Them" and "Other". It is not for nothing that "Sinn Fein" means "We Ourselves". For there to be a nation, there has to be a national identity. The people of a nation have to see themselves as "We", sharing a common purpose and a common future, together. Living in the same State, even with the same democratic rights and freedoms as the other members of that state, is simply not enough.

Here in England though, we don't even have that.

In Scotland it is the Scottish Government that decides what is taught in Scottish schools. That decides that Scottish students should not pay tuition fees. That decides that road and bridge tolls should be scrapped.

Here in England there is no English government to decide what England wants. Instead we have a British Government, headed by MPs from outside England, whose constituents are largely unaffected by their decisions. A "British" government telling us what we must do, and even over-ruling us when we, in the form of a majority of MPs from English constituencies, disagree - such as happened with Tuition Fees and also with the imposition of Foundation Hospitals.

The other Home Nations have rejected the Union Parliament in Westminster in favour of self-rule in those matters that most concern ordinary voters. They are different, and they will do things differently.

The English aren't allowed to be different though. We are being told that we are "British", and any attempt to assert an English identity is frowned upon, and actively discouraged if not even suppressed. Schools in England - only - have been instructed to teach "Britishness". And during the last world cup the Deputy Chief Constable of Wales refused to allow the English flag to be displayed, instructing his officers to order their removal. And yet a Welsh flag on the back of a car in England is considered perfectly acceptable.

There is no reason why people should be forced to choose between Britishness and Englishness/Scottishness/Welshness/Whatever. But that is what is happening now. Polls all show a steady rise in separatist attitudes across the UK, most notably in England. A sizeable percentage of the people of England are in now favour of complete Independence for England - as you've just heard Professor Curtice on my right say, around a fifth. Or at the very least, for the ejection of Scotland from the UK. This has not gone unnoticed by Alec Salmond and the SNP who have been gleefully encouraging this viewpoint, aided and abetted by the (Labour) Welsh First Minister who has openly declared that his aim is to "make the English jealous". But what matters with these attitudes amongst the English is the trend. Because ten years ago, nobody would even have thought to ask if the English would want to leave the Union. Now it is a matter of debate.

Henry McLeish, the former First Minister of Scotland, and the man who saw the Scotland Act through Westminster, has just spoken to the Calman Commission on Scottish Devolution. He has said that the English need a voice, and that he doesn't think that our current assymmetrical devolution can be sustained. Furthermore, and I quote: "We must move towards some balanced framework, a quasi-federal framework, where it can make some sense rather than the English feeling aggrieved. At the end of the day, their grief and their anger spills over on to us."

In an interview with the Yorkshire Post in November 2006 Tony Blair acknowledged that if people in England were asked if they wanted a Parliament like Scotland's they would overwhelmingly agree.

So why haven't we been asked?

Why is this not Liberal Democrat policy?

The other devolved assemblies are all elected by Proportional Representation so as to guarantee that all opinions are properly represented. There is no reason to assume that an English Parliament would be any different. The devolved assemblies deal with the issues that most concern ordinary voters, perhaps as much as 70% of the business of Parliament. There is no reason to assume that an English Parliament would be any different.

I was a founder-member of the Liberal Democrats. If you'd asked me back in 1987 whether I would have been in favour of the matters that most affect the lives of people on a day-to-day basis being dealt with by MPs elected by Proportional Representation, thereby ensuring a strong Liberal Voice in those decisions, then of course I would have said Yes.

So the question I have to ask you is, Why are you not in favour of this?

A political party is a vehicle for like-minded people to influence the direction that society takes. There is an enormous amount to be gained for the first party prepared to stand up for the second-class citizens of the Union, the English. So I have to ask you all, Why is the party that has the most to gain from the creation of an English Parliament not actively campaigning for one?

Charles Kennedy's speech to Scottish Liberal Democrat Conference, Dunfermline, 16th October 1999

It’s good to be home.

Coming home as the Scottish leader of a British party.

It’s a thought-provoking position to be in.

Thoughts of the great Scots who have led us and our predecessors over the century.

David Steel.

Bob Maclennan.

Jo Grimond.

Archy Sinclair.

Henry Campbell-Bannerman.

Men who made a decisive impact on the politics of their times.

It’s a privilege to follow in their footsteps.

But there’s another reason why it is thought-provoking to be a Scot leading a British party.

And that is that the relationships between the nations of the Union have changed in a revolutionary way since 1997.

Scotland has a Parliament.

Wales an Assembly.

Northern Ireland, soon I hope, a working Assembly too.

In England, regionalism is growing as never before.

Calling into question, as it happens, the idea of England itself.

In the process of devolution, we are creating throughout Britain, a new way of doing things.

Just look at what I can’t talk to you about today.

In the past, a Federal leader could come to Scottish conference and wax lyrical about all the dreadful things that were being done to our education system in Westminster.

No more.

MSPs, in a Scottish government, in a Scottish Parliament, answerable only to the people of Scotland, decide our education policy.

So you’ll not hear anything from me today on that subject.

And that’s as it should be.

Instead, what I want to talk about are federal matters.

UK-wide policy.

And there are exciting changes that we are living through.

British politics is now based on a new set of diverse relationships.

Gone are the days of the man in Whitehall knowing best.

Centralising.

Dictating.

Not listening.

And with that, we have a new rationale for Britain as an idea.

A new set of reasons for being together in the Union at all.

In the past, Unionism was a term that conjured images of monarchy, Empire, tradition.

That’s all changing.

Those of us who recognise the value in Scotland playing a full part in Britain are creating a new Unionism.

A Unionism based on diversity not uniformity.

Based on a belief that we have more to learn from each other together, whatever our differences,

than we have to gain by pulling up a drawbridge and mingling only among ourselves.

The new Unionism in Britain should not be about treaties between capitals and crowns.

The Liberal tradition is a proud one,

and a philosophical one in terms of its analysis of individuals being more important than the sate.

Communities being more important than the nation state.

So the new Unionism should be about relations between the regions of England, and the other nations of the UK.

In which the North-East of England works with Scotland, and the South-West works with the Welsh.

After all, Bristol is nearer Cardiff than London.

Newcastle is nearer Edinburgh.

And of course, all parts of England need to work with Europe, as well as being allied to London.

The new Council of Isles to be established as part of the Good Friday Agreement already offers exciting opportunities for liaison between the various UK capitals and Dublin.

The English Regions should be added to this equation.

Fluid, challenging, and exciting times indeed.

So I stand before you today as a Scot.

But also as a Highlander.

And a Briton too.

There’s no contradiction in being all three.

So I’ll be supporting the British team when our athletes next compete in the Olympics.

But before that, we have another sports fixture coming up.

I know who I’ll be supporting there too.

We’re all looking forward to that.

Won’t it be great?

But seriously,

let me say something about that match.

When Scotland beat England, and we earn our place in Euro 2000, we’ll have an almighty celebration.

It will go on for days.

But let’s be gracious in victory.

Scotland is a proud nation, proud of its own strengths.

Not for us the vitriolic anti-Englishness that we see from some of our opponents here.

That’s not an adult approach to life.

It’s certainly not the way forward as we try to build a Britain based on respect for diversity.

And it’s personally important for my leadership of our party that there is a healthy and constructive dialogue between all parts of the UK.

I want our achievements in Scotland to be a lesson for the rest of Britain about what devolution can mean.

When I was elected as the federal leader, I said that I wanted our party to be become a serious party of government throughout the whole of Britain.

The best guide to that is here and now, in Scotland.

We are in government, making a difference.

Showing that we’re winners.

Changing the lives of people in Scotland for the better.

Acting on the principles we came into politics to advance.

If we carry on as we’re doing, a successful Liberal Democrat presence in the Scottish government is the first step towards taking our party into government throughout Britain.

There’s one particular message I want to take into England and Wales from Scotland.

It’s a message about one of our long-held goals in politics.

Fair votes.

Fair votes in every election throughout the land.

And the message I want to take from Scotland is this.

Not only do fair votes deliver representative government on a national scale.

But fair votes work in local government too.

We’ve got that concession from Labour.

It’s going to happen in Scotland.

We’ve had it for many years in Northern Ireland.

And when it’s implemented in Scotland, I believe that Labour will have to concede the logic of having it in England and Wales.

It used to be said that the Tories used Scotland as a test-bed for their most unsavoury policies.

To see just how much they could get away with.

Remember the Poll Tax.

Well it’s going to be different this time round.

Changes will be made in Scotland that work so well, and are so popular, that the rest of Britain will be crying out for them.

Of course, our mission to be a serious party of government,

making a difference,

doesn’t end in these islands.

If I’m a Highlander, a Scot, and a Briton, I’m also a European.

That’s why I was delighted to give our party’s support to the launch of the Britain in Europe campaign on Wednesday.

That was quite a gathering.

The Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Foreign Secretary, Ken Clarke, Michael Heseltine.

And myself.

All on one platform.

Representing the mainstream of British politics.

What a contrast to the rag-tag bunch of yesterday’s men and women the eurosceptics will gather when we have a referendum on the euro.

Margaret Thatcher, Tony Benn, Ian Paisley, Norman Tebbit,

David Owen,

Just William – yesterday’s man before his time.

Those of there on the Britain in Europe platform,

Together with business people, trade unionists, and voluntary organisations across Britain,

Have begun an unstoppable campaign.

A campaign that will once and for all change the way that Britain thinks about Europe.

You know, for me, the name Britain in Europe says it all.

Britain can’t be anywhere else.

Britain is in Europe.

We are part of its rich culture and heritage.

We are part of its history.

The eurosceptics like to talk about 800 years of Britain’s independent history.

But we have an equally long and proud history of constructive engagement in Europe.

Go back even to the Middle Ages.

When the east coast had far closer links with the Low Countries by sea, than it did with the rest of Britain.

Those trading contacts began an 800 year long story of Britain in Europe.

Of cultural dialogue.

Of shared values.

Of common struggles.

It’s a story of music, and art, and literature.

Of blood spilt by Britain and France on Flanders fields to save the continent from tyranny.

A story of a fifty year mission, through the European Union, to ensure that Europe is never again ravaged by poverty, unemployment and war.

For the future, we have a new mission.

To explain why Britain is in Europe.

To explain that it is good for British business.

Good for British jobs.

Good for British people.

People need to know that thanks to Europe, we've got progress on paternity leave

Thanks to Europe we've got progress on equal pay for men and women,

It was thanks to Europe that the invalid care allowance was eventually given to married women.

So it is patriotic to be pro-European.

With colleagues in other parties, and people in none,

It will be a personal priority to take this message to the country.

At the same time, I want all of us here to hit the eurosceptics hard,

To put them under the spotlight.

We all know how destructive withdrawal from Europe would be for Britain.

That is why we must ensure that the British people reject the views of anti-Europeans.

There’s a clear question to put.

When you talk about renegotiating treaties, will you admit that you are advocating either British withdrawal from Europe, or at least disengagement by 90%?

That’s the reality of the case.

And it needs to be shown up for what it is.

The penalties for staying on the sidelines are too great to risk.

Not only will we lose out in Europe, but we will risk losing influence throughout the world.

On this case, I am always struck by the comment made by the former US Ambassador to Britain, Raymond Seitz:

"If Britain’s voice is less influential in Paris or Bonn, it is likely to be less influential in Washington."

To hear some eurosceptics speak you’d think that America was waiting to welcome us as an equal partner if only we would leave the EU.

That’s utter nonsense – 51st state stuff.

If we can point out the problems in the Conservative case.

we will be doing much to show the country that we are a serious party of government.

And why the Conservatives are not.

They have lost touch with the people.

They have lost touch, when we are reconnecting with the people of Britain.

We are doing that by starting to involve more of our members in decision-making.

I began my first conference speech as leader by praising the way we did that – one member, one vote.

Well I would, wouldn’t I?

I was very happy with how it worked out.

But it wasn’t just me.

All the candidates thought it worked well.

And that’s why I announced that the federal party would be looking at ways of spreading one member one vote.

More democracy for our members.

So that they can have a bigger say in the way the party is managed.

You will all be hearing more of that during the year to come.

Because I am determined that the federal party takes more notice of what you are want.

That’s the way to persuade the public that we hear their concerns.

That we will empower communities.

That we trust people to decide their own futures.

That Liberal Democrats want to win power so that we can give it away to the people.

That is what we are doing in Scotland.

Liberal Democrat MSPs.

Liberal Democrat ministers.

A Liberal Democrat Deputy First Minister.

All delivering.

All making a difference.

All showing what a Liberal Democrat government is like.

What it can do.

Scotland stands today as a shining example of the new politics.

Devolved power.

Government close to the people.

Fair votes.

Parties working together.

Recognising that people from different traditions can learn from each other.

That they can sometimes be greater than the sum of their parts.

This conference is a first for me.

My first as leader.

But it is also the first time that a federal leader has addressed the party in government.

As I lead the Liberal Democrats in Britain as a whole, I will have one eye always on Scotland.

Because you are doing so well,

and because you offer an example to our colleagues throughout Britain.

Scotland has waited long for the chance it now has.

Our party has waited too.

Now the wait is over.

Do your best for Scotland.

And show the rest of Britain how it’s done.