Sidney asked for us to research the State AG's... https://t.co/mDFwEr9goD

Keir Starmer giving his most important speech yet-laying out his vision for the future.

“The Conservatives say they want to build back. But I don’t want to go back. You can’t return to business as usual. And certainly not back to an economy rooted in insecurity and inequality.”

"The foundations of our society have been weakened over a decade...even before the pandemic life expectancy had stalled for the first time in a century. Child poverty had shot up to over 4 million. A child growing up in a deprived areas of the North East can expect to live for.."

"...five fewer years than a deprived child brought up in a deprived area of London. What sort of legacy is that for a party which has been in govt for a decade? That life itself got cheaper. And shorter."

"During the last year my thoughts have returned time and time again to the wartime generation. Those who suffered the horrors of WW2, who rebuilt Britain from the rubble of the Blitz, created the NHS and built millions of homes fit for heroes. And I contrast that...

"...to those exposed to Covid in underfunded care homes, unable to say goodbye to families and to loved ones. How can the PM look those families in the eye and say 'we did everything we could'? When the truth is the Tories failed to fix social care for a decade?"

Spectator thread: Among the Scottish parliament’s many crucial roles, there is none more important than its ability to scrutinise government and hold it to account. The same is true of a free press. Both are at their best when they hold power to account on behalf of the public.

But neither can do this essential duty when crucial documents are withheld during important inquiries. The Holyrood inquiry into the Scottish Gov’s handling of the Alex Salmond affair decided last week that it would not publish crucial submissions, including Mr Salmond’s ....

... apparently because it would contravene reporting restrictions rightly introduced to protect the identity of complainants.
We have published a duly redacted version of Alex Salmond’s account on our website.

We felt that an overly-cautious interpretation of the court order by the committee was frustrating the due process of parliamentary inquiry — and the freedom of the press to publish matters of public interest and importance.

We were aware that the court never intended to obstruct parliamentary or public scrutiny; but because of how the committee had interpreted the issue, we today sought clarification from the High Court in Edinburgh.