21/10/2012 Sunday Politics Scotland

Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics. After another shambolic

week for the Government, it is fight back time. Their chosen turf

- crimes. Ortis surprise! The Prime Minister is about to get tough on

criminals and the elections for new police and crime commissioners are

just three wicks away. We will talk to Theresa May about all of that.

And about her decision not extradite Gary McKinnon to the

United States. And with tougher regulation of the

press, could that be good news for celebrities who abuse their fame?

In light of the Jimmy Savile affair, Rupert Murdoch argues that point.

But then he would, wouldn't he? We also talked to Neil Wallis.

And another week in the thick of it for the Government. Andrew Mitchell

and the energy policy sat -- shambles has put a smile on

And on Sunday Politics Scotland: We'll be at the SNP conference

asking the First Minister, Alex Salmond, what yes to NATO but no to

Apology for the loss of subtitles for 1700 seconds

We have a first class lead at the moment and he is dealing with the

issues very well indeed. A first- class Prime Minister. Home

Secretary, thank you for being with us this morning.

Now, the Jimmy Savile revelations have reignited the debate about the

prospect of stronger price regulation. The question - will

celebrities with secrets like Jimmy Savile be able to sleep more

soundly if the press is cowled? We will debate the issue more widely

but first, this. They are actors but the words are

from working journalists. This is a new play about the press by the

National Theatre of Scotland and the London Review of Books called

Inquirer, and, yes, there is a real-life scene -- a scene about

that real life Enquirer... Levison, what do we think will

happen? Look at Hillsborough! always said from the beginning I do

not want my report to end up on a dusty shelf! Earlier this year,

Lord Justice Leveson heard from a host of witnesses who said their

lives had been blighted by the media. He it just felt like such an

intrusion... To such a sense of invasion, and my husband said, no,

we have asked all of you to stay away. The editor said, we're going

to use it anyway. Lord Justice Leveson is de polishing his script

which will be published later in the year. One theory is he will

recommend a new press regulator with the force of the law behind it.

There is also a sense that the inquiry is already having an effect

on real Life newspaper offices. think you can see examples way you

might have expected there to have been more press coverage than there

was. I take the example of Gary Speed, the Welsh soccer captain.

You can have all kinds of speculation as to why he killed

himself so that may be an example. What about speculation on the front

pages now? For some, the story on Jimmy Savile is a warning of the

Government being too tough on the price. It has been said the likes

of Jimmy Savile will be further protected if we don't fight Cameron.

So the fear is the press will be too scared to probe celebrities

suspected of wrongdoing. The press is looking for any occasion where

it can put forward reasonably tighter examples in the public

interest. The cast and crew are going on tour to Belfast, but the

big question is, where is the media heading after all of this?

And Anne Diamond and former News of the World executive editor, Neil

Wallis, joined me to go head to Before we begin, I should point out

Neil Wallis is currently on police bail as part of the phone-hacking

investigation so we cannot pose any questions related to that

investigation. You can answer this, though. Why do you say regulation

of the press would be good news for the Jimmy Saviles of this world but

you never exposed this? I find that rather a fascinating question

because what you're saying is, it will be easier if we put more

restrictions on you. There are plenty of restrictions already in

this country and frankly, libel and privacy is a huge stick with which

the press can be beaten. The truth of the matter is, you take on

somebody like Jimmy Savile and you try to expose him, that is a big,

big calculation. So there is enough regulation already to inhibit

investigative journalism? I think bringing to be -- grinning Jimmy

Savile again after the Leveson Inquiry is a red herring. I do not

see anything wrong at all with the price being asked, now that they

have proved themselves of 25, 30, even more years of the inability to

suffer Gillett, the argument now is of some sort of statutory

regulation. -- inability to self regulate. Let's give it a go.

problem with bringing statute in, it is a bit like losing your

virginity. You know... You can only lose it wants. Once you let the

politicians get their hands on the Leeds of authority whose job it is

to hold legislative into account, they will get the press that they

want rather than the press they deserve. I find it interesting use

the word authority because that is what we have not had. If you are an

owner like Rupert Murdoch it has been about money and about the

desire to sell stories that sell newspapers. It has been about

profit. If you have been in your position where you have been quite

high up editorially, it is about power. Not about authority. What we

do need now is some sort of press which actually does have integrity.

You have had huge power, as Anne Diamond says, but you have been

interested in titillating gossip about celebrities rather than

uncovering real role going like Jimmy Savile. Sometimes. Lots of

times. No. Lots of times we have exposed a whole variety of very

unsavoury activities amongst politicians. Now, do you believe we

should about those sorts of politicians to decide the sort of

press we have? Just this week we have the Telegraph story about how

MPs of renting out their own flats to each other, then hiring flats at

the tax payer's expense. And who revealed that? The press revealed

that. Yes, and if you believe we have too much regulation, those

other kind of stories they will put in. They will put rules in place to

stop that coming out. I have worked in journalism and media all my

life... It hasn't stopped. It does a lot of investigative work.

didn't do the expenses scandal. They have done plenty of other very

good journalism. Yes, they have. The fundamental weakness of your

argument is you keep saying any sort of regulation that is not self

regulation, which, by the way, has not worked, is a form of gagging

the press. It doesn't have to mean that. If but the broadcasters did

hacking. The breasted hacking as well. But the point is, and you

know this well -- the press did hacking. It is still within the

bounds of statutory regulation. Has it worked? No, it has not. You were

angry at Sun when you published a photograph of Anne Diamond's son's

funeral for which you did not have permission. And then you argued it

was part of a cot death campaign. I think most people would argue it is

good you should not do that. This is an unfortunate example because

her memory of this and my memory, and I was involved in this heavily,

are simply different. It might be because of time but how she has

recalled what happened is very different from how I recalled it

but I do remember that the campaign we did together that she did with

Sun and talked about just a year ago as one of the highlights of her

career was that it was enormously effective. It was an example of

where the press can do real good but regulation would not have

stopped that either. I think we need tighter regulation. I think 20

years ago I would not have argued for statutory regulation but having

given experience that I and others have had, I think maybe now has

come the time. Let's try it and see. Do you think this is what Lord

Leveson will come out with? I have sat with him twice and it is plain

to me he had no sympathy whatsoever with the tabloid press. You have to

remember you regulate the tabloid, you regulate the entire print media.

We have done the argument. Do you think it will happen? Yes, I do.

Good morning and welcome to Sunday Politics Scotland. Coming up on the

programme: The SNP goes for pragmatism on a

key conference vote. What is the wider fall-out from their no-to-

nuclear-yes-to-NATO decision? can now be certain the independence

referendum will take place in two years' time and the party is

desperate to win it. How did they get on at Conference? Join me later

to find out. We'll be speaking to the First

Minister live in Perth. And the Lib Dems come up with a new

Home Rule prospectus two days after the Edinburgh Agreement is signed.

And we'll be hearing from the DUP and Plaid Cymru on the potential

benefits or disadvantages for Stormont and Cardiff from our

devolution debate. The Scottish National Party leader,

Alex Salmond, has warned a No vote in the independence referendum will

secure nothing for Scotland. The First Minister was addressing his

Party Conference in Perth just days after signing a deal with the UK

Government to guarantee an independence referendum takes place

in the Autumn of 2014. Here's our political correspondent, Raymond

Buchanan. Time is ticking. There are 24

months ago. Scotland's constitutional destiny now has a

date. Autumn 2014 will see the independence question asked and

answered. And how this party uses that tie will be absolutely crucial.

Opinion polls suggest Scotland will go for a name to vote for

independence. This Conference has been all about seduction. Winning

over more voters. Forwards, perhaps, but first some reassurance and

persuasion. It Alex Salmond spent much of his speech appealing to

voters to back more powers of Holyrood if not full independence.

We know there are many of our fellow-citizens who remain to be

convinced about the merits of independence. But we also know

there is a majority for change in this country. The choice before us

is now clear. Scotland can vote no and secure nothing. Or we can vote

yes to get the platform we need. So we speak today to those millions of

our fellow citizens who say yes to Scotland before and will say yes to

Scotland, yes to progress once again. To help persuade them, he

contrasted his government's performance with that of the

coalition. Why on earth do we allow this bunch of incompetent and Lords

Moody's to be in positions of a authority over our country? -- Lord

snootys? And that has been one of the central picture. If you can

trust the Scottish Government to run health and education, why do

not tax and politics as well? contribute 9.6% of taxation but get

back 9.3%. More than �1,000 for every household in the country is

contributed. With access to our own resources, we can invest more,

borrow less to save for the future, protect services or a combination

of the three. We know he wants to borrow to spend on capital

expenditure product -- projects while protecting public services

and businesses. One thing they will not be investing in his atomic

weapons. The party restated its belief for a nuclear-3 Scotland.

But they backed membership of the NATO nuclear alliance. -- for a

nuclear-free Scotland. It is not enough to say you believe in

independence and then say you want to belong to NATO. As far as I am

concerned, it is hypocritical to say we should not have these

weapons but want to belong to NATO. How dare we say that! We are in

Scotland, we will be an independent country, we don't want Trident or

nuclear weapons, but as I've said before, if you want to go along to

we club that supports nuclear weapons. -- we want to go along.

The leadership's new NATO policy looked in trouble. The

reinforcements were sent in in the shape of Kenny MacAskill, the

Justice Secretary who freed the Lockerbie bomber. I am no US poster

And I am certainly no US lap dog. There's probably a few senators

still hunting me. But we have moved on from being a party of protest to

a party of power. I have marched for CND, I have protested against

Trident, I have demonstrated against the Iraq war. I am tired

margin. I want a seat for our government in the situations of

power. They are not there yet, though, but be in no doubt - the

hard sell has begun. Will Mr Salmond prove a suitably success

will salesman for the Yes campaign? We can cross live now to Perth,

where the First Minister joins us from Conference. Thank you for

talking to us this morning. Good morning, Isabel. I am speaking from

the National Geographic Society in Scotland. It is a fantastic place.

I did not know it was here. If you get a chance to visit, do come

along! Thank you for that. You know this morning a sizable number of

your supporters and ministers think you are a hypocrite and the SNP

leadership are hypocrites who sold out a dearly held principle to

chase boat. That must be a very uncomfortable place to be? -- to

chase votes. Not in the slightest. It was refreshing to see these

debates at Conference. The arguments were put and genuinely

held and there was a democratic discussion with a democratic result.

The result is in and I think the party is very comfortable with that,

as witness to the reception given to my speech yesterday when I said

exactly then what I have said to you now. But just to clarify the

position, you were saying there would be, in an independent

Scotland, and explicit ban on nuclear weapons being based on

Scottish territory. What does that mean for NATO's subs been allowed

access to Scottish territorial waters? Isabel, 25 out of the 28

member countries of NATO are non- nuclear members of the North

Atlantic treaty Organisation. There is nothing exceptional about the

status we want to aspire to for Scotland. We are going to remove

the Trident nuclear weapons from Scotland. The issue about the

waters, no country ever confirms the existence of nuclear weapons of

its warships. That is well known. It is an issue which all non-

nuclear countries have to face up to and they do the exactly the same

thing. So you will have no policy on nuclear weapons in Scottish

waters? No. We bomb-maker to constitutional provision double

rent Scotland having possession. -- we will make it a constitutional

provision. We will save about �250 million a vital Scottish

expenditure. It will be for the rest of the UK to decide whether it

wants to station these weapons elsewhere or make a much more

sensible decision, which would be to decommission them. And this is

the biggest, single biggest, step towards nuclear disarmament.

Certainly the people of Scotland can have and a bronze. I cannot

wish away US nuclear weapons but I can legislate a way Trident nuclear

weapons from Scotland. I am trying to establish how far you would be

compromised in this non-nuclear stance. Will you do nothing to

satisfy yourself as to whether NATO's sobs coming into Scottish

territorial waters have nuclear arms, or are you saying you will

allow other countries for reasons of safe haven or exercises or

manoeuvres, you will allow them? am saying we will begin the same

position as the other non-nuclear members of NATO. We will have the

same policy as the other countries because announcement of position is

just not done. So you will allow them in on exercises? I was just

explain the policy to you, that no country ever confirms or denies the

existence of nuclear warships. We will have the same position as

other countries in NATO. If this argument has unusual or strange

policy, however at -- Hull is it an unusual or strange policy for these

other countries? -- how is it? An agreement is that this is a

perfectly sensible policy which is practised by other countries. Other

countries, incidentally, which will do us Scotland will do have

according to the terms of the motion, which is that we have to

advocate all countries respect the agreements they have signed and a

nuclear Non-Proliferation. That will be Scott and campaigning

against nuclear weapons and removing weapons of mass to squat -

- must destruction. -- Scotland campaigning. You are unable to say

whether Scotland will do this or not and you say they will go along

with what other NATO countries have? Yes, in the same way as

Canada and Norway, and as you probably know, both these countries

have communicated very recently their strong opposition to nuclear

weapons in a very principled way, and that will be the exactly the

same position Scott and aspires to. We will get rid of Trident, weapons

of mass destruction, and we will do it for the economic and social

benefit for the Scottish people. That seems to be a very wise policy.

If we look at the relative fiscal balance between Scotland and the

rest of the UK, you said every Scot would be �500 better off after

independence. The fact of the matter is, we have this massive

fiscal deficit and we upped our eyes in debt. This is and �500 cash

I have set with the fiscally it stronger position you could invest

more, Baroness and say for the future and protect vital services.

It is a fact that Scotland's fiscal position in the last estimation in

2010 was 2.7 billion stronger than that of the UK. As First Minister

now I could do with �2.7 billion by the to borrow less or invest more

in the Scottish economy. You do not think this money has to go into

paying down the deficit? Well, I have explained we have to 0.7

billion with a range of choices, you could invest more, borrowed

less and save or you could protect vital Scottish public services or a

combination. What about the deficit? That would be in the

borrowing less aspects of that. We pay for the deficit in the fiscal

calculation. That is within the figures. This is statement of fact.

On the last estimation a Scotland was in a relatively stronger

position to the rest of the UK to the tune of 2.7 billion because we

paid 9.6% of the UK revenue and only receive 9.3% expenditure. That

is the equivalent of �500 for every man, woman and child in Scotland or

a �1,000 for every family. That would be deployed by investing more,

protecting public services or a combination of all of them. That

would give a Scottish government more fiscal flexibility than the UK

government says it possesses a prison moment. In terms of getting

the borrowing rates, getting the fiscal deficit down and securing a

good borrowing rate, if you're not paint and a deficit quickly the

argument is the market's thump you and you get a bad credit rating. In

Scotland on Sunday the Treasury's senior civil servant says an

independent Scotland would pay high interest rates than the UK as it

seeks to convince the world's investors it is a safe bet. Unless

you pay down the deficit quickly, you feed into this idea that you're

not a safe bet. No, I prefer the world where senior civil servants

did not act is mouthpieces for ministers. Scotland is in a

stronger fiscal position and the rest of the UK. People look at a

fiscal position and a look at the prospects for the future. A major

thing Scotland has relative to its size is a huge collateral of almost

$2 billion of the future estimations of the wealth of North

Sea oil and gas. Two trillion dollars, that's two trillion

dollars. It's a huge amount of collateral so the current stronger

fiscal balance and the collateral for the future we have secured

Scotland and effective credit rating. One of the agencies made a

point earlier that because the price of gas and oil is high, there

are uncertainties about fixing what would be a borrowing rate. Well,

the point is that the estimation, $100 real oil prices, lower than at

the prison moment going forward, two trillion dollars is a

reasonable estimate but if people look at collateral for the future,

why is that more important? Two trillion Clare Short for Scotland

is roughly 10 times the collateral the UK has a prison moment. If you

are talking about a stronger fiscal position and the collateral for the

future you're talking about an effective and promising position

for Scotland. Where Scotland ends up depends on the wisdom of the

policies were pursue and our case is the austerity policies of the UK

Government are not working, we eat capital investments in the economy

to push growth forward, economic growth will reinforce the fiscal

balance and reinforce the strength of the Scottish economy as well as

benefiting every family in Scotland. But another point is if you have a

currency union you cannot have too much divergence because the markets

will punish up. Well, we refer to the same point, I am yet to hear a

refutation of it, if you borrow the same, and reality 0.7 billion

better balance, you have flexibility of �2.7 billion. It

will be interesting to see what 2011 and 12 will be. It might be

greater. Let's see when the figures come out. Scotland will have a

range of flexibility that the UK Chancellor says he doesn't have

although my argument would be he should emphasise a per capita

investment into the economy to generate growth and future growth.

In terms of the fiscal pact, we see it as a one-way street but it would

be in Scotland's interests to have limits on borrowing and liability

in case a defaults in London. If a London bank fails we want

reassurances. We propose that having the sterling zone is

convenient and the right policy for Scotland and the productivity rates

and the things that matter about a currency zone, the productivity

position between the two countries, they are roughly aligned between

Scotland and England. They are basically the same. There is no

doubt there are advantages for both sides. The advantage for Scotland

is continuity and independence, the advantage for the rest of the UK is

while the revenues from Scottish oil and gas accrue to the Scottish

Exchequer, if Scotland is in a currency union the protection or

oil offers to the balance of payments, �30 billion, or would

accrue to the whole sterling area. Any event and government will bite

our hands off to have a sterling zone given that protection. It is

vital for the rest of the UK as well as being a matter of

convenience. It is the case that the levels are similar but what's

interesting is that not what's been punished in Europe. In Europe,

Major in discipline in spending patterns. But a fair point. The

underlying tension in the euro is the differences in divergence, 40%

between the heart of Germany and Greece. But what makes the euro

Up what's important is the Fiscal Commission the SNP have

commissioned which puts us to noble Moritz. Will operate in the best

interests of Scotland. It is going on for the referendum as the Yes

side is closing the gap. Alex Salmond, thank you for joining us

this morning. Now, over to London David Cameron it is to set out a

new approach to law and order promising the government will be

tough but intelligent the stock in a speech tomorrow he will reveal

plans to increase the use of payment by results for groups

hoping to rehabilitate offenders. Earlier, the Home Secretary said

another airier would-be gun crime. If you look at organised crime

gangs, one of the issues is there are middlemen who take firearms and

rent them out to criminals who use them. There isn't an offence for

somebody to possess a firearm with intent to supply it someone else.

It is right we introduced the offence because does supply and the

firearms are as guilty as the ones using it. Funerals are taking place

of those killed in Friday's car bombing in Lebanon. The attacking a

route is being blamed on Syria and there are calls for mass protests

today. Live to our correspondent in Beirut.

There are thousands of protesters and mourners in the heart of a

routes Square. Not just to mark the passing of the country's

intelligence chief who was killed in a car bomb but to protest

against the excesses of what they see as the Syrian regime in

Lebanese politics. Such a car bomb had not been seen here for four

years and many fear what is happening in Syria is being

replicated in Lebanon. There have been clashes on the streets between

pro and anti- Syrian factions and fear for many is the clashes will

return and Lebanon will get drawn into the politics of neigh being --

neighbouring Syria. A call for serious to get out of Lebanese

politics and to mourn the passing of a man he was anti- Syrian.

At least 10 people are reported to have been killed when a car bomb

exploded in at the Syrian capital Damascus. Syrian state media said

it happened outside a police station. It came as the President

was meeting the UN and Arab League envoy who has attempted to

negotiate a ceasefire. The former BBC director-general Greg Dyke has

criticised the corporation's handling of the allegations that

Sir Jimmy Savile abused children. He said the BBC was slow to realise

the seriousness of the standard. The BBC made too early mistakes,

the first statements about this were not strong enough and were not

saying this is a serious issue and needs to be examined. That was a

mistake. The second one was when they started saying the Newsnight

programme was not shown for editorial reasons, you needed to

explain what they were. Why to the editor of Newsnight decided this

was not a strong enough programme to be broadcast? I suspect he did

not think the evidence was strong enough but someone needs to say

that. Nobody did. That's all the news for now. More

news on BBC One at 6pm. Good afternoon. The deputy First

Minister Nicola Sturgeon will challenge the Chancellor this

afternoon to change tack on economic policy in an effort to

stimulate growth. Ms Sturgeon will make the call on the final day of

the SNP conference in Perth. Here's Laura Maxwell.

The Commonwealth Games village under construction in Glasgow.

Nicola Sturgeon will tell conference only more big projects

at this can put a halt to Scotland's rising unemployment

figures. She was a George Osborne must use his Autumn Statement to

pump money into capital projects like roads, and hospitals up to

offer the unemployed lights at the end of the tunnel. Critics claim

the government must claimed responsibility for the latest

jobless figures. Nicola Sturgeon will tell delegates ministers here

are doing everything possible within the constraints of

devolution. Scottish businesses are less likely to enter insolvency

than those in the rest of Britain - - according to new research. Data

released by Creditsafe said firms in Scotland have a 7 per cent

higher average credit rating than those in England and Wales.

The centenary of the death of a Greenock-born Antarctic explorer is

being remembered in Inverkip. Henry 'Birdie' Bowers died with Captain

Scott on their return from the South Pole in 1912. Sir Ranulph

Fiennes and Scott's grandson, Falcon, will meet at Kip Marina

this afternoon. Now let's take a look at the

weather forecast, here's Judith. weather forecast, here's Judith.

Good afternoon. A fine afternoon coming up for most of us, certainly

it is dry with lovely spells of sunshine across the country. We

still have patches of mist and fog in low-lying areas which may be

stubborn to clear. That the cloud across student with up rates of

rain later. -- outbreaks of clout across Shetland. Light wind with a

fresh southerly feel. That's the forecast. That's it for the moment.

No sooner had the Edinburgh Agreement been signed, sealed and

delivered, than the Liberal Democrats came out with their

blueprint for Scottish Home Rule, or in other words, more powers if

you vote No. But wasn't that what the pro-Unionist parties had just

agreed not to include in the referendum? Tim Reid reports from

Westminster. For the autumn colours have arrived

at Westminster and with the changing season, the very real

possibility of more constitutional upheaval. If the leaves change

colour here in two years' time, the political landscape may look very

different. With the referendum signed, we could be looking at the

beginning of the end of the United Kingdom. Going there well around

the bend... The former Olympic sprinter it so Ming Campbell has

raced ahead delivering an updated The federal UK Parliament would

retain control of the defence, foreign affairs and pensions. And

they say the West Lothian question is only answered by giving England

similar powers over their own affairs. They are proposing a

fairly modest and rather fiscally unstable package of tax devolution

and they are proposing to join up the dogs by a reinvigorated

emphasis on inter-governmental relations and co-ordination. This

would help but does not deal with the fact that you have not decided

to reopen the question of the division of powers, which is

clearly what the people of Scotland want. And how will voters react

given Lib Dem leadership argued against a second devo max question

on the ballot paper? Opponents say the argument is flawed. Westminster

would continue to pay the social security bills, which are twice the

revenues. Scotland and the Scottish Parliament would decide inheritance

tax, it at -- capital gains tax and that would leave Scotland has the

highest taxed part of the United Kingdom. When you look at all of

the powers, devo max, whatever, and realise that is contained within

independence but the things they want moved from Westminster to

Holyrood are not contained I think the 30% to have yet to make their

Welfare and defence would remain at Westminster and a written UK. --

constitution has been proposed. But since William Gladstone came up

with home rule there is still little backing for a federal system.

It makes me feel trying to impose regional assemblies on England is

not going to work. While Scottish Tories are not considering further

powers yet, Labour is aware of Scotland's apparent desire for

further devolution but it also opposed another devo max question

on the paper. They needed clear answer. That principle decides

everything else. Otherwise it will be confusing. Sir Ming Campbell's

proposals would alter her radically the proposal for the United Kingdom.

Of course, there are only worth the paper they're written on. With

Scotland votes no to independence, they will be the central plank of

the Lib Dem manifesto. Well, in our Edinburgh studio is

Sir Ming Campbell, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats and

member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. Thank you for

talking to us today. How do you respond to the comments that what

your commission is proposing is roaring back on where the Lib Dems

have got to with the steel Commission, particularly in terms

of devolving and oil and gas revenues to Scotland? We made it

clear we wanted to put flesh on the bones of the traditional liberal

and Lib Dem policies of home rule all round. That is what we have

done. We have taken account of the changing circumstances since the

still Commission reported and we have produced what he described as

a blueprint. It is a rude towards federalism for the whole of the

United Kingdom recognising -- it is a route, recognising this is

sustainable and for Northern Ireland of Wales there is a similar

desire for the kind of control federalism would give over their

domestic arrangements. But England seems particularly resistant to any

sort of federal witch? You say that but you don't have to go very far

to meet Conservative backbenchers to say that if Scotland, Wales and

Northern Ireland are having much more domestic responsibility, then

why should people from these parts of the United Kingdom have the

right to vote on English education? It is not just the West Lothian

question, it is the West Belfast question and the West Wales

question. I have no doubt whatsoever there is a continuing

and increasing view in England but when it comes to domestic English

matters, these ought to be dealt with in a way which does not

involve those of us who represent constituencies outside of England

from determining policy. If we look at the sort of powers which could

have come to Scotland and that could come to Scotland and the role

and positioning of the Lib Dems in that, the Lib Dems could have given

a party political mandate to the second question. They could have

defined a proposition between something that attracts a great

deal of support. Not at all. The big issue is, are we going to be

independent? Are we going to, and I know the nationalists don't like

the word, are we going to separate ourselves from the rest of the

United Kingdom? That is an issue which lies right at the heart of

this debate and an issue which has to be resolved. Resolved it and in

a way that I will argue we should remain part of the United Kingdom,

and then you can have the kind of discussion which will question

implies. Is it devo max? Is it devotes like? Is it federalism?

That is the point at which you can have that discussion, and Lord

Tommy McAvoy is quite right that if these multiple choices have been

put in the referendum debate and in the ballot paper, which we will see

in two years' time, then they might well have obscured the central

issue, do we want to be separate or United? OK. You are also leader of

the UK delegation to NATO's parliamentary assembly. I wanted to

ask you about the SNP vote in that regard. What you think NATO's

response will be to this idea that an independent Scotland can be in

NATO but what have no nuclear weapons on Scottish soil? I have

actually brought the piece of paper with me so I could be entirely

accurate are more time going to save. Every four, five years NATO

creates what it calls a strategic concept, so it sets out its

objectives. In 2010, he NATO said it reconfirm satyr as long as there

are nuclear weapons in the world, and a -- and NATO will remain a

nuclear alliance. I understand people wholly opposed to nuclear

weapons. I respect their opinion. Like the Church of Scotland. I

respect those who say these weapons are immoral and we should have no

part of them. What I don't understand is that those who say

that is their position but then want to join an alliance which is a

nuclear alliance and will remain so as long as there are nuclear

weapons in the world according to its own objectives. What will the

NATO response be to this? They might regard this conversion with a

certain amount of reserve because I think I am correct in remembering

that when Mr Salmond was asked to comment on the steps being taken by

NATO to deal with the terrible, barbaric ethnic cleansing in Kosovo,

my recollection is that Mr Salmond described that as an act of

unparalleled for leave. -- unparalleled folly. Article 5 of

the North Atlantic treaty, which is the basis of NATO, says quite

expressly that an attack upon one is to be treated as an attack on

all members of NATO. Is the Scottish National Party willing to

accept that? They only have to accept it if it is UN-sanctioned as

well. That is what they say but what the treaty says, it doesn't

have any qualification about the UN sanctions and responsibilities or

even authority. It certainly says an attack upon one will be treated

as an attack upon all. It is something they will accept? If not,

you have to ask yourselves whether NATO would be willing to accept

their application of? As we have been hearing, there, reform is not

just a Scotland-England issue. The referendum is big news in

Scotland but it is also hitting the headlines in Wales. What does it

mean for us in Wales? Well, it is a big debate... The National

Assembly's First Minister says he would regret seeing Scotland leave

the union. He is worried Wales would be dominated by English MPs

at Westminster. Meanwhile, Plaid Cymru said they could have their

own referendum if they win the next two elections. But that might be

somewhere off. A reason poll but support for separating Wales at

just 7%. It is now up to him and this House to unite in a campaign

to maintain sustained and support the Union and keep McNeill and him

with us forever! I hope politicians of all parties will agree to share

platforms together. I have always wanted to share a platform with Ian

Paisley. Maybe I'll get my chance! Stormont appear to be staying out

of the debate at the moment. Gerry Adams once a date set on Irish

unity, saying the Scottish referendum puts a whole structure

of the UK are up for debate. We can now speak to Ian Paisley

Junior, who represents North Antrim for the Democratic Unionist Party.

And then signed as Thomas's constituency is in Mid and West

Wales. Here -- and then Simon Thomas. Does this mean the soaked -

- status quo for Wales is no longer an option? Last year, we won a

referendum hands out of other powers and we see now with the

Scottish independence referendum that the days of the current UK

government set out events in Ireland 90 years ago and that is at

an end. We have to rig a bigger the relationship between the

constituent parts of the UK. -- we Her we look forward to that debate

and we are having a debate which has taken Wales forward and take

different place but it is the same kind of debate. Let me ask you

about some of the practical repercussions for Northern Ireland.

Winner instalment we have agreement that the one corporation tax

devolved to Stormont. -- with the re-install mind. -- with a real

I take issue. The United Kingdom is only as strong as each component

part. -- I take this view. We share a land border with the -- with

another country that has the lowest tax. Those peculiarities have to be

adapted. If each is strong then we are together strong. I do not want

to be part of a wee Northern Ireland as I do not think people

want to be part of a wee Scotland or a wee Wales. We have the vision

and things have to be done differently in each area to make

the family work but a nation nonetheless of peoples that make us

strong and diverse. Do you think there is a problem in arguing your

case at the moment? No, and I will tell you why. And we get an amount

of money to out run of an island. Because of the legacy of 40 years

of terrorist violence, -- to run Northern Ireland. To do the similar

deal in Scotland would cost them multiples of billions of pounds

because their economy is so much stronger than ours, so wouldn't it

be worth their while? And Scotland would want to see corporation tax

reduced. We want to compete with a country that has the same land

border of corporation tax at 12%. The idea is to reduce the

corporation tax of hold of the United Kingdom so we can compete

across the borders with Europe and the world. Let me ask you where

Trident has got to with Wales. Some of the party members said

absolutely not. What is going on with that now? I stood with Labour

Party members outside Parliament last week to address a crowd

protesting Trident. The mood of Wales is very much against renewing

nuclear weapons. But more importantly, people are rusting why

we are spending billions on nuclear weapons at a time of austerity cuts.

-- people are asking fulls DUP they want to see -- people are asking

why. They want to see the end of nuclear weapons. This is really

about what the constituent parts of the UK should be now or in Europe,

a Western European type of defence capability and also within NATO. It

is clear the people of Wales and my constituency, an area which has

been mentioned for Dryden, are very much against. I do not the nuclear

weapons with gas and oil really mix. Will the DUP... I know you have

considered coming in for the referendum campaign for the better

to get the campaign, and where have you got on that now? I do not want

to be part of a country where one are part becomes foreigners and my

Scottish counterparts become foreign to me. My grandmother and

brother-in-law of Scottish. We have Will the DUP be coming in to

complain? What we have to do is have a debate which is framed in a

way that is respectful and, more importantly, addresses the issues

and so of being pejorative about people you do not actually like.

And I think this debate will affect my future and all our futures in

awe of the United Kingdom and we have all got the right to have a

voice. -- all of the United Kingdom. Scottish nationalists have invited

me to speak on this so why do -- so what I do not see why we would be

having a debate in this way. As the Unionist I want to maintain and

strengthen the Union. I can do it without being part of a platform

and do it as being a member of his kingdom and making that argument

but we hope we do not need to have What is in store for the next few

days as Westminster and Holyrood settled back to the grindstone

And for some analysis, I am joined this week by its Lord John McFall

and the former SNP treasurer Ian Blackford. Sorry for my

pronunciation. Thank you for coming If we look at the papers, all

looking at the SNP Conference and NATO. Where you stand on that?

think it is a very important position. We have to recognise the

obligations we will house an independent nation to work together

with our allies. A from Alex Salmond's speech, we have this idea

that this is the next stage in the home rule journey. We want people

to reflect on the kind of nation we would now like Scotland to be, so

he is trying to reach out so many people. Who has he got in mind?

think what yesterday showed is that democracy is alive and kicking and

the SNP itself and I think the iron grip Alex Salmond has has now

loosened and people saying, we do minute, what is this vision of

independence will signing up for? For example, we have others saying

one of the guarantees going into NATO would be to keep Trident, so

forget about Trident going to promote from elsewhere. I think the

SNP realises that now. They also realise in terms of their monetary

union in keeping the pound that they are not going to have the

fiscal independence they had before and their tax rates will vary. So

the reality is catching up at the SNP and Alex Salmond has opened the

door to add to be saying, we to minute, what does independence mean

We understand the practicalities of where we are, it's about how we

grow the economy in Scotland and present the aspiration we have to

present a better future and there is no question that remain the with

the pound is a decent way of doing that over the next few years. We

have to grow economically and productivity and we need to create

Scotland people want to invest in, whether domestic capital or

indigenous capital to turn the country around and get away from

austerity. To stay with the pound and the Bank of England is the

sensible thing to do at this time to stop realistically, how much

divergence can there be in fiscal policy and military policy in terms

of practical terms, how much divergence can it be? I am a member

of the economic affairs committee and we are in Scotland are looking

at the situation of the economy post referendum. We asked Alex

Salmond to meet us but he's too busy to come along on the issue.

Every time we've had a witness before us, I've asked of our fiscal

independence, how much will there be and unanimously people say if

they signed up to being a member of the Military Policy Committee, the

room for fiscal independence under an agreement is very very limited.

People are beginning to realise these issues. Alex has been good at

keeping the emotional temperature high but now we have two years to

the referendum it will have to be lowered. What kind of debate will

be heart over the next two years? The prospectus is in 2012 for the

SNP. It is starting to happen and the case was put clearly the stock

they have to be rules that have to be stuck to it in terms of what is

permissible under the arrangements will have the Bank of England but

the obligation we have is to show the people of Scotland we can

accelerate growth in Scotland to allow us to loosen the purse

strings. As a clear difference on policy and tuition fees and bus

passes and so on. How we pay for these things and how we shape the

debate is going to be an important one. I'm interested in how the

debate is shaped, the prospectus isn't out until autumn next year,

does it hang in the air or what you think filters through now? Had the

debate progress? The programme has been interesting with people from

different areas. The big issue facing us all is in a global world

of uncertainty, how do we shape the future and how do we preserve our

security individually and collectively? I can feel the debate

is now coming onto the stage and there will be wider questions asked