14/10/2012 Sunday Politics Scotland

Hello and welcome to the programme. The battle lines have been drunk,

the question has been sorted. There will be one question, not to. If

you are 16 or 17, and you might get the chance to vote. What am I

talking about? The referendum on Scottish independence. David

Cameron and Alex Salmond will be announcing the deal tomorrow. We

will ask both sides that they are happy with the rules of engagement.

This man has a tall order on his hands, he is in charge of leading

the Conservative Party to victory at the next election. We will ask

Grant Shapps how he intends to do The Police Federation thinks that

Andrew Mitchell should be Thyer, but David Cameron does not. We will

be talking about this and more. And on Sunday Politics got on, if

we will take a close look at the road to the referendum. Where will

be partisan campaigns go next? Expect a bumpy ride. -- where will

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 1928 seconds

Before we sort of take that to a ridiculous extreme and say, and

therefore this party cannot support people who want to work hard in

this country, get on and doing the right thing, if people get out --

get up every day at work long hours. I want to stick to the question.

How many MPs have come up to you and said that Mr Mitchell should

go? I cannot recall a single MP. Not one? There are reports that

several Cabinet Ministers and many MPs have said so. Review in the

hall when his picture went up and your own activists booed and jeered

him? What does that tell you? not there. About that whole affair,

clearly he should not have spoken to the police like that. He has

apologised. The individual policemen concerned has accepted

the apology, and actually, others are now pinning in and saying that

this is not good enough. I think that if the guy who was involved

has accepted the apology then it is time to draw the line and move on.

Let's look at your own position. How to create your own money-making

meant, Howe and Michael Green is doing it right now. This is your

bit, you are Michael Green. Most people like to pick up their

business records, look at Mitt Romney in the United States, what

was so embarrassing about years that you had to operate under a

false name? I am not embarrassed at all. Why did you use a false name

then? This is something I set up 22 years ago as it is this company. As

a hobby. My wife and I started a publishing business online which

turned out to be relatively successful, and it was publishing

some very boring things, like how to write a newsletter. Why did you

use Michael Green? Simply for the fact that I wanted to keep my

interest in politics, which I was that in at the time, separate.

Either way, I wrote on my in my biography, this is not ideal name,

I am writing under attending, the raising it -- the reason is that I

am going into public service. gave interviews as Michael Green

online. Your book, you said, which show people how to make $20,000 in

20 days. How do you do that? There is a serious business, in the

context of online marketing, is about creating a product online,

putting it up on minor marketing it. There was a 45,000 word manual.

$20,000 and 20 days, have you done that? It is certainly possible to

do this online. If you can do that, surely you should be Chancellor of

the Exchequer rather than chairman of the party? This is largely

marketing to the US market. they are more bill will? Let me

answer the question. -- they are more gullible. This is another

embarrassment to your party. For too posh and a privilege, we can

now it at Grant Shapps sharp business practices. I am very proud

of having been in this business. It was all about helping other people

get on and create their own businesses. Helping to produce

online games and sell them, the Internet is a huge market place

especially in the United States. It was a very brash, exciting time. I

was very open about it at the time. It is only curious to people now

because they did not spot at the time that I was writing about it.

Thank you for joining us. It is coming up to mistake, you are

Welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland. Coming up: after 10 long months,

the Prime Minister and First Minister will finally put pen to

paper tomorrow and will sign the deal.

Another significant moment on the road to the referendum. Today we

will be looking ahead to where we go next.

We will be hearing from the two negotiators who brokered the deal,

Michael Moore and Nicola Sturgeon. Yes Scotland and Better Together

campaigns go head-to-head. What now for the embattled Crown

supporters? What site will be take? -- for the middle ground supporters.

Will the waters still be muddied? What will the impact be on Wales,

Northern Ireland and England? Tomorrow the Prime Minister of the

United Kingdom will sign an agreement which could pave the way

for Scottish independence. David Cameron will meet Alex Salmond in

St Andrews House in Edinburgh and ratify the deal on the referendum

which could end the 300 the old union. The arguments over

independents are likely to get louder now, but there is still

plenty of debate about the process, as we will now explain. A QPR on

the verge of the official agreement, making the headline -- here we are

on the verge of the official agreement, making the headlines

today. For some it seems like a rash. What

happened to the SNP's much- trumpeted consultation the I am

quite surprised about this. As we have gone through this process, a

lot of the prevarication seems to have been about the consultation,

waiting for the consultation. I never quite understood why if the

SNP First Minister wanted a second question. He has encouraged it

somewhat. Now it seems we are about to get the agreement signed without

knowing the results of that consultation. I am not sure what

that was about. I am sure we will find out.

Perhaps there is still a lot to discover from both sides. What does

independence really mean? What will the UK look like in the event of no

vote? In some ways, both campaigns have got to build momentum behind

the proposition. Key Unionists have got to say, what are the real

advantages for Scotland for staying within the Union? What kind of

union will it be? The nationalists must explain, which they have not

done yet, they must explain to the voters what are the real advantages

for Scotland wing independent? That argument is not yet understood, I

do not believe. -- for Scotland going independent.

As the debates continue, attention turns to be available support for

each side. Can the SNP repeat their performance of its white -- of the

20 other than Holyrood election? One nationalist claims they can. --

called the 2011 Holyrood election. He will find that one in three

Labour voters are in the position where they would support

independence. I do not say that this means that Labour is an

independent supporting party, what I do say is that the idea of

political parties have a monopoly and support -- monopoly and control

over their party members' views is plainly nonsense.

Both sides are already busy, trying to convince people ahead of the

crucial vote. Here is how they have played it so far.

The Prime Minister was first out of the traps when he hinted at setting

out legal powers for the referendum. I think we all the Scottish people

something that is fair, legal and decisive.

The Secretary of State for Scotland says that Holyrood does not have

the powers to hold a referendum, but the UK Government is prepared

to pass them on as they negotiate. Alex Salmond would then announce

the date as autumn 2014. The UK Government announced the start of

the consultation on the referendum. One Bernstein that Edinburgh Castle,

the Scottish betterment launched their own consultation, asking for

the back for their preferred question. Do you agree that

Scotland should be an independent country? And so let that great

debates now begin. The Prime Minister and First

Minister met in Edinburgh to begin negotiations. Those campaigning for

more powers for the parliament but not independence moved into what

they saw as a gap. Support for a second question on more powers grew

in some quarters. The UK Government consultation on what is now on the

cards. Later in May, the lot of the Yes

campaign hope to bring people over to independence. The razzmatazz at

the launch was much criticised in the press.

The more low-key Better Together made its launch on to the political

horizon. The truth is that this coming together of family friends,

ideas, institutions and identities is a strange, not a weakness.

After some political manoeuvring, Pennant packet, the Greens voted to

rejoin the Yes Scotland campaign. Fun and games at the Conservative

conference this week as the Scott on Office minister let the cat out

of the back about the agreement which was then confirmed by the

Prime Minister in his conference speech. -- of the Scottish Office

minister. The PM was in a combative mood, but

it was Mr Salmond to make the most out of the deal. In a negotiation,

as you normally try to overtake the pudding and say I want this, I want

that, and then you see what you get rid of as a negotiation goes on.

What is interesting here and almost scary for the Scottish National

Party and for Alex Salmond is that they got so much out of a

negotiation that they, I think if I were Alex Salmond, find it

difficult to control my enthusiasm and my pleasure with what I have

actually got. We are waiting for confirmation on

one critical point, campaign financing. One pundit police that

the SNP could use this issue to their advantage if there is an old

Ford, claiming they cannot compete with the Unionist war-chest. He

also thinks it does not make a difference. For what is interesting

about campaign spending, if you look is -- if you look at other

countries where they have had referendums, is that campaign

spending does not make much of a difference. People are not really

been bought. It is difficult to change people's minds with money.

Another important issue is the agreement on a single question, as

we have seen there is backing for Devo Max. Where all those

supporters go now? You could see the Unionist parties having shot

themselves in the foot by having a simple yes no question. Because

voters are quite supporter of a middle option, at as they will not

be asked the middle option you start to worry about where those

voters will go. Were those switchers will go. Will they go to

yes or no? This will be asked the electorate.

Voters will continue to examine the key issues, they have two years to

make up their minds. We are now well on the road to the referendum

with that historic agreement in Edinburgh tomorrow.

Let's talk to the key negotiators, the Scottish Secretary Michael

Moore is in her studio. Tacky for talking to us.

Then the Sunday Times, Michael Forsyth the Scottish -- the former

Scottish secretary, said that Salmon has been able to get what he

wants. If that is a negotiation that is stretching the language,

that sounds like a walkover. regret the fact that Lord Forsyth

has chosen to use that language, I hope that when everyone sees detail

that will be unveiled tomorrow they can see that what we have achieved

here is something that brings together the objectives of both the

United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government, that he will

have a referendum on independence that is legal, that is fair and is

decisive. An important, it is made in Scotland, it will have the rules

and regulations around debt which are familiar and recognised for

people of a length and breadth of Scotland and the UK. I think there

is a good agreement and I think it will now allow us to pick up alight

to the big issues about the big debate that the First Minister call

it. I believe that will be looked at the economy and their defence

and a place in the world, on all these big issues, people across

Scotland will continue to support Scotland being in the United

Kingdom. But it was a high risk strategy for

due to rule out the second question, because at the moment the polls

suggest that this would win out over independence.

The critical issue here for all of us, and why we have been engaged on

this issue with the Scottish Government has been to make sure we

have a decisive referendum. That we do not have a model when you mix of

two very different ideas. Independence is about Scotland

leaving the United Kingdom, if becoming a separate state, taking

on all the burdens and risks that go with that and losing all the

benefits an opportunity that we have as part of the United Kingdom.

Devolution is about staying part of the United Kingdom and as a Liberal

Democrat I am very happy about being engaged in the next stage of

this debate. I have just helped deliver the new set of powers to

the Scottish Parliament that will be handed over the next few years.

We are still actively engaged in devolution. The proposition to us,

as a result of the Scottish National Party's victory in last

year's elections, is that we determine our future within the

United Kingdom. If we look at the register for 16

and 17-year-old, but you just had that over to the Scottish

Government to sort out? You will see all of the detail tomorrow. The

important point here is that any detail about to his voting into is

not must be in the referendum Bill that the Scottish Government will

put to the parliament in due course. Again as a Liberal Democrat I do

not have a tough problem with 16 or 17 also been involved in the

election, or referenda, but I except that at Westminster level

there is no consensus between the parties and you need that to be

able to move on. The arguments, if that is the argument team-mate,

will have to come from the Scottish Government as it presents this bill.

We will see the detailed in due course. That is interesting,

because if it ends up in a mess and if there is not a watertight

franchise, that some 16 and 17- year-olds say that this was not

fair to us, that is another potential challenge, isn't it?

is an important point that must be dealt with by the Scottish

Government and by the scrutiny of the Scottish Parliament. I am sure

that this will happen over the course of the next few months.

Right now what we are able to agree on is the fact that we will have an

independence referendum, that we will resolve it by the end of 2014

and we will ensure that we are doing get on the basis of the fair

rules recognised by people for length and breadth of the country.

Frankly, finally, we will get on to that big debate. What I would say

is the most important bit of this. That Scotland is so much better off

as part of the United Kingdom, its opportunities are so much greater.

More secure, and it would have more cloud in the world. We will debate

this and I look forward to it. Or on the programme earlier,

Alistair Darling said that he had concerns about the role of the

electoral commission, that it should have been much more firm.

think the important point and I appreciate that people have not yet

seen the detail, is that to have the little commission as a

recognised body right at the heart of this process of the referendum,

on determine the question of campaign finance and so on. I think

that it is very important and it is to the strength of the agreement

that the Scottish Government recognise this, and they do. There

will be a proper place for this and so all sides of the debate will be

able to see our first set of rules that allow them to make their case

and confidence. But the electoral commission, as

things stand, cannot determine the question or veto a question. They

have never been able to do that in the United Kingdom context. And

they only ever do, and quite rightly, make that judgement and I

apologise for the technical term, but the intelligibility of the

question. Essentially about its neutrality. That process is one

that the Scottish Government is committing itself to, and I think

it is important that they play the same role in the Scottish context

as they do in any other part of the date Kingdom and when we have UK-

wide referendum. Sometimes, Westminster is very reluctant to

ignore and Livestock Commission ruling, that might not be the case

The Electoral Commission has a strong reputation amongst political

parties, the media and other people involved in any electoral contest.

It is good that they're going to be central to this and I look forward

to them taking on the normal engagement in this whole referendum

process. What should happen about funding?

The campaign finance, the rules and regulations of the process, the

detail on that will be spelt out tomorrow. In the same way that the

Electoral Commission has a role in the question setting, they also

have a very important role in determining what campaign finance

should be about. When people see the detail tomorrow, they will be

able to see what both governments envisage is them playing exactly

the same role as far as the campaign finances concerns as they

would in any other point What does a no vote mean for the Westminster

Government? We want to see Scotland continue as

part of the United Kingdom. We have more there economic security and we

are almost secured. Yes, but what has a no vote

actually mean in terms of what else will come to Scotland.

Between Scotland will stay within the United Kingdom. Separates to

the debate on independence, I, as a Liberal Democrat, will be continued

into debate how we deliver further powers to the Scottish Parliament

answer the ones that we are in the process of transferring as a result

of the new Scotland Act. But what does it mean to the

Westminster coalition wants the leverage of a yes vote has gone,

what is this kind for in Westminster?

The important point is that both coalition parties and the

opposition are keen to ensure that we have a proper referendum and we

get a decisive outcome. We are determined to do all that. As to

the propositions that individual parts of the coalition and the

Labour Party will put forward to the Scottish electorate at the next

election, that is still being worked through. We are setting out

our stall on that of the next couple of weeks. We want to see a

debate flourish. There I am confident that just as it did in

the 70s, 80s and 90s and in the last decade to create a new cars

that we're transferring, so again we will debate the future of the

devolution, come up with her there are some get that endorsed by the

electorate. And we will know all that between

2014? We're already put in her day --

ideas out there and we're report others doing that, too.

Listening to that with me is the Deputy First Minister, Nicola

Sturgeon. You referendum consultation with

the public, 26,000 responses, what does it say?

I have not yet seen the final analysis. It has taken some time to

independently verified and analyse that consultation. We are committed

to publishing that the end of this month. The agreement that that will

be signed if they prove that by the First Minister and Prime Minister

tomorrow is for a Section 30 order that will transfer power to the

Scottish Parliament. It will then be for the Scottish Parliament to

decide the date, the question, the franchise for the referendum and

the consultation will be very influential in the Scottish

Parliament reaching that decisions. But the key issue is, there's not

going to be a second question. If the majority of people and has

consultation said that if they wanted the middle ground for the

second question, you have either ignored or dismissed it.

In any negotiation, they require us to be compromised. There has been

compromised in this negotiation on both sides, but the outcome we have

reached is one where the guarantees in my view that this is a

referendum that will be made in Scotland. That has a good out, and

one that allows us to get on with discussing the substance of why

Scotland should be an independent country.

To be clear, did you want one question or two?

The SNP have never argued for a second question. We did say that we

thought that should not be prematurely ruled out and because

that is was best for that decision to be taken by a Scottish

Parliament. But any negotiation will involve compromises and this

was the difference. Our preferred option is independence on the

ballot paper. Do you accept that some somewhat

disingenuous, given the amount of time the First Minister spent

saying that it was any proper that there would be a second question?

That is not what he said. He said that giving many people in Scotland

favour more powers short of independence, then Westminster

should not be allowed to rule that out. We argued that that was a

decision best taken and the Scottish Parliament. We have

compromised, as of the Westminster Government, but I'm very satisfied

that the outcome of these negotiations is the guarantee of

the referendum made in Scotland. If you cast your mind back to the

start of this year, David Cameron Watt have to dictate the timing,

the wording of the question and the franchise. As a result of our

negotiations, the agreement that will be signed tomorrow will be

firmly made in Scotland. He if there is a no vote, what is

the SNP do? By we are confident that we will secure a Yes vote.

As we go through the months and years ahead, as the arguments are

set out, as people realise that the only way to secure a change is to

get yes vote... And if there is a no vote?

I am going to concentrate on winning support and persuading

people to vote Yes in the referendum. That is the only way we

can get control of Scotland's review Morse's -- resources and

build a fair society. The day after the referendum vote,

you be the Government of Scotland. People are entitled to know what

you do. To the SNP leadership say, OK, there is a no vote, but we are

going to head up the campaign for extra powers, that is what I'm

trying to establish. We will continue to be the

Government of Scotland, but we are two years out from the Independent

referendum. I will spend my energies campaigning for a yes vote

and I am confident that that will be achieved.

You're the Government of Scotland. This is not a party issue. People

have a right so know what will happen if it goes against you.

I will continue to argue the case for independence and for more

powers. But the nine men, I will be campaigning fully for a Yes vote in

that independence referendum and the onus is on the other parties,

those containing for a no vote, to say what a no vote means. What they

have said, and no vote means no change in rolling back the process

from devolution. Westminster will be very happy to

pass these par so that you, because it is potentially messy. It could

be difficult to get this legislation water tight and there

could be challenged on the road if you do not do that.

I do not accept that that is beyond our capability. The important thing

now is that it will be for the Scottish Parliament to determine

the franchise. This is not some copulation about who stands to

benefit from 16 year olds and 17- year-old voting. It is right that

people begin join the army, have children, pay taxes, should also

have a say in the future of their country. Where we have had the

power to do so, the Scottish Government has already extended the

franchise to 16.17 euros Old. I have piloted health boards should

Scottish Parliament and 16-year-old and 17-year-old Scot the right to

vote there. It is for the Scottish Parliament to determine whether it

agrees that that and wants to do that and the basis on was that

franchises extended. She did be extended to other

elections? Yes.

You now have two years to the boat, but your actual prospectus does not

come out until autumn next year. If we are to have an informed debate,

we should have it out sooner. We have said the white paper will

be published in the autumn of next year. But this is a live debate.

After we get the process issues out of the bay, we will get on fully to

the substance. I am looking forward to that. In the last couple of

weeks, what we have seen with the pronouncements of Ruth Davidson and

Johann Lamont, from a Labour and Tory prospective, what they have a

prospective around his will win back some of the processes of

devolution. Both of them think pensioners should lose their bus

passes and that the prescriptions and free personal care should go. I

once got wants to have control of its own resources so we can choose

to invest in these things rather than nuclear weapons. I am

thoroughly looking forward to the debate.

You are in campaign mode. You're not in Government. You will not

take any difficult decisions, even if they're in Scotland's best

interests. That is nonsense. The SNP has

governed for five years. Recovered for four years and then won a

majority. People know that we are a good Government and a Government

that always governs and Scotland's interest. We will continue to do

that. But there's relationship between our ability to govern the

way we want to govern and state decisions that run the best

interests of the Scottish people and having the parts that will

enable us to do that. Coming up soon...

We'll be hearing from the Yes and No campaigns, looking ahead to how

they are going to play it. What about those who favoured the

middle ground, the devo supporters. Where will their votes go now?

And what will be the ripple effect of the referendum be on other parts

of the UK? Your watching Sunday Politics

Scotland and the time is 12.15. So let's cross now for the news at

noon with Tim Wilcox and Andrew Kerr.

Good afternoon. Five Royal Marines were charged

with murder. The Ministry of Defence our reporter is there.

This is the UniChem troubling case for the Ministry of Defence. It is

the first time that British service personnel on operations in

Afghanistan have been charged with murder. The alleged murder took

place in Helmand province last year at a time when the men of 3

Commando were out on patrol. There was an engagement at or fire fight

with an insurgent. It is understood the Royal Military Police have

obtained video footage from that time which shows British personnel

discussing what to do with a captured and wanted man. Night that

five marines have been charged, the Defence Secretary would only say it

all related to the question of whether the rules of war had been

properly followed. We are very determined the rules of engagement

will be followed, that any abuse will be dealt with through the

normal processes of service justice and that is what is happening.

The those rules of engagement set out the circumstances in which

British forces can open fire. Though never made public, the rules

mean that in most circumstances, British forces can only open fire

when incorrect contact with the enemy or when there is a threat of

imminent attack. This case is now with the director of services

Prosecutions, who is likely to recommend a military trial that

will take place behind closed doors. That court would have the similar

sentencing powers to any criminal court in the UK, essentially, if

they are found guilty, they could be sentenced to life.

It has emerged that BBC executives questioned to me Savell about

allegations he had abused young girls. He former head of Radio 1

said he asked the former presenter about rumours of abuse and 1970s.

Jimmy Savell was a DJ at Radio 1 from 1969 to 1989. For the first

time, we have learnt that questions were put to him by a senior

executive about rumours that he was having an appropriate relationships

with under-aged girls. Derek shimmery was the Controller of the

network at that time and says he challenged the DJ about the rumours.

I told him about the rumours. He said it was nonsense. It is easy

now to say. How could you just believe him just like that? But

there was no reason to disbelieve him. He was the sort of man that

attracted rumours, after all. However, another former Radio 1

executive has described that meeting as a formal one. The BBC

says the issues raised here will be looked into as part of its two

independent reviews. The Defence Secretary has said

allegations that former military chiefs offered to help our and

companies with defence contracts are deeply damaging. The Sunday

Times secretly filmed six former military leaders. Some left Office

and the past two years and are subject to rules banning lobbying.

That is all the news from I. There will be more news on BBC One at

6:25pm. The Scottish Government and the

Scottish Secretary have been speaking on this programme about

the independence referendum ahead of tomorrow's meeting between the

First Minister and the Prime Minister in Edinburgh. They're due

to approve a deal on the staging of the ballot.

Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said she believes they've

reached a position which guarantees a referendum made in Scotland.

Scots Secretary, Michael Moore, said the agreement will be the

green light for the most important decision people in Scotland will

ever have to make. A former SNP leader has attacked

the Scottish Government's plans to legalise gay marriage. At the

party's conference in Perth later this week, Gordon Wilson, who led

the party in the 1980s, will tell a fringe meeting that MSPs risk

losing their seats if they support the move. He told BBC Scotland he

believes the plans are a step towards fascism. Those are strong

words and every fascist regime begins in a very minor way. They

take decisions which insist that the state alone has the say over

conscience and that the public have to do as they're told.

In tennis, Andy Murray is taking on Novak Djokovic in the final of the

Shanghai Masters. This is the third sucessive year Murray has made the

final of the tournament. It was one on a tie-break and it is now one

set all. And here's Judith Ralston with the

A settled couple of days coming up, but we are still seeing some

showers across more northern and eastern parts of Scotland. Some

bright as coming through and some lovely spells of sunshine across

western Scotland towards the North West Highlands. Highs this

afternoon of around 11 Celsius. Across more northern areas, a few

degrees lower. Feeling cool with a freshening north-easterly wind.

That's all for now, I'll hand you Has a single question actually

clear on muddy the waters in the referendum issue? Here is Professor

James Mitchell. The question what is pit, a simple question,

independent or not independence, leaves open the question as to what

those who want more powers should too. I have a great worry that the

results of the referendum vote will be open to dispute. It is possible

that there could be a majority for yes, which would include people who

have voted yes, not because they want independence but because they

want more powers and this has not ended -- this is not available. It

is equally likely that there will be a majority of no porters who

include those two want more powers but do not want the status quo. How

to reinterpret that? We must have a referendum that is beyond dispute.

How the integrity result, I'm afraid, that is not likely to

happen without more information. you think the Devo Max campaign

will then wither on the vine, to they have a momentum that will keep

them going? I do not think that Devo Max, the more powers position,

will lose momentum. For the moment, they will have -- it will be

marginalised to some extent. Clearly, that issue, that range of

options still exist. They will have difficulty finding space in this

referendum, because this referendum is polarised. The likelihood is

that this issue will remain alive so long as the public want that, at

a sizable public -- a sizable part of the public do want something

between the status quo and independence. Devo Max, more powers

that all the rest of it, it is all very a clear and it has to be said

that advocates of this middle position will have to clarify that.

That is for sure. There is a lot of clarification required across the

board from all sides in this debate. What else could be a factor in this

environment? Do you expect it to be fairly unpleasant and difficult in

this circumstance? I think that emotions will be running high in

the run-up to this referendum and shooting as referendum. The good

thing about the referendum, we were told, is that we can resolve that

and that people will except the wishes as expressed it in the

referendum by the people. Those emotions will continue to run high

and will perhaps run a far higher if there is dispute. Let's face it,

if there is dispute than no side will concede that they have lost,

and if that is the case then remove them to very difficult territory,

and would not see dangerous territory but difficult territory

at a time when we must move on and accept whatever the result is. We

must have a clear result and I'm afraid I cannot see that it will

necessarily happen. Looking back, whose strategy has been the most

successful? In a way, we have arrived as this referendum almost

by accident. The SNP supporter the referendum and have consistently

supported a referendum over a long number of years, but they do not

think the SNP ever expected prior to the 20 will have an election

that they would be in this position. The other parties did not want a

referendum, and the one thing that is for sure is that Scotland's

constitutional status will be at the forefront of politics for the

next few years. My suspicion is that it will not be resolved and

that referendum. In assess, in terms of the issue been on the

agenda, that works to the advantage of those who want change. However,

they should not think they have won this because there could be a long

haul before we reach a resolution and before even reach more power

has been granted to Scotland. So, they are not that many winners in

this. We now speak to the chief executive

of the EDS Scotland campaign and amassed savoir who is the chief

executive of Scottish Labour. Given what we understand of this

deal, when you look at the Better Together interests, argue agreeing

that this is a good deal at fair contest? I welcome that progress

has been made, all of us what to get past the process arguments and

on to the substance of the debate. Some detail must be laid out about

campaign finance but it is right that we do have agreement between

both governments, it gives us a legally-binding referendum. Let's

let the little commission work out the details of this. We cannot have

one party or individual be both the referee and one of the players.

Let's have the electoral commission look after the process and get on

to the substance of the debate. We're in a stronger position than

the Yes Scotland campaign. Let's be clear about the ruling, what you

think it should be at what you think it might be? I have my few

into what the result should be and Blair will have his opinion on what

he was the result to be, but now we must decide who sets the rules of

the referendum. It is look right nasty little commission it looks at

the rules, it is right that the electoral commission decides what

the limits should be and the finance. Let the politicians of

both campaigns focus on three arguments. Do you have concerns

about this? The Alex Salmond has his way he would want to pick the

franchise, packed a question, but the date, pack the spending limits.

He wants to be a referee, set the rules and be one of the players. I

do not think that is fair. Blair? Of the point of view of the Yes

Scotland campaign, it is fantastic to be at this stage. We can now set

out a compelling case for Scottish independence. We relish the fact

that we have this historic opportunity to have the -- to be

the first generation of Scottish people who have the self

determination to vote on the future of Scotland. We are ready to a vote

on this campaign. The people of Scotland are ready to share the

issues properly. I am looking forward to the next two years.

about funding? Campaign funding and general financing for this. The

actual time scale on when the rules should kick in on spending. Where

have you got to? From our point of the UBR in an unregulated period.

As a campaign they are tried to bring in money to run a campaign of

this scale and quality that this issue demands. Our focus is to make

sure we have the funding to do justice to this cause. She did the

cat? Not at this stage, but during the controlled 16 week period there

should be caps, and now there should be a discussion as to what

level of spending as appropriate. The key thing that I think everyone

would want to see is that there is a fair process and outcome so that

both sides during the formal period, at 16 week period prior to the vote,

are working on a level playing field and spending equivalent sums

of money. So the three big parties of Better Together should not be

allocated larger funding on basis of their vote? That to be fair?

That is for the electoral commission to decide. Let the

electoral commission decide. There will be heated debate over the next

few years as to whether we are better off as part of the United

Kingdom or not. West evader politics on it, fair enough, but do

not divide her country. We must make sure that the country comes

behind affair and legal referendum that no one can dispute. I hope

that this decision is to stay part of the UK, and they hope that all

sides had been come together to make sure that we have a fairer and

more prosperous Scotland. As James Mitchell says, is the danger not

that there will be no very large one way or the other boat and we

could be in an extremely divisive time? Either side will be able to

interpret this whatever way they want. I am for a majority in favour

of independence and 2014. What if there is not? In the last few

months, some people have tuned out a little bit. They want the

politicians to sort out the mechanics, then we will engage with

the debate. Now we have the mechanics partly determined, the

compelling case for independence over the next few tears will give

us a majority in 2014. Have the SNP lost momentum because of the amount

of time it has taken? They had tremendous momentum after the

Holyrood results, but the latest Paul is against them. I do not

speak for the SNP, but from the Yes Scott a prospective... The SNP a

major part of this campaign, they have lost momentum. You fundamental

key players have lost political momentum. That momentum has

dissipated. The Yes Scotland campaign has gained a great deal of

momentum lately. We have laid the groundwork for the biggest campaign

that Scotland will have ever seen. We have put together a fantastic

campaign team. We have been lame this ground work, we have recently

had the Scottish Green Party committee to this campaign. We have

a significant individuals committing to the campaign like

Scotland's most successful businessman. The momentum is with

us. The polls are showing that this is not the case. The reason that

momentum has fallen for the pro- independence camp is not because of

the process accounts, it is because of the dishonesty in terms of the

arguments for independence. One of the first press releases that

letter in as chairman of the Yes campaign was to promise honesty and

transparency. We have not have that. Will we see the publishing about

the legal advice as to whether Scotland will be a member of the

you? Know we have not. We have seen the Yes campaign stop that

information being shared. Blair said he is but a spokesman for the

SNP, but this as an SNP campaign in everything but name. We must make

sure that we expose the real arguments that the SNP are saying,

decide what independence will look like and what we cannot have is a

kind of heady Ferry attitude from the SNP. That all of the things

that you like will stay the same manner of things you do not will

lot. Will be no prior to the referendum exactly what role will

mean a further referenda? Absolutely. Better Together have

adopted do to explain why you will be better off as part of it Kingdom.

It is the job of the political party to set out have visit of

Scotland for the future. My vision of Scotland is different from

Blair's will thus be available to Scotland before 2014? We will start

talking about the real challenges facing Scotland, which Johann

Lamont has already done in the past week to ten days, but we'll talk

about these challenges in the run- up to 2014. The no campaign had

demonstrated no vision or ambition for Scott a battle, what we know is

that the only thing that is holding it together is the desire to hold

Scotland back. We have set out and will continue to set out a very

positive vision of what Scotland can do and what copper can be.

There are important economic arguments in favour of independence.

The compelling Archant is the Scottish desire for a fairer and

more equal society. -- a compelling argument. Benighted kingdom has

become a more unfair and unequal society.

Blair Jenkins, what you will set out is a negotiating position that

you may are may not be able to deliver. I am not sure what you

mean. In terms of the proposition, he say that if you vote yes, then X

Y and Z will happen. He cannot actually say that X Y and Z will

happen because you do not know what party will be in power, if he did

not know the outcome of the negotiations. That is called

democracy. Whichever party wins the referendum, the first General

Election of Scotland will be up to the people of Scotland. There are

no insurmountable obstacles. Other than the people Scotland wishing to

be independent. This is the point, this is a real chance for Labour,

if you are proactive and have a real positive vision, you could do

very well and 2016. The referendum is not end game for the Labour

Party. The endgame for the Labour Party is to create a more fair and

equal society. Independence is the endgame for the SNP. There are

talks about transparency, Blair is try to tell us whether or not he

believes we should have the policy of the legal advice on the EU,

perhaps he should tell us about the advice from the Treasury about

whether the Bank of England would be a pack of last resort, whether

we would still have the financial services authority regulation from

across the native kingdom? These questions still me to be answered.

The great thing about having two years is that a lot of the

distortion and the misinformation that has pitted by the no campaign

can be overcome. There is no question that Scotland will

continue to be part of the European Union. There is no issue about that

whatsoever. What was the advice? The great task of the next two

years is to overcome a lot of the distortion and misinformation. The

goal which today shows that the majority news in favour of

independence if they believe that Scotland will be financially better

off, this Dimitri to open people are to the second. We genuinely are

at a time. He will come back to $:/STARTFEED

Westminster will take the first critical step of laying down a

section 30 order, which gives Holyrood a part to hold a

referendum by the end of 2014. Later this month, the results of

the Scottish Government's independence consultation, which

received 26,000 responses. Electoral Commission will test the

fairness and clarity of the question. Early next year, having

been through the Commons and the house of Lords, the section 30

order must be agreed by the Privy Council, which bats the process

into Holyrood's Court, paving the way for a referendum Bill which

will set out the rules for the ballot. It then makes its way

through Holyrood. If voted through their MSPs of stage three, at it

receives Royal Assent. The Scottish Government publish a white paper,

what they call a prospectus for independence, expects other parties

to follow suit with their future visions of Scotland. The campaign

intensified in the summer of 2014 as the official 16 the electoral

period gets under way. Leading up to that all-important ballot,

expected in October 2014. The result is anyone's guess, but of

Scotland votes yes, the Scottish Government will have a mandate to

begin negotiations for Westminster. The referendum results aside, there

will be a UK general election in 20th May 15. A Holyrood election

the following year. But for what? Asked first Government for the

Independent Scott and up or continue to be governed by the UK.

But here to give us some more detail the psephologist John

Curtice. Now John, we asked you to do some

sums for us, to find out how many more people could vote if 16 and 17

year olds become eligible. According to the latest register,

there are nearly 4 million people aged 18 and over eligible to vote.

There are also just over 44,000 17- year-olds. If we assume the same

number of 16-year-olds manage to make it on to the register, that

would mean a total electorate of just over 4 million, of which

88,682 would be 16 and 17-year-olds, an increase of 2.2% of the

electorate. Range could go from 2.2% to 2.7% but either way, that's

not a significant number. Even if we assume that those voters

are more in favour of yes vote, there is no firm evidence for that.

Even if you seen their tent 0.4 times likely to vote for

independence than anybody else, maybe too 0.5% of the votes will be

cast by 16 rolls and 17 year-olds, even if you make that assumption,

you have to get 49.75 % of people over 18 to vote Yes before it will

make a difference. The probability that this could is actually going

to make a difference to the outcome was very unlikely. Frankly, this is

a relatively academic question. What about the poor to have been

interpreting recently, what are they indicating?

If you take all of the opinion polls that have been conducted

since May of this year, which in some way or another have asked

people how they would vote in the referendum and take out the don't

knows and the moment says and look at what these polls are pointing to

in terms of the referendum result. In the terms of the most recent

polls, there are 37% yes and 62% know. As you can see from the

graphic, since last year, there has actually been something of a

slippage in the support for yes. The polls conducted between May and

December last year, we had 41% in favour of yes. But slipped to 40 in

the first four months of this year and now it is down to 37%. It is a

3-2 split at the moment, were the Yes side is moving its -- are

losing ground. Do what about funding issues?

In his consultation paper published back in January, the Scottish

Government was proposing very tight funding limits. For example, the

amount of money the official campaigns can spend will be less

than half the amount of money the parties can spend on appalling

campaign. They were also suggesting that any party that was inside the

Scottish Parliament, irrespective of its size, should be treated

equally, which means the Greens should spend as much as the SNP. It

looks as if what we're hearing this morning, that line may not be held

and that the agreement will say something like, the Electoral

Commission will give advice as to what should happen. What we know

from the Electoral Commission's response to the Scots Government's

consultation in January, they think their limit should be much higher.

�1.5 million or official organisations. The SNP is concerns

that the higher the spending level, the more a foundation set will be

to the union side. What about public funding?

Nobody has mentioned this yet. Usually end referendum campaigns in

the UK, the official yes and no side of the referendum is given a

Mounties of public funding to put forward their arguments. The SNP

said they should not happen. The UK Government for silent on the issue.

The Electoral Commission says it will happen. We need to make sure

that the problem that arose in Wales, that nobody applied to be

the official no campaigns are no public funding could happening,

that needs to be resolved. Well taxpayers' money be spent on

promoting independence are proposing independence, will be

wait to see. Tabloid newspaper headlines will be written anyway!

Who will foot the bill? We will discover tomorrow that the

funding for this referendum, the cost of running it, the cost of

trying to enfranchise 16.17 euros rules and any public funding is

going to fall within the Scottish block.

The role of the Electoral Commission in the question. Do if

we could afford to the standard procedure in UK elections, then

Electoral Commission will test the question that the SNP have already

put forward and they will come back with advice to what the question

should be. The Scottish Parliament will not be

required to follow that advice, but usually, they should do, but there

is one case the UK Government refuse to accept the commission's

device. Be set a dangerous precedent, but hopefully they will

follow what usually happens, which has told the Electoral Commission's

advice. Thank you.

So you've heard from the politicians, the campaign groups,

the academics and some political commentators. But what about the

most powerful group - you, the electorate? We've been to the north,

south, east and west of Scotland to gather some opinions. It's an

unscientific sample of course, but good fuel for debate. I don't think

it's been very well discussed among the politicians and amongst the

normal everyday man in the street. This has been going on from time

immemorial. It is a good thing for people to

have the opportunity to decide, but there should be an option for devo

max as well. We should stay as we are. I will not be voting for it.

want independence, politically, but I do not want a border between me

in England. It should just be yes or no. Scotland should get more

powers. I would be quite happy with BS. I believe they should get more

or clout in what they decide, but as far as being independent from

the rest of the United Kingdom, and I don't think it is a feasible

thing. It needs to be done on a gradual basis. If you get more

powers in the election, you will end up being independent.

Well, where now for the supporters of a second question? Joining me in

the studio are Ben Thomson, Chairman of the think-tank Reform

Scotland and founding member of Devo Plus, and Martin Sime, the

Chief Executive of the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations,

who has been advocating the need for a second question. Do you feel

you have been led up the garden path?

We're disappointed. The biggest problem the second question had is

that it would win hands down and would isolate the fundamentalist

camps of the essence no and it actually strikes a chord with

people and Scotland that they want to see more powers shorter the

depends. All four polling evidence suggested that this is the case.

Why have the politicians on this? It is back to being a purely

political referendum. We have a political fix that suits everyone.

Everybody else and you show this morning is very happy with the deal

was has been struck. But a significant portion of the

population will be disenfranchised. What to make about the SNP

consultation on independence, but it is not out yet. What you think

it will show? I think it also very wide range of

views. People have lots of different visions for the future of

Scotland. Everybody will welcome an opportunity to have that debate.

But the idea that there can only be one of two answers -- one of two

answers, everything having to be seen as a yes or no, strikes me as

being simplistic. A those who want more powers, will

they vote yes or no? I think the one good silver lining

and this is that we have stopped talking about process so much and

actually stopped -- started deliver the substance on both sides. Both

discovers Government have to set out what yes vote really means. We

talked about monetary union, Union of regulators, Union of the head of

state, all of these things will have to be worked out. They will be

unions in an independent state. The other three parties will have to

talk about moving beyond where a bed lackeys. The will of the people

may be mad. In those discussions, we are heading from both them some

to the centre, which is where we have always been.

Do you think it will be more attractive to people?

30% of people are fully supportive of independence, 30% just what the

status quo, the 40% and the Middle what more powers but do not want

full independence. The real question is, can each side provide

something in the middle that is acceptable and both sides are

trying to win that middle ground. That actually plays into the devo

max side, which is how do we get that into a middle ground.

Even if it does play into the devo max side, there's no word for it to

go, so Audi challenge this? That is the point. Each party will

have its own position going into the 2015 election, general election

on the future of devolution. But the time we get to the referendum,

we're going to have lots of different positioning from

different political parties. There is no script for taking devolution

for words in the kind of way which we have been talking of the last

nine months. The word you expect the boat to go?

I think it is an open question. Unfortunately, it has become a

binary question. Everything is to play for for the politicians. But

the idea of getting a substantial parts that the majority of people

and Scotstoun seem to want has receded.

I disagree with that. I think you can get there. I did the three

Unionist parties are already doing commissions. The report was

highlighted in the Sunday Times today. Labour have set up their own

devolution commission. That is also look at greater powers. And the

Prime Minister has talked about moving greater powers. So in terms

of getting to devo max, we can see the potential for all three

Unionist parties actually setting up something that is pretty close.

If any group is to have a mandate in this, how important is it that

it is absolutely explicit what they will argue for before the

referendum? We are setting out at paper this

week about how you reach that process. That will set out how it's

going to work. The three parties must come together and set out a

proposal that they can all signed up to. Calman has not been

delivered. --, has been delivered. There is a mechanism if parties

choose to do so. Carmen was quite a marginal advance

in devolution. What the three parties have uncommon in terms of

the common understanding in terms of where we might go from here is

actually very small indeed. Any consensus opposition from the

Better Together camp will be another marginal improvement. It

will not address real issues of tax, the economy and welfare, which

affect most of his people. If Ed Miliband stays ahead in the

polls for Westminster, what effect you think that could have?

I think it puts the onus on Labour to lead the Better Together

campaign. If there's the prospect of a Labour

Government in Westminster, does that change the dynamic in terms of

our people will vote? Potentially. This is not just about

fiscal powers. This is also about what is there and better under

welfare powers. And that ground is probably better portrayed by the

potential of the Labour Government in the UK. But there will not be a

Labour Government when this is actually determined, because in two

years time, a referendum will be under process.

Welfare is the pivotal issue here. Although the referendum will be

played out in the backdrop of the Ryder Cup, the Commonwealth Games,

food distribution is the fastest- growing bit of the voluntary sector

actually feeding people who cannot afford to pay their supermarket

bills. That is going to be a critical factor in the run-up to

the referendum itself. Thank you.

When the Scottish Government launched their referendum

consultation in January, the eyes of the world were on Edinburgh. And

no one is watching more closely now than the people of Catalonia. Our

political correspondent Niall O'Gallacher has been to Barcelona

This building has become an icon, a symbol known across the world as a

modern democracy. It is apres-ski outside the

Scottish Parliament building in Holyrood, you could almost be here

in Barcelona, but the people of Catalonia's are also deciding

whether independence is the best option for the future.

As they make that decision, all eyes are on Scotland. One

Barcelona-based newspaper has followed every step of the Scottish

debate and will watch tomorrow's meeting between David Cameron and

Alex Salmond with particular interest.

We think that the Scotland example, the agreement to the referendum,

for London and Edinburgh, that helps us. It is possible. We think,

at this point, that this is difficult.

That is because the post-Franco constitution calls upon the Armed

Forces to defend the unity of Spain. Despite that, a visitor to

Barcelona from another region with strong nationalist ambitions said

this was a question for Catalans alone. The main work is ours to do.

The future is ours to decide. That is that.

The Catalan Government agrees. They have said they will all the

referendum after elections in November, but one Scottish observer

said this could fall on deaf ears. The Spanish Government has a point

of principle has made clear that it will not entertain discussion on a

referendum. It considers a referendum to be unconstitutional

and it does not propose to permit one to happen. This is very

different from the United Kingdom case with the principle of the

Scottish Parliament legislated to have a referendum has the next --

has been accepted by the UK Government. Transpac referendums in

individual parts of Spain are not permitted.

You cannot, as convergence in union urging, and yell at the people

telling them they can hold a referendum because it is making

them a break the law. He must comply with the Basic Law, the

Supreme law of all Catalans and Spaniards, which is the Spanish

constitution. In the case of Scotland and England, it is

different from that Spain and that the Lord has not committed.

The Catalan President wants to negotiate, after it is six -- --

after, as expected, he went there majority in November. Catalonia's

look on at David Cameron's willingness to except a referendum.

Scotland has not so different to Catalonia in terms of the economy

and population. The editing and is very different from Spain. -- the

United Kingdom is very different from Spain. What David Cameron says

in Westminster, what the British Government is prepared to do, is

radically different from what is said in Madrid and what the Spanish

Government is prepared to do in Madrid.

From attack time perspective, the Scottish debate seems very

gentlemanly, very, derisive, British. With none of the post-

Civil War tensions. So at last we have a deal on the Scottish

referendum, we have two years to wait before we find out whether it

is seen most -- eagerness and nationalists in Barcelona that end

up paying homage to the United Kingdom.

What will be ripple effect of what is happening here be for the rest

of the UK? In power Edinburgh studio, Jim Gallagher, who was

heavily involved in the previous Scotland Bill and is now an adviser

to Labour. Thank you for coming in. If we look at the other parts of

the nick of time and, is what is happening here in Scotland driving

past -- driving call for constitutional change in other

parts of the UK? After look at Wales, the wells have been

adjusting their devolution settlement since they got it and

they have not finished yet. You will see some desire therefore

perhaps a reformulation of their fiscal system, or Tommy a knock on

the lines that Scotland once. Northern Ireland's marches to its

own tunes. In some ways, England is the most

interesting of all. Indeed, the English question is that the middle

of all this. The UK has the most lopsided at a symmetrical

territorial constitution of anywhere. We have devolution for

15% of the population, 85% of them have I unitary Government. That is

one of the constraints on designing the devolution settlement for

Scotland and Will Sach Northern Ireland, how did you fit in what

happened to England? England, although we see in polls and

surveys, there is a strong measure off discontent with Westminster,

that does not translate into regionalisation. It does not, it

does not translate into a regional political entity. There is an

argument that the present UK Government is pursuing, for

localism and decentralisation to cities and counties. What you are

not seeing is a movement for regional administration, and still

less resolve political set-up. That was killed by the vote in the

north-east. Let's look at what could be coming

out of the Mackay commission, which looks at Westminster voting and

public funding. The Mackay commission is not looking at

funding, it looks at the West Lothian question. How do you deal

with the fact that Scottish and Welsh -- Scottish and Welsh MPs can

vote on English issues when they cannot fault on the same issues for

Scotland or Wales or Northern Ireland? This is likely to come up

with, as it were, a Westminster procedure will fixed for that

question, which we will see in one year or so. Nobody is looking at

money at the moment. They suppose that money must be

what is constantly the elephant in the room in terms of any of these

discussions. Off course, and the Scottish devolution issue, as you

have heard earlier on, to a principle about taxation. Taxation

raised straight into the question of, what degree of equity do you

want across the UK? Should be offered the same levels of service

game that should be all be able to enjoy the same public services for

the same tax, or to the lowest, to some degree, on the resources that

are are all on? That are within Scotland or within England almost

in one or so on? Finally, let me ask you that a paper written by the

Royal Society of Scotland, to which he contributed, just in terms of

your role they delayed a commission. This paper says that even

proponents of Devo Max acknowledge that it is a policy that will be

hard to sell to English voters, integrating its best to a growing

sense that devolution allows the Scots to have their cake and eat it.

If Labour argues for more powers, you cannot think you can square

that circle. The interesting question about how Scotland fits

into the UK, assuming that we're not talking about independence, the

question is, how many more powers Kenya have without some sort of

trade-off in your position in the United Kingdom? -- how many more

powers can you have? We have a parliament in Edinburgh and central

taxation funding most other public services, that is the central

taxation from Westminster, and we also have MPs in Westminster and we

have, and we are about to have, some tax powers of her own. How far

can you take that without making some adjustment to her

representation in Westminster, and how far do you take it without some

change to the funding system? Thank you very much.

Would you like to take a stab at what subject we will discuss in the

Our very own Mr Brian Taylor is in his emotional heartland of Dundee.

God's own City. A very closed the actual cradle of civilisation,

which is Paradise Park. Who has won these that was the

agents all have one and all must have prizes. The intriguing thing

is that there has been an agreement to settle and pursue the mandate

the Scottish Government has. Alex Salmond has the mandate to ask the

question about independence, no more, no less. David Cameron has

the legal power which is resolved to Westminster on to the devolution

Act of 1998. The Prime Minister is lending that power to Holyrood up

to end a 2014. That sits Alex Allen's timetable fine. This is

providing There is a question purely about independence and not

about Devo Max. There is a trade- off. There are two things to this

that unimportant. First of all that it makes the referendum will

legally watertight. This is significant because it means the

referendum is undoubtedly on and cannot be challenged in the court.

These two leaders are now agreeing, agreeing the rules and regulations

for this referendum. That means implicitly and almost explicitly

that they are agreeing to accept and respect the outcome. Whatever

that may be. Just casting really far ahead so we

can see the much bigger picture, if there is an yes vote, can this be

turned around S SNP lose the Holyrood election in 2016?

suppose it could, technically, all things are possible. If there is

Agius Ford, the people of Scotland are -- if the people of Scotland

demonstrate that they want to be independent, it would really take

refuge him out of Masha Nations and Machiavellian manoeuvring to

prevent that. The significance of David Cameron's endorsement of this

tomorrow and of the other members of the United Kingdom coalition of

Dawson that model is that they accept that that is the case. They

are prepared to put this to the test because they have agreed the

rules and rent -- rules and regulations for the referendum and

have agreed to go with Alex Salmond to the letter commission with the

wording of the question. Both sides are seeing Cobby have at least the

way this will happen and we will not do this by a dispute or by I

knew little declaration. We're doing this by agreement. That means

that they grief. It is important that they respect the outcome. We

had the report from Catalonia and from Spain, this assertion -- the

Spanish foreign minister is often quoted as saying that Spain and

other European countries will take no part whatsoever in the decisions

of member states leaving the UK. What we do not quote usually is the

second part, saying that it is provided that those two parties

have agreed. Tomorrow is that agreement.

What do you think is the effect of not having a second question?

difficulty with the second question is that it would be relatively

nebulous but that there is no political organisation, no party

and no Government, referendums are not just to be a plebiscite, they

are the people offering an opinion on something been proposed back

Government. No Government is backing Devo Max, not Westminster

and not the Scottish Government who favour independence. Therefore, the

problem with it would be that yes, you could cast around the opinion

of the people, but who would be mandated, mandated to act?

Referendum on independence produces a mandate for the Scottish

Government to negotiate with the UK Government to produce that

independence should there be yes vote. On the other hand, produces a

mandate to continue with the union Politics has always more wide-

ranging than the politicians would want.

Thank you. You can read more analysis from

Brian on his correspondent's page, bbc.co.uk/briantaylor.