The Commonwealth is a vital and positive partnership between countries striving to develop trade relations and promote democracy and human rights, united by shared values.
Douglas Alexander
Scotland and England may sometimes be rivals, but by geography, we are also neighbours. By history, allies. By economics, partners. And by fate and fortune, comrades, friends and family.
I'm at one with Ed Miliband in saying that it's important that people have the right to express their democratic voices and also their deep concerns about climate change because we have a planet in peril.
It was here in Edinburgh that in the 1980s I joined with many others to protest against Margaret Thatcher as she arrived to address the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.
In every generation, there are horrors that define an age and events that scar the global conscience.
In sport, as in science, business, and diplomacy, as Scots we understand that we benefit from the deep and diverse partnerships that make up the United Kingdom.
Most people understand that Lehman Brothers didn't collapse because Gordon Brown built too many schools and hospitals.
In this age of growing interconnectedness, we understand that turning our backs on the world is simply not an option.
Of course we need to show we are a genuine alternative to an unpopular, Conservative-led government. But we need to set ourselves a higher standard than a party offering anger like UKIP.
Traditionally, diplomacy was done in an environment of information scarcity. Ambassadors would send back telegrams to foreign ministries, comfortable in the knowledge that their views of a country would be the only source of information the minister would see.
What people want is a sense of a better future to come.
The style of politics that Damian McBride represents has been discredited, and Labour has moved on.
Labour's task for government is to build consent for an outward-looking Britain as the best way to advance not just our interests, but also our values at a time of challenge, both at home and abroad.
As times change, so do the way each generation see the world. It is rather like the way our generation came to see our grandparents' views on the Empire and colonies as outdated.
Being prime minister is not a job to be performed with an eye for the exit.
I do think our challenge is to balance credibility and a clear message about how we would reduce the deficit with boldness about the choices that we put before the public.
The Network Generation are secure in, and proud of, their Scottishness. Unlike my generation that grew up in the '80s, they don't see our sense of identity as under threat.
I'm in agreement with David Miliband when he says our generation of Labour politicians are not willing to hand over the direction of the country without a serious electoral fight.
I think politicians who suggest they are uninterested in the support of newspapers are not being straight with people.
David Cameron's approach has left Britain weakened and weary because to retreat from the world is as foolish as it is futile.
It is already clear that, because of advances in technology, drones are going to play an increased role in warfare in the years ahead. It is therefore vital that the legal frameworks governing their use are robust and internationally recognised.
If you're part of the Network Generation, you don't have to belong just to one nation. Dual identities come easily to these dual screeners. They fear a separate Scotland would be a narrowing, not a broadening, experience.
Historically, Labour has used technology as a form of control. We would use pagers and faxes to send out messages telling people what line to take. The key learning from the Obama campaign is to use technology to empower your supporters.
David Cameron wants people to believe that his isolation in Europe is a result of Britain being outnumbered when it matters most.
If you talk to most people under 30, they don't read a newspaper.
There's no doubt that what has emerged in the years after 9/11, unlike the situation in Britain, there were practices sanctioned in the U.S. that fall far below the standard of conduct that should have taken place. It is for the American system of government, in all of its branches, to address that. It is not for a British politician.
Building the future holds more attraction than ancestor worship, whichever ancestor we're talking about.
For me, fiscal realism is not a betrayal of Labour values; it is the foundation by which we win the trust of the public.
Too often, the idea seemed to be that the cost of being part of Europe was being less like Britain. So after years of fighting to defend Europe against attacks from the Eurosceptic right, it would be fatal to retreat into the same arguments and begin the battle anew.
In an era of billion-person countries and trillion-pound economies, we need to find ways to amplify our voice. We are most likely to be heard when the Chinese negotiate with a £10 trillion E.U., not a £1.5 trillion Britain.
Change is a process: future is a destination. People want a sense of hope, possibility and pride about Britain.
A politics that defines itself by difference holds no appeal for me.
Solidarity is the basis of my politics.
I don't get up in the morning and think my mission is to end Britain. I do get up in the morning and think that my mission is to end poverty.
We can have enhanced devolution - greater powers in Scotland - but within the strength, security and stability of the United Kingdom, and I think that's what most Scots want.
One of the big weaknesses of the Conservative Party is not just their ignorance of and lack of effective response to the cost-of-living crisis but a more fundamental error about what makes for success in the 21st century.
We'll set our approach to borrowing, to spending, to taxation, in a sensible way on a sensible timescale.
The Conservatives are so busy focusing on yesterday, they're not focused on tomorrow... on how elections are won in the 21st century.
If Nick Clegg hadn't been sitting around the cabinet table, we wouldn't have had the bedroom tax; we wouldn't have had the rise in tuition fees. We wouldn't have had the mistakes we've seen in economic policy.
I take UKIP very seriously. The truth is that UKIP presents an electoral challenge to all political parties. The way to defeat UKIP is not to be a better UKIP but to be a better Labour Party.
The depth of concern people feel about UKIP is not always matched by depth of understanding.
Of course we are looking to win support across every section of society. We win support by speaking to voters on the issues they most care about.
I've never been interested in self-promotion and that side of politics; and if that means people judge that you're less prominent than others, that's a choice I've been willing to make.
Any politician in a democracy has to be mindful of public opinion.
David Cameron can change the branding of the party, but he can't change the beliefs.
My general approach to opposition is where the government is getting something right, we should say so. And where we disagree with them, we should say so, too.
Newspapers can make their own judgment in terms of who they support in a general election. Our responsibility is to make a considered judgment about where the national interest lies.
What matters in any campaign is that you have a strategic core that makes the judgements, decides the strategy, and can deliver.
It would be wrong for us to offer difference from the Conservative Party at the cost of credibility, but equally it would be wrong to offer credibility at the cost of being clear that there remain very fundamental differences.
Politicians often reveal most about themselves in unguarded moments.
