01/04/2012 Sunday Politics Scotland

George Galloway conjured up a Sten -- an astonishing by-election

victory. Has he knocked the stuffing out of Labour?

The Health and Social dead -- Care Bill gets through Parliament at

last. But what does it mean for Andrew Lansley? And here:

Sccusations that the Scottish Government's referendum

consultation is rigged as the Westminster one shows support for

an early vote. The gas leak that keeps leaking in

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 1799 seconds

the North Sea. Are the risks of Deal care if the private sector

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 1799 seconds

We are seeing productivity increase in the NHS where it did not

increase under Labour. So NHS hospitals will be in a strong a

place to provide the services patients need. If you are re-

elected in 2015, can you give a guarantee that there will be no

further reorganisation? legislation is very clear...

can't? Can you give a pledge that there will be no a major

reorganisation from 2015? For my point of view and I am sure it will

be the same for David, the legislation was to deal with all of

the issues required and the reforms, in order to sustain the NHS in the

21st century, so to that extent, absolutely, it should give

sustainability for a long period of time. And you won't enforce some of

the changes asked by the Lib Dems and the Lords? No. You talked about

amendments but in the Lords, we made amendments through a process

of constructive debate and agreement. There were 32 votes in

the Lords and we actually only lost two, one of which we accepted, and

another where Lord Patel of Bradford put forward another

suggestion which we are unhappy with. It has a great degree of

sustainability. Do you have any regrets? Yes. A year ago, we had to

stop the legislation to have a full engagement with NHS staff. Although

we consulted on the white paper more than 18 months ago, many of

the organisations that responded did not get to grips with what was

in the legislation, said to have had that kind of engagement with

the NHS Future Forum would have been better earlier. Given your

unpopularity among swathes of health professionals, would it not

be better to let somebody else come in and implement these reforms?

Your damaged goods in the eyes of health professionals? That is very

kind of you to say so! Others say different things. That comes from

the trade unions. What they are all now is that for eight-and-a-half

years as my party spokesman, I have been an advocate and supporter of

the NHS. We have increased resources for the NHS in real terms

each year. Has it destroyed your political career? No, it hasn't.

you still have one? I have a passion for ensuring the NHS is in

a stronger place in the future to give greater service and benefits

to patients. All right. We have run out of time. Delivering quality for

patients in the future will absolutely be my aim. Thank you. We

will talk to you in the future if you are still Secretary of State

for Health. You are watching Sunday Politics. Still coming up...

Good afternoon and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland. Coming up

on the programme, a new war of words on the independence

referendum. It could take six months to resolve

the gas leak at the Total platform near Elgin. Is the price of deep

sea drilling too great? Should the drink-drive limit be

lowered in Scotland? We hear from a campaigner who says a lower limit

would save lives. I feel like an episode of Casualty. When I stood

up, I thought they should shout, cut, and then I realised it was

real. I was lying down. But first, Westminster and Holyrood

are at loggerheads once more over the independence referendum. This

time it's over whose consultation process is more valid. The UK

Government says its consultation shows that there is a clear

majority in favour of an early ballot. Meanwhile, opposition

parties are challenging the validity of the Scottish

Government's referendum consultation after it emerged

people could respond anonymously and multiple times. Our reporter

Laura Bicker has more. So, there were two consultations on

both side of the border. 3,000 people replied to Westminster. They

included individuals and business representatives. 70% of people said

they would like a referendum earlier than in the autumn of 2014.

22% supported the Scottish government timescale. The UK

Government said none of the replies were anonymous and they did not

accept multiple replies in the same name. But it has emerged north of

the border, that was allowed. The Scottish government's consultation

does accept anonymous contributions and multiple submissions. We have

got a First Minister voting about how many responses -- boasting

about how many responses he has received but people are sitting at

home sending in the same answers. We need confidence in this

consultation because we are talking about the future of our country.

need to be able to rely on having no leaks. They have to publish

every submission they receive. We can then get some idea as to how

many responses were anonymous and therefore how much suspicion we

might have. The Scottish government said they had more than 10,000

replies. The consultation will run until 11th May.

Joining me now art Stewart Hosie and Anas Sarwar. Stewart Hosie,

let's start with the SNP government consultation of. What kind of

confidence can the public have had a consultation process that allows

a anonymous responses and modelled for responses from the same

address? They can have a great deal of confidence because it will be

independently verified. Let's get to the fact. The Scottish

government's consultation uses exactly the same rules used in 2004

by Labour on the smoking ban consultation. And the same that we

used in 2006 in the tourism bill consultation in the name of

Patricia Ferguson. And even the Calman Commission and utterly

accepted but published anonymous entries. The information into the

Scottish government's consultation was far larger than the UK one. It

will be independently verified and published, I am sure, as was said.

Do you accept people can make multiple anonymous comments and

submissions to this consultation? Are you saying there is some way in

which this can be just rolled out later on in the process? -- called

out. Well, during the process, it is made clear when there is a

number of the duplicates. The rules being used are exactly the same as

being used in every single other consultation. Given the importance

of this referendum and given that, for example, even pro-independence

supporters might question the credibility of this consultation,

why did you not put in roles like Westminster did, saying, no

multiple submissions and no multiple ones? Because there was

used are exactly the same as used in a Labour bill and the Calman

Commission. I understand you are saying there is a degree of

hypocrisy, but as somebody now who is commenting on the Scottish

government and its proposals, do you think the public, the wider

public, can have confidence in this? I think they can. We

understand from the rumours that half the consultation responses to

the UK Government's very small consultation came through a website

poor tour run by the Labour body. I think if there is any question over

the efficacy, it should be over the UK one. It was so self-selecting

that half the submissions came from members of one political party.

What are you saying when this consultation closes in May? Who

will verify what was a legitimate vote and what was not? These are

not votes, these are submissions. Yes, I understand. Who will verify

they are from one single person and who they are from? It will probably

be verified and the findings will be published as normal in house.

if that is the case, there will be no problem. Surely it is the same

process as consultations in the past? Firstly, it is not, because

you don't even have to submit any form of identity to put in an

anonymous response. And you can put in an -- multiple responses. They

also go on about how many responses they have received and putting that

to the figure to the UK response, where Bobby did have to put in an

email address and proof of identity. On the Labour party's own website,

you have to put in your name. It is not anonymous. But you could put in

multiple response is? -- Malta poor responses? You can see who has put

in a response would their name and email address. And then the

validity of the process itself, it is clear having a consultation

process where you can put in multiple responses and anonymous

without any email address or name is not only open to abuse, it is

designed for abuse. That is a very significant accusation here,

Stewart Hosie, that you have to sign this for abuse. You are

actually saying that the SNP are trying to rig this? Is that how you

read it? The responses through the Labour Party website are being

monitored but that is worrying if Labour are able to monitor

responses through the website to a public consultation. That is

extremely concerning. If what I said was that individual email

addresses and names that will go in our inner responses. I am making

that accusation... This is more about Alex Salmond's legacy for

Scotland. What we need is a robust process that the people of Scotland

We have had exactly the same at roles in any other consultation. We

did not just take the enormous admissions. I find it disgusting

that the good people of Scotland entering this consultation honestly

and openly are being talked down and having entries minimised

crassly by the Labour Party. What about the idea that we have got a

predetermined intention to break this referendum? Clearly, that is

absolutely false. This is a public consultation. People can submit any

response they want and quite rightly. It will be considered by

the Scottish government as part of the process of the referendum in

2014 and the idea it has been at rate is an appalling accusation by

the Labour Party. What will be processed be to ensure that we have

not got multiple responses by SNP members? He said it would be buried

for -- unverified. By whom? -- and verified. We have to move on to the

consultation that is talking about an early timescale as opposed to be

preferred 2014 timescale. What do you think? They clearly fear the

verdict of the Scottish people. What do you think would be

appropriate? It should be as quick and clear as possible. What about

the legal process. I think we should be open to having a

referendum earlier rather than later because it is undermining

confidence. You support 2013? soon as possible. What is your

response to be 70 % in favour of an earlier time scale? We might well

have people keen to see Scotland Independent and they want the

referendum sooner rather than later but I think 2014 makes sense. The

consultation will tell us what people think about that. It is a

big decision and it is important we get it right and consider issues

properly be. We should not rush this port narrow party advantage.

This is what the public say they want. You are not convinced?

winners are half of the people wanting this are Labour Party

members. It is not really a public vote, is it? Thank you for coming

in today. As gas leaks from the Elgin Platform, Total is

considering pumping marred to plug it. It has got rigs available to

draw off the gas and allow be well to be sealed. It is an expensive

option and could take six months. Total have asked companies involved

in the Deep Water Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico to help.

Professor Martin Preston is a pollution expert from the

University of Liverpool. How dangerous do you think this

situation remains, even though the flair has gone out? Now declare has

gone out, that has taken out one significant risk. But we have got a

big gas leak at risk because it is coming out on the platform and it

will be difficult to seal it off. It will take a long time to fix.

Can people be put back on that timetable in the foreseeable

future? The decision will not be easy. You are putting people into

dangerous situations and it will be a hazardous environment with Gas

meeting. You need to get to a stage where the area of greatest risk has

been sorted out. A small event like a static discharge from a piece of

clothing or a dropped to all causing a spark, that could cause a

calamity and that is what everybody wants to avoid. A great deal of

thought will have to go into putting people back on the platform

and I am sure Total will be exploring the options without

having to put people at risk. what happens has to be digging out

double Wells, that could take six months. Possibly, yes. If they have

to do that, this particular area is not in deep water but be well

itself is buried deep. -- buried deep. The League has come from an

unexpected pocket of gas. -- extremely deep. It is leaking gas

coming from a subsidiary. Technically, it is going to be a

difficult fix and when that you are drilling you have got to be sure

where to drill before you get started. We understand it is deep-

water drilling. Is that more dangerous? Is what happening in

Elgin telling us about technology and safety? As easy reserves are

getting used up, obviously people are looking more and more at remote

options. These are inherently more dangerous. Deep water and remote

locations and hostile environments or increase risk. I think

everybody's concern is that the technology allowing drilling is not

being matched by the technology for dealing with accidents when they

happen. We saw that in the Gulf of Mexico at. The technology for

drilling was obviously dead but people seemed to be making it up as

they went along when they tried to fix the problem and that is the

main concern. Technology is not keeping up. Our commercial

considerations driving all this? -- is it that. That would appear to be

the case. You get money by taking gas and oil out of the ground and

you do what you can to make reasonable preparations to deal

with problems when they happened. But when something major and

unexpected happens like in the Gulf of Mexico and like what has

happened here with a secondary gas supply, these are things which can

catch people out and you might not have the technology and expertise

and even the basic procedures to get going quickly. Thank you very

much indeed. The Scottish Environment Secretary is in

Inverness. If we just pick up that final point, do you have concerns

about this problem between what technology can deliver and the

safety procedures that we have got in place? If that were the case I

would certainly be concerned. The problem we have discussed today, we

will have to have a full inquiry to discover what happened. The problem

last summer as well. It is important to find out what has

caused the problem and make sure appropriate action is taken. We

have got a safety procedure in place at the moment and this time

last week, the platform was evacuated and that is why we have

not had risk to life since then. We are looking at the potential

environmental risk. What sort of independent advice do you get on

the sort of solutions that Total have come up with? They are looking

at putting in a massive amount of mud. Do you have advised that said

that it might not be best for the Environment? We have got a

procedure in place at the moment. We have got people attached to the

UK Government for climate change and energy and they are giving

advice at the moment to baize in Aberdeen. If they thought they had

a threat to the environment, a response team would be called and

that would be a side from Total. We have got a mechanism. What would

you think was an appropriate regime? Do you think you have to

take the company's were freed on their assessment or should we have

a rigorous assessment of what is happening independently? We have

got lessons to learn from this episode. Particularly at the end of

last summer. Transparency is very important. We have perhaps got off

to a slow start in terms of putting information in the public domain.

That was the view of the company last summer as well. They have got

to have a contingency plan in place. They have to focus on the job in

hand, to make people safe and prevent more damage to the

environment. That is the focus for the next couple of days. They have

to rely on information coming from the company offshore because we

cannot get it ourselves. It has to be as transparent as possible.

think it is all right, in fact that is not a fair way of putting it,

but you have to accept what the company tells you? I am saying

perhaps we do have to look at this independently. I want to discuss

this and make sure we have got transparency from the first few

seconds onwards. Because he would be uncomfortable with how this has

developed? We have always got lessons to learn and transparency

is very important. The obvious question is that if we have a post

independent Scotland, what confidence can the public had that

a UK government with economic strategy is looking at drilling

revenues in the teacher? What confidence can they have that he

would prioritise safety in the environment before that economic

interest? -- future? We will look at the environment and grow the

economy at the same time. We are looking at Natural Resources and

oil and gas has got a long way to go. We have not looked at all of

that so far. We do want to see development but of course we have

to have a robust safety system in place to protect life, given the

hundreds of thousands of people working in the North Sea and

protect the environment. We want the best and safest regime anywhere

in the world. What is your understanding of when this problem

might be contained and switched off, as it were? Now the flame has

extinguished, one of the bigger risk factors has been removed. We

have got decisions which will be taken by the company. First,

personnel will have to be put on the platform with a view to

blocking the leakage. Then the relief well which could take up to

six months. It has got to be done MSPs have endorsed the Scotland

Bill, giving Holyrood the power to set the drinking and driving

regulations. Northern Ireland are already reducing it and the

Scottish government are keen to go the same way but it was rejected by

Westminster last year. How low should it go? It happen very

quickly. One minute I am standing on the pavement and then I am lying

on the ground and I heard my daughter screaming. Her five-year

old son was knocked down and killed along with two others by a driver

high on drink and drugs eight years ago. It was like an episode of

Casualty. I thought, who is going to shout cut? I realised it was

real. My son was dying. Figures indicate that in 2009, more than

900 casualties on the roads, 7% reported were down to drink drivers.

14 % of deaths that year were fatalities. -- these types of this

fallacies. -- fatalities. A review commissioned by the UK Government

last year recommended reducing the test to 50 milligrams but this was

rejected by ministers say no more money should be spent on

enforcement. But the Scottish government wants to lower the limit.

This bill could give them the opportunity to do just that.

want to bring it down to 50. That sends out a clear message that

drinking and driving is not acceptable and it will reduce the

number of people seriously injured every year because of the problems.

What does it mean in practice? It is difficult to say. With a 50

milligram limit you might be able to drink a small glass of wine and

a male could drink a larger glass but it depends on the individual

and some campaigners say it should be 20 milligrams, almost a total

One problem is that people don't know where they stand. It is

impossible to know, without being tested, how much alcohol is in your

blood. It depends on your sex, your weight and the rate of metabolism.

Police agree it is better not to drink and drive atoll but this

would be difficult to enforce. They support the 50 milligram limit but

also want more powers to stop and test motorists. There are other

measures we would support. There are measures in other countries and

it is a piece of armoury that puts the fear into people being caught,

and at the end of the day, that is what will deter people. There

appears to be growing support for a 50 milligram limit in Scotland. The

SNP party, the Lib Dems and Labour are in favour. But there is also

concern that different laws across the UK could be confusing. If you

have different limits across borders, people will have mixed

messages about how much they can drink. There is already confusion

about how much you can drink and this will only add to it.

Michelle believes it could make a difference. I hope it would work

and get further towards people being safer on the roads. And

hopefully not drink-driving. little earlier, I spoke to Alex

Johnstone. I asked why the Tories would not support a lower limit.

could put in a lower limit and get prosecutions and have it enforced.

But I believe people who are already two, three, four times

above the limit are not being caught. The difference between the

current limit and the proposed new limit is not where we will make the

most to gain. Why cannot do both? We could do, but additional

resources would be necessary for that. Would you support random

breath testing? That issue is something we have not yet discussed

at great length, but it is something we have to be aware of in

the future and it is something which would be developed as a civil

liberties argument by some political people. Would you be in

favour or not? It is fair to say that random breath-testing is

something which could only be exploited if it was acceptable to

the broader community. Let's just clarify what your position is. You

would prefer another approach to this but were the Scottish

Government to come forward with an idea to get it to 50 comedy would

support it? We would take the argument very seriously. What about

reducing it to 20? And think the priority when you set a limit is to

make sure you have a limit that can be properly policed and convictions

can be obtained. If we set very low limits, we set the priority in a

different area. For example, you might find the most productive use

of the play's's time enforcing that limit would be to spend time in a

supermarket car-park on a Sunday morning. -- the police's time. The

significant reduction in drink- driving could mean we take our eye

of the ball. And you wouldn't see some difficulty in differences

between the borders? It is not impossible that under the new

devolved powers, we might see a different limit in Scotland, though

I agree it could be tricky. Just on to the comments by Peter Cruddas,

extremely embarrassing for the Tory government, when he makes it clear

many are not in favour of the union and would be delighted if Scotland

were independent? I think the SNP's hysteria is driving his home and we

need to see Alex Salmond spend less of his time in London arguing with

London politicians. What other possible message could you take

from what he said? I think he was making comments that were of his

own mind and they don't reflect the arguments taking place in Scotland

today. But you have to concede it is very embarrassing for you?

we have to see in future is the SNP bringing their arguments to

Scotland and arguing against the majority of Scottish people who

favour the continuation of the Union. So, on drink-driving, the

Scottish Conservatives say may be. What about Labour. Their

spokesperson joins me now. Thank you for coming in. Labour had been

reluctant to reduce the limit of 50. Where did you stand on that? There

is an opportunity here for us to take this forward in Scotland and

there is no need for this to be seen, in some way, as undermining

the relationship across the United Kingdom or the enforcement of

different limits on different sides of the border. Remember, it is

nearly seven years since Labour put through the legislation on smoking

in public places which did for legislation in place from the rest

of the United Kingdom, but not for long. It then went to the rest of

the UK, and I think if we took the lead in this area, the rest of the

country would follow. But was that not Labour's position in a Holyrood

and that is why you opposed it? position is... You have changed

opposition and you're being very positive about 50? Positive about

50 but also our position has not changed in that an opposition has

always been that we want to see progress towards 50 in Scotland and

across the UK. So it is not about being out of step or chain in

position. It is about saying, here is another opportunity for Scotland

to take the lead. But given that people metabolise alcohol at

different rates, why not by the bullet and take it down to 20?

think this would be hard for road safety in Scotland. The limit has

to be enforceable, realistic and remove the risk that people get

charged with drink-driving when, in fact, the amount of dual they have

consumed is a mute -- minute. -- the amount of alcohol. I think 50,

as we have seen from the example, 50 means people know they should

not drink before they drive but it also means people will not

intentionally find themselves breaking the law when they have

drunk alcohol on the previous day in a moderate quantity. In a word,

if this comes before Holyrood, at 50, due well supported? Correct.

Thank you. Now, what do Ian Rankin and JK Rowling have in common

besides being best selling Scottish all this. Well, it seems they have

access to a new source of creativity and enlightenment. We

have been arrested Reading. This has long had the reputation of

the Left Bank of the capital. The play's where writers rub shoulders

together. Ian Rankin used to write here. JK Rowling used to stay down

the road. It could be something in the water. According to this man,

there is. A connection has been discovered between the water being

P.H. 10 and this ancient Scottish spring. Looking at a map, I noticed

this tiny village have the spring of passes, the legendary Springbok.

If you follow the spring into the city, it goes all the way in and to

a specific part of the city's water supply. To put the theory to the

test, we went to Edinburgh's University. Sam Kelly teaches the

Masters in creative writing. She set her students a test. One group

would have a drink of PH10 tap water and the others, a well-known

French water. It is pretty extraordinary. These groups are

pretty mixed. On the one side there has been a massive leap in

technical sophistication and also the ideas seem to be better, more

complex, just better! Better writing. Overall, it is

inexplicable. Would it surprise you to know that that came purely from

drinking PH10 tap water? Yes! It would. We can now make it

compulsory in all classes. And if you can tell the difference in the

work of these novice riders, what about the professionals who have

been Downing PH10 for decades? makes perfect sense to me. I have

suspected it was some years and I am delighted the research has been

done to prove this. There is a certain taste in this water, the

P.H. 10 water, and it is difficult to describe. It is slightly papery,

a slight taste of paper. And perhaps sometimes you get a whiff

of something else as well. Rather different from the taste of water

in the West of Scotland, which is very much more towards the whisky

end of the spectrum. So there you are. If you want to be a best

seller here, your best get stuck into this.

And now here's the lunchtime news, with Graham Stewart.

Good afternoon. The Scottish Government's consultation on the

independence referendum has been called into question after it

emerged that the public could submit multiple responses and keep

them anonymous. The SNP has had more than 10,000 replies to the

process, which ends in May. But opposition parties say it may now

not be valid. It is clear that having a consultation process where

you can put in Malta poor responses without any name or email address

is not only open to abuse, it is designed for abuse. -- put in

multi-sport response is. These have been considered by the Scottish

Government as a process to the referendum in 2014 and the idea

this has been rigged in any way it is an appalling accusation by the

Labour Party. Meanwhile, the UK Government says

the vast majority of responses to its consultation on how a

referendum could work favour holding the ballot sooner rather

than later. The Scottish Secretary, Michael Moore, is urging SNP

ministers to speed up their proposed timetable of staging the

ballot in the autumn of 2014. Every young person aged 16 to 19 in

Scotland is guaranteed an offer of a place in education or training

from today. The Scottish Government say they want young people

struggling to find work to get the message that help is available. �30

million has been invested in the Most places will have a dry

afternoon but it turns increasingly cloudy, and by the middle of the

area -- of the afternoon, it is just dumb freeze getting some

brightness. The cloud will produce bits and pieces of rain. Tonbridge

us this afternoon ranging from a cool six degrees in the Shetlands

to 13 in the best of the sunshine in the East, with winds main

delight. That is it for now. Now back to

In a moment, we will be discussing big events in politics. First, the

Week in 60 seconds. A typical week for French and oil

company Total as Gas continued to leak from its Elgin platform in the

North Sea. Alex Salmond said the seriousness of the incident must

not be underestimated. We will continue to resist and everywhere

we can and they are also resisting in total -- on total transparency.

A second inquiry into the death of Alex you found that fire commanders

did not act quickly enough to savour.

The council election ballot is open. Elections are on 3rd May.

Two men have been accused of sending parcel bombs to the Celtic

manager Neil Lennon. They were also accused of sending them to a Labour

NS -- MSP. Experts at a number as soon tell

the world that next week is the 36 our window for the panders to mate

successfully. So, this coming week, Al Government

takes a recess and council elections begin. -- our government.

My guests now on Lorraine Davidson and a professor from Glasgow

University. What did you make of the referendum interaction? Did you

think the votes were rigged? The consultation? That is a big word

and I think one of the issues is, is this in keeping with previous

consultations? But beyond that is the case that these are constructed

leaks by UK and Scottish Governments. We are in the process

of the debate about Wendy referendum should be held and what

the consultation might say. -- when the referendum. It is playing

politics with the consultation process, which is drawing on people

who are not politicians to respond to it, so it is best to wait and

see what the consultation throws up. What do you think it would say

about public confidence in the prisons, whoever holds the

The consultations are held in different ways. Where does this

leave us, do you think? It does not help if people think Alex Salmond

can send in 3000 responses from his party and nobody will realise. That

cannot happen because it would be independently verified. We need to

look at that before the vote itself when the opposition is saying, is

the question fetch? Also, I have never met shy and retiring

nationalists. -- is the question reasonable? I am sure people would

be happy to response to the consultation. In my experience, the

Unionists are perhaps scared, that business people do not want to put

their name to things and put their head above the parapet. If the

Government said they would not take on board any anonymous admissions,

I think it would help politically as well. They are not anonymous

admissions. Would that tidy up things a bit? We have to look at

what the Government has done before. We can look at what Peter Cruddas

has said. What do we think the impact will be in terms of

discussions, if they win the referendum? If we have discussions

with the other team saying that we do not really want it anyway, what

have we got? That is quite a big question. I think the issue is is

Peter Cruddas right? To some extent, he is right. There are some people

in Westminster that would really like to be shot of Scotland. That

opinion certainly exists. But as to if it will impact on the process,

we will find out because if we get to that stage, we will have an

awful lot of noise in the London based media about how be

discussions should be going and we will probably have a split in the

coalition if it is still here at that time. This is one of the ways

in which the landscape is shifting ahead of the vote, like the

discussion about consultations. we'd look at it a little bit, it is

embarrassing for the Tories, isn't it? It undermines David Cameron

spending time in Scotland and saying that he really cares about

Scotland. But Peter Cruddas is a man that if we are honest, nobody

knew who he was. What we know about him now is that he is a bit of an

idiot. He is articulating a strand of opinion which does exist in the

Tory party in England but it is not an opinion reflected in any way by

David Cameron and mainstream Tories. It is embarrassing and he will

think it was the last thing he needed. But it is a two day wander

and nothing else. We are almost out of time. Which councils will you be

watching in the council elections with the greatest interest? Last

Tape. Can beat Labour Party hang on? And Edinburgh, where it the SNP

holds up it will still be damaged by the drop in the Liberal