Macmillan

Mr Speaker, Allow me to begin my remarks by thanking Her Majesty for her excellent delivery and poise in carrying out her constitutional duty. We are blessed to have her as our sovereign. I would like to also pay the necessary congratulations to the Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Member for Vauxhall, her new Deputy Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Member for Colne Valley and their spare tyre, the Right Honourable Member for Portsmouth South. They have each made great gains as a result of the latest General Election which, while disappointing for those of us on this side of the House, do show that they have been given a mandate and a duty to lead. Mr Speaker allow me to speak for myself and the entire Conservative Party when I say that where they govern well we shall support them, where they govern poorly we shall oppose them. Mr Speaker, as the Shadow Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs please indulge me as I lay out my thoughts on the process I will be using the critique this speech. Foreign Affairs are not inherently partisan actions. These are decisions that are, by and large, taken for the good of the nation, in defence of the nation, or in the furtherance of the nation's interests. Take the updated Anglo-Irish Agreement, a deal that brought the House together in support, even the Labour Party couldn't fully whip an adequate abstention. But where previously Labour sought to undermine the country through cute political tactics the Conservative Party shall be a responsible, yet forceful, opposition. Mr Speaker this is why I open my speech with a word of congratulations to the Prime Minister. I am pleased that she has finally won the war with her backbenchers when it comes to Europe. The EEC is a fantastic focal point for growth, for new markets, and for the furtherance of British foreign policy goals. Let me be clear, Europe is not the pre-destined fate of the British nation - we shall not integrate into a superstate, but it is a valued institution and a valued economic partner. I am pleased that the Labour Party have been able to come off the fence and support the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. The Chancellor may foolishly believe that inflation is not a concern, an attitude of complacency no doubt fostered by the Conservative Party's excellent economic stewardship of the last three quarters of a decade, but we on this side of the House see the ERM as a vehicle for low inflation, high investment, and strong growth. But Mr Speaker while European integration and harmonisation of the economy is to be welcomed, at least as far as the more northern states are concerned, where we cannot agree to more integrations with Europe is on the topic of defence. Equally, we cannot agree to a mushy middle ground of devastating cuts to our nuclear deterrent. What we are confronted with here Mr Speaker is the worst of all worlds. We have the SDP who, to their credit, will not sell our nuclear weapons down the river. But they are balanced out by the Liberal Party, who want to abandon our deterrent immediately and without any thought for the working of Soviet Russia, Communist China, or any of our other geopolitical opponents who may or may not be developing the bomb. They would leave us naked and defenceless, begging for French or (more likely) American support in all matters nuclear. Finally, we have Labour, who have no idea whether they are coming or going when it comes to the deterrent. Taking from these horrifically mixed ingredients, bomb or no bomb, ideas or no ideas, plan or no plan, the Government have managed to come up with a truly staggering amount of incompetence. This Throne Speech says the Government will safeguard our place in NATO, so why does this Throne Speech explicitly deny the NATO doctrine of the first-use strike? This isn't a matter of procedure, or of taste, this is a fundamental part of NATO's strategic and tactical nuclear doctrines. This one step will alienate and isolate our nuclear capacity from the rest of NATO. What would the Government do if a first strike became necessary? If the French and the Americans were ready to act? Would the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence really sit on their hands and do nothing, abandoning our allies at their moment of most severe need? Well, no they wouldn't Mr Speaker, because under this Government's plan we would have no control over our nuclear deterrent anymore. Were the worst to come to the worst this Government would leave us either with a debilitated deterrent incapable of defending us, as they try and desperately defend the British Isles of the 1980s and 90s with a system designed for the 1960s and 70s, or they would have replaced it... by sending it to Brussels. Mr Speaker, I quote: Mr Speaker not only would this most likely constitute a grave breach of multiple articles of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, potentially tripling the number of nuclear states in the world depending on the reading of this pledge, it would gravely undermine our nuclear capabilities. In the World of the pan-European deterrent the Prime Minister would not be able to make the call to our submarines for a response, he would have to make the call to Paris, and to Rome, and to West Berlin - if it's even still standing. Mr Speaker while the Government is calling Brussels we will lose what time we had and what time we needed, why has the Government proposed such an outrageous dereliction of duty as their cornerstone defence policy? This is truly the worst of all worlds. A deterrent that we have to procure, develop, and maintain, but that we cannot fire. It makes a mockery of every position in the nuclear debate by trying to please all sides. Mr Speaker this Government have no clue what it takes to defend the realm. It's hardly surprising when one half of the Coalition's been out of office for nearly a decade and the other half has been out of office for nearly a century. I urge all sides of the House to oppose these new defence measures and by extension this Queen's Speech, the agenda proposed by the Government, while containing few bright spots, is by and large a degradation of our capabilities, a rejection of our responsibilities, and a dereliction of our duties.

North Bedfordshire

Name: Arnold Appleby Avatar: James Spader Age: 56 (Born May 11th, 1930) Sex: Male Ethnicity: White Marital Status: Married Sexual Orientation: Straight Party: Conservative Faction/Subgroup: No Turning Back Political Outlook: Thatcherite and Social Conservative (bring back hanging type soc-con), pro-Europe up to a point (would join the Euro subject to certain safeguards, would not join a United States of Europe) Constituency: North Bedfordshire Year Elected: 1979 Education: Masters in Philosophy from Oxford University Career: Civil Servant Political Career: Elected as MP for North Bedfordshire in 1979 PPS to the Foreign Office in 1981 reshuffle Minister of State for the Armed Forces after 1983 Election Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs between the beginning of the round and the election

Speaker: I mean the Leader of the Opposition (Apologies, got that wrong. Kandler has till midnight tomorrow)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SIrppG5Rw0fThSOxj52ZTtm0vffUlnKd9PvPaMybZOY/edit?usp=drivesdk proposer and seconder make witty and funny speeches Speaker: Order, I call the Prime Minister!

Welcome aboard

Welcome back!

Welcome to the game!

Hey there, welcome to the game! Unfortunately we are currently playing a round set in 1986 which means that the seat you have claimed, Finchley and Golders Green, doesn't exist - indeed Maggie T is currently still in residence in Finchley so you can't claim that seat full stop. Please pick a new seat.

DIVISION! CLEAR THE LOBBIES!

Speaker: DIVISION! CLEAR THE LOBBIES!

(Apologies for the delay) Speaker: Debate will commence and last for (time) in accordance with the Opposition's timetable for today.

Welcome aboard!

Order, Second Reading

Enoch Powell: grabs mace and walks off Mr Speaker, Bernard Weatherill: Order! I name the Honourable Member as Enoch Powell and expel him from the day's sitting, Sergeant at Arms retrieve and replace the mace. Sergeant at Arms: takes the mace off of Enoch Powell and replaces it, escorts Mr Powell from the Chamber Rest of the Northern Irish Unionists: walk out as well

Welcome to the game!

Division! Clear the Lobbies! (Divisions now on Discord, 48hrs)

Speaker: ORDER! I will give the Foreign Secretary one response if he would like to use it, if not we shall proceed to division (24hrs)

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment to his high office and I regret, as I am sure he does, that his first duty in that new office is to come to the House on such a wretched occasion. Five people have died in sad and savage circumstances, and the first duty of the House today is to send sympathy to those who are mourning Mr. Kammalia Moliedina, Mr. Amir Moliedina, Mrs. Cynthia Jarrett, Police Constable Keith Blakelock and Mr. David Hodge. We send our concern and best wishes for a speedy and full recovery to Mrs. Cherry Groce, a tragic victim of these dreadful events, and to all others—police, firemen, ambulancemen and ordinary innocent citizens—who have suffered injury in disturbances which have included arson, looting and the dreadful crime of rape. Many have undergone serious financial loss, and I must first ask the Home Secretary what action can be taken to speed up the payment of compensation under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 and to expand that Act's scope to take account of loss of income after the riots. The House will be debating these matters on Wednesday, and I must repeat the anger that is felt on this side at the failure of the Government to provide time, which has meant that the House will have only half a day on each occasion to debate this profound issue and the crisis in southern Africa. Grave questions arise from these disorders, and it is essential that the country receives answers on matters which have caused profound national concern. These relate to the nature of policing during riots, and such questions come from the populations of the affected areas and from the police themselves. What the Home Secretary said today will not allay any of these anxieties. They relate to the relationship between the police and the community, in the inner cities and elsewhere. They include disquiet over the spreading use of firearms by the police, the background to the riots, mass unemployment, especially among teenagers, bad housing, environmental decay and dereliction and racial discrimination. The Home Secretary boasted today about funds provided under the urban programme, but such sums are only a fraction of the money that has been taken away from these areas in abolished housing subsidy, reduced rate support grant and rate support grant penalties. It is an absurdity that the Home Secretary boasted at Handsworth of the money going to Handsworth when in this financial year alone more money is being taken away from the city of Birmingham in rate support grant penalty than all those sums given over a period of years. Only two days after the Brixton disorders, in April 1981, Lord Whitelaw, as Home Secretary, announced to the House an inquiry under Lord Scarman to start right away. After the latest riots, however, the Government stubbornly refuse an inquiry. The Police Complaints Authority inquiries do not begin to be a substitute because, as Lord Scarman in his report insisted, "It is necessary before attempting an answer to the policing problem to understand the social problem." It is all very well for the Home Secretary to boast of the increase in police resources under the Conservatives, but he said nothing about the terrifying crime wave from which the county is suffering and which the clear-up rate shows the police are increasingly unable to combat. The social problem referred to by Lord Scarman has broadened and deepened. in the four years since his report, and the need for action is that much greater. Lord Scarman warned in his report that "to ignore the complex political, social and economic factors … is …to put the nation in peril." Our fear is that, unless the Governments response is much more far-seeing than has so far been demonstrated, Lord Scarman will have been right in his grim warning that "disorder will become a disease endemic in our society." Those are the dimensions of the challenge which we face and which the nation expects us to meet.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd) With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the recent disorders. During the past six weeks there have been three serious nots — in the Lozells road area of Birmingham, in Brixton, and Tottenham. Four people have died, one a police constable who was savagely killed. There have also been disorders in Liverpool, Leicester and Peckham in south London. Many police officers and others were injured. There were appalling attacks on the police with petrol bombs and other missiles, and especially in Birmingham and Brixton there was extensive looting of and attacks on shops and cars. All responsible members of our society will condemn the disgraceful criminal behaviour which has occurred and all responsible members of our society will applaud the courage and dedication of the police in doing their job of maintaining and restoring order on the streets and the housing estates of our major cities. Public order is essential for the maintenance of a civilised way of life and for the safety of individual citizens—on that there can be no compromise. So far 700 people have been charged with offences arising from the disorders. The riot in Brixton was triggered by the tragic shooting of Mrs. Groce, and the riot in Tottenham followed the death of Mrs. Jarrett after a search had been made at her home. These police operations are being investigated by senior officers from other police forces under the supervision of the independent Police Complaints Authority. These arrangements will ensure that they are fully investigated and that any necessary action is taken. In the case of the Lozells road riot, the chief constable of the west midlands is preparing a report which will be published. Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary is being associated closely with the preparation of that report. So far as police operations are concerned, although the other disorders were serious enough, the riot at Tottenham stands out for the problems which it presented to the police. In that riot, a police officer was killed, firearms were used, and the police had to face a ferocious barrage of petrol bombs and other missiles. The design of housing estates like that at Tottenham poses particular difficulties in such circumstances. The Metropolitan police commissioner is urgently reviewing the tactics of the force on such occasions. There must be no no-go areas in any of our cities. The riot at Tottenham was the first occasion in Great Britain when the chief officer of police gave authority for plastic baton rounds to be used, if necessary, though in fact they were not used. Plastic baton rounds and CS gas were made available to the police in Great Britain for public order use following the riots in 1981. They may be used only in the last resort, where conventional methods of policing have been tried and failed or must from the nature of the circumstances be unlikely to succeed if tried, and where the chief officer judges such action necessary because of the risk of loss of life, serious injury or widespread destruction of property. That threshold was reached at Tottenham. The commissioner had my full support in making it clear that such weapons would be deployed if similar circumstances arose in the future. Other matters need to be looked at. The defensive equipment introduced in recent years—helmets, shields and protective overalls — proved its worth. Without it there would have been more serious casualties. The Metropolitan police are acquiring more shields and other defensive equipment. We have to consider whether any further equipment is required, and that is being done. There may be lessons to be learnt in relation to police training and deployment. The commissioner is pursuing these matters and I am in close touch with him. I shall ensure that any lessons learnt are disseminated nationally. This Government have done more to meet the needs of the police than any in recent history. Since 1979 the Metropolitan police have increased in strength by nearly 4,500 officers; and other forces in England and Wales are stronger by a similar number. Including civilians, strength has increased by some 12,000. Even after a welcome intake of recruits, the Metropolitan police still have scope to increase strength by about 300 within its present establishment of 27,165. I support the commissioner in his efforts to make good this shortfall as quickly as possible. The force's reorganisation should, in addition, release 200 officers for operational duties; and I have authorised an increase of nearly 50 in the civil staff ceiling next year for further civilianisation. Following my predecessor's announcement in July on drugs, I have told the commissioner that I am prepared in principle to agree to an increase of 50 officers in the establishment next year specifically to strengthen his efforts against drug trafficking. Taken together, these steps mean that there will be a substantial strengthening of the Metropolitan police in the months ahead. Beyond that I have set urgent work in hand to assess where there are specific needs for further increases in the Metropolitan police establishment, and I shall consider applications from provincial police authorities on the same basis—namely, that the police should have what they need in the fight against crime. In recent years, much effort has been put into establishing good liaison and consultation between the police and the community in inner city areas, particularly, for example, in Brixton and Handsworth. These disorders must be—I know that they are—deeply depressing for those community leaders and police officers who have put so much effort into establishing a better understanding. But it would be wrong to assume that these efforts were misplaced. On the contrary, they must be continued and redoubled if the police are to protect and serve the community efficiently. More broadly, the Government will continue their strong commitment to urban regeneration. The urban programme has more than tripled, from £93 million in 1978–79 to £338 million in 1985–86, and there has been substantial expenditure in all the riot areas. The Department of Employment and the Manpower Services Commission are spending more than £100 million in the partnership areas, and my Department plans to spend some £90 million in 1985–86 through section 11 grants. We must ensure that the very substantial sums that now go, and will continue to go, to inner city areas are spent to the best advantage and directed to the real needs of the people who live there. The city action teams have been set up to improve the co-ordination and targeting of Government programmes in the partnership areas. We shall do everything to ensure that our objectives in the inner city areas are achieved. These disorders are shocking events. It is of paramount interest of us all, young and old, people of all ethnic backgrounds, that public order should be maintained. I acknowledge—we all acknowledge—the social problems which exist in these areas, but it is no solution to loot and burn shops which serve the area or to attack the police. Mob violence must be dealt with firmly and effectively and criminal acts punished according to the criminal law. The police should have the support of all of us in striving to maintain order and uphold the law. It is their first priority. It is the Government's also.

Post here to make sure you get your constituency, we have a spreadsheet to help you keep track of player claims. Please do not claim constituencies held by important people in the pre-round, Maggie isn't leaving Finchley for example. Here's the Spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TwEdoSP9TX45XTsgE_4OhCVGcLTF67Ifu1zx26JgOHY/edit?usp=sharing

Mr Speaker, If there were ever any doubt that we are faced with the same old Labour and the same old danger we have conclusive proof now. This is a bureaucratic nightmare of a Bill set against an anti-business budget that puts employers and employment last, runs roughshod over employees' interests, and puts the Government's paymasters in the Trades Union movement in poll position. This legislation is actively dangerous and I urge ever member of this esteemed body to vote against it before it is too late. The crux of this legislation is the creation of so-called FPAs. Just 10% of workers are needed to try and create an FPA, no matter what the other 90% think, triggering months of bureaucratic movement starting at ACAS, an organisation never built or designed to undertake this additional work, and ending in a complex multi-part referendum splitting employers and employees into a two constituency First Past the Post system, winner takes it all... so long as they voted for the FPA. Mr Speaker after three months of protracted, complicated negotiation there is the aforementioned referendum which, as stated, must achieve a 50%+1 majority of both employers and employees to achieve a positive response and take effect. A negative response is simply not allowed. This legislation pre-supposes that the voters got it wrong when they rejected the FPA, they clearly want an FPA the Chancellor muses so they will get one. "Both sides must resume bargaining", even if only 5% of workers vote for the FPA (meaning half have since changed their mind) and 0% of employers vote for it, they must bargain on. Indeed they must continue to bargain until the referendum reaches what the Government deem to be the correct result or ACAS will simply enforce an agreement. This Government is literally forcing employers and employees to negotiate an agreement they may not even want or the Government and their public bodies will agree one for them. At this point voting is an optional extra. Once an FPA is in place you cannot leave it. Think about that for a second. Think about how drastically the economy changed in a couple of days during Labour's financial crisis and recession in 2007. Unemployment skyrocketed, hours worked fell through the floor, but under an FPA every worker is entitled to a standard weekly allocation of hours. There is no provision to quickly amend an FPA so during a recession a business under the purview of an FPA would have two real choices, fire workers or go bankrupt. It would be punishable by £20,000 fine per worker for them to reduce hours to avoid layoffs unless they are prepared to negotiate an amendment and have it ratified in a potentially nationwide vote. Anti-business, anti-worker, these are Labour's Layoffs. If you are fortunate and your FPA covers a period of time where there is no paradigm shattering economic upheaval then you are, once again, at the mercy of Labour's trades union masters. It is the Unions, not the workers, who can decide to open FPA negotiations again when the current one is ending. That means that the Unions, not the workers, have the right to force both employer and employee back through the never-ending bureaucracy trying to reach an agreement lest ACAS agree one for you. But this time there is a delightful twist Mr Speaker. An existing FPA cannot end until the new bargaining phase is complete. That means that a Trades Union could, without any mandate whatsoever, call for new negotiations and have them carry on indefinitely just to enforce the old FPA. Mr Speaker this legislation is dangerous. It puts workers at the beck and call of the unions when it should quite clearly be the other way round. It invests vast and unaccountable power in the hands of a tiny minority of workers in an industry and puts the entire industry at the mercy of 10% of their colleagues, who could live on the other side of the country. And it creates a bureaucratic hell-scape of red tape with the end result being an enforced result irrespective of what the employers and employees actually want. Mr Speaker ACAS is a dispute and contractual resolution body, it is not and has never been a body designed to enforce agreements on an entire industry because the employers and employees could not give the "correct" answer which this Bill is so desperately demanding that they come up with. This Bill would be a disaster for employers, a disaster for employees, and a disaster for regulators. It has no place on our statute books and I once again urge every member of this esteemed body to reject it entirely and utterly.

Name: Harold Symmons Avatar: Robert Reddington (James Spader) Age: 45 Sex: Male Ethnicity: White British Marital Status: Married with two kids Sexual Orientation: Straight Party: Conservatives Faction/Subgroup: Maybot/Red Tory Political Outlook: Campaigned to leave the European Union arguing for the end of free movement, leaving the SM and CU. Opposes No Deal. Quietly sceptical of austerity. Has openly stated that there should be no second referendum on independence "for many decades". Constituency: Banff and Buchan Year Elected: 2017 Education: Mr Symmons went to a Comprehensive School then graduated from Edinburgh University with a degree in Teaching. Career: Economics Teacher Political Career: Mr Symmons was elected as a Regional List MSP in 2011 for the North East List (Tory, duh), he contested Aberdeen North in the Constituency Vote. He supported Ruth Davidson in the Leadership election. In 2015 Symmons contested the General Election in the seat of Banff and Buchan, losing. In 2016 he stood in the Constituency seat Banffshire and the Buchan Coast losing but keeping his seat on the North East List. In 2017 Symmons was finally successful and won the seat of Banff and Buchan from the SNP, he has not resigned his seat in Holyrood at the time of recording.

Banff and Buchan

Sir Dylan Macmillan, Leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party, travelled to Perth, Scotland, to deliver a speech on Scottish Unionism and Devolution in the 21st Century All my life I have been proud of our United Kingdom. I have been proud of every nation within our great Union. Whether it's England, Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland there is so much that we have done together which would not have been possible if we had been apart. The United Kingdom came together to end the international slave trade, to defeat Naziism on the mainland, and to create our NHS - the envy of the World. But time never stands still and as time has marched on our Union has come under ever increasing threat. Whether it's Labour's deal with the Welsh and Northern Irish Nationalists or the SNP's rise to power we have to remain vigilant in our defence of the Union, and in making our case for the Union, if the Union is to survive. Ladies and Gentlemen, I intend to travel to all corners of the United Kingdom and deliver the Conservative vision for the future of the Union. I have come here to Perth to unveil the Conservative Vision for Scotland. I would like to begin my remarks by paying tribute to my good friend and colleague Ruth Davidson, the Leader of the Scottish Conservatives, she has been the single greatest opponent of Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP, the Batman to the SNP's Jokers. She has rebuilt the Scottish Conservative Party through her hard work and endeavours and the whole country owes her a great debt for her work in holding the SNP to account. When you contrast her with McCrimmon, who wants to ennoble Alex Salmond while he is under investigation for potential sexual assaults, with Clarke who served as McCrimmon's Foreign Secretary, or with Sturgeon who is simply managing the decline of Scottish education and health I can think of nobody better to be Scotland's voice. My friends Scotland is such a vibrant, compassionate, and incredible nation. The Conservative Party does not seek to change any of that, we seek to enhance it. That is why I am happy to announce that the Conservative Party will be supporting Northern Powerhouse Rail with an amendment. This amendment will stipulate that NPR and HS2 be connected to Scotland via Edinburgh and Glasgow. From Glasgow it will then travel to right here in Perth where it will branch to Aberdeen and Inverness. This High-Speed Rail amendment will bring millions, if not billions, to the Scottish Economy turbo charging the ports in the Highlands and providing them with a low cost, high speed, link to the rest of the United Kingdom ensuring the continued flourishing of these vital cities and their local communities. It will also help reinvigorate Central and Southern Scotland providing major connectivity opportunities to the people of Perth, Glasgow, and Edinburgh bringing thousands of jobs north of Hadrian's Wall and creating investment opportunities for the entire United Kingdom, centred around Scotland. This is just one example of the fantastic opportunities which the United Kingdom brings to all nations within it, and it is something I am deeply proud of. On top of this, after deep discussions with Ruth and with Welsh Conservatives we have identified additional devolutionary measures which can be delivered if Scotland and Wales elect a Conservative First Minister. We will build on the fantastic devolutionary innovations which have come from Birmingham, London, and the Tees Valley to deliver bespoke devolutionary trials for Scottish cities in a similar vein. With the consent of the local population, we would trial this city devolution in Greater Glasgow, Edinburgh and Lothian, and Aberdeen giving them greater powers in line with Birmingham, and a directly elected Mayor like the Mayor of London. This scheme would run with the intention to expand to other cities and combined authorities delivering opportunity and accountability to local communities. But the centrepiece of Modern Unionism for the Conservative Party is our innovation in direct funding. My heart breaks when I read about the failures of the SNP in Holyrood. It breaks when I hear about Scottish students with less opportunity now than they had a decade ago, and less opportunity than their English counterparts. It breaks when I hear about the oncoming opioid epidemic with 1 in 5 Scots being prescribed powerful painkillers usually reserved for palliative care or cancer treatment. I believe that as MPs we have a responsibility to our constituents and as a United Kingdom we have a responsibility to our constituent nations. Let me be clear, direct funding does not mean taking from Holyrood and using Scottish Government funds to pursue British Government priorities, what it means is that we will provide direct funding from Westminster to protect the Scottish, Welsh, or Northern Irish people. If a Westminster MP in England petitions the Chancellor for a new school in their constituency, they can be heard, if a Scottish MP does the same they have to be directed to Holyrood creating a second class of MP. But at a time when Scottish educational outcomes are not keeping pace with the rest of the United Kingdom doesn't the United Kingdom have a duty to invest in Scotland's future? Why should a Scottish person have fewer rights to call upon the support of the British Government than an English person? They're both British citizens. When we are elected the Conservative Party will put forward a new Scotland Act in conjunction with legislation for the other three nations in the United Kingdom. This Act will make clear that the British Government can invest in Scotland, in reserved matters, but place the clear limitation that such spending is done with its own money and without impacting the Barnett Formula. It will also lay the groundwork for the devolution of Brexit powers in conjunction with the SNP's motion in the House of Commons and it will repeal English Votes for English Laws. Ladies and Gentlemen this is just a taste of what the Conservative Party will seek to do if we are in power in Westminster or Holyrood. We will seek to devolve from Westminster and from Edinburgh to ensure that power resides with the people and with their communities, we will invest in infrastructure so that Scotland feels the full power of our investment agenda, and we will take the steps necessary to ensure that British Citizens in Scotland are treated with the same care and attention as those in England. The Conservative Party is a party which believes in the United Kingdom, in all of our United Kingdom. We will deliver for Scotland in a way that twenty years of Labour and SNP dominance has failed to do. While Labour Prime Ministers try to appoint alleged sex pests to the Lords and the SNP plies its trade in grievances we will govern with our New Deal for Scotland just as we will for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland.